On Canine Eugenics
The timing of the PeTA video about breedism went, as they say, right over my head. I had no idea that the Westminster Kennel Club’s annual dog show begins today. It was only when I started reading "Top Dogs Live on, and On, in Progeny" in the "Other Sports" section of today’s New York Times that I became suspicious that a story was in full play and I was the last to know.
I’d imagine that the average person would be offended (as the PeTA video suggests) by the idea of pure bloodlines and selective breeding for desirable characteristics (not to mention the reality of trends in desirable characteristics) in humans. What I fail to understand is why eugenics is not just accepted, but celebrated–glorified–when it comes to any other species.
This particular story is largely about a champion Kerry blue terrier named Mick, whose sperm has produced 61 champions. Twenty of the 45 dogs of Mick’s kind in the show since his retirement were his offspring. ("Perpetuating the bloodlines of purebred animals is as crucial to the dog business as it is to thoroughbred horse racing. If there is money to be made in showing dogs, it is in stud fees and in puppies like Mick’s progeny.")
A judge and breeder of Norwegian elkhounds says, "True dog breeders live for their dogs, not off of them. The people who show at Westminster are trying to develop a quality bloodline of dogs, and they recognize that they won’t pay for themselves.” I’m not sure if that makes me feel better or worse. A quality bloodline of dogs? To what end? Why? Do we need more dogs? Do we really need to freeze the sperm of certain dogs in the hope of producing others like them? Why doesn’t that sound creepy to most people?
Perhaps this issue, just like all the others relating to animals, has a simple, obvious answer: they’re animals. And animals are here for our use. They serve at the pleasure of humans. We fiddle with their genetics, we mutilate them, and we prize them as specimens worthy of our admiration (for no other reason, really). We will continue to allow them to exist as long as we find them worthy of our time and money. And what’s worse, we’ve somehow convinced ourselves that a hobby or occupation like the breeding of show dogs is an elite, highbrow endeavor.
The worship of the purity of bloodlines is disturbing to me whether you’re talking about Greyhounds or Caucasians.
"What I fail to understand is why eugenics is not just accepted, but celebrated–glorified–when it comes to any other species"
The answer is quite simple, actually.
1. Animal manipulation (including breeding, "domestication", and eugenics) implies human superiority. And most humans (speciesists) LOVE "proving" their superiority over others.
2. Non-human animals are seen as property. Therefore to speciesists, non-human eugenics is like customizing your car into a sports car, or building up a custom motorcycle to suit your taste.
If non-humans were considered as persons, non-human eugenics would be seen as repulsive as human eugenics.
WOW are all of you from PETA? Dog breeds were born out of nesesity. Guarding, Protection, Hunting and yes even companionship. Not one breed is good for everything. A mastiff breed (guardian Breed) could not go out and "catch" a meal that could feed someones family nor could a yorkie ward off a real invader. Dogs are not people and people are not dogs period. If that particular dog is so great then yes please save his sperm so that we may produce (or hope to) some more of that greatness. If it was a great hunter or guardian then we need more of that too. PETA is trying to abolish any animal from being pets… did you ask the pets if they would rather be euthenized, "be wild", or be with their family? Well if they could talk they would most definetly choose their family if you dont believe me just try to take my Fila Brasileiro (guardian and cattle dog)and she would in no uncertain terms let you know her position. You people are sick.
Juan
Juan,
It's against my better judgment to respond to your comment–or even to publish it–as I have rules of conduct for my comments, and "You people are sick" disqualifies your comment for acceptance.
Nevertheless, I'd like to clarify a couple of things: I am not a PeTA member, nor are most of the readers of Animal Person.
To say that dogs were bred out of necessity is completely ridiculous. No one in the history of civilization ever NEEDED a dog for anything. They were around, and we chose to manipulate them and dominate them and control them and domesticate them for our use. We chose all of that. None of it was "necessary."
Asking "pets" what they would want, in multiple choice format, is nonsense. We should stop breeding animals for our use because we have no right to do so.
It is not we who are sick.
It's an interesting thought and I hope you don't mind my commenting. Eugenics is disturbing, but why is it so criminal in dogs? I disagree that dogs were not bred with necessity. I find the range of traits in different breeds fascinating and beautiful, why is it criminal? Here is why canine eugenics was necessary in the beginning: we chose to domesticate animals, yes, but if we had not bred them selectively we would not have dogs. We would have friendly wolves, and that's not the same thing. Training a friendly wolf is difficult and dangerous at best, but through selective breeding friendly wolves became dogs who need us as a pack just as millions accept and even need them as pets or guardians or helpers hunting. And dogs are not heartlessly manipulated everywhere. My pets and I have a symbiotic relationship, and that was why it happened in the first place, for the benefit of both. That is not manipulation, that is symbiosis.
You would demonize it but selective breeding is natural and occurs everywhere in nature. Wolves themselves practice it by only allowing the strongest male and female to produce litters. We have made the process artificial now, but is nature wrong for practicing eugenics too? Is it really us trying to dominate everything, or just using the raw materials that nature already had in play? Can you demonize it when it happens in nature everyday regardless of our presence?
Rachael,
Whether or not eugenics is "criminal" when we're talking about dogs is up to the law. What I can say is that it isn't necessary and we have no moral right to do it. Just as important is the idea that if something happens in nature, that makes it fine and we should do it too. There is infanticide and gang rape among dolphins. Does that mean it's okay for us to kill our kids and viciously gang rape just because dolphins do? As you say, selective breeding happens everywhere in nature. So does that mean we should selectively breed humans? This is where we differ. In my mind, if it's morally reprehensible to selectively breed one form of sentient creature (humans), why is it acceptable to do it to other sentient beings? I think our difference is a fundamental one: Once you believe that others exist for your benefit, you will accept use and exploitation that you wouldn't accept if those others did not exist for your benefit, but for themselves.
Sentient beings, for those interested in animal rights, are not "raw materials" for us to use and mold however we wish. They have their own interests and their own lives and exist for their own reasons that have nothing to do with us. And yes, I do think we are trying to dominate. Finally, as to your last sentence, what happens in "nature" regardless of us usually has a good reason (like survival), but even if we can see no survival reason, it's irrelevant. What we do to other sentient beings is done simply because we want to–because we have something to gain. There are far to many homeless dogs and cats in the US, and that overpopulation problem is largely our fault. Breeding one more dog is irresponsible and unethical, and it makes selective breeding absurd, at best.
This couldn't be more timely for me… Saturday I ran into a woman who was advertising Chihuahuas. I swear you could put a few in a coffee cup. She was saying how they were so "special" because only about half of them live beyond 2 or 3 days. And I'm thinking this is crazy! She was pleased to tell me that each of her puppies had already received hundreds of dollars in necessary medical care because of their many "conditions". Of course I gave her my views about breeding any dogs at all (let alone these fragile/vunerable creatures)… But she insisted – she was only breeding them because she "loved" them… and wasn't making (very much) money… And I think – how sad, poor pound pup mutt, so valueless in this exploitive and profiteering world.
BTW – seems that the poultry industry (because of eugenics), is now faced with severe issues because of the inbreeding of chickens:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/fresh-genes-nee.html?cid=137573556#comment-137573556