essay on breeding dogs

72 Dog Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

To find good research titles for your essay about dogs, you can look through science articles or trending pet blogs on the internet. Alternatively, you can check out this list of creative research topics about dogs compiled by our experts .

🐩 Dog Essays: Things to Consider

🏆 best dog titles for essays, 💡 most interesting dog topics to write about, ❓ questions about dog.

There are many different dog essays you can write, as mankind’s history with its best friends is rich and varied. Many people will name the creatures their favorite animals, citing their endearing and inspiring qualities such as loyalty, obedience, bravery, and others.

Others will discuss dog training and the variety of important roles the animals fulfill in our everyday life, working as shepherds, police members, guides to blind people, and more.

Some people will be more interested in dog breeding and the incredible variety of the animals show, ranging from decorative, small Yorkshire terriers to gigantic yet peaceful Newfoundland dogs. All of these topics are interesting and deserve covering, and you can incorporate all of them a general essay.

Dogs are excellent pet animals, as their popularity, rivaled only by cats, shows. Pack animals by nature, they are open to including members of other species into their groups and get along well with most people and animals.

They are loyal to the pack, and there are examples of dogs adopting orphaned kittens and saving other animals and children from harm.

This loyalty and readiness to face danger makes them favorite animals for many people, and the hundreds of millions of dogs worldwide show that humans appreciate their canine friends.

It also allows them to work many important jobs, guarding objects, saving people, and using their noses to sniff out various trails and substances.

However, dogs are descended from wolves, whose pack nature does not prevent them from attacking those outside the group. Some larger dogs are capable of killing an adult human alone, and most can at least inflict severe harm if they attack a child.

Dogs are trusted and loved because of their excellent trainability. They can be taught to be calm and avoid aggression or only attack once the order is given.

They can also learn a variety of other behaviors and tricks, such as not relieving themselves in the house and executing complex routines. This physical and mental capacity to perform a variety of tasks marks dogs as humanity’s best and most versatile helpers.

The variety of jobs dogs perform has led humans to try to develop distinct dog breeds for each occupation, which led to the emergence of numerous and different varieties of the same animal.

The observation of the evolution of a specific type of dog as time progressed and its purposes changed can be an interesting topic. You can also discuss dog competitions, which try to find the best dog based on various criteria and even have titles for the winners.

Comparisons between different varieties of the animal are also excellent dog argumentative essay topics. Overall, there are many interesting ideas that you can use to write a unique and excellent essay.

Regardless of what you ultimately choose to write about, you should adhere to the central points of essay writing. Make sure to describe sections of your paper with dog essay titles that identify what you will be talking about clearly.

Write an introduction that identifies the topic and provides a clear and concise thesis statement. Finish the paper with a dog essay conclusion that sums up your principal points. It will be easier and more interesting to read while also adhering to literature standards if you do this.

Below, we have provided a collection of great ideas that you can use when writing your essays, research papers, speeches, or dissertations. Take inspiration from our list of dog topics, and don’t forget to check out the samples written by other students!

• An Adventure with My Pet Pit-Bull Dog “Tiger” One look at Tiger and I knew that we were not going to leave the hapless couple to the mercies of the scary man.
• Debates on Whether Dog is the Best Pet or not The relationships between dogs and man have been improving over the years and this has made dogs to be the most preferable pets in the world. Other pets have limited abilities and can not match […]
• “Dog’s Life” by Charlie Chaplin Film Analysis In this film, the producer has used the comic effect to elaborate on the message he intends to deliver to the audience. The function of a dog is to serve the master.
• The Benefits of a Protection Dog Regardless of the fact that protection dogs are animals that can hurt people, they are loving and supportive family members that provide their owners with a wide range of benefits.
• Dogs Playing Poker The use of dogs in the painting is humorous in that the writer showed them doing human things and it was used to attract the attention of the viewer to the picture.
• Animal Cruelty: Inside the Dog Fighting In most cases the owner of the losing dog abandons the injured dog to die slowly from the injuries it obtained during the fight. The injuries inflicted to and obtained by the dogs participating in […]
• A Dog’s Life by Charles Chaplin The theme of friendship and love that is clear in the relationship between Tramp and Scraps. The main being that Chaplin makes it very comical thus; it is appealing to the audience, and captures the […]
• The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time Haddon therefore manages to carry the reader into the world of the novel and holds the reader to the end of the novel.
• Dog Food: Pedigree Company’s Case The attractiveness of the dog food category is manifested through the intense competitive nature of the various stakeholders. The third and final phase of the segmentation is to label the category of dog food as […]
• Compare and Contrast Your First Dog vs. Your Current Dog Although she was very friendly and even tried to take care of me when I was growing up, my mother was the real owner.
• Small Dog Boarding Business: Balanced Scorecard Bragonier posits that SWOT analysis is essential in the running of the business because it helps the management to analyze the business at a glance.
• Moral Dilemma: Barking Dog and Neighborhood Since exuberant barking of Stella in the neighborhood disturbs many people, debarking is the appropriate measure according to the utilitarian perspective.
• Border Collie Dog Breed Information So long as the movement of the Border Collies and the sheep is calm and steady, they can look for the stock as they graze in the field.
• Cats vs. Dogs: Are You a Cat or a Dog Person? Cats and dogs are two of the most common types of pets, and preferring one to another can arguably tell many things about a person.
• Dog Training Techniques Step by Step The first step that will be taken in order to establish the performance of this trick is showing the newspaper to the dog, introducing the desired object and the term “take”.
• How to Conduct the Dog Training Properly At the same time, it is possible to work with the dog and train it to perform certain actions necessary for the owner. In the process of training, the trainer influences the behavior of the […]
• The Great Pyrenees Dog Breed as a Pet In the folklore of the French Pyrenees, there is a touching legend about the origin of the breed. The dog will not obey a person of weak character and nervous.
• Dog Food by Subscription: Service Design Project For the convenience and safety of customers and their dogs, customer support in the form of a call center and online chat is available.
• “Everyday” in The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Haddon The novel presents Christopher who passes through many changes in his life, where he adapts to it and acclimatizes the complications that come with it.
• What Dog Are You? All of them possess individual traits that have to suit the profile and character of the owner for them to create a harmonious and beneficial union and to feel comfortable together first of all, every […]
• Why Does Your Dog Pretend to Like You? Children and the older generation can truly cherish and in the case of children can develop as individuals with the help of dogs.
• Caring for a Dog With Arthritis For Monty, the dog under study, the size, and disposition of the dog, the stage of the disease as also its specific symptoms and behaviour need to be observed and then a suitable choice of […]
• Dog House: Business Law Today Based on the definition of a shareholder’s derivative suit, it is possible to say that corporations can be expected to benefit from this type of litigation.
• “Traditional” Practice Exception in Dog Act One of those who wanted the word to remain in the clause was the president of the Beaufort Delta Dog Mushers and also an Inuvik welder.Mr.
• “How to Draw a Dog” Video Lecture Critique The video begins with an introduction to the character that the artist is going to draw. The artist provides a more detailed description of the process later when he begins to draw dog’s eyebrows and […]
• “Love That Dog” Verse Novel by Sharon Creech In this part of the play, it is clear that Jack is not ready to hide his feelings and is happy to share them with someone who, in his opinion, can understand him.
• Small Dog Boarding Business: Strategic Plan Based on the first dimension of the competing values framework, the dog boarding business already has the advantage of a flexible business model, it is possible to adjust the size of the business or eliminate […]
• Non-Profit Dog Organization’s Mission Statement In terms of the value we are bringing, our team regards abandoned animals who just want to be loved by people, patients with special needs, volunteers working at pet shelters, and the American society in […]
• Cesar Millan as a Famous Dog Behaviorist Millan earned the nickname “the dog boy” because of his natural ability to interact with dogs. Consequently, the dog behaviorist became a celebrity in different parts of the country.
• Dog’ Education in “The Culture Clash” by Jean Donaldson The second chapter comes under the title, Hard-Wiring: What the Dog comes with which tackles the characteristic innate behaviors that dogs possess naturally; that is, predation and socialization. This chapter sheds light on the behaviors […]
• Breed Specific Legislation: Dog Attacks As a result, the individuals that own several canines of the “banned” breeds are to pay a lot of money to keep their dogs.
• “Marley: A Dog Like No Other” by John Grogan John Grogan’s international bestseller “Marley: A Dog Like No Other” is suited for children of all ages, and it tells the story of a young puppy, Marley, who quickly develops a big personality, boundless energy, […]
• Implementing Security Policy at Dog Parks To ensure that people take responsibility for their dogs while in the parks, the owners of the parks should ensure that they notify people who bring their dogs to the park of the various dangers […]
• Operant Conditioning in Dog Training In regards to negative enforcements, the puppy should be fitted with a collar and upon the command “sit”, the collar should be pulled up a bit to force the dog to sit down.
• First in Show Pet Foods, Inc and Dog Food Market Due to the number of competitors, it is clear that First in Show Pet Food, Inc.understands it has a low market share.
• Animal Assisted Therapy: Therapy Dogs First, the therapist must set the goals that are allied to the utilization of the therapy dog and this should be done for each client.
• The Tail Wagging the Dog: Emotions and Their Expression in Animals The fact that the experiment was conducted in real life, with a control group of dogs, a life-size dog model, a simultaneous observation of the dogs’ reaction and the immediate transcription of the results, is […]
• The Feasibility Analysis for the Ropeless Dog Lead This is because it will have the ability to restrict the distance between the dog and the master control radio. The exploration of different sales models and prices for other devices indicates that the Rope-less […]
• Classical Conditioning: Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks According to Basford and Stein’s interpretation, classical conditioning is developed in a person or an animal when a neutral stimulus “is paired or occurs contingently with the unconditioned stimulus on a number of occasions”, which […]
• The Movements and Reactions of Dogs in Crates and Outside Yards This study discusses the types of movements and reactions exhibited by dogs in the two confinement areas, the crate and the outside yard.
• A Summary of “What The Dog Saw” Gladwell explores the encounters of Cesar Millan, the dog whisperer who non-verbally communicated with the dogs and mastered his expertise to tame the dogs.
• Evolution of Dogs from the Gray Wolf However, the combined results of vocalisation, morphological behavior and molecular biology of the domesticated dog now show that the wolf is the principle ancestor of the dog.
• Attacking Dog Breeds: Truth or Exaggeration?
• Are Bad Dog Laws Unjustified?
• Are Dog Mouths Cleaner Than Humans?
• Can Age Affect How Fast a Dog Runs?
• Can Chew Treats Kill Your Dog?
• Can You Control Who the Alpha Dog Is When You Own Two Dogs?
• Does Drug Dog Sniff Outside Home Violate Privacy?
• Does the Pit Bull Deserve Its Reputation as a Vicious Dog?
• Does Your Dog Love You and What Does That Mean?
• Does Your Dog Need a Bed?
• How Can People Alleviate Dog Cruelty Problems?
• How Cooking With Dog Is a Culinary Show?
• How Can Be Inspiring Dog Tales?
• How Owning and Petting a Dog Can Improve Your Health?
• How the I-Dog Works: It’s All About Traveling Signals?
• What Can Andy Griffith Teach You About Dog Training?
• What Makes the Dog – Human Bond So Powerful?
• What the Dog Saw and the Rise of the Global Market?
• What Should You Know About Dog Adoption?
• When Dog Training Matters?
• When Drug Dog Sniff the Narcotic Outside Home?
• At What Age Is Dog Training Most Effective?
• Why Are People Choosing to Get Involved in Dog Fighting?
• Why Are Reported Cases of Dog-Fighting Rising in the United States?
• Why Dog Attacks Occur and Who Are the Main Culprits?
• Why Does Dog Make Better Pets Than Cats?
• Why Every Kid Needs a Dog?
• Why Should People Adopt Rather Than Buy a Dog?
• Why Could the Dog Have Bitten the Person?
• Will Dog Survive the Summer Sun?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 26). 72 Dog Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/dog-essay-examples/

"72 Dog Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/dog-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '72 Dog Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 26 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "72 Dog Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/dog-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "72 Dog Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/dog-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "72 Dog Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/dog-essay-examples/.

• Animal Testing Topics
• Cruelty to Animals Titles
• Humanism Research Ideas
• Animal Abuse Research Topics
• Loyalty Essay Ideas
• Animal Ethics Research Ideas
• Hunting Questions
• Animal Rights Research Ideas
• Inspiration Topics
• Animal Welfare Ideas
• Wildlife Ideas
• Emotional Development Questions
• Zoo Research Ideas
• Endangered Species Questions
• Human Behavior Research Topics

The Pedigree Dog Breeding Debate in Ethics and Practice: Beyond Welfare Arguments

• Open access
• Published: 28 June 2017
• Volume 30 , pages 387–412, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Bernice Bovenkerk   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3955-2430 1 &
• Hanneke J. Nijland   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8281-0434 2  

45k Accesses

21 Citations

5 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Men have forgotten this truth,” said the fox. “But you must not forget it. You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed. The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.

Pedigree dog breeding has been the subject of public debate due to health problems caused by breeding for extreme looks and the narrow genepool of many breeds. Our research aims to provide insights in order to further the animal-ethical, political and society-wide discussion regarding the future of pedigree dog breeding in the Netherlands. Guided by the question ‘How far are we allowed to interfere in the genetic make-up of dogs, through breeding and genetic modification?’, we carried out a multi-method case-driven research, reviewing literature as well as identifying the perceptions of pedigree dog breeding of a variety of parties in the Netherlands. We examined what moral arguments and concepts different stakeholders, including breeders, veterinarians and animal protection societies, put forward when considering this question. While welfare arguments were often used as a final justification, we also frequently encountered arguments beyond welfare in practice, in particular the arguments that certain adaptations were unnatural, that they instrumentalised animals, or that they amounted to playing God. We argue that the way these arguments are employed points to a virtue ethical approach, foregrounding the virtue of temperance, as a balance between extreme positions was sought by our respondents in a variety of ways. Moreover, we argue against a rejection of unnaturalness arguments based on the naturalistic fallacy, as philosophers tend to do. We point out that unnaturalness arguments are related to people’s worldviews, including views on the proper human–animal relationship. We argue that such arguments, which we label ‘life-ethical’, should be the subject of more public discussion and should not be relegated to the private sphere.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Decisions of Wannabe Dog Keepers in the Netherlands

Canine Welfare Science: An Antidote to Sentiment and Myth

Using the incidence and impact of behavioural conditions in guide dogs to investigate patterns in undesirable behaviour in dogs

Geoffrey Caron-Lormier, Naomi D. Harvey, … Lucy Asher

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Since the 2010 BBC-documentary ‘Pedigree Dogs Exposed’, public debate about health problems resulting from dog breeding has intensified. Problems that are frequently mentioned are breathing problems, heart disease and inability to give birth naturally in Bulldogs; eye problems such as proptosis (or ‘eye popping’) in Shih Tzus; allergies, bacterial infections, and eye irritations due to excessive skin in Shar-peis; hip and elbow dysplasia in large dogs such as German Shepherds; and premature death in many breeds. In 2014, the discussion about pedigree dog health in the Netherlands even led to an ‘election’ for the dubious title of ‘most pitiful dog of the Netherlands’, organised by a Dutch animal protection society. Footnote 1 Two main causes of health problems in pedigree dogs that are identified are selective breeding for extreme looks and the narrow genepool of many breeds. Footnote 2

A longstanding debate in animal ethics has focused on the moral acceptability of adaptations to the genetic make-up of animals, either through genetic modification (GM) or through selective breeding (Holland and Johnson 2012 ; Thompson 2007 ). As this debate has mostly taken place in the context of animal experimentation and livestock production, relatively little reflection has centred on changes in the genetic make-up of companion animals. Footnote 3 In light of the public discussion about pedigree dog breeding, we decided to perform research to provide insights to further the animal-ethical, political and society-wide discussion regarding the future of pedigree dog breeding. This paper reports on a case-driven research, Footnote 4 identifying the perceptions of pedigree dog breeding of a variety of parties in the Netherlands. Its guiding question was: ‘How far are we allowed to interfere in the genetic make-up of dogs, through breeding and GM?’

When exploring this question, we experienced a tension between the way ethicists discuss issues regarding adaptations to animal’s genetic make-up—or ‘tampering with animals’—and the way this issue is debated in practice. If we were to follow the implications of many animal ethical theories to their logical consistency, then perhaps we should conclude there is something problematic about domesticating dogs and other animals in the first place. Footnote 5 Some argue that such domestication is supported by a so-called domestication contract (Budiansky 1992 ), but this has been successfully discredited (Palmer 1997 ). Footnote 6 Nevertheless, as the quote from the ‘The Little Prince’ suggests, the domestication contract is a social construct that is quite commonplace in everyday life (Nijland 2016 ). This raises questions about the link between ethical theory and practice. Ethical theories seem to not be neatly adhered to in practice, moral concepts seem to be interpreted in a variety of ways, and consistency in reasoning seem to not be valued as highly as in ethical theory. Ethical theory obviously can add to the public debate. But can reasoning in practice perhaps also add to the reasoning used in ethical theory (cf. Persson and Shaw 2015 )?

As we will describe in Sect.  3 of this paper, discussions in animal ethics have not only focussed on the welfare consequences of adapting animals. It has been argued that even if the welfare of animals would not be compromised, there might still be moral objections to ‘playing God’, or the ‘instrumentalisation of animals’, for example. In our research, we were particularly interested in these arguments ‘beyond welfare’ as they have been so contentious and apparently difficult to justify on the basis of moral theory in the context of adaptations to animal genomes. Resultingly, the central questions of our study were:

What arguments and concepts are brought forward in ethical theory, that can be applied to the case of pedigree dog breeding?

To what extent can we find these arguments and concepts in everyday-life reasoning?

What criteria do people use in order to draw boundaries regarding what is acceptable and not?

Do the arguments people use in practice go beyond welfare arguments?

What could ethical theory learn from everyday-life reasoning about pedigree dog breeding?

What recommendations for the debate on pedigree dog breeding can we make based on our research?

After an explanation of the methodology of our research and review of ethical discussions about interfering in the genetic make-up of animals, we share our empirical results. Next, we discuss these, particularly zooming in on the often-mentioned objection that certain adaptations are ‘unnatural’. We argue that simply rejecting this objection as a naturalistic fallacy amounts to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Not only does the objection point to a whole web of related arguments beyond welfare; we also found that it can be interpreted as a virtue ethical stance that foregrounds the virtue of temperance, calling for a balance between several different extremes. This objection to the unnaturalness of tampering with animals in our view points to ‘life ethical’ as opposed to only ‘rule ethical’ views. As we will argue, thinking and talking about the (un)acceptability of pedigree dog breeding should not stop with welfarist or animal rights views, but calls for a broader reflection on the good life.

Methodology: Case Driven Approach Involving Literature Review and Framing Analysis

The unchartedness of the topic and the kind of research questions that were raised, called for a multi-method case-driven approach: the case being moral reasoning concerning the limits of interfering in the genetic make-up of dogs, in ethical theory and in practice. Though in ethics, literature research into theoretical concepts and adding to existing theory solely premised on rational arguments is the norm, systematic analysis of qualitative empirical data can lead to a deepening of insight into the tension between lay people’s moral judgements and ethical theory, as well as uncover practical problems with ethical theories, and thus even inform adaptations of these—often quite sterile—theories (Persson and Shaw 2015 ). Qualitative case-study research has long been dominated by the assumption that a case-study “cannot provide reliable information about the broader class” (Abercrombie et al. 1984 , p. 34). However, we follow Flyvbjerg ( 2006 , p. 223) who argues: “Social science has not succeeded in producing general, context-independent theory and, thus, has in the final instance nothing else to offer than concrete context-dependent knowledge. And the case-study is especially well suited to produce this knowledge”, and: “The case study contains a greater bias towards falsification of preconceived notions than towards verification” (Flyvbjerg 2006 , p. 237). Karl Popper explained the principle of falsification with the example ‘all swans are white’ and proposed that just one observation of a single black swan would falsify this proposition (Popper 1959 ; see also Taleb 2007 ). Because of its in-depth approach the case-study method is well suited for identifying ‘black swans’. In line with this, Flyvbjerg stresses the relevance of case-studies based on the force of example for gaining knowledge and insight (Flyvbjerg 2006 ). Especially in uncharted territory, as our case of searching for theoretical and practical ethical reasoning regarding pedigree dog breeding in the Netherlands arguably is, a case-driven research strategy is vital to find exemplars and distinguish patterns in reasoning (Flyvbjerg 2006 ; Yin 2013 ).

The first research method we used in our case-driven approach consisted of a literature review into present ethical concepts and arguments regarding domestication, companion animals, adaptations and enhancement, that can be or are applied to the case of pedigree dog breeding. Successively, to gain insight into everyday-life reasoning in practice, we designed and performed interpretive empirical research, consisting of a framing analysis of specially designed semi-structured in-depth conversations with a variety of parties in the Netherlands, checked against and added upon by additional data sources such as documents, websites, media broadcasts and notes of participatory observations. The empirically gathered data was not aimed at providing statistically significant quantitative statements regarding argumentation styles by groups of respondents in the Netherlands based on existing ethical theories. The depth and variety of the case data however was well-suited to reveal patterns in perceptions and ways of reasoning, and with that inform existing theory (Persson and Shaw 2015 ). The comparison we made between ethical theory and practical reasoning explicitly was a two-way street: existing ethical literature provided sensitizing concepts (Bowen 2008 ; Blumer 1954 ) to design the study and analyse the case data, and on the other hand the empirical data importantly provided new input to our case with nuances and practical examples that—as we will show in this paper—can enrich how we think about and use ethical theories (Molewijk et al. 2004 ).

To disclose the variety of perceptions and ways of reasoning regarding pedigree dog breeding in our case study area, the Netherlands, we applied target group oriented theoretical sampling (Silverman 2001 ). We selected an as diverse as possible range of conversation partners, ranging from respondents with backgrounds in dog-breeding, veterinarian, NGO, policy, dog show, dog training/therapy, to citizens with and without (pure-bred and non-pure-bred) dogs. Table  1 shows a bibliographical summary of the interviewees and their backgrounds/roles in relation to pedigree dog breeding. The conversations ranged from 1 to 2 h in length and were held in 2016, on location, in the daily environment of the respondents. Anonymity was offered, the respondents were approached in an as neutral as possible manner and a natural conversation setting was sought, in which curiosity and empathic listening were guiding (Silverman 2001 ). In addition to these conversations, that were our first and foremost source of empirical data, we read policy reports, breeder’s and NGO websites and observed Dutch video—and audio material related to our case.

The design of the conversations was semi-structured, based on open questions; visual and verbal free association on ‘what makes a good life for a dog’ and ‘what makes a good dog’; intuitive ranking both actually performed and hypothetical adaptations on a line ranging from unacceptable to acceptable, including tail docking, jackets for dogs, hair trimming, breeding for certain (regular and extreme) colours and behaviour traits, genetic modification to achieve these same adaptations, and breeding a dog to die after 2 years (cf. Palmer’s ( 2012 ) ‘short-lived dogs’ or ‘disposable puppy’); finalised by discussing what dog keeping and breeding in an ideal world would look like and who is to be held responsible for certain outcomes. The conversations were organized according to the method of laddering (Bernard 2006 ; Reynolds et al. 2001 ): we continuously asked the respondents to make connections between adapting dogs, the consequences thereof (for humans and animals) and the value that the respondents attach to that, and to reveal underlying motivations for choices that are made and obtain a good description of the criteria, we probed for concrete concepts and asked ‘why’-questions after each answer until the respondent was unable to give further answers. The outcomes of these conversations are patterns of interconnected convictions, values, norms, knowledge, and interests (see as Nijland et al. 2010 ). We audio recorded the conversations with consent of the respondents, transcribed them word for word afterwards. Subsequently, we systematically categorized and coded the conversation transcripts in an Excel database, supplemented by information from additional data sources, to reveal patterns in reasoning and relate these back to current ethical theory.

The Ethics of Pedigree Dog Breeding: Existing Concepts and Arguments in Literature

Since the inception of animal biotechnology, animal ethicists have debated the moral (un)acceptability of interfering in animals’ genetic make-up. Even though by artificial selection (breeding), of course, already many changes had been made in animals, the use of biotechnological techniques—like genetic modification—has often been regarded a more efficient and far-reaching way of moulding animals for human purposes. Even though the debate has, therefore, focused on adapting animals through biotechnology, we started our exploration from the assumption that these objections can also be raised to a certain extent to traditional ways of interfering in animals’ genetic make-up through artificial selection. While several benefits of biotechnology have also been put forward (see Bovenkerk 2012 , pp. 246–248), ethical literature has primarily discussed objections and their tenability. We briefly review these below, by focussing on subsequently: animal welfare, dignity, integrity, non-identity, objectification, instrumentalisation, naturalness, and hubris.

Before we review these concepts, we should note that the basic assumption underlying these concepts is that animals possess moral status, i.e. that they have interests that need to be taken into account. Moral status is in an umbrella term that refers to two separate ideas (see Bovenkerk and Meijboom 2013 ): moral considerability (a being has a moral claim on us, based on the possession of capacities such as sentience (Singer) or being a subject-of-a-life (Regan) Footnote 7 and moral significance (the adjudication between the moral claims of different morally considerable beings). A point of discussion in animal ethics is the issue of whether moral status admits of degrees. According to DeGrazia ( 2008 , p. 192), possible reasons to grant two beings with a comparable interest different moral significance, are that one has a higher degree of ‘cognitive, affective, and social complexity’. Višak ( 2010 ) points out that these properties are irrelevant when we are talking about comparable interests: if we are dealing with a dilemma in which an interest in not suffering is at stake, all we should do is compare amounts of suffering and it makes no sense to say that the suffering of one being is by definition more important than that of another. This argument refers to a central idea of animal ethics since Peter Singer (1975), who argued that the basic tenet of justice is that equal interests should be treated equally and unequal interests unequally. If we attach more importance by definition to human interests than to the interests of other animals we are committing speciesism: discrimination on the basis of an irrelevant characteristic—namely species membership. Singer and other philosophers, like Regan ( 2003 ), hold animals and humans to be morally equivalent in the sense that in situations where their interests are comparable they should be treated the same. It is important to note that equal consideration of interests is not the same as pure equality, as the content of different animals’ and human’ interests are often not the same. For example, dogs do not have an interest in the right to free press. Opponents of this view argue that animals and humans are not morally equivalent; human interests simply matter more than animal interests (see Bovenkerk 2016 ).

Animal Welfare

Many general arguments about our treatment of animals focus on animal welfare consequences. The notion ‘animal welfare’ has many different interpretations, some focussing on negative and others on positive welfare, some focused on physical health and others including emotional well-being, and some measuring a specific moment in time, while others are measured over the animal’s whole lifespan and are broadly perceived as ‘the good life for animals’ (Harfeld et al. 2016 ). In general, three different views on animal welfare have been distinguished, primarily in the context of farm animal welfare (Fraser 2003 ). In the first group of function - based views on welfare, the central question is whether animals can cope with farming conditions. The second group of feeling - based views works from the presumption that animals have subjective feelings and that these are constitutive of their welfare. The third group of nature - based views presumes that welfare depends on the ability of animals to display their natural behaviour (Bovenkerk and Meijboom 2012 ). Footnote 8 These views are combined in the Five Freedoms - approach of the Farm Animal Welfare Council ( 1992 ) which states that an animal has good welfare when it is free from hunger and thirst, from discomfort, from pain, injury or disease, free to express normal behaviour, and free from fear and distress. Even though the three views place emphasis on different aspects and ways of measuring animal welfare, what they have in common in our view is that they all assume that animal welfare is in the end about what the animal itself experiences: i.e. what certain adaptations or actions mean for the animal itself, rather than for our views of the animal.

In the context of selective breeding and other changes to animals’ genomes, an important question is of course how such changes impact the animals’ welfare, and as we saw in the introduction there are serious issues here. Yet, changing animal’s genomes also raise issues that are not based on welfare concerns, as is illustrated by the case of ‘dumbing down’. Selective breeding and genetic technologies in fact create the opportunity to counter welfare problems, by creating animals that suffer less. For example, Adam Shriver ( 2009 ) has argued that, technically, we are close to being able to breed livestock with a reduced or eliminated capacity to suffer. In his opinion—given the fact that we are not all going to become vegetarians overnight—we should replace all livestock that are held under intensive rearing conditions with these ‘painless animals’ in order to reduce suffering in the world and better protect animals’ rights. Footnote 9 Thompson ( 2008 ) calls proposals like Shriver’s, where certain characteristics that cause stress or pain are removed, the Dumb - Down approach. He provides the example of blind chickens, that suffer less in intensive farming conditions because they are not as overstimulated or stressed as sighted chickens and therefore are less likely to peck each other. The problem, as Thompson ( 2008 ) sketches it, is that while many of us have the intuition that something goes horribly wrong here, from an animal ethics’ point of view this would be a good thing to do. After all, utilitarians like Peter Singer would argue that the chickens have an interest in reduced suffering and being born blind does not necessarily lead to suffering; nothing that the individual chicken had, was taken away from it if it was born blind. Footnote 10 A deontologist like Regan could ultimately not object to dumbing-down, because if we would go so far as to create animals without or with very minimal sentience, these would not qualify as subject-of-a-life, and they would not have inherent value. While cases like the blind chicken have been thoroughly discussed in animal ethics, according to Thompson ( 2008 , p. 305) ‘little progress has been made in articulating exactly what the ethical issue actually is’. Of course, pedigree dog breeding cannot be classified as a case of dumbing down, or disenhancement, in the sense that the dogs are still fully sentient. It could, however, be seen as a form of enhancement, Footnote 11 which has also been subject to objections, particularly from a Kantian perspective.

Dignity, Integrity, and the Non-identity Problem

Two Kantian arguments that have been put forward to explain what is wrong with disenhancing as well as with enhancing animals, are that they violate animal dignity or integrity. In their interpretation of the Swiss Constitution article which grants animals dignity, Balzer et al. ( 2000 ) argue that respecting animals’ dignity means that their inherent value has to be acknowledged, which in their eyes is based on the capacity of animals to pursue their own good. While they do not categorically reject manipulations of animals’ genomes for human purposes, the adaptations should not hamper their species-specific functioning.

This species-specific functioning also plays a role in the concept integrity. Even though the concept integrity has been applied in the debate about biotechnology, it was originally used to articulate more general objections to interventions that cannot be expressed in terms of harm to animal health and welfare (De Vries 2006 ). Integrity has been described by Rutgers et al. ( 1995 , p. 490) as ‘the wholeness and intactness of the animal and its species-specific balance, as well as the capacity to sustain itself in an environment suitable to the species’. Footnote 12 Examples of integrity violations are dehorning of cattle, Belgian Blue cows that can no longer give birth naturally, and tail docking of dogs. Integrity at first sight seems to refer to a biological norm. However, we would not speak of the violation of integrity in all cases where an animal’s intactness is violated. If we dock a dog’s tail for medical reasons we would not speak of an integrity violation, but were we to do so for aesthetic reasons, we would. As explained by Bovenkerk et al. (2001) this means that rather than a biological notion, integrity is a moral notion that refers to the intention behind the interference. Integrity, moreover, refers not so much to a property of an individual animal, but rather describes a ‘species typical norm’ (Thompson 2008 ). In other words, it refers to ‘the cowness of a cow, or ‘the chickenness of a chicken’ (Bovenkerk et al. 2001). The point of reference then is not the animal itself as adapted to the farm or the home, but rather the species as it would appear in nature. This is also how we should understand Rutgers’ view that integrity means the capacity to sustain itself in an environment suitable to the species: even though dehorned cattle can sustain themselves perfectly well in a farm environment, they would run into trouble in a more natural environment.

In the context of changes to animals’ genomes, it has been argued that the integrity of an animal has been violated if the modification changes the species-specific characteristics of the animal. Such changes would also bring about a change to the animals’ telos —their ‘good of their own’ (Rutgers and Heeger 1999 ). Others have argued, in contrast, that changing an animal’s telos is not problematic as long as this does not lead the animal to experience reduced welfare (Rollin 1995 ; De Vries 2006 ). However, as changes to an animal’s genome have taken place before this animal was born, it is in effect not this particular animal’s telos that was changed. Footnote 13 We cannot say that we have done any harm to this particular animal, but rather to our view of what this animal should be like. As Kantian arguments focus only on respect for individual animals, they ultimately cannot justify an objection that is based on a species-norm. For this reason, this Kantian argument beyond welfare does not sufficiently serve to make sense of our moral intuition that we should not change the genomes of animals.

This points to a specific conundrum, pointed out by Palmer ( 2011 ) in response to Paul Thompson ( 2008 ): when we genetically engineer or selectively breed animals in order to express specific traits, what we are in fact doing is not altering existing animals, but creating new ones. This means that by our breeding decisions we decide whether and which animals will exist in the first place. By selective breeding and genetic modification, we are at least partly creating ‘what animals are like’ (Palmer 2010 ). If we create an animal with welfare problems—as long as the animal still has a life worth living—we cannot say we harmed that animal, because if we had created an animal without welfare problems it would not be that specific animal anymore: the act of creating is a condition of this specific animal’s existence. After all, if we consider harming a being as making it worse off, we cannot say that through our breeding choices we made an animal worse off as compared to a different state of that same animal. This is a version of Parfit’s ( 1986 ) non - identity problem , applied to animals. One—impersonal—response to the non-identity problem is offered by utilitarians, who could argue that if we compare a world in which we breed unhealthy dogs with a world in which we breed healthy dogs, we should choose the latter. However, this utilitarian solution does not work in all situations, because sometimes our very choice for an unhealthy dog will determine whether the dog will exist in the first place. Palmer ( 2012 ) asks us to imagine the case of the short-lived dog—also referred to as the disposable puppy. If we could breed a dog that lives only for 2 years, this would meet the demand of parents whose children want a dog, but will in all likelihood no longer look after the dog after the first couple of years. Without the decision to breed this particular dog, for prospective owners who would otherwise not keep a dog, the dog would not come into existence at all. Footnote 14 Because we cannot compare the value of living to the value of never having lived, even the utilitarian solution fails here. Footnote 15 After all, we are not in a situation here where we would compare a possible world with healthy with a possible world with unhealthy dogs, but a world with unhealthy dogs with a world with no dogs. Palmer ( 2012 ) discusses a number of possible ways out of this conundrum and ultimately finds all of them wanting. She stresses, however, that this does not necessarily discredit our intuition that we are doing something wrong; apparently, the theory does not suffice.

Objectification and Instrumentalisation

One argument that is related to integrity and dignity, but that has a slightly different focus, is that changing animals solely for our purposes instrumentalises or objectifies animals. Instrumentalisation can mean different things. Firstly, it can mean that an animal is turned into an instrument for our use; it can be argued that the animal is turned into an artefact by our meddling with it. In Kantian terms, it is argued that the animal is used solely as a means for our ends, rather than as an end in itself. Its intrinsic value is reduced (Brom 1997 ). The animal then completely coincides with its status as instrument; the cow becomes a milking machine and the chihuahua an accessory. Another term that has been used for the process in which animals in intensive husbandry conditions become ‘living parts of machinery’ by the complete focus on yield and growth rate is ‘de-animalisation’ (Harfeld et al. 2016 ). By taking an animal out of its own evolutionary and environmental context and regarding it merely as a ‘production unit’ we are in a sense taking away their animalness (Harfeld et al. 2016 ).

Secondly, instrumentalisation can mean that animals are treated as if they are things (Brom 1997 ). This objection focuses on the attitude of the person who tampers with the animal and thereby views the animal as an object. This form of instrumentalisation is also called objectification and harbours the risk that society will start viewing animals as if they were objects, which in turn could lead to a denial of the animals’ own interests and own nature (Brom 1997 ). A similar argument is found regarding the objectification or even commodification of women in our society, when they are regarded solely as lust objects. Feminist scholars even draw parallels between the commodification of animals when they are turned into meat and the way women are commodified by portraying them as pieces of meat (Adams 1990 ). One way in which this objection has often been framed, especially in the context of industrial farming, is by saying that we should not adapt the animal to its environment, but the other way around. Footnote 16 The concept objectification has a variety of dimensions, each with slightly different emphasis (Bos et al., Does PLF objectify animals?, Unpublished). For example, objects can be regarded as violable or replaceable by similar objects (Nussbaum 1995 ). So, if someone feels the right to kick a dog, the dog is objectified in the sense that it is regarded as violable. And when someone loses a dog and is then told that they can just get a new one, this can be experienced as offensive, because the dog was not considered replaceable by the owner.

The argument that we should not instrumentalise or objectify animals is central to the neo-Kantian theory of for example Tom Regan ( 2003 ). It speaks to the dictum that we should never treat others solely as means to our ends, but always also as ends in themselves. When we treat someone as an object to be manipulated solely for our own purposes we are not showing that person (or that animal in this case) proper respect. However, in the case of adaptation to dogs the instrumentalisation lies in the changes made to the animal’s genome before the animal was born. In this situation, even a Kantian position runs into difficulty, because due to the changes, we are dealing with a new animal and it is not immediately clear that the changes we have made are disrespectful to the new animal. Rather, they seem to be disrespectful to the species or to our species norm of the animal.

Naturalness and Hubris

A final group of objections which have been raised against tampering with animals’ genomes centre not on the experiences of the animals themselves—such as welfare—nor on other characteristics of the animals—such as their integrity or dignity—but on the nature and degree of human action involved. Here, we will discuss two of these arguments, namely that tampering with animals’ genomes is unnatural, and that it exhibits an attitude of hubris or ‘playing God’ (Brom 1997 ; Van den Belt 2009 ).

When the argument that genetic engineering is unnatural is invoked, this often refers to the idea that certain natural boundaries (in particular those between species) have been crossed. In response, it has been put forward that on genome level these boundaries do not really exist (Robert and Baylis 2003 ; Nuffield Council 2015 ). This response misses the point of the objection, however. The point here is not that something is done that would never happen in nature, but rather that interfering itself is deemed unnatural, because it is carried out by humans. The reference point for naturalness then seems to be the ‘untouched’ animal, as it would appear in nature, as the end result of the process of evolution (Brom 1997 ). Nature is a many-faceted concept with many different meanings (for an overview see Soper 1995 ), but in the context of tampering with animals it seems to be defined as that which has not been interfered with by humans (Van Haperen et al. 2012 ). The natural is then seen as opposed to either the artificial or the cultural. By invoking the unnaturalness-objection in this context critics mean that by adapting animals, we are doing something which is artificial and/or we are turning the animal into an artefact. The argument is therefore related to the instrumentalisation objection we discussed above.

Where the naturalness objection rejects intervention in the natural order of things, the objection to playing God rejects intervention in the order of the creation (Brom 1997 ). The objection to playing God expresses an intuition that certain boundaries should not be crossed by humans. The power to create lies in the hands of God and this creation should be treated respectfully by human beings (Dabrock 2009 ). Yet, this objection is usually not meant as a religious argument, but rather as an argument about the proper role of human beings within nature or vis-à-vis technology (Brom 1997 ). It rejects the human pretension of control and almightiness that was already central in the ancient Greek idea of human hubris and that is also the theme of Shelley’s Frankenstein (Van den Belt 2009 ). This objection warns against the human tendency to think that nature/life can be completely manufactured or planned, and urges us to acknowledge its unpredictability. As Brom ( 1997 ) suggests, this objection is also implicitly about power; if a technically educated elite can manufacture life, this puts a lot of power in the hands of this elite, uncontrolled or unchecked by the rest of society. Finally, this objection has been regarded as portraying a pessimistic view of civilisation (Dabrock 2009 ). It should be noted that playing God is not always regarded problematic; in fact, so-called ecomodernists argue that we humans are the God species and should take control over natural processes in order to achieve human flourishing on this planet (Lynas 2011 ).

Argumentation in Practice: Results of the Empirical Research

Where the previous section dealt with the arguments and concepts in ethical theory that can be applied to the case of pedigree dog breeding, in this section we report if and how these arguments and concepts showed up in everyday-life reasoning. From our systematically coded transcripts, we extracted the reasons that the respondents in our case-driven study brought forward in order to draw boundaries regarding what is acceptable and not, and categorised them according to the concepts from literature. As will become clear, both welfare arguments as well as ethical arguments beyond welfare are brought forward in practical reasoning, next to some additional arguments that are not moral per se. Moreover, arguments were clearly interlinked and used cumulatively, and we noticed that virtually all argumentation seems to have an element of somehow searching for a balance in what we as humans can and cannot do with and to dogs.

Arguments Categorised Under Existing Ethical Concepts

Not surprisingly, animal welfare forms a basic go-to argument in our pedigree dog breeding case study. This becomes clear from statements such as “Only if breeders can develop a breeding standard that does not result in problems, as seen from the dog’s perspective, then it’s okay.”, “A good dog is a dog that does not suffer. Some breeds of dogs are so unhealthy they suffer from the start.”, and “It’s all about quality of life.” A health/absence of pain-oriented (‘function-based’) view of animal welfare appears the condicio sine qua non for any measure that is taken on an animal, though for many respondents nature-based views are likewise important: “A dog needs to be able to perform its natural behaviour, or perhaps even better: its breed-specific behaviour.”. We noticed that respondents tend to fall back on welfare arguments if they feel insecure about other arguments, as welfare arguments seem easiest to defend. The five freedoms were explicitly mentioned by some respondents. However, virtually no respondents used animal welfare as their sole argument.

When asked about both a good life for dogs, as well as confronted with a range of actually performed and hypothetical measures, respondents often added to welfare arguments with arguments regarding integrity: “People in fact choose a dog that is no longer a dog.”, “You affect the essence of a dog, if you want to impose anything other than that they were meant for.”, “With GM you remove the dog-ness of the animal”, and in several cases also dignity: “An animal has value, they have a soul, so treat them right, please.”. However, even though we asked a specific question regarding the acceptability of a dog bred to die after 2 years (which by the way was not deemed acceptable by any of the respondents: “People who want that’d better buy a stuffed animal!”) the non - identity problem was never brought forward as an argument, suggesting that this theoretical argument is too far-fetched for everyday-life reasoning.

Arguments regarding the instrumentalisation or objectification of dogs were commonly seen among the respondents, though in a variety of ways. Objections to tampering with dogs using this type of arguments that we have seen are “A dog is not a thing”, “A dog has become a luxury article. First it was bred as an assistant. And then it became a freak show.” and “How arrogant, to want a dog that dies after 2 years, just to have an accessory.” On the other hand, statements like “It is ok to breed a dog with a specific goal in mind” or objectifying words such as “pull the dog empty” (meaning: to have puppy’s), “put another one on it”, and “when the dog is broken, people come back to us” were also encountered. Seeing the instrumental value of dogs is thus not necessarily always framed as a negative thing.

When we asked people for the reasons for their choices regarding (non-)acceptability of certain adaptations to dogs, the (un)naturalness argument was brought forward, in various ways: “GM is not natural. Nature is so beautiful and ingenious and inventive, it can take care of it.”, “Breeding feels more natural, because it is a slower way. But in principle they are all creations.”, but also “GM is the same thing as breeding, it’s doing what nature does already, only speeding it up.” Though its exact meaning and interpretation remains ambiguous, naturalness was by far the most used term in the conversations. The gradualness of the concept thereby really stood out: “A dog is good if it looks like the original blueprint, the wolf. A Chihuahua thus isn’t natural, it won’t survive in the wild. Shepherds however can. I get that people adore Chihuahuas, they are funny little dogs, but it is really our invention. There’s no natural selection involved.”

The hubris argument was also common: “Who the fuck are we to mess around with genomes like God?”, “You cannot just manufacture the world so that it fits your wish list.”, “A Chihuahua is a monstrous creation that should not exist.”, and “So now we need GM to fix what we messed up in the first place?” As we can see, this argument relates to the role of human beings in their relation to dogs and breeding measures. Also the human pretension of omnipotent control is being put into question: “GM is not as life should be. […] But breeding is. Breeding two dysplasia-free dogs won’t mean you’ll get dysplasia-free pups. You can’t have that control. With GM you try to.”

Finally, everyday-life reasoning includes arguments that touch on moral status and (non - )equality : “Humans and animals are not of equal value, because they do not have the brain capacity of a human.”, “If you could cut out epilepsy in dogs through GM, I would immediately do that. But I find talking about humans and genetic interference dangerous, because if you do one thing and then say well then give me a boy or girl like this or that, I think that’s crossing a line. So I think you can apply it to dogs but in humans it’s dangerous.”, and “Dogs are not things, but also not equal to humans. If I had to choose between a dog and my child, I would choose my child—anytime.” Many respondents did not have a clear view on this: “I don’t know, they are equivalent of course, but they also are not the same. You can use them for many things, but you cannot just do anything you like.”, while some were more outspoken: “A dog should be treated like a dog. Man tends to forget that a dog is an animal. You have to be relentless while breeding, and kill pups that do not comply with the standard.”

Other Arguments of Importance

In the pedigree dog breeding case, several arguments repeatedly came up that fell outside of the regular moral arguments but nevertheless were important.

A first pertains to vested material or emotional interests , such as money, status or aesthetics. Several of the respondents depended (partly or wholly) on pedigree dogs for their livelihood: “The Bordeaux Dog for example, it has an average life span of 4.5 years. Well, then you know the breed is not healthy. But then again, we as vets depend on these breeds. If there were no pedigree dogs, half of the veterinarians in the Netherlands would go out of business!”. Others refer to the status a pedigree dog brings, or that they simply have fallen in love with a specific breed: “I know bulldogs snore, but I would never want another dog in my life. They are so characteristic, with those heads and those eyes. It is a dog to die for!” This latter argument can also be seen as an expression of taste or preference . Feelings and taste may seem like less valid arguments, but in practice their role is significant (cf. Roeser 2006 ). This also pertains to moral intuitions: “You know, GM just doesn’t féél right.”

Furthermore, the goal that the dog was adapted for and the intention it was done with were brought forward as arguments determining the acceptability of breeding measures: “It’s okay if an adaptation is made to make the dog better, but not for the next fashion craze.” Moreover, the adaptive capacity of dogs was mentioned: “Dogs are very flexible animals, that adjust to adaptations relatively easily. Hence, more is allowed in my perspective than to, say, with cats.” Domestication itself was generally not problematized, though the extent of adaptive measures were: “Domestication is not the problem. The problem is excessive breeding leading to a small gene pools. If you buy a French Bulldog, you know you are buying a dog with problems.”

Multi-dimensionality, Balance-Orientation and Worldview

In contrast to ethical theory, arguments regarding the acceptability of certain pedigree dog breeding adaptations for the respondents cannot easily be separated from one another. Counter to what philosophers prescribe, everyday-life reasoning involves a multitude of overlapping and intertwined arguments, both rational and emotional, that build on and/or contradict one another. One respondent for example argued “Pedigree dog breeds are better because you can monitor the genetic makeup of the dogs better” as well as “If you use the word ‘breed’ that means a closed population, and then we can just wait for problems to occur.”, and “I think GM intuitively goes much further than pedigree breeding. It’s not natural. You’re playing God.”, and in addition: “Breeding a dog that cannot walk the streets without a jacket goes too far.” and also “You should not make a human out of it. But it’s also not a thing.” Instead of a single analytical criterion determining where the line between acceptable and unacceptable adaptive measures in dog breeding is drawn, the conversations show that reasoning exists of blends of argument , applied in a fluid manner —like ‘paintings that are made over former layers of painting’ (Bauman 1997 ).

Though animal welfare is sometimes mentioned as a univocal baseline argument (“Health always trumps looks.”), the analysis of the conversations indicates that the connecting factor in the reasoning on what makes up acceptable and non-acceptable adaptive measures in dog breeding across respondents is a search for a balance between extremes . A balance-orientation understandably was found in the matching of different arguments: “Money is money, but you have to do it in a good way and put the animal first. […] You could say, their health is not optimal, but if the dogs can function normally with regards to what you expect from them, then I think it’s enough. […] You have to find a balance.” However, the tendency to search for a balance can actually also be observed in most of the individual ethical arguments discussed earlier in this section. It was first noticed between the extremes of being unnatural (i.e. lack of natural selection, extreme characteristics) and being too natural (i.e. wild): “Dogs should stay as natural as possible, but on the other hand not too natural, because they can adapt some things, such as socialising. But you have to do what fits the natural behaviour of the dog.” and “A half wolf is pretty extreme, too.” But an element of gradualness also was found in for example the balance-seeking between objectification and instrumentalisation and anthropomorphising: “An animal is an animal, it’s not family, but it’s also not a thing.”, “You shouldn’t make a Barbie-doll out of it. It’s a dog for heaven’s sake.”; and in the search for a balance between doing nothing and playing God: “When you do nothing, you’ll end up with one breed of dog, like the street dogs in Turkey”, “Who are we as humans to think we can just do all this? We think we can and may, and I think we sometimes should feel a little humble and less above everything.” This pattern of balance-seeking in everyday-life moral reasoning is an important research result in its own right.

Our research furthermore suggests that the place respondents draw the line (or rather: the grey area making up the centre of the balance) regarding what is acceptable and not, is linked to the way they view the role of human beings in the world, or what we could call the ‘worldview’ of the respondents: e.g. whether God gave animals and nature to humans to use as they see fit, whether we are ‘stewards’ who need to take good care of the animals that are given, whether we see ourselves as a species among species—or even as ‘one’ with all of nature (cf. Zweers 1995 ).

In the following section, we discuss these findings and deliberate whether and how the lessons learned from everyday-life reasoning enrich ethical thought about the issue of pedigree dog breeding and provide pointers for the debate.

Discussion and Conclusion: Insights for the Role of Ethical Theory in the Debate on Pedigree Dog Breeding

How can we interpret the results of our empirical research in relation to ethical theory? It has become clear that in everyday-life people do not seem to respect the consistency-requirement that philosophers assume, and moreover, that they lack a univocal criterion in order to determine where they should draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable adaptations to dogs in the context of breeding. Rather, several different factors play a role: goals of the interference, intention behind it, welfare consequences, and view on the role of human beings in the world in relation to animals. Everyone we spoke to regards certain adaptations as excessive, but different respondents draw different limits to what is acceptable and unacceptable. All respondents agree that adaptations should not lead to welfare impairments, although it became clear that different respondents hold different views on what welfare actually means. This, however, does not mean that welfare is the sole or overarching criterion that determines the acceptable scope of adaptations; rather, animal welfare is used as a sine qua non condition that has to be met by any adaptation that is undertaken. On top of this, many other considerations were put forward that in combination make up their ways of reasoning regarding different adaptations to dogs. These arguments involved typical ethical intuitions ‘beyond welfare’—objectification, integrity, hubris, and naturalness—as well as arguments that did not have a moral base per se. Furthermore, the arguments were not applied in the usual sterile analytical way that we find in ethical literature, but instead in a more fluid manner in which concepts often overlapped and built on one another: they were intertwined. Moreover, rather than a clear demarcating analytical criterion, respondents were constantly looking for the right balance between extremes. We think that ethical theory could learn from this everyday-life strategy, and will elaborate on this by zooming in on the objection that was often put forward that certain adaptations are unnatural.

The Value of the Unnaturalness-Objection

Ethicists warn that unnaturalness-objections have to be approached with great care, because invoking nature can be misused for social or political goals (Soper 1995 ). Think of statements such as ‘women should stay at home and look after the children, because it is in their nature to care’. If we argue from an observation about nature directly to a normative conclusion, we are said to commit the naturalistic fallacy (Moore 1922 ; Frankena 1939 ). It has often been argued that when people claim that something is unnatural, they are actually saying they find it undesirable. In other words, rather than finding adaptations bad because they are unnatural, people call them unnatural because they think they are bad (Zwart 1997 ). Yet, many unnatural things are generally considered good: wearing glasses goes against nature in a sense, but is it thereby morally problematic? Moreover, it is posed that nothing is completely natural anymore: if we regard ‘natural’ as opposed to ‘artificial’, as that which has not been modified by human hands, is there really any nature left? After all, just by emitting CO 2 and causing climate change, we have influenced nearly every part of this earth (McKibben 1989 ). Some philosophers for this reason even avow the use of the term natural, because it is so difficult to draw a clear line between nature and culture/artificial (see Vogel 2015 ). Such a reductio ad absurdum is problematic, however, as it makes the use of the concept of nature completely moot and tends to understand nature as a black and white concept. Instead, based on our findings we propose thinking of ‘naturalness’ as a gradual notion; something can be more or less natural.

What could then be taken as a criterion of an entity’s naturalness? It has been argued that a difference between natural and unnatural entities is that the former have been constituted completely along internal goals whereas the latter have been formed completely by external goals—in general by the goals of human beings (Deckers 2013 ). An entity can then be more or less natural depending on the extent to which it was formed by internal or external goals. The example that Jan Deckers ( 2013 ) gives is that of an aurochs, which is completely formed by its own goals. The domestic cow is formed by a combination of its own internal and our external goals and is thereby less natural. A genetically modified cow, like the famous Dutch bull Herman, is even less natural and more artificial. We realise that using the criterion of internal goal-directedness does not do any normative work yet. An extra argumentative step still is needed to get from something being more or less natural, to it being more or less morally good or bad.

Because such an argumentative step is often lacking in ethical literature about naturalness, the unnaturalness-objection is not taken seriously by philosophers. However, we think that this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Analytically rejecting this objection as a naturalistic fallacy does not do justice to a strong intuition that many people have, as witnessed by the fact that naturalness arguments keep on surfacing in discussions about genetic modification and other human actions towards animals (MacNaghten 2004 ). What is behind this intuition? When we look at the way in which our respondents framed the naturalness objection, we see a much more nuanced picture than the way in which the objection is often portrayed by philosophers. Firstly, it becomes clear that naturalness is indeed conceived as a gradual notion. And secondly, the step from unnatural to morally wrong is not made directly, but rather relies on underlying views on nature and on our relation to animals. Several respondents reasoned from an attitude of respect for nature and warned for the harmful consequences of meddling with processes we do not completely understand. They also eschewed an instrumental vision of nature and animals, where animals are simply regarded as resources or tools for our purposes and genes are understood as building blocks for us to manufacture whatever we want. Many respondents showed respect for evolutionary processes. This does not mean that they held that whatever nature produced through evolutionary processes was necessarily good or benign, but that since natural processes have been tried and tested for much longer than artificial adaptations, humans should take a more modest attitude and learn from nature rather than trying to change it. Yet, the respondents held a nuanced view on changing nature as well. They did not think that respect for natural processes meant we can never interfere with nature, but they reject extreme or excessive ways of doing so. Interfering as such was not held to be problematic, but the context in which it takes place and the goal and intention with which it was carried out determine its acceptability.

We think this context-dependent view can inform analytical ethical theory by showing it does not always work to take arguments at face value, out of the context in which they were uttered. Analytical theory tends to test arguments by drawing out their implications to the extreme. In the context of the unnaturalness-argument, analytical philosophers point out that if something that is unnatural is morally problematic, many, if not most, human actions become problematic, and this is not tenable (McKibben 1989 ). However, this argument assumes a rather dualistic vision of the nature-culture divide: as if everything that was touched by human hands is thereby automatically rendered unnatural. As Cronon ( 1996 , 19) points out, this ‘ascribes greater power to humanity than we in fact possess’. Nevertheless, even if nature is conceived as a gradual notion, it could still be argued that since it is impossible to draw a precise line between morally problematic and unproblematic situations, the notion of the natural cannot help us determine an action’s acceptability. Moreover, since individuals disagree in their conceptions of nature and in the value they attach to naturalness and since nature itself is constantly changing, how can we use nature as a criterion at all? In contrast to these doubts, we think that the concept of nature still has performative force Footnote 17 : it explains a distinction that people clearly attach meaning to, even if we cannot draw clear boundaries between the opposite sides of the distinction. We think our results show that discussing the unnaturalness argument in such an isolated manner does not do justice to the richness of ideas that lie behind it. The unnaturalness-argument should be understood as a way to express the meaning people attach to nature and the view they have of our role within nature, and not as a hard and fast criterion to demarcate acceptable from unacceptable actions. If we look at the ways in which our respondents define what is acceptable and unacceptable regarding adaptations to animals, it seems that they were not focussing so much on specific actions, but rather on an accumulation of actions and on attitudes that were expressed by specific adaptations. Footnote 18

In our interpretation, the ways of reasoning related to this are importantly linked with respondents’ worldviews, including conceptions of humans and their place in nature, and conceptions of animals. For example, someone who holds that ‘nature knows best’ is more likely to caution against human hubris, while someone who thinks humans have a higher moral status than animals is less likely to have qualms with using them as tools for human purposes. Footnote 19 It seems, then, that the unnaturalness objection relates to the rejection of a completely anthropocentric worldview. This is also made clear by the fact that the intention or purpose the dogs were adapted for, was an important factor for the deemed acceptability of the adaptation. If the goal was to help dogs, for example by using breeding to make the animals healthier, this was regarded more acceptable than if the goal was simply to satisfy our aesthetic needs. This point can be related to a discussion that has taken place within environmental ethics, regarding the value of restoration. As Katz ( 1992 , 87) argues: ‘Natural individuals were not designed for a purpose. They lack intrinsic functions, making them different from human-created artifacts. Artifacts, I claim, are essentially anthropocentric. They are created for human use, human purpose. […] Once we begin to redesign natural systems and processes, once we begin to create restored natural environments, we impose our anthropocentric purposes on areas that exist outside human society’. Footnote 20 The argumentative step from calling something unnatural to claiming it is morally problematic, therefore—at least for some—lies in adhering to a non-anthropocentric worldview.

What is considered excessive is also related to people’s worldviews. In other words: what is deemed acceptable in pedigree dog breeding is not dependent on one criterion, but rather on a set of views and an attitude towards nature and animals. And we think these insights do not only apply to the unnaturalness argument, but also to the other arguments beyond welfare: references to objectification of animals or to the view that animals cannot simply be manufactured by humans are also based on a broader worldview. Also with these arguments, a balance is often sought, between for example the extremes of viewing animals as things and anthropomorphising animals, or between complete human control and complete lack of control.

Pluralism and the Virtue of Temperance

Our research suggests that a plurality of considerations determine someone’s stance towards pedigree dog breeding. Even though people tend to fall back on welfare arguments when pressed, they also refer to considerations such as goal and intention of the adaptation and specific characteristics of the animal to be adapted (‘dogs are already highly adaptable by nature’). Moreover, when analysed, these considerations cannot all be resumed under one overarching value, such as welfare. Rather, they are part of a more comprehensive view about what types of relations we want to maintain with animals and nature. Furthermore, instead of using moral prescriptions such as ‘allowed’, ‘right’, ‘acceptable’ or ‘duty’, the respondents framed certain adaptations as not being ‘necessary’, as ‘showing bad form’, or as ‘not showing proper respect’. These are all labels that fit more in a pluralist understanding of ethics, in which there is no overarching criterion that can determine an action or situation’s rightness or wrongness and in which there is more room for gradations in moral judgment beyond only duties and rights (Stone 2010 ).

On the meta-level, moral pluralism seems to fit well with our findings. But what normative ethical theory is adhered to in this situation? Even though arguments beyond welfare—in particular those about integrity and objectification—have traditionally been understood to be Kantian in nature, we argue that the strong focus of our respondents on finding a balance between extremes suggests that a virtue ethical approach better fits everyday-life ethical reasoning about pedigree dog breeding. This idea is furthermore supported by our finding that people tend to look at an accumulation of actions and at attitudes, intentions, and goals, rather than at the right or wrong of specific adaptations. Central to virtue ethics (since Aristotle), is the view that we should strive for a good character by cultivating virtues. There are many virtues, but one characteristic that is central to all virtues is that they strike a balance between two extremes: the ‘golden mean’.

Drawing on virtue ethics does raise the question to what extent this theory is applicable to animal ethics, as by far most (Western) animal ethicists argue from a deontological or utilitarian—and more recently also from a relational—perspective. According to some virtue-ethical accounts, human flourishing is foundational for our ethical aims in life (Walker 2007 ). Acting virtuously is one of the constitutive elements of human flourishing, but we don’t act virtuously just in order to achieve our own flourishing. As we are social beings, care for others’ flourishing is part of what it is to be human. Animals can flourish in many of the same ways as humans and therefore if we have reason to care for the flourishing of other human beings, we have reason to care for that of animals (Walker 2007 ). A virtue ethicist would ask what is the right attitude to take towards animals and how our treatment of animals reflects on our character. If we treat animals badly, we are displaying the wrong character traits (Hursthouse 2006 ). Virtuous character traits are, for example, sensitivity, compassion, and temperance, and we do not cultivate these traits when we routinely harm animals.

What particular virtue then is central in the considerations about adapting dogs? Even though our respondents drew a line (or formulated a grey area) at different places, they all agreed that too much interference leads to excesses. Several respondents also experienced too little interference as problematic: If we do not socialise dogs or breed a dog that is too much like a wolf, we are in a sense also behaving excessively. This points to the virtue of temperance , which refers to self-restraint and modesty. Appeals to modesty and self-restraint were encountered amply in our empirical research. Modesty is a restraint from arrogance and this is encountered in the view that we should not exhibit hubris or try to play God. Also, restraint from excesses in the form of prudence was referred to, when it was noted that it is “alright to breed dogs, but we should not turn them into accessories or status symbols”. In the context of genetic modification versus breeding, many respondents held that we can interfere in nature, but only to the extent that certain adaptations might happen in nature as well. This points out the experienced need for a balance between blindly following nature and completely going against nature. As Hursthouse ( 2006 , 142), puts it—in the context of eating meat—: ‘precisely what temperance requires is that I do not pursue such pleasure while ignoring the claims of the other virtues’.

The Limitations of Rule-Ethical Theory

The arguments ‘beyond welfare’ appear to be part of broader conceptions of the ‘good life’, including views of our relationship with animals and our role in natural processes. Though they are not specific enough to clearly distinguish morally right from morally wrong adaptations, they point to the accumulation of actions and attitudes rather than the right and wrong of specific adaptations. Moreover, a balance is sought rather than a strict criterion for moral acceptability, suggesting a predominantly virtue ethical stance. The pertinent question to ask, then, doesn’t appear to be ‘what adaptations are acceptable?’ but rather ‘what is the virtuous attitude towards animals (and even broader: nature)?’. The point of such a virtue ethical conception is not to argue that we should never interfere in the lives of animals, but that a decision whether or not to interfere is taken from an attitude of respect for the animal and modesty towards nature. This could be understood as a plea for the virtue of temperance, both in the way in which we interfere, the extent of interference, our intentions, and the goals for which we interfere.

This explanation of the arguments beyond welfare arguably connects less to action-guiding theories in ethics—such as utilitarianism or deontology—than to what we—with Swierstra ( 2003 )—propose to call ‘life-ethical theories’. While rule-ethical theories aim to formulate impartial rules that enable peaceful and just cohabitation between individuals, in life-ethical theories discussion about the good life are central. Life-ethical theories ask question such as ‘what attitude towards life (including inevitable limitations) speaks from certain technical enhancements?’, and ‘how do we envisage the good life for humans and animals?’.

As Swierstra ( 2003 ) explains, it is understandable that life-ethical views are met with suspicion, because they almost by definition have a religious or ideological character; they are based on comprehensive notions of the good life about which agreement is hardly possible and they therefore tend to be relegated to the private sphere. Rule-ethical theories, on the other hand, carry the promise of consensus, because they are based on commonly held values such as freedom of choice, autonomy, and the no-harm principle. However, by only taking rule-ethical principles seriously, a lot of important values and meanings that people attach to life and the world around them are disregarded. While life-ethicists acknowledge that people’s conceptions of the good life can fundamentally differ, they still hold that we should not relegate these conceptions to the private sphere but that we should discuss them publicly, or else risk an impoverished debate. If we leave out life-ethical views, the debate effectively stops when we have established that no harm is done by a certain action or technology, or that informed consent has been given. A debate about the content of preferences is then no longer necessary (Swierstra 2003 ). The result is that people who object to the action or technology in question on the basis of other values are excluded from the debate (Bovenkerk 2012 ).

Swierstra ( 2003 ) points out another reason why a sole reliance on rule-ethical theories can be problematic: the benefits of controversial technologies or interventions tend to befall specific individuals and tend to be concrete and certain, while the negative impacts are often speculative, long-term and collectively borne (think of the potential environmental problems of new technologies). The benefits to individuals can be more easily cast in terms of rule-ethical theories than the harms and therefore rule-ethical theories carry an implicit bias towards implementation of new technologies or other interventions. Perhaps we cannot immediately draw clear rules and regulations from life-ethical discussions, but this does not mean that it is not of the utmost importance that we have the discussions. As Swierstra (personal communication) puts it:“in our liberal societies that tend to relegate comprehensive notions of the good life to the private sphere, if someone raises a moral objection, there is a tendency to ask ‘Do you want to forbid this? No? Well, then shut up’”. But if the future of our relationship to nature is on the line, isn’t it important to have an overarching discussion about where we want this relation to go?

In conclusion, our empirical research into how far we are allowed to interfere in the genetic make-up of dogs, through breeding and genetic modification led to an appeal to virtue ethics, in particular the virtue of temperance . Arguments beyond welfare—such as objectification, integrity, hubris, and the unnaturalness-objection—should not simply be cast aside because they do not lead to clear norms or because they are perceived to commit the naturalistic fallacy. Rather, we should take the intuitions on which they are based seriously and have life-ethical discussion about the worldviews underlying them, in the public sphere.

The election was ‘won’ by a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, who supposedly had chronic headaches due to a malformation of the skull: https://www.sophia-vereeniging.nl/nl/pages/actualiteit/blog/cavalier-kareltje-de-zieligste-hond-van-nederland.html .

See the ‘Fair Breeding Plan’ that was drafted by the Dutch kennel club and many other stakeholders, such as the Veterinary Department of Utrecht University. Fairfok plan: https://www.houdenvanhonden.nl/gezond-fokken-met-fairfok/plan-fairfok/ .

With the notable exception of Clare Palmer’s ( 2012 ) paper ‘Does Breeding a Bulldog Harm It?’.

The research was part of a larger research project, titled ‘The Ethics of Domestication’.

Francione ( 2012 ) "Pets": The Inherent Problems of Domestication. http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/pets-the-inherent-problems-of-domestication/#UaMlSKJJM08 .

It has recently been argued that humans in fact played a less active role in domestication than has always been assumed and that humans as well as animals were changed by domestication. See https://aeon.co/essays/how-domestication-changes-species-including-the-human?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=oupphilosophy&utm_campaign=oupphilosophy .

Entities count as a subject-of-a-life who have 'desires and beliefs, who perceive, remember, and can act intentionally, who have a sense of the future, including their own future (i.e. are self-aware or self-conscious), who have an emotional life, who have a psychosocial identity over time, who have a kind of autonomy (namely preference-autonomy), and who have an experiential welfare' (Regan 2003 , p. 18).

While these views are not necessarily mutually exclusive, they can certainly conflict in specific situations.

His proposal is not as unrealistic as it sounds, if we consider that ‘currently researchers are applying the techniques of genetic engineering, cloning, and cellular manipulation in search of ways to reduce both the suffering and economic cost associated with production disease [which are] animal pathologies that occur as a result of or in association with livestock production practices’ (Thompson 2008 , 307–308).

Although Collins et al. ( 2011 ) have convincingly argued that blind chickens do experience reduced welfare as compared to their seeing counterparts.

Animal enhancement can constitute different practices. It can be defined as an intervention that either ‘produces an increase in a natural function or confers a new function’ to the animal (such as better muscle development), or ‘improves an aspect of the animal functioning for human purposes’ (such as classic cases of domestication), or ‘better fulfils the animal’s interest’ (for example because it enhances the animal’s welfare) (Chan 2009 ). It seems clear that we are dealing with the second form of enhancement in the case of pedigree dog breeding.

It is important to note that there has been quite a bit of discussion about the merits of concepts such as dignity and integrity. Thompson ( 2008 , 311) for example states: ‘appeals to integrity and dignity can become pompous when thrown in the face of creatures who are actively enduring suffering right now’. See also the discussion on these concepts by Ortiz ( 2004 ).

This would suggest that integrity violations take place on the species-level rather than that of the individual. However, Rob de Vries ( 2006 ) argues that attempts to apply this concept to the species-level fail.

Strictly speaking, this thus even is a non-existence rather than a non-identity case. The same line of thought applies though: we cannot say that we harm a dog that was bred to only live for two years, as long as it still has a life worth living, for if we had not bred this particular dog, the dog would not exist at all. In the context of meat production this line of reasoning is referred to as the logic of the larder: if it wasn’t for the human demand for meat, livestock would not even have existed, and surely isn’t it then in their benefit that we eat meat?.

Although some argue that we can compare existence to non-existence if we place a value of zero on non-existence. For example, Holtug ( 2015 ).

By referring to an animal as ‘it’ this objectification is reinforced, ironically by animal ethicists who reject objectification themselves.

Thanks for Christopher Preston (personal communication) for this formulation.

Though not solving the non-identity problem, this may provide a step in the direction of a solution: Rather than arguing that a disposable puppy cannot be harmed because if we had not bred it it would not even have been born, we should perhaps not look at the level of individual animals. Rather, we could argue that creating such animals does not fit with the virtue of temperance.

This works the other way around as well of course: worldviews do not only influence ideas and behaviour, but also the other way around. For example, a breeder, due to his or her role as breeder, has to support adaptations in order to maintain breeding standards, or otherwise experience cognitive dissonance.

While Katz employs a rather black and white view on nature versus artificial, which can be disputed (even on basis of our own results) our aim in quoting him here is merely to stress the importance of worldview as an argumentative step.

Abercrombie, N., Hill, S., & Turner, B. S. (1984). Dictionary of sociology . Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Google Scholar  

Adams, C. (1990). The sexual politics of meat . New York: Continuum.

Balzer, P., Rippe, K. P., & Schaber, P. (2000). Two concepts of dignity. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 13 (1/2), 7–27.

Bauman, Z. (1997). Postmodernity and its discontents . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19 (1), 3–10.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bos, J., Bovenkerk, B., & Feindt, P. Does PLF objectify animals? (Unpublished paper).

Bovenkerk, B. (2016). Animal captivity: Justifications for animal captivity in the context of domestication. In B. Bovenkerk & J. Keulartz (Eds.), Animal ethics in the age of humans: Blurring boundaries in human–animal relationships (pp. 151–172). Dordrecht: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bovenkerk, B. (2012). The biotechnology debate: Democracy in the face of intractable disagreement . Dordrecht: Springer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bovenkerk, B., Brom, F. W. A., & van den Bergh, B. J. (2002). Brave new birds: The use of ‘Animal Integrity’ in animal ethics. The Hastings Center Report , 32 (1), 16.

Bovenkerk, B., & Meijboom, F. (2013). Fish welfare in aquaculture: Explicating the chain of interactions between science and ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26 (1), 41–61.

Bovenkerk, B., & Meijboom, F. L. B. (2012). The moral status of fish. The importance and limitations of a fundamental discussion for practical ethical questions in fish farming. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25 (6), 843–860.

Bowen, G. A. (2008). Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: A research note. Qualitative Research, 8 (1), 137–152.

Brom, F. W. A. (1997). Onherstelbaar verbeterd (irrepairably improved) . Assen: Van Gorcum.

Budiansky, F. (1992). The covenant of the wild: Why animals choose domestication . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Chan, S. (2009). Should we enhance animals? Journal of Medical Ethics, 35 (11), 678–683.

Collins, S., Forkman, B., Kristensen, H., Sandøe, P., & Hockinga, P. (2011). Investigating the importance of vision in poultry: Comparing the behaviour of blind and sighted chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 133, 60–69.

Cronon, W. (1996). The trouble with wilderness: Or, getting back to the wrong nature. Environmental History, 1 (1), 7–28.

Dabrock, P. (2009). Playing God? Synthetic biology as a theological and ethical challenge. Systems and Synthetic Biology, 3, 47–54.

DeGrazia, D. (2008). Moral status as a matter of degree. Southern Journal of Philosophy, XLVI (2), 181–198.

Deckers, J. (2013). Paper presented at the preconference meeting at EurSafe . Uppsala, September.

De Vries, R. (2006). Genetic engineering and the integrity of animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19 (5), 469–493.

Farm Animal Welfare Council. (1992). FAWC updates the five freedoms. Veterinary Record, 17, 357.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (2), 219–245.

Francione, G. (2012). “Pets”: The inherent problems of domestication. http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/pets-the-inherent-problems-of-domestication/#UaMlSKJJM08 .

Frankena, W. K. (1939). The naturalistic fallacy. Mind, 48 (192), 464–477.

Fraser, D. (2003). Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: The interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare, 12, 433–443.

Harfeld, J. L., Cornou, C., Kornum, A., & Gjerris, M. (2016). Seeing the animal: On the ethical implications of de-animalization in intensive animal production systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 29, 407–423.

Holland, A., & Johnson, A. (2012). Animal biotechnology and ethics . Dordrecht: Springer.

Holtug, N. (2015). The value of coming into existence. In T. Visak & R. Garner (Eds.), The ethics of killing animals (pp. 101–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hursthouse, R. (2006). Applying Virtue Ethics to Our Treatment of the Other Animals. In J. Welchman (Ed.), The practice of virtue: Classic and contemporary readings in virtue ethics (pp. 136–155). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

Katz, E. (1992). The big lie. Human restoration of nature. Research in Philosophy and Technology , 12 , 231–241.

Lynas, M. (2011). Geo-engineering, nuclear power and climate change: Playing God is good for the planet. The Telegraph.

MacNaghten, P. (2004). Animals in their nature: A case study on public attitudes to animals, genetic modification, and ‘nature’. Sociology, 38 (3), 533–551.

McKibben, B. (1989). The end of nature . New York: Random House.

Molewijk, B., Stiggelbout, A. M., Otten, W., Dupuis, H. M., & Kievit, J. (2004). Empirical data and moral theory: A plea for integrated empirical ethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 7, 55–69.

Moore, G. E. (1922). Principia ethica . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nijland, H. J. (2016). Disentangling the domestic contract — Understanding the everyday - life construction of acceptability — Or non - acceptability — Of keeping and killing animals for food. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Nijland, H. J., Aarts, N. M. C., & Renes, R. J. (2010). Frames and ambivalence in context: An analysis of hands-on experts’ perception of the welfare of animals in traveling circuses in The Netherlands. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26, 523–535.

Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2015). Ideas about naturalness in public and political debates about science, technology and medicine. Review of Nuffield Council on Bioethics Reports.

Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Objectification. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 24 (4), 249–291.

Ortiz, S. E. G. (2004). Beyond welfare: Animal integrity, animal dignity, and genetic engineering. Ethics & the Environment, 9 (1), 94–120.

Parfit, D. (1986). Reasons and persons . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Palmer, C. (2012). Does breeding a bulldog harm it? Breeding, ethics, and harm to animals. Animal Welfare, 21, 157–166.

Palmer, C. (2011). Animal disenhancement and the non-identity problem: A response to thompson. NanoEthics, 5, 43–48.

Palmer, C. (2010). Animal ethics in context . New York: Columbia University Press.

Palmer, C. (1997). The idea of the domesticated animal contract. Environmental Values, 6 (4), 411–425.

Persson, K., & Shaw, D. (2015). Empirical methods in animal ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28 (5), 853–866.

Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery . New York: Basic Books.

Regan, T. (2003). The case for animal rights . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Reynolds, T. J., Dethloff, C., & Westberg, S. J. (2001). Advancements in laddering. In T. J. Reynolds & J. C. Olson (Eds.), Understanding consumer decision making: The means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy . Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Robert, J. S., & Baylis, F. (2003). Crossing species boundaries. The American Journal of Bioethics, 3, 1–13.

Roeser, S. (2006). The role of emotions in judging the moral acceptability of risks. Safety Science, 44, 689–700.

Rollin, B. (1995). The Frankenstein syndrome: Ethical and social issues in the genetic engineering of animals . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rutgers, L. J. E., & Heeger, F. R. (1999). Inherent worth and respect for animal integrity. In M. Dol et al. (Eds.), Recognizing the intrinsic value of animals: Beyond animal welfare . Assen: Van Gorcum.

Rutgers, L. J. E., Grommers, F. J., & Wijsmuller, J. M. (1995). Welzijn-intrinsieke waarde-integriteit. Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde, 120, 490–494.

Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

Shriver, A. (2009). Knocking out pain in livestock: Can technology succeed where morality has stalled? Neuroethics, 2 (3), 115–124.

Soper, K. (1995). What is nature? Culture, politics and the non-human . Oxford: Blackwell.

Stone, C. (2010). Should trees have standing? Law, morality and the environment (3rd ed.). (original edition: 1972). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swierstra, T. (2003). De wisselwerking tussen ethiek en technologie. In I. Devisch & G. Verschraegen (Eds.), De verleiding van de ethiek: Over de plaats van morele argumenten in de huidige maatschappij (pp. 154–171). Amsterdam: Boom.

Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable . New York: Random House.

Thompson, P. (2008). The opposite of human enhancement: Nanotechnology and the blind chicken problem. NanoEthics, 2, 305–316.

Thompson, P. (2007). Food biotechnology in ethical perspective . Dordrecht: Springer.

Van den Belt, H. (2009). Playing God in Frankenstein’s footsteps: Synthetic biology and the meaning of life. NanoEthics, 2, 257–268.

Van Haperen, P. F., Gremmen, B., & Jacobs, J. (2012). Reconstruction of the ethical debate on naturalness in discussions about plant-biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25 (6), 797–812.

Višak, T. (2010). Do animals count for less? In C. M. R. Casabona, L. E. San Epifanio, & A. E. Cirion (Eds.), Global food security: Ethical and legal challenges (pp. 423–428). Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen.

Vogel, S. (2015). Thinking like a mall. environmental philosophy after the end of nature . Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Walker, R. L. (2007). The good life for non-human animals: What virtue requires of humans. In R. L. Walker & P. J. Ivanhoe (Eds.), Working virtue: Virtue ethics and contemporary moral problems (pp. 173–189). New York: Oxford University Press.

Yin, R. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing.

Zwart, H. (1997). De natuur als criterium voor medisch handelen? In: J. Keulartz & M. Korthals (eds.), Museum aarde: Natuur, criterium of constructie? (pp. 155–165). Amsterdam: Boom.

Zweers, W. (1995). Participeren aan de natuur: Ontwerp voor een ecologisering van het wereldbeeld . Utrecht: Van Arkel.

Download references

Acknowledgement

Work for this paper was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) under Grant Number 275-20-038.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Philosophy Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Bernice Bovenkerk

Hanneke J. Nijland Research and Consultancy, Strategic Communication Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Hanneke J. Nijland

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernice Bovenkerk .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bovenkerk, B., Nijland, H.J. The Pedigree Dog Breeding Debate in Ethics and Practice: Beyond Welfare Arguments. J Agric Environ Ethics 30 , 387–412 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-017-9673-8

Download citation

Accepted : 20 June 2017

Published : 28 June 2017

Issue Date : June 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-017-9673-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Pedigree dogs
• Genetic modification (GM)
• Unnaturalness
• Virtue ethics
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Vet Sci

Advancing Genetic Selection and Behavioral Genomics of Working Dogs Through Collaborative Science

Frances l. chen.

1 Vertebrate Genomics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, United States

2 Cellular Longevity, Inc., San Francisco, CA, United States

Madeline Zimmermann

3 Guiding Eyes for the Blind, Yorktown Heights, NY, United States

Jessica P. Hekman

Kathryn a. lord.

4 Bioinformatics and Integrative Biology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States

Brittney Logan

Jane russenberger.

5 International Working Dog Breeding Association, San Antonio, TX, United States

Eldin A. Leighton

6 Canine Genetic Services, LLC, Watertown, CT, United States

Elinor K. Karlsson

7 Darwin's Ark Foundation, Seattle, WA, United States

Associated Data

The ancient partnership between people and dogs is struggling to meet modern day needs, with demand exceeding our capacity to safely breed high-performing and healthy dogs. New statistical genetic approaches and genomic technology have the potential to revolutionize dog breeding, by transitioning from problematic phenotypic selection to methods that can preserve genetic diversity while increasing the proportion of successful dogs. To fully utilize this technology will require ultra large datasets, with hundreds of thousands of dogs. Today, dog breeders struggle to apply even the tools available now, stymied by the need for sophisticated data storage infrastructure and expertise in statistical genetics. Here, we review recent advances in animal breeding, and how a new approach to dog breeding would address the needs of working dog breeders today while also providing them with a path to realizing the next generation of technology. We provide a step-by-step guide for dog breeders to start implementing estimated breeding value selection in their programs now, and we describe how genotyping and DNA sequencing data, as it becomes more widely available, can be integrated into this approach. Finally, we call for data sharing among dog breeding programs as a path to achieving a future that can benefit all dogs, and their human partners too.

Introduction

A successful working dog is healthy, physically fit, and able to perform at an exceptionally high-level, with the behavioral, physiological, and structural characteristics required varying by job ( 1 ) ( Figure 1 ). Over the past 20 years, especially since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the demand for high-quality working dogs around the world has soared, while the supply of these dogs has either remained unchanged or declined, resulting in increasing costs even as the quality of the dogs has suffered ( 2 – 4 ). With rates of visual impairment and blindness in the United States anticipated to double by 2050 as populations age, requests for guide dogs, already often difficult to access ( 5 ), will almost certainly increase further ( 6 ). To meet this increasing demand, organizations that breed working dogs need to use scientifically proven, modern breeding best practices that can increase the production of high-performing, healthy dogs ( 7 ).

Skills required of a high-performing guide dog. A high performing working dog is required to fulfill a demanding set of criteria that vary by working dog type. While some, such as resilience, are required for nearly all working dogs, other skills are job-specific. To illustrate this, we describe some of the major requirements for a guide dog, the working dog type bred by Guiding Eyes for the Blind. (A) A guide dog must not be frightened of or bark at things that typically alarm other dogs. When working, they must ignore distractions such as other dogs or other animals around them. (B) They must be comfortable leading out with a steady pace and pull when working in harness, while also remaining calm and focused in all situations. They must learn a wide range of commands, but also be able to ignore commands when they are not safe, and problem-solve when a command is not possible. (C) When there are obstacles or dangers in the handler's path, a guide dog must alert the handler by stopping, or navigating their handler around the obstacles, and then resume walking in the target direction. When working, they should not be distracted by other people. (D) A guide dog must resist chasing things while working, and ignore enticing scents, including food. (E) A guide dog needs to be physically healthy, and matched to the stride and personality of their handler. Image credit: Kathleen Morrill.

Working dogs, in various forms and with various functions, have been part of human societies for thousands of years. Sled dogs were used in Eastern Siberia over 9,000 years ago ( 8 , 9 ), and ancient Romans had both livestock guarding dogs and hunting dogs ( 10 , 11 ). During this time, humans likely exerted postzygotic selection by favoring the highest performing dogs, increasing the prevalence of desirable traits among their offspring. Compared to modern dog breeds, ancient working dog populations were outbred and genetically diverse. Modern dog breeding started in the mid 1800s, and historical records and genomic studies suggest modern dog breeders predominantly favored form and pedigree over function ( 12 , 13 ). The genomic loci most differentiated between breeds have been implicated in physical traits like body size, coat characteristics, and ear shape. While all dogs in a modern dog breed may look similar to one another, behavior and personality is highly variable.

Because the genetic variants that confer working dog traits predate modern breeds, any dog, purebred or not, may, by chance, inherit the genetic profile of a high-performing working dog, although this probability may vary depending on the dog's breed ancestry. The goal of selective breeding is to increase the average genetic merit of a population, thereby increasing the likelihood that, in the next generation, more dogs will be higher-performing than dogs in the current generation. To reach this goal, successful breeding programs will also attempt to optimize the environment in early puppyhood for long-term success ( 14 – 17 ).

Implementing a successful working dog breeding program is enormously challenging because of the complexity of the traits themselves, and the risk of inbreeding and other inadvertent consequences. Behavioral traits, difficult to breed for because of their genetic complexity and environmental malleability, may also be the most critical ( 18 , 19 ). If not done with care, selective breeding can significantly reduce genetic diversity of the population, leading to increased rates of disease and shortening lifespans ( 20 ). While using dogs from outside populations as breeders can restore diversity, it risks lowering the success rate of the importing breeding program for generations, if the imported breeder is of lower genetic merit. Even successful selection programs can have unexpected consequences. Selection for dogs that are easy to control, for example, may increase the rate of excessive body sensitivity.

To address the increasing demand for working dogs, canine breeding programs need to utilize modern animal breeding practices, including cutting-edge, and rapidly advancing, genomic technologies. Here, we provide a roadmap for implementing a modern canine breeding program, and describe the synergistic collaboration between two non-profit projects to support dog breeders transitioning from time-worn techniques to modern, scientifically proven methods. The International Working Dog Registry (IWDR) is a centralized database that already contains uniformly coded records on over 64,000 dogs. Uniformity in coding is accomplished using drop-down lists of coding choices, from which one must be chosen, with very little free-text permitted anywhere in a dog's record. IWDR implements modern animal breeding tools within the registry, and it supports training for breeders seeking to employ genetic selection. The Working Dog Project is an open-science initiative for working dog genomics, designed to engage tens of thousands of dogs in research studies to develop the next generation of genomic and medical technology for dogs. Working together, the two aim to increase the supply of high-quality working dogs, while supporting research to improve the health and welfare of all dogs.

Breeding Working Dogs

Managers of working dog breeding programs face the daunting challenge of producing large numbers of puppies, often over 100 per year, while maintaining, or even increasing, the percentage of successful dogs. There is almost always at least one plausible reason not to breed a young female, or to avoid a particular mate, especially when the goal is to avoid producing any disease-affected puppies, but this has to be balanced against the need to produce puppies that easily develop into behaviorally appropriate adult dogs. To balance these competing forces, a production plan needs to be followed that includes an objective method for choosing young dogs to become parents of the next generation. By following this plan, selection will change allele frequencies in the population, and the puppies produced in each successive generation will be healthier and endowed with more desirable behaviors than those of their parents. This objective, science-driven approach, proven to work by large guide dog breeding programs ( 7 ), has clear advantages over today's most common approaches to dog breeding.

At conception, each future puppy inherits its genetic foundation ( genotype ) from its parents. The local environment in which each genotype develops into a working adult has the potential to mold and shape that genotype in a myriad of ways. The ultimate challenge of dog breeding is to wisely use observed phenotypes to accurately predict the non-observable underlying genotypes.

For centuries, dog breeders have used phenotypic selection to influence observable traits or behaviors seen in a population. This traditional process, where dogs are chosen to become parents based on their individual phenotypes, has slowly molded and shaped ancestral dogs into today's modern breeds ( 21 , 22 ). Using this process to produce genetic change, however, is very challenging because a dog's own phenotype is often a rather poor predictor of the dog's true genetic merit or genotype. Scientifically advanced working dog breeding programs of today utilize a data-driven method called estimated breeding values (EBVs) for meeting this challenge. It incorporates statistics and phenotypes to more accurately identify young dogs to be kept for breeding, even before producing their first litter.

Just as in phenotypic selection, EBVs rely on trait measurements made on individual dogs, but the calculation process is objective, deterministic, and grounded in modern statistical prediction theory. Furthermore, many people can learn how to use EBVs, even if they do not fully understand the process by which EBVs are calculated. For molecular geneticists, it may be helpful to know that EBVs in the context of this paper are very similar in concept to polygenic risk scores in human genetics ( 23 ), but with one fundamental difference. In the animal breeding world, the family structure of most populations includes rather large half-sib and full-sib families. The process for producing EBVs takes this family pedigree structure into account.

Since the 1940s, livestock breeders have used some form of EBVs and genetic selection to obtain genetic change in economically important production traits ( 24 , 25 ). For example, breeders of American Angus cattle increased average weaning weight of bull calves by about 4 pounds per year between 1972 and 2021 ( 26 ). Similarly, between 2000 and 2016, US dairy cattle breeders, by applying selection pressure to increase the productive life, achieved an increase of about 10 months ( 27 ). Using exactly the same techniques as the livestock breeders, the dog breeding program at The Seeing Eye improved trainability for working as a guide while reducing the frequency of phenotypes that impact working longevity, including poor hip quality ( 7 ). After eight generations of selection, the percentage of dogs with an excellent hip quality score (as assessed by an extended view hip score) increased from 34 to 93% in German Shepherd Dogs and from 43 to 94% in Labrador retrievers.

Phenotype selection, when carefully implemented, can be effective for altering the prevalence of single traits. In Sweden, phenotype selection alone reduced rates of moderate to severe hip dysplasia in at-risk breeds by one third ( 28 ). However, genetic selection results in more improvement than phenotype selection ( 29 ), allows for continuing improvement even after phenotype selection has reduced the frequency of undesirable characteristics, and makes it possible to select on multiple traits in parallel ( 28 ).

The advent of inexpensive whole-genome genotyping and sequencing technology could allow relative genetic merit to be predicted more accurately from genotype in the future ( 23 ). These powerful approaches are not yet possible, but offer the potential to further improve on EBV selection.

Best Practices for Genetic Improvement in a Breeding Population

Working dog programs and breeders using only phenotype selection will find it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain and improve the health and performance of their dogs over many generations. The vast majority of traits are complex, with tens or hundreds of different genes shaping a dog's inherited genetic potential, which is further influenced by their environment. To increase the frequency of a phenotype in a population, dogs should be selected for breeding based on the likelihood that their progeny will exhibit that phenotype. While adult phenotype is a reasonable proxy for this likelihood for a simple genetic trait, like coat color or hair type, for complex traits (e.g., behavior, or susceptibility to diseases like cancer) the correlation is much less clear.

Using phenotype selection, genetic improvement will be, at best, slow. Selecting dogs for breeding based solely on their adult phenotype is an inefficient way to increase the frequency of polygenically inherited desired traits in the next generation and is likely to lead to reduced genetic diversity and increased rates of disease ( 20 , 30 , 31 ). Breeders will often invest significant time and resources in attempting to identify genetically superior dogs by studying pedigree databases for evidence of the desired trait in related dogs, but this approach lacks a systematic means of ranking an individual's genetic merit based on its family relationships.

EBV selection is far more powerful than phenotype selection. The EBV for a given trait on a specific dog is calculated using phenotype data, both from that dog and from all related dogs in the population, when those data are available. Because most breeding plans are focused on improving more than one trait, each dog will have a set of EBVs, one for each trait. This set of EBVs for multiple traits can then be combined into one overall selection index that weights each trait based on its importance to the breeding program ( 32 – 34 ). This overall selection index value then reflects each young dog's overall relative genetic merit, which is also an indication of the dog's ability to produce offspring with all the phenotypes included in the breeding goal. By using an overall selection index, breeding program managers can identify a genetically diverse cohort of young dogs most likely to confer desired traits in their offspring.

Despite its utility, EBV selection has not been widely used in dog breeding because it requires large, accurate pedigrees and phenotypes assembled into one uniformly coded database, as well as expertise in statistical genetics and data processing. These requirements have hindered adoption of EBVs by smaller breeding programs, and programs without access to the required expertise. To address this need, IWDR includes EBV calculation and data management tools that are accessible to all dog breeders. Through the IWDR database, breeders can obtain EBVs, allowing them to objectively identify which young dogs are most likely to produce puppies that move the population's average phenotypic merit closer to the breeding goals defined by the breeding manager.

Six Step Approach to EBV Selection

Implementing an EBV-based selection program can be daunting. Here, we distill the process into six steps ( Figure 2 ). Using this approach, breeding programs can systematically apply the scientific principles of population genetics and genetic selection to their dog populations.

Six-step approach to EBV selection. Implementing an EBV-based selection program can be daunting. By distilling it down to just six steps, each supported by tools and training available through IWDR, this method of making breeding decisions can be made accessible to both working dog breeders and hobby breeders.

Step 1. Define the Goal(s) of Selection

Before applying any selection in a breeding program, it is critical to establish clear goals, such as improving success rates. With the goals defined, the program can then identify measurable phenotypic traits relevant to achieving those goals.

Step 2. Collect Phenotype Data

A protocol must be developed to uniquely identify each dog and to uniformly and accurately measure each trait of interest on all breeding dogs and on all or most of their progeny over successive generations. For behavioral traits, this might be the Behavior CheckList ( 35 ), while for a trait like hip dysplasia, the PennHIP ( 36 , 37 ) or extended view radiograph (OFA, BVA, FCI) scores could be used ( 38 ). All data should be stored in a secure, uniformly coded, electronic database like IWDR.

Step 3. Identify Heritable Traits

Using the phenotype data and pedigrees stored in the database, the heritability of each phenotypic trait measured in step 2 must be calculated. The more heritable a trait is, the bigger the response will be to one generation of selection ( 39 ). Traits with a heritability of at least 15% are considered good candidates for genetic selection. With accumulating knowledge derived from genomic information, genetic improvement in traits with even lower heritability may eventually be feasible.

Step 4. Calculate EBVs

For the traits selected in Step 3, EBVs can be calculated using specialized software that combines phenotype data with the pedigree structure ( 25 , 40 , 41 ). Models fitted with this software can accurately account for overlap in the genetic background influencing different traits and for external, non-genetic factors that produce variation in phenotypes, such as the season of year or age of the dog when the phenotype was measured. Access to EBVs calculated using this software is available through IWDR.

Step 5. Select Breeder Candidates

Young dogs with high genetic merit from the EBV analysis in Step 4 should be evaluated in detail to assess their suitability as breeders, with a focus on the whole dog. Metrics considered will typically include suitable conformation, reproductive capacity, health screening typical for the breed and a performance assessment.

Step 6. Match Breeders and Produce the Next Generation

From among the candidate dogs identified in Step 5, mating pairs are chosen, such that weaknesses in one dog are complemented by strengths in the mate. In addition, it is important to choose pairs that maximize the genetic diversity of the breeder pool, minimize inbreeding in litters, and limit the number of progeny any single individual produces in their lifetime ( 31 ). A practical guideline is to attempt to limit the average increase in the coefficient of inbreeding to no more than 2% per generation.

To achieve this goal, an easily implemented strategy is to limit the number of litters produced by any single parent ( 42 ). While inbreeding could be kept to a minimum by allowing each parent to produce only a single litter, this isn't operationally feasible, and thus tradeoffs must be made. One practical solution is to restrict each male to siring no more than 8 litters and each female to producing no more than 3 or 4 litters. In a population producing ~200 puppies per year, this will limit the rate of inbreeding increase to no more than 2% per generation. We note that, as the rate of inbreeding increase is related to effective population size ( 39 ), chapter 4, p. 65], any workable strategy for maximizing the effective population size will limit inbreeding.

Implementing an EBV Selection Program

While the six steps described above provide a high-level perspective on EBV selection, the reality of starting such a program can be daunting. Here, we describe how Guiding Eyes for the Blind (Guiding Eyes, hereafter), implemented their EBV selection program, and highlight some of the challenges they needed to overcome. Guiding Eyes have shared their breeding program data to illustrate this process ( 43 ). Their experience illustrates the dynamic nature of any breeding program. The outcome of each of the six steps is not fixed, and often must be revisited and revised based on information acquired as the process evolves over time.

The Guiding Eyes for the Blind breeding colony collectively produces about 520 weaned puppies (about 90% Labrador retrievers and 10% German shepherds) each year. Dogs who do not succeed as guide dogs are either moved to other organizations or adopted out to pet homes, depending on their testing results ( 44 ). Currently, Guiding Eyes has 120 active Labrador retriever breeders (82 female and 38 male) and 13 active German shepherd breeders (10 female and 3 male), as well as frozen semen from 20 Labrador retrievers and 13 German shepherds with high selection indexes.

Guiding Eyes started using genetic selection with EBVs in their Labrador retrievers in 2003. Their German shepherd colony is too small to calculate EBVs, but Guiding Eyes is working with IWDR to address this through collaboration and data sharing with other guide dog breeding colonies.

Implementing Step 1. Define the Goal of Selection

Guiding Eyes made the decision to move toward implementing EBV selection in 1995 with the goal of improving health and behavior traits, while preserving genetic diversity. At that early stage, they did not have the data infrastructure needed to identify which traits were most correlated with those outcomes, and thus might be the targets of selection. The collection of phenotype data (Step 2) was critical in making this determination.

Implementing Step 2. Collect Phenotype Data

Guiding Eyes first had to set up a data management system (a relational database) for collecting phenotype, health, and pedigree information, and populate it with information on their dogs. Using this database, Guiding Eyes identified hip quality, elbow quality, soft trachea and allergic/atopic dermatitis as top health reasons for dogs failing out of the program. Although nearly twice as many dogs failed for temperament or behavioral reasons, rather than health reasons, Guiding Eyes did not initially have a useful system for scoring non-health traits. Behavioral trait data was being collected using the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ), but the estimates of heritability for C-BARQ measured traits were very low, and insufficient for driving genetic improvement ( 45 ).

It took a global collaboration of working dog breeders 10 years to develop a tool for assessing behavioral traits with the standardized terminology, inter-rater reliability, and score resolution needed for genetic selection. The Behavior CheckList, which is the tool recommended by IWDR, is an optimized version of the scoring tool originally used to validate construct validity of the C-BARQ, and incorporates measures known to affect guide dog performance, including noise sensitivity, harness sensitivity, and body sensitivity ( Figure 3A ; Supplementary Material ) ( 45 ). Behavior CheckList scores are assigned by trained personnel with experience in behavioral coding. At Guiding Eyes, behavioral coding has been correlated with behavioral information captured by ECG, accelerometry and gyroscope data on ~2 month old puppies ( 46 ).

Implementing EBV selection at Guiding Eyes for the Blind. (A) The behavioral phenotypes are collected using the Behavior CheckList scored by trained observers during standardized tests and assessments starting at 2 months of age, and continuing through training until about 26 months of age. (B) The selection index, which weights each trait based on its importance to the breeding program, has changed over time to include more behavioral phenotypes. (C) The current index includes about 50% behavioral and 50% health traits. (D) The rate of genetic improvement can be monitored by reviewing the selection index scores for the current population of dogs. Here, dogs not used for breeding have, on average, the lowest scores, while active breeders, including those nearing retirement, have the highest scores, consistent with the increasing genetic improvement expected in a successful breeding program. If genetic improvement plateaus or worsens, the genetic model, data quality, change in testing protocols or criteria, weighting in the index and other influences are reviewed and corrective action taken. (E) Inbreeding is minimized by selecting mate pairs that maximize diversity, and by limiting the number of progeny produced by any single individual. Between generation 8 and 16, average inbreeding coefficient increased from 3.4 to 16%, corresponding to an increase of 1.6% per generation. (F) To produce high-performing working dogs, environmental factors that influence success must also be addressed. At Guiding Eyes for the Blind, for example, kennels with nursing puppies are enriched with different surface textures, noises, novel objects, and other experiences the puppies will need to be familiar with as working dogs. Image credits (A,F) : Elinor K. Karlsson.

The Behavior CheckList was originally designed for assistance and guide dogs, but it may be generalizable to other types of working dogs, such as detection dogs, when augmented with additional job-specific phenotypes (e.g., hunt drive, indication, bite) ( 47 ).

Implementing Step 3. Identify Heritable Traits

Traits included in an EBV selection program need to be both relevant to the high-level goals of the program, and sufficiently heritable to respond to selection. For each trait measured in the Guiding Eyes population, and collected in the database, the heritability was estimated using statistical models that considered sex, age, weight, and other features when appropriate ( Table 1 ).

Heritability and genetic selection at Guiding Eyes.

Genetic selection with EBVs will be most effective on traits that have a heritability > ~15%. Heritability measures are specific to a particular population and a particular environment, requiring them to be estimated for each breeding population. Here, we show heritability estimates for the Guiding Eyes for the Blind Labrador retriever population, which range from a low of 28% (mast cell tumor) to a high of 63% (elbow quality). “Puppy test” indicates testing done at ~2 months of age, and IFT (In For Training) indicates testing done at ~16 months of age. We also show how traits were weighted in the overall selection index, and how those weightings change over time. “EBV” indicates traits for which EBVs were calculated prior to the development of the selection index. A dash indicates a trait not included in the selection index .

Implementing Step 4. Calculate EBVs

Guiding Eyes started calculating EBVs in 2003 for two traits: elbow quality and hip quality ( Table 1 ). EBVs were estimated using MTDFREML (MTGSAM for binary threshold traits) ( 48 , 49 ). By 2010, they had collected sufficient data to develop their first overall selection index, combining and weighting EBVs for five health traits, selected because they were most responsible for dogs failing prior to beginning training, and a binary measure of training success ( Figure 3B ). The emphasis (relative weight) placed on each health trait was proportional to the percent of rejections caused by that trait. The standardized weight was calculated by dividing the relative weight by the genetic standard deviation of the trait. To calculate the overall selection index value for each dog, the EBV for each trait was multiplied by the standardized weight for that trait, and the weighted EBVs for all traits then added together.

Selection by EBVs is an inherently dynamic process, because the selection itself changes the frequency of traits in the population, so the selection index is reviewed and revised regularly to focus on traits of highest priority in the current population ( Table 1 ). By 2014, Guiding Eyes had sufficient Behavior CheckList data to incorporate EBVs for behavioral phenotypes, starting with thunderstorm phobia and harness sensitivity. Before adding a new behavioral EBVs into the overall index, its utility is assessed by someone knowledgeable about the colony, to confirm that dogs are ranked generally as expected. This less quantitative “sniff test” is important for affirming the real world relevance of the EBV.

Today, behavioral and health traits are equally represented in the Guiding Eyes selection index ( Figure 3C ). Each dog's score on the selection index is the primary tool used to decide which young dogs should be considered as breeders (step 5). EBVs, and the overall selection index score for each dog, are recalculated every 2 weeks to coincide with the selection of new breeder candidates, ensuring that all phenotype data are included in the calculations.

Implementing Step 5. Select Breeder Candidates

Typically, Guiding Eyes replaces about one third of its breeding colony each year. An increase in average genetic merit means that animals in the next generation will have more desirable genetic potential than their parents ( Figure 3D ). While Guiding Eyes prioritizes dogs with a high selection index values as breeder candidates, the decision to keep a dog for breeding is not based on those scores alone. Each month, 9 females and 3 males (usually 15–17 months old) are selected as breeding candidates and undergo additional behavioral, health and reproductive screenings. Dogs may be excluded based on weight, heritable conditions not captured in the selection index, reproductive abnormalities (e.g., cryptorchidism), primary persistent anestrus or abnormal estrus patterns, or undesirable conformation. In addition, they consider the individual dog's longitudinal behavioral scores and behavioral trends in the litter. Finally, they consider how closely related the candidate is to other dogs in the breeding colony, favoring the less related dogs.

Implementing Step 6. Match Breeders and Produce the Next Generation

When Guiding Eyes matches dogs for breeding, it tries to balance weaknesses in one dog with strengths in the mate. It assesses each potential pairing using three primary criteria: (1) the dogs have not been previously bred together; (2) their progeny would have a lower predicted coefficient of inbreeding compared to pairings with other dogs; (3) neither dog is affected by a genetic disease caused by a known mutation, and, at most, only one of the pair is a carrier. In order to avoid popular sire effects, Guiding Eyes tries to use all stud dogs equally.

Genetic Change Due to Selection in the Guiding Eyes Breeding Program

Overall, the breeding program at Guiding Eyes has been very effective, illustrating the power of EBV selection. Most importantly, Guiding Eyes was able to reduce the number of puppies born each year, from 4.8 to 3.6 pups born, for each successful dog ( Figures 4A–C ). Given the enormous resources required to train even a single dog, this achievement has allowed Guiding Eyes' to more efficiently fulfill its mission of providing high-performing dogs to people with vision loss.

Behavioral and health traits change in response to EBV selection. Eight traits under selection in the Guiding Eyes for the Blind population show varying responses to the onset of selection using EBVs. Vertical black lines show when EBV selection for each trait was started. (A) Change in fraction of dogs successfully placed as guide dogs per year, starting in 2000, when the current assessment criteria were implemented. (B) With improving success rates, the number of puppies produced by Guiding Eyes for each successful dog has dropped over time. (C) The EBV scores for success, as a trait, have increased over the last 17 generations of selection, indicating an improvement in genetic merit with each successive generation, even if just the animals selected as breeders are considered (orange line). (D) Change in relative frequency per year of different phenotypes, starting with the year the phenotype data started being collected. (E) Change in the fraction of dogs with a disqualifying phenotype (red lines). (F) The EBV scores for each trait over the last 17 generations of selection show increasing EBVs, indicating an improvement in genetic merit with each successive generation. A similar trend in the median EBV scores is seen if just the animals selected as breeders are considered (orange line).

Guiding Eyes saw an improvement in the EBVs for every trait included in the selection index ( Figures 4C,F ). Elbow quality, and scores for behavioral traits, including harness and body sensitivity, and noise sensitivity, all improved ( Figures 4D,E ) The incidence of allergic/atopic dermatitis, idiopathic epilepsy and soft trachea all dropped. When using phenotype based selection, the number of dogs diagnosed with allergic/atopic dermatitis, elbow dysplasia, and idiopathic epilepsy had varied widely from year to year, but once EBVs were employed, a consistent genetic improvement was evident. Throughout the breeding program, inbreeding coefficients slowly increased at an average rate of 1.6% per generation ( Figure 3E ).

Several interesting features are evident in the data. First, environment matters ( Figure 3F ). In 2017 there is a sharp rise in dogs exhibiting moderate and severe noise fear ( Figure 4E ). This coincides with an outbreak of parvovirus in the breeding facility, which shut down the early socialization program for puppies. This program was designed specifically to expose dogs to a wide range of stimuli, including different noises, during a critical period of development, and its curtailment was detrimental.

Second, how traits are defined for the selection index can lead to unexpected consequences. Between 2010 and 2011, before the Behavior CheckList was in use, the only behavioral metric used in the selection index was a binary trait reflecting whether or not a dog successfully completed the guide dog training program. Selecting for this trait inadvertently increased the incidence of excessive body sensitivity in the population. A closer look revealed that using success as a metric favored dogs who were easy to control, and many of these dogs had heightened body sensitivity. Once the Behavior CheckList measurements of body sensitivity were incorporated into the selection index, the increasing trend in body sensitivity was reversed.

Implementing EBV Selection With IWDR

While the experiences of Guiding Eyes illustrate the potential of EBV selection and how to effectively implement this six-step approach, EBVs have not been widely adopted by working dog breeding organizations because most programs, on their own, have neither the dog population size nor the staff expertise to implement it successfully. To make EBV selection accessible to all working dog breeding programs, regardless of the size of their breeding colony or the expertise of their staff, a different approach is needed. IWDR supports both working dog and hobby breeders of any breed interested in using EBVs to achieve genetic improvement. It offers state-of-the-art tools, expertise, and training that, until now, were accessible to only the largest canine breeding colonies.

For breeding programs, establishing and maintaining a database, and managing data storage, is costly and difficult. IWDR provides a secure, uniformly coded, electronic database accessible through a paid subscription (International working dog registry—dogs serving humanity 1 ) from anywhere in the world. IWDR facilitates storing phenotypes, pedigrees, and genetic data.

Phenotyping

Many breeding programs still use non-standardized phenotype scoring approaches that are not ideal for EBV selection. IWDR provides expert training and resources for standardized phenotype scoring, including for behavioral traits via the Behavior CheckList ( 35 ).

Tools to Estimate Heritabilities and Calculate EBVs

Breeding programs are often too small to use EBV selection, or lack the required expertise. IWDR stores phenotypes using a standardized codebook, making it possible to pool data from many organizations. Using pooled data, IWDR can estimate heritability and calculate EBVs using all dogs of a specific breed, while keeping the detailed data for each organization secure and private. EBVs calculated by IWDR will be far more accurate than those from a single, small breeding program, because they are based on many more observations, thus enabling all breeding programs, regardless of colony size, to utilize EBVs. With these values, breeding managers can assess which are the genetically most desirable dogs within their colony to keep for breeding, and they can compare their organization's EBVs to the population average, thus quantifying where their dogs rank relative to all dogs of that breed in the database.

To calculate EBVs, IWDR uses the BLUPF90 suite of programs ( 40 , 41 ). Most health and behavior phenotypes are categorized into five classes, ranging from one (least desirable) to five (most desirable), and are modeled as linear mixed models, with fixed effects included to adjust for the presence of environmental effects known to produce phenotypic variation. IWDR can also calculate EBVs for binary traits by analyzing them as threshold traits using the Gibbs sampling methodology implemented in the BLUPF90 program suite. Once EBVs are calculated and stored into IWDR, they are presented with both an assessment of accuracy and each dog's percentile ranking amongst all dogs from that breed in the database.

Pairing Dogs for Breeding

Selecting dogs for breeding is a complicated task, as EBV scores, predicted inbreeding, and health are all considered. IWDR provides an easy-to-use tool that calculates the predicted inbreeding for a potential litter before the mating is actually done, and summarizes both the phenotype data and the genetic test data available on possible mates. IWDR can also compare EBVs between breeding programs, enabling the exchange of breeding stock with less risk of damaging short term outcomes for dogs. This is critical for balancing selection goals with breeding for improved genetic diversity and population health.

Integrating Genomic Relatedness

Genomic data from either marker genotyping or whole genome sequencing can more precisely define the exact degree of genetic relatedness that exists among pairs of dogs than a pedigree alone ( 50 ). IWDR is developing tools that will incorporate the use of genomic data into the EBV calculations, thus enabling breeders to work with EBVs estimated with higher accuracy.

Building the Next Generation of Genomic Tools

Today, it is not possible in dogs to accurately predict health or behavioral traits from genome sequence data alone. For a small number of single-gene diseases, genetic tests are available, allowing carriers of disease risk factors to be identified [although with some important caveats ( 51 )]. Single-gene diseases, however, are just a tiny fraction of heritable diseases, and don't include cancer and other common diseases that are the major causes of death in dogs ( 52 ).

The vast majority of diseases, and behavioral traits, are genetically complex, shaped by changes in hundreds, and even thousands of genes, as well as non-heritable environmental factors ( 53 – 55 ). For these traits and diseases, applying selection is difficult without using some aids to improve the accuracy of selection decisions. Active selection of desired genetic variation can lead to unintentional accumulation of deleterious genetic variation due to “hitchhiking” of deleterious alleles physically linked in the genome ( 56 ), and unintentional, undesired effects if the genetic variants under selection are pleiotropic, or have effects on multiple traits. Without understanding the genetic basis underlying desired or undesired phenotypes, artificial selection for specific traits in domestic dog breeds can increase deleterious genetic variation ( 57 ).

The Working Dog Project and IWDR are working together to build the next generation of genomic tools for dogs, in partnership with dog breeders willing to share de-identified genomic data and phenotypes from their dogs. Genomic technologies have the potential to substantially improve selective breeding in dogs, but it will require extremely large datasets to develop robust, high-quality tools. By working together, and pooling data and expertise, we can develop two new approaches to dog breeding that could dramatically improve the supply of high-quality, healthy working dogs: genomically enhanced EBVs (sometimes abbreviated to gEBVs) and genomic breeding values (genomic EBVs) .

Genomically Enhanced EBVs

EBVs that incorporate genomic data are known as genomically enhanced EBVs. Compared to traditionally calculated EBVs, genomically enhanced EBVs can increase accuracy of genetic merit predictions by as much as two-fold, because genomic information complements pedigree information ( 27 ). In practical terms, this means that the accuracy of well-estimated genomically enhanced EBVs for young dogs can be, in some situations, as accurate as if those dogs had already produced 20 progeny who have already matured to acquire their own phenotypes. Compared to EBV selection, genomically enhanced EBV selection is more effective, especially for traits with low heritability ( 58 , 59 ).

Using genomically enhanced EBVs can make dog breeding programs more efficient. Generating high accuracy EBVs (>0.80) requires phenotypes for both parents and their progeny, a challenge for late age onset conditions, like cancer and epilepsy. The addition of DNA marker information in the form of genomically enhanced EBVs should increase the accuracy of genetic merit prediction in young puppies, thus enabling more accurate selection decisions to be made before they produce progeny. This reduces the generation interval and costs associated with waiting for animals to mature. In addition, a DNA sample collected from a young puppy could identify, at a very young age, dogs that should not be further developed for a particular line of work, but rather should become beloved pets, avoiding costly care and training.

Genomic Breeding Values

A genomic EBV is a prediction of a dog's relative genetic merit based solely on its genome sequence. No pedigree information is required. With genomic EBVs, a decision could be made to keep a young dog for breeding as soon as a DNA sample can be collected, a method known as genomic selection ( 60 ). Selecting animals based on their genome sequence, rather than waiting to measure phenotypes later in life, can accelerate genetic gain by reducing the generation interval.

While genomic selection offers promise for assessing relative genetic merit among young puppies, literally thousands of whole genome sequenced dogs with their well-measured phenotypes will be needed in one dataset in order to develop the prediction equations ( 61 , 62 ). Once developed for a particular breed, these prediction equations should enable even the prediction of relative genetic merit of dogs from outside breeding programs or dogs living in shelter populations ( 63 , 64 ). If sufficiently large datasets of full genome sequences and phenotypes from many breeds can be assembled, prediction equations that work in any dog, regardless of breed, may be feasible ( 60 ).

Very Large Sample Sizes Are Essential

The key to developing genomically enhanced EBVs and genomic breeding value technology for working dogs will be assembling very large datasets. Both approaches require studies with tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of dogs, each with phenotype information for traits of interest ( 60 , 65 ), and coordination between working dog breeders, statistical geneticists, and data scientists. The partnership between IWDR and the Working Dog Project is designed to address this challenge. IWDR is a platform for obtaining both whole genome sequences and uniformly coded phenotypes for tens of thousands of dogs. With consent from the dog breeder, these data, once de-identified, can be shared with scientists with expertise in complex trait mapping and statistical genetics through the Working Dog Project. All data contributed to the Working Dog Project will be part of an open data repository, encouraging even scientists unfamiliar with dog breeding to contribute their skills. No breeding program, on its own, has either enough dogs or the expertise to solve this challenge, but by pooling resources, all working dog breeders can benefit.

Large-scale genomic studies, such as those we propose for working dogs, have much broader ramifications outside of improved breeding practices. Genomically enhanced EBVs, for example, can predict which dogs are likely to be high-performing working dogs before the investment of significant resources into their training. With big enough datasets, we'll be able to make these predictions in any dog, including shelter dogs, some of whom might be more suited to a high-energy working dog career than life as a pet—thereby opening up new sources for these high-demand dogs.

Ultra-large-scale dog genomics can also support advances in veterinary medicine. In human medicine, genomically enhanced EBVs are known as polygenic risk scores ( 23 ), and are already used to predict risk of heart disease at a young age, when risk reduction through environmental changes is still feasible ( 66 ). Similarly, given enough data, we should be able to develop risk scores for complex diseases like cancer and heart disease for veterinary medicine, identifying which dogs should be most carefully monitored, or when interventions should be more aggressive.

Finally, large-scale genomics is the first step in discovering the fundamental genetic basis for health and behavioral traits ( 67 , 68 ). Aging and disease in dogs show strong similarities to humans, and finding the cellular mechanisms responsible in dogs could provide new clues for treating humans as well ( 69 ), ultimately resulting in better diagnostics, therapeutics, and lifestyle interventions for dogs and humans alike.

For complex traits like behavior, which reflect the interaction of genes with the environment, predictions based on genomic data alone will never be perfect. Environment, especially early in life, has a profound effect on the development of the brain. If a mother is not able to perform intrinsic nesting behaviors, or escape from her pups for a while, this stress can lead to aberrant working behaviors in her pups ( 70 ). While still in the breeding kennels, working dog puppies develop vision, fear, social behavior, and cognitive abilities, and how these characteristics develop reflects environmental cues. A breeding program that does not provide positive early exposure to a variety of sounds, scents, textures, and visual stimuli will leave their dogs more fearful of the world around them, and less able to perform their job. On the other hand, breeding programs that do provide puppies with a wide range of novel, and positive, experiences in a developmentally appropriate way will maximize the return on an investment in improved breeding practices.

Collaboration and data sharing are essential if we hope to improve the supply of high performing working dogs. Sharing the details, and outcomes, of ongoing breeding programs, including both successes and failures, will help develop better genetic selection techniques for dogs. Furthermore, no single organization can hope to reach the massive sample sizes required to develop the next generation of genomic tools. When searching for the genetic causes of a complex trait, the bigger, the better, and there is no clear upper bound on how many samples are enough ( 65 ). By working together, IWDR and the Working Dog Project will promote innovation and collaboration via advanced genomic technologies and open science, and provide the practical tools dog breeders need to implement these advances. This collaborative strategy is the only practical path for realizing the potential of genomics to transform working dog breeding, and to address health challenges in both dogs and humans.

Author Contributions

EK, EL, and FLC equally contributed to the formation of the manuscript's conceptual ideas and framework. All authors contributed to writing and editing the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

EL was contracted by IWDBA for IWDR development. FLC was employed by the company Cellular Longevity, Inc. dba Loyal. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We thank Guiding Eyes for the Blind for access to their data, and for sharing their expertise. We also thank the Theriogenology Foundation, AKC Reunite, and the Manton Foundation for their support in establishing this collaboration, the Annenberg Foundation for providing funds to contribute to the open-access publication of this manuscript, and the worldwide community of working dog breeders for their input and advice.

1 Available online at: http://www.iwdr.org (accessed May 31, 2021).

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2021.662429/full#supplementary-material

Environment

A proposal to stop breeding dogs, on the whole, human breeders have not improved on nature..

Posted May 12, 2014

We Don't Need More Purebred Dogs With So Many Dogs in Need By Marc Bekoff Ph.D.

On a flight last year, I sat next to a woman from India on her way to London from New York, where she had been visiting her first grandchild When she heard I wrote about dogs, she turned her attention to the one aspect of her daughter and son-in-law’s life she could not understand—their dog. On her walks around Central Park with the dog and her granddaughter, the dog drew the most attention and comment.

He was a black, blue-eyed French bulldog for whom they had paid $3,000.00 to a veterinarian/breeder in New Jersey. They had already spent that much again on veterinary bills in less than a year.

Defenders of the purebred dog industry talk a lot about responsible breeders, and I once tended to follow their lead. But shortly after the Atlantic Monthly published my article, “The Politics of Dogs,” in March 1990 [It is hard to find on-line because of a class-action lawsuit regarding electronic rights, but it can be found.], I began to hear from people who had, like this couple, gone to a responsible breeder only to end up with a dog with problems. Many of the genetic conditions to which pedigreed dogs are prey do not follow strict lines of inheritance—they skip generations or move through aunts and uncles. They do sort by breed, but that is because those breeds have arisen from a small number of founders—in short, they are inbred, dangerously so, and this tight knit extended family shares most strongly genetic diseases and physical characteristics. Outer beauty conceals inner flaws.

French bulldogs, for example, are prone to von Willebrand’s Disease, a blood disorder, as well as spinal problems, a cleft palate, and heat stroke. Many airlines no longer carry brachycephalic breeds—those with pushed in faces—because they have a tendency to die in flight from breathing problems related to overexcitement.

In light of that, the woman asked, why do so many people spend so much money on these dogs? This conversation occurred months before the sale of a Tibetan mastiff puppy at a luxury pets ’ mart in Hangzhou, China, to a Qingdao property developer for 12-million yuan (about $1.9 million), reportedly a record price for a dog. It is easy here to invoke the 19 th and early 20 th century economist, Thorstein Veblen and his theory of conspicuous consumption.

To Veblen, such dogs are objects of conspicuous consumption, animals with no intrinsic value that nonetheless are made valuable by the fact that someone goes to great lengths to obtain and maintain them despite or because of the expense involved in doing so. Put another way, possession of such a being marks you as a person with so much money that you can obtain and maintain an animal with no useful talent.

That would certainly be the case with the Tibetan mastiff, which according to some assays is merely a reconstruction of a once mighty landrace of large livestock protection dog, which it resembles the way a teddy bear resembles a grizzly cub.

Clearly spending that much on a dog must be considered conspicuous consumption of the most extreme sort. It is also a mordant commentary on the Chinese Revolution, for half a century ago, Mao Zedong sought to rid China of pet dogs he considered objects of bourgeois recidivism—that is, conspicuous consumption.

Currently the recidivists have won. In China and other countries with a growing urban middle class, people are buying more and more dogs, eschewing their local dogs for Western pure breeds. To them, the pedigree signifies quality.

When Veblen used the Pekinese as an example of an object of conspicuous consumption, purebred dogs were relatively new on the scene and well beyond the means of most people. A century later, the dogs are no longer rare, nor are their prices, even at $1,000, so outrageous, especially when buyers are convinced they are getting excellent bloodlines, superior quality, and specific behavioral characteristics.

Those beliefs fuel demands for purebred dogs produced by commercial breeders—let’s just call anyone engaged in the large scale “production” of puppies for profit, a commercial, or mass, breeder, and recognize that some are better than others, which is not an endorsement of any of them.

Demand for purebred dogs shot up following World War II when returning veterans, establishing their lives in burgeoning suburbs, sought them out as accompaniments to their new homes, cars, and families. The pedigree provided by the rapidly expanding American Kennel Club, the largest registry of dogs in the world, proved these acquisitions were not the old family mutt, but refined and sophisticated pets. Demand fueled the growth of mass breeders, pet stores, dog shows, regulations to fence and leash dogs, and unwanted dogs.

I estimate that by some point in the 1990s half of all dogs In America were purebred, and a great many of them were from mass breeders. That was a problem because they too frequently bred dogs without regard for their temperament or genetic soundness and failed to socialize them during the critical first three to four months. If dogs are not socialized to humans during that time, they might have difficulty ever becoming fully socialized and often have behavioral issues.

The problem with these breeders has been known for decades and several national animal advocacy groups have campaigned against them for years without much result. Although there are many political explanations for the failure to end the retail trade in dogs, these groups have not invested in the sort of intense, dedicated campaign required to shut it down.

Instead, we get things like the Humane Society of the United States forming a group, Breeder’ Advisory and Resource Council, to advise it on matters relating to responsible dog breeding.

Mass breeders are a significant part of the problem of purebred dogs, but not the only one. My colleague and fellow Psychology Today blogger, Marc Bekoff , has argued for a full halt to breeding more dogs as long as millions of perfectly fine, adoptable animals await new homes in shelters or the homes of breed rescue group volunteers. With so many dogs in need, he says, the compassionate and humane thing for someone wanting a dog is to adopt one.

I believe he is right, and I would add that the breeding of dogs as it is now done should stop until ways can be found to minimize the risk of a dog being born with an inherited deformity or illness. That includes behavioral problems. These conditions disproportionately seem found in puppy mill dogs, but not exclusively. Some of these conditions, especially cytoskeletal ones like brachycephaly are so extreme that puppies must be delivered by caesarean section and subsequently have difficulty breathing normally and dissipating heat. The book on these inherited ailments is long and growing longer. Most are due to the heavy inbreeding and common use of favored sires in breed formation.

It is worth remembering here, that breeds are formed through consolidation from an existing population, when a few animals are used to create the Platonic ideal of the ‘breed,’ and through amalgamation, in which representatives from several similar landraces are crossed to create the perfect representative of all.

No matter which method was followed, the resulting dog was said to represent the breed in its pure essence and be more intelligent and talented than any of its naturally breeding predecessors. With few exceptions involving specialized behaviors that have been enhanced through selective breeding, that is untrue. Nonetheless, like mantras, the histories of these new breeds and accounts of their prowess were repeated so often, they became truth—to everyone but the rulers of the American Kennel Club. For decades they have publicly maintained that the AKC issued pedigree proving that for three or more generations the dog in question is an official Chesapeake Bay retriever or whatever the case may be does not represent quality, does not guarantee that the dog is healthy or possessed of a good temperament. They did that because they wished to avoid possible consumer lawsuits involving dogs with serious defects and flaws.

Despite those disclaimers, the AKC has continued to a promote the virtues of purebred dogs, like the problematic French bulldog, the eleventh most popular dog it registered in 2013, and the larger English bulldog. It was the fifth most popular breed registered in 2013, even though nearly 72 percent of the bulldogs evaluated by the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals had crippling hip dysplasia; none could whelp naturally.

The argument is sometimes made that breeds are important biological artifacts but, in fact, over the decades breeders have altered their appearance—and perhaps their behavior—and perhaps their behavior—substantially . Many breeders say that they are attempting to improve the breed they love, but the very notion that a breed needs improvement suggests that it has problems.

Few if any breeders can predict that all puppies in a litter will be free of congenital defect, but in many cases the odds are stacked against them from the start by a plethora of problems and conditions associated with their breed. Breeders and kennel clubs should focus on ridding the breeds they love and promote of those inheritable conditions, and the way to do that is to stop engaging in dangerous breeding practices and to avoid breeding dogs who have them in their bloodlines.

Dogs deserve no less.

Mark Derr is the author of How the Dog Became the Dog , Dog's Best Friend , and A Dog's History of America .

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• < Previous Event
• Next Event >

Home > SHU Undergraduate Scholarship > Academic Festival > 2021 > 33

First and Last Name/s of Presenters

Sarah Maybruck Follow

The Unethical Practices Behind Dog Breeding

I would like to thank Professor. Denise Lovett for her advice and feedback on this paper. I would also like to thank my peers Anna Martinelli and Kiersten Keating for their input.

Participation Type

Dogs should not be bred in the way they are bred now. The ethical problems with the breeding industry are vast. While there are several issues within the breeding industry, this paper focuses on the dog breeding industry and its effects that the industry has on the dogs. Ethical arguments are formed through the lenses of Kant, Descartes, and Darwin. Outlined are reasons why the way dog breeding is done is unethical. The way in which the animals are treated, the negative effects on those animals, and the exploration into the violations to those animals' rights are examined. The goal is to inform the general public of the unethical practices behind the breeding of their beloved family dogs. This paper is to act as an eye-opening argument to the reader, so that they no longer buy dogs from pet stores, but adopt instead.

College and Major available

Art & Design

Digital Commons

Start Day/Time

5-5-2021 1:00 PM

End Day/Time

5-5-2021 4:00 PM

Students' Information

Graphic Design Major

Digital Marketing Minor

Digital Communications Minor

Honors Minor

Prize Categories

Best Multidisciplinary Research or Collaboration, Best Visuals, Most Meaningful

Since April 29, 2021

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately, you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Expert Gallery
• Collections
• Disciplines

Author Corner

• SelectedWorks Faculty Guidelines
• Create Account/Submit
• DigitalCommons@SHU: Nuts & Bolts, Policies & Procedures
• Sacred Heart University Library

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

• The Open University
• Guest user / Sign out
• Study with The Open University

My OpenLearn Profile

Personalise your OpenLearn profile, save your favourite content and get recognition for your learning

The selective breeding of dogs

This page was published over 5 years ago. Please be aware that due to the passage of time, the information provided on this page may be out of date or otherwise inaccurate, and any views or opinions expressed may no longer be relevant. Some technical elements such as audio-visual and interactive media may no longer work. For more detail, see how we deal with older content .

Find out more about The Open University's Biology qualification.

When an interesting or useful trait is identified in a dog, owners would breed from that dog in the hope of the trait being passed on. Over many rounds of such breeding attempts, especially where two dogs with the same trait are bred with each other, traits became fixed. If you understand the genetics, you can predict what you can see in a crossbreed.

There are over 400 breeds of dog in the world and all are maintained as pure-bred stocks through selective breeding, which aims to maintain a closed genetic lineage. Most dog traits follow simple genetic rules.

Traits are often referred to as being dominant or recessive . Just like humans, dogs have two copies of each gene (one inherited from mum and one from dad), but the letters making up each gene can be slightly different. If a gene influences for a particular trait (such as hair colour) then slight differences in the letters in a gene can result in differences in hair colour in that animal. Some of these differences dominate over others, so that particular variant of the gene is described as being dominant . In this case, the hidden trait is called recessive . Occasionally, a dog inherits two genes for a recessive trait and you get a surprise!

Some traits and their dog genes:

• IGFR1 : A common recessive variant in this gene can result in a small dog, but only if two copies are present.
• FGF4 : A variant letter in this gene has the dominant effect of shortening leg length, so any dog with one copy from either mum or dad will have short legs.
• FOXI3 : Causes hairlessness and also affects teeth, commonly seen in hairless Mexican, Peruvian, and Chinese crested dogs. In these cases the dogs have one copy of the mutant Foxi3 gene, which means that they have one copy of the normal gene as well. Dogs with two copies of the gene do not survive, so we never see these. If you breed two hairless dogs, some of the offspring will actually inherit two normal genes and will have normal hair, for example, for Chinese crested dogs these are called powder-puffs.

Dog hair types are influenced by variant DNA letters in at least three genes: some FGF5 variants cause silky long hair in dogs such as cocker spaniels, pomeranians and long-haired chihuahuas; variants in the KRT71 can lead to curly hair and the RSP02 gene influences the formation of wiry hair, such as that seen in terriers and schnauzers. In combination, the effect when all three are found together is a coat like a poodle.

In many cases, the effects of differences in other genes can influence each other. For example, many varieties of dog coat colours and patterning behave like this, so predicting the exact colours of offspring can be hard as there are many combinations possible.  Breed standards are often used to define a breed and are used to maintain a particular combination of gene versions and combinations.

Other traits get carried along with the blocks of genetic material on a chromosome housing a gene for a particular trait. Many of which are not wanted or even desirable. Hence many dogs also develop unusual diseases (many of which look very similar to human diseases). Many develop disease including heart disease, cataracts, cancers, deafness and hip dysplasia. This is because genetic mutations that cause these have also been carried along or fixed into these breeds through continual selective breeding.

One example of this is a gene on the X chromosome which leads to a type of muscular dystrophy similar to the human Duchene muscular dystrophy. Dogs that often develop this include golden and Labrador retrievers and Rottweilers. As male dogs only have the one copy of the X chromosome, they are more prone to this disorder.

See selective breeding in action

Try some selective breeding of your own with the Angel Breed game. Just like dogs, you can selectively breed angelfish with defined traits.

Angel Breed

Understand the basic rules of genetics and see if you can breed the rarest fish in our biology game.

Level: 1 Introductory

Take the fin shape as an example, it comes in three varieties (normal, veil and superveil). If every single fish in your tank had the same set of genes, then each time you breed a pair the fin would not change form. So, for example, if you want all your fish to have a superveil, then you need to aim to get fish that are VV only in your tank. You can do this by selling everything else. Once you have all VV fish, it doesn’t matter what combination of breeding pairs you try, they will all be VV as well (check the punnet square in the game instructions). This is a superveil ‘breed’, and while the other two genes can influence the colour and stripes of a fish, fish bred from a pair that both have VV will always remain superveil.

• Aim to get the genetics right; if all your fish have the same two markers at one of the loci (boxes), they will always breed true.
• Here are two examples for you to try:
• Standard silver fish ( ++  ++  ++) are very easy to obtain. If you mate two fish they will only ever produce the same.
• Dark Gold Marble (superveil) has the following genes GMGM  ZZ  VV. If you have two and breed them, they will always only ever produce the same type of fish. Try to get a tank full of these valuable fish!

Read more articles like this

Love labradors? Potty about poodles? Explore the Hound hub to find out more about our furry friends.

Should animals have legal standing?

The law recognises babies, companies and ships as ‘persons’ with legal rights, but not even the most intelligent animals. Is it time for this to change? 

My career goal: Environment

Interested in veterinary or agricultural work, or more industrial work like food farming and sustainable energy? Find out how you can gather skills and carry out work that will have a real impact on our relationship with the environment.

Explore this topic - study a free course

Living psychology: animal minds

Does your pet cat or dog experience emotions the same way you do? Can non-human animals solve complex problems? To what extent do other species have minds that are like human minds? This free course, Living psychology: animal minds, explores these, and other, issues in the psychology of animal minds. Studying animal minds is of great importance ...

Free course

Level: 2 Intermediate

What do genes do?

This free course, What do genes do?,  explores how information contained in DNA is used, explaining the flow of information from DNA to RNA to protein. Also introduced are the concepts of transcription (as occurs between DNA and RNA) and translation.

Introducing mammals

Mammals come in a bewildering variety of shapes and sizes, and yet all species have some characteristics in common. These similarities justify the inclusion of all such diverse types within the single taxonomic group (or class) called the Mammalia. This free course, Introducing mammals, offers a starting point for the study of mammals. It will ...

Become an OU student

Ratings & comments, share this free course, copyright information, publication details.

• Originally published: Thursday, 29 August 2013
• Body text - Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 : The Open University
• Image 'Small puppy laying in the grass in a park' - Copyright: © Caleb Foster | Dreamstime.com
• Image 'What do genes do?' - Copyright: Used with permission
• Image 'Introducing mammals' - Copyright free
• Image 'Living psychology: animal minds' - Copyright: © Michael Neugebauer/Dr Goodall and the Jane Goodall Institute do not endorse handling or interfering with wild chimpanzees. The orphaned chimpanzee in this photo lives at a JGI sanctuary
• Image 'My career goal: Environment' - https://pxhere.com/en/photo/1104676 under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
• Image 'Hound hub' - Copyright: © Melektaus83 | Dreamstime.com
• Image 'Angel Breed' - The Open University under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
• Image 'Should animals have legal standing?' - Copyright free: Image by Marcel Langthim from Pixabay.

Rate and Review

Rate this article, review this article.

Log into OpenLearn to leave reviews and join in the conversation.

Article reviews

For further information, take a look at our frequently asked questions which may give you the support you need.

Expository Essay

Expository Essay About Dogs

Expository Essay About Dogs: Steps, Examples & Topics

People also read

Complete Guide to Expository Essays: Writing Help and Topics

Interesting Expository Essay Topics For Your Next Paper

How to Write an Expository Essay Outline Like a Pro

Types of Expository Writing - Definition and Examples

Free Expository Essay Examples For Students

Ultimate Guide to Writing an Expository Essay About a Person

Learn to Write an Expository Essay About Yourself

Learn the Basics of Crafting an Expository Essay about a Book

Learn to Write Expository Essay About Mental Health - Examples & Tips

How to Write an Expository Essay about Bullying: A Guide

A Guide to Writing an Expository Essay about Education

Expository Essay About Friendship: A Writing Guide

Discover How to Write Expository Essays About Music – A Step-by-Step Guide

Are you writing an expository essay about dogs? Do you need help with how to do it?

Writing an essay about man's best friend can be really interesting and fun. However, it can also be frustrating if you don't know where to start.

But don't fret! This guide is here to make to help you write the perfect expository essay about dogs.

In this blog, you'll get sample essays, writing steps, and helpful tips. In short, everything you need to craft a perfect essay on dogs.

So read on!

• 1. What is Expository Essay?
• 2. Steps For Writing an Expository Essay About Dogs
• 3. Expository Essay About Dogs Examples
• 4. Essay About Dogs Topics

What is Expository Essay?

An expository essay is a type of academic writing that is used to explain something or describe it in detail. It's often written in a more academic tone and style.

So how would you write an expository essay about our good companions?

The purpose of an expository essay about dogs is to provide facts and information about the topic. It should be well-researched with reliable sources and organized in a logical way.

For example, when writing about a specific dog breed, you mention information about their behavior, history, and characteristics.

Now that you have some ideas for what to write about, let’s move on to the writing steps.

Steps For Writing an Expository Essay About Dogs

Writing an essay about dogs can be a fun experience – but only if you have clear and structured steps. 

Here is a step-by-step guide for writing a good essay about dogs

Step 1 – Choose a Topic 

Choosing the right topic for your essay is an important first step. You know your topic should be related to dogs, but that’s not enough to choose a good topic. Here are some tips to help you out:

• It’s best to pick a topic that isn’t too broad or narrow. For example, you could write about a specific breed of dog, dog training techniques, the history of dogs in art, or the role of dogs in therapy.
• Moreover, choose a topic that is interesting and unique. This can make your essay stand out and pique the reader's interest.
• Make sure you have enough information and research material available on the subject. Having access to credible sources and reference materials is essential for supporting your arguments and claims.

Step 2 – Do Research

Researching your topic is an essential step toward making your essay credible. You can use books, online resources, articles, and other materials for reference. Gather facts, statistics, and opinions from reliable sources to back up your essay’s claims.

Moreover, make sure to cite all the sources accurately in your essay.

Step 3 – Write an Outline

Once you are done with research, the next step is to write an expository essay outline . An essay outline helps you organize your thoughts and makes writing easier. It also helps you stay on track and makes sure all the information is in a logical order.

Here is how to make an outline:

Step 4 – Start Writing Your First Draft

Now comes the fun part – writing!

Start with an attention-grabbing essay introduction and provide a brief overview of the topic. For example, you could start by talking about how dogs are one of the most popular pets in the world.

Then go on to explain your points and back them up with evidence from reliable sources. Each paragraph should be focused on only one main point.

In addition, make sure each body paragraph links to the next one through transition words and that they all support your main argument.

Finally, end your essay with a conclusion that neatly wraps up the points you made in the body of your essay.

Step 5 – Proofread and Edit

Proofreading and editing are essential parts of the essay-writing process. Take your time to go over your essay and make sure it’s free from any mistakes. Check the grammar, spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, etc.

Also, look for any factual inaccuracies or areas that can be improved upon. Revise and rewrite until you are happy with the final product.

These are the steps for writing a good essay about dogs. With these guidelines in mind, you can write an impressive essay that will get you high grades. 

Let's read a few essay samples to get an idea.

Expository Essay About Dogs Examples

Check out these short essay samples. Reading these examples will give you an idea of what you can do with your own essay.

Why Are Dogs Important Essay Example PDF

5 Paragraph Essay About Dogs - PDF Example

Dog Essay 300 Words - Free PDF Sample

Check out more expository essay examples on various other topics to learn more.

Essay About Dogs Topics

There is so much to write about Dogs. They are one of the most popular pets in the world. According to the American Kennel Club, there are over 78 million dogs in homes across the United States.

People love pet dogs for a variety of reasons – they are loyal companions, great protectors, and fun-loving friends.  So there is a lot of room for you when deciding a topic.

Here are a few topic ideas to get you started:

• How german shepherds make great police dogs 
• The medical benefits of having a dog living with you
• The strong sense of smell in dogs and its uses 
• The intelligence of different breeds of dog 
• Dog adoption and the importance of rescuing abandoned domestic dogs 
• Examining the relationship between Dogs and humans throughout history
• Common health problems in smaller-sized dog breeds.
• The Golden Retriever: characteristics and behavior
• The role of dogs in therapy, emotional support, and reducing stress
• The history of dogs as domestic animals

These topics will help you come up with your own topic. 

You can also check out some general expository essay topics to help you brainstorm.

To wrap it up, 

Dogs are beloved companions and have been an important part of people's lives for centuries. Writing an essay about dogs can be fun if you follow the proper steps.

With the steps and examples above, you now know how to write an essay about dogs. So don’t hesitate and start writing!

Still require help to write your essay? Worry no more!

Contact MyPerfectWords.com , the best essay writing service online . We guarantee you an essay that is well-written and free from any mistakes. Moreover, we also ensure plagiarism-free essays that are always delivered within the deadline.

So get in touch with our expository essay writing service today and expereince excellence!

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Life Dog

Why Dogs are the Best Pets: Exploting Persuasive Arguments

Table of contents, unconditional love and loyalty, stress relief and emotional support, encouragement of physical activity, enhanced social interactions, protection and security.

• Odendaal, J. S. (2000). Animal-assisted therapy—Magic or medicine? Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 49(4), 275-280.
• Anderson, W. P., & Reid, C. M. (1992). The short-term effects of pet therapy on the elderly. Gerontology, 38(6), 307-310.
• Wood, L., Martin, K., Christian, H., Nathan, A., Lauritsen, C., Houghton, S., ... & McCune, S. (2015). The pet factor—Companion animals as a conduit for getting to know people, friendship formation and social support. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0122085.
• Wells, D. L. (2009). The effects of animals on human health and well-being. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 523-543.
• Nagasawa, M., Mogi, K., & Kikusui, T. (2009). Attachment between humans and dogs. Japanese Psychological Research, 51(3), 209-221.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Valentines Day
• Personal Strengths

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Essay on Dog for Students and Children

500+ words essay on dog.

The dog is a pet animal. A dog has sharp teeth so that it can eat flesh very easily, it has four legs, two ears, two eyes, a tail, a mouth, and a nose. It is a very clever animal and is very useful in catching thieves. It runs very fast, barks loudly and attacks the strangers. A dog saves the life of the master from danger. One can find dogs everywhere in the world. Dogs are a very faithful animal. It has a sharp mind and a strong sense of hearing smelling the things. It also has many qualities like swimming in the water, jumping from anywhere, good smelling sense.

Importance of Dog

A dog has a strong power of smell . They are more liked by people because of their faithfulness. They are intelligent, they are watchfulness. The dogs have many colors such as grey, white, black, brown and red. They are of many kinds such as bloodhound, greyhound, german shepherd, Labrador, Rottweiler, bulldog poodle, etc.

Usually, the dog eats fish, meat, milk, rice, bread, etc. Dogs are sometimes called canines. Dogs are sometimes referred to as man’s best friend because they are kept as domestic pets and are usually loyal and like being around humans. They are also helpful in reducing stress, anxiety, and depression, loneliness, encourage exercise and playfulness and even improve your cardiovascular health. A dog also provides valuable companionship for older adults.

The dogs are so loyal to his master that nothing can induce him to leave his master. His master might be a poor man or even a beggar but still, the dog will not leave his master from far off. Dogs see their master coming home from work they rush to them and jump on them to show their love. Dogs are honest friends who are always ready to die to save a friend. It can bite a thief or stranger when they ignore its barking and try to mischief. Dogs always give security to the owner day and night.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Life Span 0f a Dog

The lifespan of a dog is very small however it can live around 12-15 years long which depend on their size such as smaller dogs lives a longer life. A female dog gives birth to a baby and feed milk that’s why dogs under the mammal category. The dog baby is called a puppy or pup and dog home is called kennel. Dogs are categorized according to their service to people such as guard dogs, herding dogs, hunting dogs, police dogs, guide dogs, sniffer dogs, etc. It has a strong power of smell with the assistance of police can arrest murderers, thieves, and dacoits. The Military trains the dogs to track and detect bombs.

Need for Dogs

Detection dogs can be employed at airports, police stations, borders, and schools. Tracking and Hunting dogs, hounds, terriers, and dachshund are the most popular types of hunting and tracking dogs. These dogs are trained to be the eyes, ears, and retrievers for their human companions.

Dogs are a very excellent swimmer. They are really a very helpful pet animal. He respects his owner from the heart and can easily guess his/ her presence through their smell. We should take good care of it and keep them in good condition.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

What Are Dog Papers? The Importance and Significance

Dog papers, often referred to as canine registration or pedigree papers, are official documents that provide essential information about a dog's identity, lineage, and health history. These documents play a crucial role in verifying a dog's authenticity, legal ownership, and eligibility for various activities, such as breeding, showing, and international travel.

Types of Dog Papers

In the realm of canine documentation, various types of papers hold distinct significance, each serving a specific purpose within the domain of dog ownership, breeding, and registration. These documents, often referred to collectively as "dog papers," are pivotal in the verification of a dog's pedigree, lineage, and health history. The ensuing discourse comprehensively delineates these papers, shedding light on their respective attributes and functions.

Registration Papers

Registration papers, as the foundational documents in the world of dog papers, are instrumental in the formal recognition of a dog's breed and pertinent information. Typically issued by kennel clubs and breed registries, these papers corroborate the breed, date of birth, and parentage of a given dog. As such, they are crucial in substantiating the dog's pedigree and breed authenticity, bestowing upon the owner a testament to their dog's breed identity.

Pedigree Papers

A step beyond mere registration, pedigree papers unveil the intricate tapestry of a dog's lineage. These documents traverse multiple generations of ancestors, offering a panoramic view of the dog's genetic heritage. This comprehensive lineage documentation aids breeders in making informed decisions regarding breeding pairings, ensuring the preservation of breed standards, and the propagation of desirable traits.

Health Certificates

In the pursuit of holistic dog documentation, health certificates occupy a pivotal role. These papers bear testimony to the health status of a canine companion, encompassing vital details such as vaccination records, medical treatments, and existing health conditions. Health certificates are indispensable for safeguarding the well-being of the dog, assuring potential buyers, and facilitating international travel where stringent health requirements are imposed.

How to Obtain Dog Papers

The acquisition of dog papers is a meticulous process, often entailing adherence to specific protocols and requirements. Attaining these documents is contingent on the type of paper sought, be it registration, pedigree, or health certificate. Below, we delineate the methodologies involved in obtaining these quintessential dog papers.

Registration Process

The procurement of registration papers necessitates adherence to a structured process, typically outlined by the issuing authority, which is commonly a recognized kennel club or breed registry. The procedure entails the following key steps:

• Selection of a Reputable Kennel Club: Dog owners must commence by selecting a kennel club or breed registry that is recognized and sanctioned within their geographical region or the pertinent breed's domain.
• Submission of Documentation: Owners are required to furnish comprehensive documentation about their dog, including precise information regarding the dog's lineage and health records. The completeness and accuracy of these records are paramount.
• Payment of Fees: The issuance of registration papers is not devoid of fiscal considerations. Applicants must be prepared to cover the requisite registration fees, as delineated by the issuing authority.
• Approval and Document Issuance: Subsequent to the submission of the requisite documentation and the fulfillment of financial obligations, applicants must await the review and approval of their application. Upon meeting the stipulated criteria, the registration papers are duly issued, formalizing the dog's breed identity.

Pedigree Documentation

The acquisition of pedigree papers necessitates a deeper exploration into the ancestral lineage of the dog. This process can be succinctly summarized as follows:

• Researching Ancestry: Owners must embark on a comprehensive quest to unearth information regarding their dog's ancestors. This quest includes tracing lineage back through multiple generations and identifying noteworthy progenitors.
• Contacting the Breed Registry: Once ancestral information is collated, the owner must initiate contact with the relevant breed registry. Here, the owner requests pedigree papers.
• Submission of Proof: The authenticity of the dog's lineage must be substantiated through certified documentation and proof. This may include, but is not limited to, certificates of lineage, historical records, and genetic testing.
• Payment of Fees: As with the registration process, the acquisition of pedigree papers incurs financial obligations, encompassing fees for the issuance and authentication of the pedigree documentation.

Health Records and Certificates

For health certificates, the process primarily revolves around the diligent monitoring of the dog's health status and the facilitation of accurate record-keeping:

• How Often Vet : Owners are enjoined to ensure that their canine companions receive periodic veterinary care. This entails routine health check-ups, vaccinations , and necessary medical treatments.
• Maintenance of Vaccination Records: A fundamental facet of health certificates is the meticulous maintenance of vaccination records. These records serve as a testament to the dog's immunization status, thereby contributing to public health and ensuring the dog's well-being.
• Requesting Health Certificates: Health certificates are typically issued by qualified veterinarians, particularly in circumstances where a dog's health status needs to be documented. This may be requisite for international travel, participation in dog shows , or breeding purposes.

Why Dog Papers Matter

Dog papers hold significant importance for several reasons:

Legal Ownership

Dog papers establish legal ownership, helping prevent disputes over ownership rights.

Breeding and Show Purposes

For breeders, pedigree and registration papers are essential for ensuring the purity of a breed and participating in dog shows.

Health and Genetic Information

Health certificates provide valuable information about a dog's health history, enabling owners to make informed decisions regarding their pet's well-being.

The Significance of Pedigree Papers

Pedigree papers, as an integral component of the canine documentation milieu, hold profound significance in the domain of responsible dog ownership, breeding, and the preservation of breed integrity. These papers, laden with ancestral narratives and genetic legacies, bestow upon dog owners a wealth of information that transcends mere lineage documentation. The ensuing discourse expounds upon the multifaceted significance of pedigree papers in the realm of canine stewardship.

Understanding Pedigrees

At its core, a pedigree represents a meticulously curated family tree for a dog, chronicling its lineage through successive generations. This intricate genealogical tapestry serves as an invaluable resource for breeders and enthusiasts alike. It offers insights into the genetic heritage of a dog, affording a window into the traits, tendencies, and idiosyncrasies that course through its bloodline. This comprehension empowers breeders to make judicious decisions in pairing dogs for breeding, aiming to perpetuate desirable qualities and eliminate hereditary health issues.

Ensuring Purebred Status

For breeds that adhere to strict breed standards, pedigree papers are the litmus test for purebred authenticity. The documented lineage, replete with certified parentage and ancestral records, attests to the dog's unbroken heritage within a specific breed. This confirmation of purebred status is not merely a matter of pride for breeders and owners; it is the bedrock upon which breed integrity is established and maintained.

Heritage and Lineage

Beyond the pragmatic considerations of breeding, pedigree papers bestow upon dog owners a profound sense of connection to their canine companion's heritage. They reveal the story of a dog's lineage, tracing its footsteps through time and geography. This connection to the past fosters a deeper appreciation for the breed's history and the pivotal role it has played in the lives of humans. Pedigree papers, in this context, serve as the narrative thread that weaves the dog into the fabric of a broader historical tapestry.

Ensuring Authenticity

The veracity of pedigree papers is a matter of paramount importance, for they underpin the authenticity of a dog's lineage and, by extension, its breed status. In a landscape where fraudulent documentation can undermine the integrity of breed registries and breeding programs, ensuring the authenticity of pedigree papers assumes critical significance.

Identifying Genuine Dog Papers

Distinguishing authentic pedigree papers from counterfeit or spurious documents necessitates a discerning eye. Genuine pedigree papers typically bear the imprimatur of recognized kennel clubs or breed registries. These documents often feature official seals, watermarks, and other security features that are challenging to replicate. Dog owners and breeders are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the distinctive markers of authenticity associated with the issuing authority to minimize the risk of unwittingly engaging with fraudulent documentation.

Avoiding Fraudulent Documents

The prevalence of fraudulent pedigree papers in the dog breeding world underscores the importance of vigilance. Prospective dog owners and breeders should exercise caution when encountering offers that seem too good to be true or documents that lack the hallmarks of credibility. Due diligence in verifying the authenticity of both the dog and its papers is an essential safeguard against potential scams or misrepresentations.

Verifying Information

In an era characterized by digital interconnectedness, the verification of pedigree information can be expedited through online resources and databases maintained by kennel clubs and breed registries. These repositories serve as repositories of legitimate pedigree information, enabling concerned parties to cross-reference the details presented in pedigree papers. Cross-referencing the information contained within pedigree papers with these authoritative databases is a prudent practice that reinforces the authenticity of the documented lineage.

The Role of Health Certificates

Health history.

Health certificates provide a comprehensive history of a dog's medical condition and treatments.

Vaccination Records

They include vaccination records, helping prevent the spread of diseases, and ensuring the dog's well-being.

Importance for Breeders

Breeders rely on health certificates to make informed decisions about breeding and ensuring the health of their breeding dogs.

Dog Papers in Different Countries

The realm of dog papers, encompassing registration, pedigree documentation, and health certificates, exhibits notable variations in form and function across diverse geographical regions. These disparities are chiefly attributed to the differing regulations, standards, and practices upheld by individual countries. The ensuing discussion elucidates the variances in dog papers, underscoring the importance of comprehending these distinctions when navigating the intricate landscape of canine documentation on a global scale.

Variations in Regulations

One salient facet of the diversity in dog papers lies in the regulatory frameworks established by individual countries. These regulations are often formulated by national kennel clubs or breed registries, and they delineate the specific criteria, procedures, and prerequisites governing the issuance of dog papers. Consequently, the breed standards, documentation requirements, and eligibility criteria for registration, pedigree, and health certificates may vary significantly from one country to another.

For instance, a breed recognized and documented as purebred in one country may encounter distinct classification criteria or procedural prerequisites when introduced to a different geographical context. Such variations necessitate meticulous research and adherence to the regulatory guidelines stipulated by the authorities in the respective country.

International Standards

In contrast to the idiosyncratic regulations observed at the national level, there exists a parallel framework of international standards about dog papers, particularly in the context of international travel and competition. These standards are often promulgated by international kennel clubs and organizations, such as the Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI).

International standards for dog papers serve the essential purpose of harmonizing documentation requirements across borders, facilitating the seamless movement of dogs across nations, and ensuring that the essential criteria for breed identification, health verification, and pedigree documentation are upheld consistently. Dog owners who aspire to engage in international activities with their canine companions must be acutely aware of these standards, as non-compliance can result in impediments to travel and participation.

It is incumbent upon individuals involved in the international dog community to meticulously align their dog's papers with these internationally recognized standards to obviate potential challenges and discrepancies upon entering foreign territories.

Challenges in Obtaining Dog Papers

The process of obtaining dog papers, notwithstanding the variations between countries, is characterized by inherent challenges that transcend geographical boundaries. These challenges, often encountered by happy dog owners and breeders alike, merit comprehensive consideration.

Lost or Missing Documents

One perennial challenge pertains to the preservation and safeguarding of dog papers. Over time, documents may become lost, damaged, or inadvertently misplaced, leading to a scenario where dog owners must navigate the process of replacing or reissuing these crucial documents. This often entails the reconstruction of ancestral lineage and health records, a process that can be time-consuming and necessitate additional costs.

Breed-Specific Requirements

Certain dog breeds are subject to breed-specific requirements and regulations that may not apply to others. These requirements can encompass stringent health screening, genetic testing, and adherence to specific breed standards. Navigating these breed-specific prerequisites can pose challenges for breeders, particularly those who work with breeds subject to exacting standards.

Cost and Time Involved

The pursuit of dog papers inevitably entails financial considerations, ranging from registration fees to the costs associated with veterinary examinations, genetic testing, and documentation authentication. Additionally, the process of obtaining dog papers can be protracted, involving waiting periods and administrative procedures that necessitate both patience and diligence.

In conclusion, dog papers are essential documents for dog owners, breeders, and enthusiasts. They provide a wealth of information about a dog's identity, lineage, and health history. Understanding the various types of dog papers and how to obtain them is crucial for responsible dog ownership. These documents not only establish legal ownership but also play a significant role in maintaining breed standards, ensuring the health of dogs, and preserving their heritage.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

• Dog papers are typically more relevant for purebred dogs, especially when it comes to breeding and showing. However, they can also be beneficial for all dogs, as they provide valuable health information.
• While it may be possible to obtain registration or pedigree papers for mixed-breed dogs in some cases, the process is generally geared towards purebred dogs.
• If you lose your dog's papers, contact the issuing organization or kennel club to inquire about reissuing them. Be prepared to provide any necessary documentation.
• When buying a dog, ask for the seller's documentation and verify it with the issuing organization. Look for official seals, watermarks, and other security features.
• Yes, there are international standards for pet travel documents. Ensure your dog's papers meet the requirements of the destination country and international regulations.

You might also like

Learn how to potty train your shiba inu quickly, australian shepherd vs. mini australian shepherd a comparison, discover the fi collar.

Home — Essay Samples — Science — Zoology — Dog Breeds

Essays on Dog Breeds

Pitbulls should not be banned, argumentative paper: the banning of pit bulls, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Most Dangerous Dog Breed in The World

Overview of the chihuahua breed, overview of the chow chow dog breed, overview of the australian terrier, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Overview of The Border Collie Dog

Overview of the akita canin breed, overview of the cairn terrier, overview of the thai ridgeback dog, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Role of Media in Creating a Negative Reputation for "Aggressive" Dog Breeds

The american water spaniel, overview of the american eskimo dog, the mixture of wolf and dog dna through genetic modification, relevant topics.

• Killer Whales

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• March Madness
• AP Top 25 Poll
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

French bulldogs remain the most popular US breed in new rankings. Many fans aren’t happy

FILE - Winston, a French bulldog, competes in the non-sporting group competition during the 147th Westminster Kennel Club Dog show, Monday, May 8, 2023, in New York. Frenchies remained the United States’ most commonly registered purebred dogs last year, according to American Kennel Club rankings released Wednesday, March 20, 2024. After French bulldogs, the most common breeds registered were Labs, golden retrievers, German shepherds, poodles and others. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File)

FILE - Memo, a Labrador retriever, competes in the sporting group during the 142nd Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, at Madison Square Garden in New York, Feb. 13, 2018. Frenchies remained the United States’ most commonly registered purebred dogs last year, according to American Kennel Club rankings released Wednesday, March 20, 2024. After French bulldogs, the most common breeds registered were Labs, golden retrievers, German shepherds, poodles, and others. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File)

FILE - Daniel, a golden retriever, wins the sporting group during 144th Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, Feb. 11, 2020, in New York. Frenchies remained the United States’ most commonly registered purebred dogs last year, according to American Kennel Club rankings released Wednesday, March 20, 2024. After French bulldogs, the most common breeds registered were Labs, golden retrievers, German shepherds, poodles, and others. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)

FILE - Lily, a miniature poodle, competes in the non-sporting group competition during the 147th Westminster Kennel Club Dog show, Monday, May 8, 2023, in New York. Frenchies remained the United States’ most commonly registered purebred dogs last year, according to American Kennel Club rankings released Wednesday, March 20, 2024. After French bulldogs, the most common breeds registered were Labs, golden retrievers, German shepherds, poodles, and others. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File)

FILE - A long-haired dachshund competes during the 140th Westminster Kennel Club dog show, Monday, Feb. 15, 2016, at Madison Square Garden in New York. Frenchies remained the United States’ most commonly registered purebred dogs last year, according to American Kennel Club rankings released Wednesday, March 20, 2024. After French bulldogs, the most common breeds registered were Labs, golden retrievers, German shepherds, and poodles. Then came dachshunds, bulldogs, beagles, and others. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File)

FILE - Star, a bulldog, competes in the non-sporting group competition during the 147th Westminster Kennel Club Dog show, Monday, May 8, 2023, in New York. Frenchies remained the United States’ most commonly registered purebred dogs last year, according to American Kennel Club rankings released Wednesday, March 20, 2024. After French bulldogs, the most common breeds registered were Labs, golden retrievers, German shepherds, and poodles. Then came dachshunds, bulldogs, beagles, and others. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File)

FILE - Miss P, a 15-inch beagle, competes at the Westminster Kennel Club dog show in New York, Feb. 17, 2015. Frenchies remained the United States’ most commonly registered purebred dogs last year, according to American Kennel Club rankings released Wednesday, March 20, 2024. After French bulldogs, the most common breeds registered were Labs, golden retrievers, German shepherds, and poodles. Then came dachshunds, bulldogs, beagles, and others. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File)

FILE - A Rottweiler competes at the 140th Westminster Kennel Club dog show at Madison Square Garden in New York, Feb. 16, 2016. Frenchies remained the United States’ most commonly registered purebred dogs last year, according to American Kennel Club rankings released Wednesday, March 20, 2024. After French bulldogs, the most common breeds registered were Labs, golden retrievers, German shepherds, poodles, and others, including Rottweilers and German shorthaired pointers. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File)

FILE - A cane corso competes at the 140th Westminster Kennel Club dog show, Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2016, at Madison Square Garden in New York. French bulldogs remained the United States’ most commonly registered purebred dogs last year, according to American Kennel Club rankings released Wednesday, March 20, 2024. The cane corso is now 16th in the rankings. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File)

FILE - Toby, 5, left, and Izzy, 4, both sloughi dogs, are introduced at the 141st Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show press conference, Monday Jan. 30, 2017, in New York. French bulldogs remained the United States’ most commonly registered purebred dogs last year, according to American Kennel Club rankings released Wednesday, March 20, 2024. The sloughi was rarest among last year’s registrations. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews, File)

FILE - CJ, a German shorthaired pointer, competes at the 140th Westminster Kennel Club dog show, Feb. 16, 2016, at Madison Square Garden, in New York. Frenchies remained the United States’ most commonly registered purebred dogs last year, according to American Kennel Club rankings released Wednesday, March 20, 2024. After French bulldogs, the most common breeds registered were Labs, golden retrievers, German shepherds, poodles, and others, including Rottweilers and German shorthaired pointers. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File)

FILE - Lepshi, bracco Italiano, a competes in the sporting group competition during the 147th Westminster Kennel Club Dog show, Tuesday, May 9, 2023, in New York. French bulldogs remained the United States’ most commonly registered purebred dogs last year, according to American Kennel Club rankings released Wednesday, March 20, 2024. The bracco Italiano debuts in the standings at 152nd most popular. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File)

• Copy Link copied

NEW YORK (AP) — French bulldogs. U.S. dog owners. C’est l’amour.

Frenchies remained the United States’ most commonly registered purebred dogs last year, according to American Kennel Club rankings released Wednesday. The club calls the Frenchie the most popular breed, though other canine constituencies may beg to differ.

Is it a coup to be celebrated? Au contraire, say longtime fans who rue what popularity is doing to the breed. Nevertheless, after lapping Labrador retrievers to take the top spot in 2022 , the bat-eared, scaled-down bulldogs held on in the new standings, which reflect puppies and other dogs that were added last year to the United States’ oldest dog registry.

Meanwhile, dachshunds are at a nearly two-decade peak, the cane corso is making moves, and there’s a new breed in the mix.

Of course, purebreds are only part of the canine population in the U.S., where animal shelters faced an influx of all sorts of dogs last year. Here’s a snapshot:

AP AUDIO: French bulldogs remain the most popular US breed in new rankings. Many fans aren’t happy.

AP correspondent Donna Warder reports on the most popular pure-bred dog in the U.S.

After Frenchies, the most common breeds registered were Labs, golden retrievers, German shepherds and poodles. Then came dachshunds, bulldogs, beagles, Rottweilers and German shorthaired pointers.

All were also in the top 10 in 2022. A decade ago, Yorkshire terriers and boxers were in the group. Go back a half-century, and the third most popular breed was the Irish setter — now 76th.

Pooch preferences shift for reasons ranging from media exposure (social and otherwise) to changing lifestyles as more Americans have moved to cities.

The statistics have limits. Registration is voluntary, the AKC releases few raw numbers, and the popularity rankings measure only the club’s roughly 200 recognized breeds. They don’t include doodles, other deliberate hybrids or everyday mixed-breed dogs, though those can be registered as “all-American dogs” for such sports as agility and obedience .

THE FRENCHIE MALAISE

Nearly 98,500 French bulldogs joined the AKC pack last year, after a whopping 108,000 in 2022.

The small, solidly built, push-faced dogs have a penchant for comically pensive expressions and often take city living in stride. “They’re interesting little beings,” says Naneice Bucci, who has owned and shown them for decades.

The breed also is now a lightning rod for canine controversy and cultural critique .

There are the foreshortened snouts that can result in labored breathing, gagging, difficulty with exercise and other ills — concerns that prompted the Netherlands to ban breeding certain individual dogs with muzzles deemed too short. There are pet-store heists and violent robberies , at least one of them deadly . There’s a proliferation of Frenchies with unusual coat colors and textures, which have Frenchie folk squabbling over longtime standards.

And there’s concern among long-timers that the hot market for puppies is incentivizing people who are in it for greed, not the breed.

To Bucci, “it’s a very scary time.”

As a “preservation breeder” who follows AKC standards and conducts a battery of internationally recommended health tests before her dogs reproduce, she dreads that breeders who don’t do likewise may lead to crackdowns on everyone. And as a founder of Nevada French Bulldog Rescue, she also sees “all of the underbelly of the people who breed indiscriminately.”

“Every time we take in a Frenchie that’s in terrible condition, yes, I get angry,” says Bucci, who lives near Reno. “But at the same time, I don’t want to be punished for trying to do it right.”

DACHSHUND REDUX

Among other breeds, the unmistakable, low-slung dachshund is riding high at No. 6, its highest ranking since 2004. The dogs ranked as high as third at times in the 1950s-70s.

Their combination of sprightly cuteness, small size and determination — they were originally bred to roust badgers — endear them to many . They also have a full-sized bark and a tendency toward stubbornness.

“Even though they’re small, people have to remember: They are hounds,” says Carole Krivanich of Milton, Delaware, whose nearly 15-year-old dachshund Mo is an agility and show champion. A longtime Rottweiler owner, she’s found dachshunds to be “very versatile” and good companions.

ON A COURSE FOR PUP-ULARITY

The cane corso (pronounced CAH’-neh COOR’-soh) is now 16th in the rankings, remarkable for a breed the AKC first started counting as recently as 2010. (Perhaps it helped that owners have included such figures as NBA great LeBron James and Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes .)

The dogs are praised as protective, trainable and attached to their people. But the strong breed is “not for somebody that doesn’t know how to control a dog,” AKC spokesperson Brandi Hunter Munden says.

The bracco Italiano debuts in the standings at 152nd most popular. But the large, long-eared bird-hunters aren’t exactly obscure. Country music power couple Tim McGraw and Faith Hill have shared the antics of their bracchi Italiani (that’s the proper plural) on social media. A bracco co-owned by McGraw notched a first-round “best of breed” win at the prestigious Westminster Kennel Club dog show last year.

The sloughi was rarest among last year’s registrations. Sometimes called Arabian greyhounds, the fleet, somewhat shy dogs joined the AKC pack in 2016 .

GIMME SHELTER

While dogs from affenpinschers to Xoloitzcuintlis were bred last year, U.S. animal shelters were already brimming with dogs and cats . Shelters and rescue groups took in about 3.2 million dogs, while 2.2 million dogs were adopted, according to Shelter Animals Count, a nonprofit that gathers shelter data.

There’s “a need for a renewed effort to make adoption a priority for the community,” says the group’s executive director, Stephanie Filer. Shelters have a wide variety of dogs to offer, including specific breeds, she notes.

Hunter Munden, the AKC’s spokesperson, has two rescue dogs and a purebred herself.

“Rescue is wonderful,” she said. “However, we do understand that people want specific characteristics to fit their lifestyle, when it comes to dog ownership, and that’s where purebred dogs come in.”

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

The French bulldog sits, stays at the top of U.S. dog owners' hearts

Rebecca Rosman

The French bulldog is America's most popular breed, according to the American Kennel Club. This one, Manny The Frenchie, attended Time Inc.'s 2017 PetHero Pet Party to benefit animals impacted by hurricanes. Astrid Stawiarz/Getty Images for PetHero hide caption

The French bulldog is America's most popular breed, according to the American Kennel Club. This one, Manny The Frenchie, attended Time Inc.'s 2017 PetHero Pet Party to benefit animals impacted by hurricanes.

It's official — the French have captured the hearts of Americans.

Or, the French bulldog has, anyway.

According to the latest statistics from the American Kennel Club released Wednesday, the dog popularly known as the Frenchie has held its crown as America's most popular dog breed for the second year in a row.

The small but mighty French bulldog is now the top purebred dog breed in America

The bat-eared, smushed-nose, wrinkly-faced pups beat out roughly 200 other breeds to be named top dog, with the AKC saying it registered close to 98,500 Frenchies in 2023.

Rounding out the top five most common registered breeds were Labradors, golden retrievers, German shepherds and poodles.

The AKC statistic does have its limits. Registration is voluntary and it only ranks the club's 200 recognized breeds, which doesn't include hybrids such as goldendoodles or pomskies.

But there's no denying the Frenchies rapid ascension as America's most popular dog breed. Registrations for the snaggletooth pups have increased by more than 1,000% since 2012. Frenchies first took the survey's top spot in 2022, dethroning the Labrador retriever.

The Most Popular Dog Breeds Of 2020: Labs And French Bulldogs

The breed does, however, remain controversial.

Critics point to the canine's short snouts, which can lead to breathing problems, heat strokes and other health issues.

Some also say the Frenchie's appeal is due to good marketing and aesthetics.

With demand so high, the average price ranges between $1,500 to $3,000. A string of Frenchie thefts across the country means the breed is also the most stolen dog.

5 Facing Charges Over Shooting Of Lady Gaga's Dog Walker And Theft Of French Bulldogs

Perhaps one of the most famous Frenchie robberies in recent history took place in 2021, when Lady Gaga's two French bulldogs, Koji and Gustav, were stolen at gunpoint from her dog walker, Ryan Fischer, while he was walking them in Hollywood.

A woman eventually returned the dogs, but was later charged with stealing stolen property. Four others were charged in connection to the theft.

• French bulldogs

French bulldog revealed as most popular dog breed by American Kennel Club

For the second year in a row, the French bulldog has claimed the top spot.

For the second year in a row, the French bulldog has claimed the top spot as the most favorite dog in America.

Joined by three "frenchies," — Barnie, Uma and Kiro — Brandi Munden, Vice President of Communications & PR from American Kennel Club, stopped by " Good Morning America " on Wednesday to reveal the most popular dog breeds in 2023, according to the club's registration statistics.

AKC reminded the public that the popularity of a breed doesn't determine its compatibility with an owner. The club advised potential puppy buyers to take into consideration the dog's temperament, size, and energy level before choosing to adopt them.

Meet the top dogs below.

1. French bulldog

According to AKC, the French bulldog's popularity has continued to increase since being crowned as the most famous breed last year. The dog is affectionate, playful, adaptable, and has an even temperament, AKC said, adding the breed is also the top choice for city dwellers as they get along with almost everyone. The dog also has easy-to-care-for short coats.

Editor’s Picks

Labrador retriever named American Kennel Club's most popular dog breed for 28th year

Here's what puppy you should adopt based on your lifestyle

Bracco Italiano becomes the American Kennel Club's 200th breed

"The French Bulldog's surge in popularity shows no signs of slowing down," said AKC Executive Secretary Gina DiNardo in a press release. "Their long list of fabulous traits makes them wonderful companions for a variety of people, but that doesn't mean they're for everyone. It's extremely important to do your research to not only find the right breed for your lifestyle, but to ensure that you're getting a well-bred dog from a responsible breeder."

2. Labrador retriever

Prior to 2022, the Labrador was named as AKC's top dog for at least three decades .

MORE: Who's top dog? Meet this year's most popular dog breeds

Besides their active and friendly traits, the breed can also live up to 11 to 13 years, according to AKC . The labs are also great to have around children due to their sweet temperament.

3. Golden retriever

Also a favorite among families due to their endearing traits, Golden retrievers fall to the third place on the list of the most favorite breeds in the country. They're known to be friendly, devoted, and intelligent dogs according to AKC and can live on average between 10 to 12 years.

4. German shepherd

The fourth most popular dog is German shepherds which often serve as family dogs and K-9 officers.

MORE: Playing with dogs could make you happier, study finds

AKC states the breed possesses courageous, confident and smart personalities and have typical life expectancy between 7 to 10 years.

Known for its adorable signature curly hair, the poodle is the fifth popular breed in 2023. AKC notes that standard poodles are active, smart and affectionate. They also have a longer average lifespan between 10 and 18 years, AKC adds.

Related Topics

Top stories.

Bridge collapse live updates: First responders called out to people on bridge

• 2 hours ago

Democrats sound alarm on RFK Jr. and new running mate, Shanahan

• Mar 27, 3:34 PM

Fani Willis vows nothing 'will derail' Trump's election interference trial

• Mar 27, 5:41 PM

Trump lawyers to argue for dismissal of Georgia election case based on 1st Amendment

• 3 hours ago

13-year-old rape victim has baby amid confusion over state's abortion ban

• Mar 22, 8:12 AM

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events

• Dog Health & Care
• Dog Nutrition
• Dog Training
• Vet Approved

20 Dog Bite Statistics in 2024: By Breed, Incidences & Deaths

Last Updated on March 26, 2024 by Dogster Team

Click to Skip Ahead

Note : This article’s statistics come from third-party sources and do not represent the opinions of this website.

A dog may be a human’s best friend but even best friends can go through rough spells. In the case of dogs, those rough spells unfortunately often equal attacks and bites. This can cause some worry if you’re a first-time dog owner.

Of course, you want to make sure you and your family, especially your children, won’t be put at risk by your dog. To help you ease your mind, here are some dog bite and dog attack statistics for the United States, including what breed of dog bites the most based on the available information.

However, these statistics don’t tell the full story when it comes to knowing whether or not a dog will bite, and we’ll talk more about that later on.

The 20 Dog Bites Statistics

• According to CDC dog bite statistics, more than 4.5 million people report being bitten by dogs each year in the United States.
• More than 800,000 people per year report requiring medical attention for their dog bites.
• About 30–50 people are killed by dogs each year.
• Children are the most common victims of dog bites.
• Between 2000–2018, 45.9% of dog bite deaths occurred in people under 16 years old.
• Over 13 years, the highest percentage of dog bite deaths were in children 2 years old or younger.
• Dog bite injuries in children increased during 2020 and the coronavirus pandemic.
• California and Texas reported the most dog bite fatalities between 2005–2017 .
• More than 25 breeds were responsible for dog attack fatalities over the 20 years examined by this study.
• 4% of dog bite fatalities were not caused by the family pet.
• In 2019, only 10% of the reported dog bite deaths could be linked to a specific breed.
• Pit Bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were held responsible for 75% of the fatal attacks where the breed was identified.
• Dogs with short, wide heads who weigh between 66–100 pounds are most likely to bite.
• The three breeds with the highest percentage of reported dog bites in one study were Pit Bulls, mixed breeds, and German Shepherds.
• A survey conducted in Colorado in 2007–2008 found that Labrador Retrievers were responsible for the most dog bites in the state during that year.
• More than 700 cities have breed-specific laws or breed bans as of 2020.
• $1.13 billion was paid by insurance companies for dog bite injuries in 2022.
• The average cost for a dog bite insurance claim in 2022 was $64,555.
• More than 900 ER visits per day are for dog bite injuries.
• 9,500 people per year are hospitalized for dog bites.

How Many Dog Bites Happen Each Year And Who Is Bitten

1. more than 4.5 million people report being bitten by dogs each year in the united states, according to cdc dog bite statistics..

(AVMA, CDC)

The majority of dog bite data relies on attacks that are reported to authorities or that generated some sort of medical information. Dog bites that cause minimal damage or donʻt result in a doctor visit are likely to go unreported.

There are 85–90 million pet dogs in the United States, meaning the vast majority donʻt cause any reported dog bites or dog attacks.

2. More than 800,000 people per year report requiring medical attention for their dog bites.

(CDC, AVMA)

These numbers include people who were hospitalized and those who only required outpatient care. Overall, about 1 in 5 people who are bitten require medical care, according to reported stats.

3. About 30–50 people are killed by dog attacks each year.

Of the 4.5 million dog bites per year, 0.00001% are fatal. Fatal dog attacks get all the publicity but they are just a fraction of the story.

4. Children are the most common victims of dog bites.

Not only are children the most likely to be the victim of a dog bite, they were more likely to be severely injured. Most children are bitten by dogs that they know and during normal daily activities.

5. Between 2000–2018, 45.9% of dog bite deaths occurred in people under 16 years old.

Children and teenagers are by far the most likely to suffer fatal dog bite injuries. Much of the focus of preventing dog bites and attacks focuses on educating children on how to properly interact with dogs.

6. Over 13 years, the highest percentage of dog bite deaths were in children 2 years old or younger.

(DogsBite.org)

Babies and toddlers are most vulnerable to dog bite deaths due to their size and behavior. Dogs should never be left alone with these very young children because of this.

7. Dog bite injuries in children increased during 2020 and the coronavirus pandemic.

(PubMed, Journal of Pediatrics)

A study from Colorado found that dog bite injuries in kids increased by almost 300% while the state was under stay-at-home orders for the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors suspect there were several reasons for this increase including increased stress for both kids and dogs, less adult supervision, and an increase in the amount of time kids and dogs were spending together.

8. California and Texas reported the most dog bite deaths between 2005 and 2017.

(DogBites.org research)

These two states also have the most people, period, than any other, a fact which likely relates to the dog bite statistics.

Dog Bites and Deaths Breed Statistics

9. more than 25 different breeds caused dog attack deaths over 20 years..

The breeds involved ranged from the usual suspects— Pit Bulls and Rottweilers —to others less commonly thought dangerous including retrievers, hounds, and even one Cocker Spaniel. Wolf-dog hybrids accounted for some deaths as well.

10. 4% of dog bite deaths were not caused by family pets.

(Canine Research Council)

The Canine Research Council distinguishes between dogs who are kept as  family pets, meaning they live with and bond with the family, and what they call “resident dogs.” Resident dogs refers to dogs who are owned but who donʻt regularly interact with people in a positive way. For example, a dog who lives their life tied up in the backyard or confined to a kennel. These dogs display different behaviors around humans than family pets and are responsible for most deadly dog attacks.

11. In 2019, only 10% of dog bite deaths could definitely be linked to a specific breed.

The Canine Research Council has been producing yearly reports on dog bite deaths for two decades and continually finds that only a small percentage of these deaths can be linked to a breed. Often, they find that bias toward certain breeds results in the misidentification of offending dogs.

12. Pit Bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were held responsible for about 75% of dog bite deaths where the breed was identified.

The CDC data of dog deaths over 20 years found that Pit Bull-type dogs were believed to have committed about 66% of the attacks and Rottweilers about 10%. The CRC is much stricter in itʻs criteria, requiring actual genetic proof of the dogʻs breed to draw evidence-based conclusions. The CDC study relied on visual identification only and admitted that such breed identifications can be problematic and biased.

13. Dogs with short, wide heads who weigh 66–100 pounds are most likely to bite.

(AAHA, International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology (IJPO)

If this seems both random and wildly specific, well, youʻre not wrong. This study went over 30 years’ worth of scientific papers searching for reports that named the breed involved in dog bite attacks. They found that the breed most likely to bite was “unknown” but they could use other factors like weight and head shape to predict which dogs were most likely to bite.

14. The three breeds with the highest percentage of reported dog bites were Pit Bulls, mixed breeds, and German Shepherds.

(AAHA, IJPO)

The same study found while reviewing the literature that these three breeds were responsible for the highest percentage of reported dog bites.

15. A survey conducted in Colorado in 2007–2008 found that Labrador Retrievers were responsible for the most dog bites.

(Denver Post)

This information came from a Colorado group of veterinarians and animal care professionals dedicated to helping humans and dogs live safely. Interestingly, they found that Labs accounted for the highest percentage of bites, about 13%. What does this data mean as we try to draw conclusions about which breeds bite most? Weʻll talk more about that later on in this article.

16. More than 700 U.S. cities have breed-specific laws or breed bans as of 2020.

Breed-specific laws and breed bans are what happen when dog bite data and statistics are taken out of context. A host of expert sources, including the AVMA and the CDC, have concluded that breed is not the deciding factor in whether or not a dog is dangerous or prone to bite (weʻll talk about some factors that are later on). However, rather than look at each case as an individual, some cities and states look at the number of dog attacks attributed to Pit Bulls and just decide to ban all Pit Bulls.

The Costs of Dog Bite Attacks

17. $1.13 billion was paid by insurance companies for dog bite injuries in 2022..

(Insurance Information )

This is a 28% increase over the amount paid out in 2021. However, there was a 2% decrease in the number of dog bites and dog-related injury claims from 2021.

18. The average cost of a dog bite insurance claim in 2022 was $64,555.

(Insurance Information Institute)

This number is an increase of 32% compared to 2021. Again, dog bites don’t just impact the human victim and the dog themself, which is why dog bite prevention is a public health concern.

19. More than 900 ER visits per day are for dog bite injuries.

(Journal of Pediatrics)

ER visits are expensive, especially without health insurance. Besides the financial cost of the dog bite, victims suffer both physical costs from the pain and possibly mental and emotional costs as well.

20. 9,500 people per year are hospitalized for dog bites.

Children may be more likely to get bitten by dogs but people over 25 are more likely to wind up in the hospital because of them. These hospitalizations are costly both in time and money.

Frequently Asked Questions About Dog Bite and Dog Bites By Breed

What dog breed is the most likely to bite.

The answer to this question canʻt be determined based on research. But wait, you say, you just told me all these percentages and numbers of bites and attacks attributed to certain breeds. True, but we also mentioned that this data is likely flawed in certain ways which makes drawing conclusions hard.

To truly determine the likelihood of one breed biting versus another, we need to know both the number of biting dogs AND the total number of dogs of that breed.

In the Colorado survey, for example, they found about 268 Labradors had bitten someone. But they donʻt know how many Labradors total live in the state and therefore canʻt say with certainty, “This percentage of Labradors bite and this is how likely they are to bite based on other breeds.”

Until dogs undergo a census every 10 years like we humans, we wonʻt have the data to say for sure which breed is most likely to bite.

Why Does It Seem Like Pit Bulls Are the Most Dangerous Dog Breeds?

Again, looking purely at the numbers with no context, it does appear that Pit Bulls and Pit Bull-type dogs are the most likely to bite and the most likely to kill someone. However, the reasons behind those numbers are more complicated.

Pit Bulls, like all dogs, are very much a product of their environment and their training. Unfortunately, many Pit Bulls are deliberately encouraged or trained to be aggressive. Many of these Pit Bulls are also kept as resident dogs, which doesnʻt allow them to learn the right way to interact with people.

Pit Bulls as a breed score highly on temperament testing, performing better than more traditionally friendly breeds like the Bernese Mountain Dog and Collie. They also score much higher than Chihuahuas, a breed unlikely to show up on many bite reports but who most veterinary technicians are much less likely to want to deal with than a Pit Bull!

So If Not Breed, What Determines Whether a Dog Is Likely to Bite?

The AVMA doesnʻt consider breed a reliable way to know whether a dog will bite or not.

• Sex of the dog
• Owner behavior
• Whether the dog is neutered
• Whether the dog lives in a rural vs urban area
• Breed ownership trends over time

This information is why the AVMA and others oppose breed-specific legislation as a way to deal with the issue of dog bites and attacks.

How Do I Avoid a Dog Bite?

• Education : Teaching people why dogs bite and teaching children the right way to interact with a dog
• Responsible Pet Ownership : Encouraging spay/neuter and dogs being kept as family pets instead of resident dogs
• Avoiding Risky Situations : Knowing what situations might lead to bites and how to avoid them, such as not taking toys or treats from a dog or reaching over a fence to pet one.

How Do I Keep My Dog From Biting Anyone?

First things first: never utter the phrase “Oh she (or he) doesnʻt bite.” Any dog can bite under the right circumstances, as the AVMA states clearly.

However, you can help reduce the likelihood that your dog bites in several ways. Make sure your dog is spayed or neutered. Train and socialize your dog from an early age so they understand how to interact with people and are under control

Donʻt let your dog wander loose. The majority of dog bites happen when dogs are unrestrained and away from their property. Keep your dog fenced or only walk them on a leash. Responsible owners play a vital role in helping prevent dog bites and itʻs important that you do your part.

• You may also want to read : How to Clean a Dog Bite (7 Simple Steps)

Dog bites and attacks are a matter of serious public health concern based on how many occur each year. While we can look at numbers and draw conclusions about certain breeds of dogs, the truth is that preventing dog bites is much more complicated than just regulating or banning certain breeds. If youʻre in the market for a new dog, look at the whole picture before you dismiss certain breeds outright, fearing that theyʻre dangerous.

• DogsBite.org
• Journal Of Pediatrics
• Canine Research Council
• Denver Post
• Insurance Information Institute

Featured Image Credit: meawtai99, Shutterstock

About the Author

Elizabeth Gray

Elizabeth Gray is a lifelong lover of all animals great and small. She got her first cat at 5 years old and at 14, she started working for her local veterinarian. Elizabeth spent more than 20 years working as a veterinary nurse before stepping away to become a stay-at-home parent to her daughter. Now, she is excited to share her hard-earned knowledge (literally--she has scars) with the readers. Elizabeth lives in Iowa with her family, including her two furry kids, Linnard, a husky mix and Algernon, the worldʻs most patient cat. When not writing, she enjoys reading, watching all sports but especially soccer, and spending time outdoors with her family.

Sunday Scaries FOMO Bones Review 2024: An Expert Breakdown

10 Best Wireless Dog Fences in 2024 – Reviews & Top Picks

10 Most Beautiful Dog Breeds (With Pictures & Info)

Get dogster in your inbox.

Can Dogs Eat Peanut Butter? Is It Good For Them? Vet-Reviewed Health Facts

Labernard (St Bernard Lab Mixed Dog Breed) Info, Pictures, Care & More

© pangolia pte. ltd. all rights reserved..

Top 5 most popular dog breeds of 2023 in America: Guess which is No. 1?

Once again, the French bulldog has claimed the title of America's favorite dog breed, the American Kennel Club is reporting.

For the second consecutive year, the tiny titan continued to top the rankings at the No. 1 spot.

The  Labrador retriever , who had a more than three-decade run as the nation's most popular breed during 2023, placed second. Not far behind: the golden retriever.

Below are the nation's top five most popular dog breeds and more about them according to AKC's website.

Considering adopting or buying a dog? Take a quick quiz to see which breeds may be best for you.

A forever home: 'Chester' gets limo ride out of animal shelter after nearly 600 days waiting for adoption

No. 1: French Bulldog

French bulldogs average 11 to 13 inches in height and about 28 pounds and have a smooth, short coat of hair.

They're known for being affectionate with family and children and are good with other dogs.

The breed lives an average of 10-12 years.

No. 2: Labrador retriever

Labrador retrievers grow to be nearly 25 inches in height and can weigh up to 80 pounds.

They are outgoing and affectionate with families, children and friendly with other dogs. They have shorter hair, are easy to train and have high energy. The breed lives an average of 11-13 years.

No. 3: Golden retriever

With their long, silky hair, golden retrievers came in third on the list.

The breed stands about 21-24 inches and weigh 55-65 pounds, depending on their sex (females are often smaller). They are devoted to their owners and also good with families and children.

The breed averages a lifespan of 10-12 years.

No. 4: German shepherd

Not far behind, the German shepherd placed fourth on the list. The breed stands anywhere from 22-26 inches tall and weighs 50-90 pounds, also depending on their sex.

They are highly trainable, have medium-long coats and are often used in law enforcement. They're also affection with families and good with children.

The breed lives an average of 7-10 years.

Best 2023 animal photos: USA TODAY Network photographers most beautiful 2023 snapshots

No. 5: Poodle

Be it standard, miniature, or toy, poodles average about 10-15 inches both in in height and weight. They are smart, have curly coats of hair but shed little.

They're affectionate with families and children, highly trainable and need mental stimulation.

Poodles average a lifespan from 10-18 years.

Natalie Neysa Alund is a senior reporter for USA TODAY. Reach her at [email protected] and follow her on X @nataliealund.

StarsInsider

These are the longest-living dog breeds

Posted: March 28, 2024 | Last updated: March 28, 2024

One of life's greatest tragedies is that our sweet and loyal four-legged friends don't live as long as we do. While there are no guarantees in life, the dog breeds in this gallery are known for their longevity. Typically, smaller breeds tend to live longer, but there are a few medium-size dogs that are known for their lengthy lifespan. It's important to note, however, that there are certain factors that play into the lifespan of dogs, including size, breed, and lifestyle.

So if you're looking for a fur baby that will stick around for a long time, check out the following slides. 

You may also like: The coldest places in America

With an average life expectancy of 14 years, this breed became popular in 1888 when Queen Victoria fell in love with one in Florence, Italy, which she then brought back to England. 

Follow us and access great exclusive content every day

Border Collie

Known for their intelligence, these canines are great for first-time dog owners and inexperienced trainers. Their lifespan is around 13 years. 

You may also like:

A traditional hunting dog, this friendly pup has melted the hearts of many. Beagles live for an average of 13 to 15 years. 

New Guinea Singing Dog

Known in particular for their melodious howl, this breed is very gentle and friendly with people. Their average life expectancy is 18 years.  

You may also like: Wildest Aussie conspiracy theories

Lagotto Romagnolo

Meaning "lake dog from Romagna," the Lagotto Romagnolo comes from the Romagna sub-region of Italy. With a life expectancy of 16 years, this dog requires a lot of activity.

Jack Russell Terrier

Originating in England and evolving in Australia, the Jack Russell Terrier is a strong and sturdy breed. Their average life expectancy is 16 years.

You may also like: Fountain of youth: These foods can help you look younger

This adorable mid-size dog originated in Japan. Unusual for larger breeds, the Shiba Inu is expected to live about 16 years.

Smaller than a standard-size Poodle, the Toy Poodle also requires plenty of physical exercise and mental stimulus. Their maximum life expectancy is 20 years, but they usually live to around 16. 

You may also like: The youngest and oldest Grammy winners, ever

Australian Shepherd

Often called "Aussies," these pups are extremely energetic and require daily exercise as well as weekly brushing. Their average life expectancy is 15 years.

A hybrid of a Cocker Spaniel and a Poodle, Cockapoos are super cute and outgoing. Their average life expectancy is 16 years.

You may also like: Female celebrities who look shockingly like famous men

Their name means lion, but these dogs are very sweet and have been cherished by Chinese royalty since the Ming Dynasty. Their average life expectancy is 15 years.

English Foxhound

This playful dog loves to wander and run around. Similar in appearance to beagles, they live to be around 13 years old.

You may also like: Terrifying urban legends that are actually true

Siberian Husky

Affectionate and sociable, Siberian Huskies are one of the healthiest dog breeds, and live to anywhere between 12 and 14 years. 

Pembroke Welsh Corgi

Corgis are sturdy dogs who are both obedient and easy to train. Their lifespan is from 12 to 15 years. 

You may also like: The surprising perks of self-isolation

Pharaoh Hound

Known to be one of the healthiest dog breeds around, these desert dogs prefer hotter climates. Independent and strong-willed, they live to around 13 years. 

This dread-locked canine is another healthy dog breed. Plus, they are great with kids! Bergamascos live to around 14 years. 

You may also like: Lessons that people usually learn too late in life

English Springer Spaniel

An energetic and loving breed, they'll want to be with a family 24/7. Their average life expectancy is between 13 and 15 years.

German Pinscher

Although this breed is a bit intimidating, they're not aggressive unless they're trained to be. Canines of this race live about 14 years.

You may also like: Interesting facts you didn't know about Joe Biden

The territorial Canaan is a great breed for a watchdog. They're affectionate with their owners, but dislike strangers. One of the oldest breeds around, they can live up to 15 years. 

German Shorthaired Pointer

Affectionate and friendly , the German Shorthaired Pointer are also intelligent and easy to train. An active breed, they live to around 13 years. 

You may also like: Siblings who starred together on-screen

These fast and active dogs are friendly and social. They're also intelligent and easy to train. The average life span of these canines is about 13 years.

The Havanese is an affectionate and entertaining pup that need very little exercise to be healthy. They live about 13 years. 

You may also like: Body dysmorphic disorder and the celebrities who suffer from it

Belgian Malinois

Canines of this breed are very intelligent and easy to train. These dogs can reach 14 years old.

Bichon Frisé

While this breed looks like a stuffed toy suitable for infants, they're actually better suited to older people. Their life expectancy is 13 to 15 years. 

You may also like: Stars who fell in love with their on-screen pets

Shetland Sheepdog

Also known as Sheltie, this breed is an intelligent problem solver. A great all around dog, they live about 13 years. 

Labrador Retriever

Along with being one of the healthiest dog breeds, the Labrador Retriever is also extremely friendly. This intelligent breed has an average life span of 13 years.

You may also like: Discover the differences between psychopaths and sociopaths

Brittany Spaniel

Coming from a working background, the Brittany Spaniel is highly intelligent and easy to train. Their playfulness make them great in families with kids and other pets. They live around 12 to 15 years.  

Australian Cattle Dog

This energetic breed is well-known for its intelligence, agility, and stamina. Plus, they're super friendly! Their life expectancy is from 13 to 15 years. 

You may also like: Russia's greatest military defeats

These tiny canines have one of the longest life spans in the dog world, living to be around 17 years old. They're gentle and patient with children and require little exercise because of their size.

Known for being a "barkless" dog, the Basenji is a high-energy pup who originally served as a hunting dog. They live about 12 years.

Sources: (Business Insider) (Southern Living) (Top Dog Tips)

See also: Dog breeds that are banned in some countries

More for You

20+ Cleaning Hacks You’ll Wish You Knew Sooner

Supreme Court Gets Jan 6. Defendant Out of Jail

20 facts you might not know about 'Fast Times at Ridgemont High'

The best beach town to live in on the East Coast is not in Florida, according to data. See the top 25.

Ukraine says a missile barrage against Russia's Black Sea Fleet was even more successful than it thought

6 Cars That Seem Expensive But Rarely Need Repairs

25 Hulu Series You Absolutely Can't Miss

You Shouldn’t Be Able to Pay With Cash OR a Card at a National Park. They Should Be Free.

States with the Most Foxes in America

US state hides an underground ‘city’ where 1,600 people go to work

Chris Hayes Turns Jeffrey Clark Lawyer's TV Fear Into Brutal Reality

South Carolina wants answers about $1.8 billion sitting in a bank

This 7-in-1 scrubber replaced almost all of my cleaning tools

People with these 30 jobs are most likely to be single, according to data

Vampire Frenzy: 16 Addictive Series That Suck Viewers into Their World

Explosive moment drone takes out Russian tank used in Chernobyl disaster

These Are the Worst Airports To Connect Through (And Where to Book Your Flight Instead)

'The View' co-host spars with author arguing for a 'colorblind America'

Proposal would have taxpayers fund statewide, $1,000 monthly ‘guaranteed income’

Simple Dollar Store Hack Makes Putting Appliances Away Neater