Purebred Dogs and Canine Wellbeing

Articles

Abstract

Breeders of purebred dogs usually have several goals they want to accomplish, of which canine wellbeing is one. The purpose of this article is to investigate what we ought to do given this goal. Breeders typically think that they fulfil their wellbeing-related duties by doing the best they can within their breed of choice. However, it is true of most breeders that they could produce physically and mentally healthier dogs if they switched to a healthier breed. There are a few breeds that are healthier than other breeds as well as mutts; we could maximize wellbeing for the next generations by focusing all our breeding resources on those. However, in the long run such a strategy would severely deplete the canine gene pool. If we are to breed for wellbeing in the long run, we must thus weigh the benefits of selection against physical and mental problems against the benefits of genetic diversity. The optimal breeding strategy for canine wellbeing is to preserve many breeds, though not all of them. Furthermore, we ought to combine strict health programs with looser barriers between breeds. Such a policy conflicts with the goal of breed preservation, at least if we think of breeds as populations registered within kennel clubs rather than types of dogs, but not with the goal of producing good working dogs capable of performing various tasks.

Keywords

Wellbeing Purebreds Crossing Dogs Breeding 

References

  1. Buchanan, A. D. W., Brock, N. D., & Winkler, D. (2000). From chance to choice genetics and justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Edwards, S. D. (2001). Prevention of disability on grounds of suffering. Journal of Medical Ethics, 27(6), 380–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Harman, E. (2004). Can we harm and benefit in creating? Philosophical Perspectives, 18, 89–113. (Ethics).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Haynes, R. P. (2008). Animal welfare competing conceptions and their ethical implications. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Malmquist, E. (2008). Good Parents, Better Babies (doctoral dissertation). Linköping: Department of Medical and Health Sciences.Google Scholar
  6. Nicholas, F. W. (1996). Introduction to veterinary genetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Reindal, S. M. (2000). Disability, gene therapy and eugenics: A challenge to John Harris. Journal of Medical Ethics, 26(2), 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Savulescu, J. (2001). Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics, 15(5–6), 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Savulescu, J., & Bostrom, N. (Eds.). (2009). Human enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Statistiska Centralbyrån, SCB (the Central Bureau of Statistics). Leading researcher: Daniel Persson. 2012. http://www.jordbruksverket.se/download/18.300b18bd13d103e79ef80002651/Resultatrapport+Hundar+katter+och+andra+s%C3%A4llskapsdjur+2012.pdf.
  11. Svartberg, K. (2003). Personality in Dogs (doctoral dissertation). Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  12. The Swedish Kennel Club (no author given). 2012-03-14. Ethical guidelines. http://www.skk.se/uppfodning/regler-policys-och-lagar/skks-etiska-riktlinjer.
  13. Wasserman, D. (2005). The nonidentity problem, disability, and the role morality of prospective parents. Ethics, 116(1), 132–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Woodward, J. (1986). The non-identity problem. Ethics, 96, 804–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences SLUUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Stockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations