In Defence of Dogs

by John Bradshaw

  Just as vexed as the question of proper training techniques is the question of what the next generations of dogs should look like, and where they should come from. The majority of dogs in Western countries are pedigree animals, produced by breeders who, to a greater or lesser extent, are associated with the world of dog shows and breed standards. It is now abundantly clear that this bias, and its genetic consequences, do not serve the best interests of dogs.

  That said, rescue dogs can also be problematic. Many of the dogs that end up in rescue are already psychologically troubled. They are therefore ill-equipped to cope with the ‘rescue’ itself, which involves an indeterminate period of kennelling, and, if they are lucky, rehoming. Such dogs find unfamiliar environments and new routines highly stressful, so the rescue process, however necessary, must be managed carefully if it is not to tip an already fragile personality further towards instability. Although some dogs are rehomed because of genuine changes in the owners’ circumstances, many more are given up due to behavioural problems. Of the dogs relinquished to the Dogs Trust rehoming charity in 2005, 34 per cent were due to problematic behaviour, and 28 per cent more were abandoned because they ‘needed more attention than could be given’7 – a category which sounds as though it could include many dogs with separation disorders.

  Improved understanding of how to deal with behavioural disorders, and indeed how to prevent them in the first place, might therefore eventually revolutionize dog ‘rescue’. For now, however, the best strategy is prevention, mitigation of the circumstances that put dogs into shelters in the first place. Each year, millions of dogs end up in kennels run by local authorities and charities, in many cases because their owners have, largely through ignorance, mismanaged their behaviour. Once sufficient numbers of people are properly trained in how to recognize and deal with the simpler behavioural problems of dogs, it may be possible for the charities to shift away from their current default of taking the dog into rescue kennels. They might then be able to focus more on working with owners to correct the behaviour in their own home, thereby eliminating the need for the stressful intermediate of kennelling. (The dogs which find kennelling least stressful are generally repeat offenders – a finding which further emphasizes this point.)

  Of course, even in the West, more dogs are born each year than there are owners for, and thus many abandoned dogs never make it to new homes. Tens of thousands of unwanted dogs are destroyed in the United Kingdom each year. In the United States, more than a million abandoned dogs are euthanized annually. Although as many as a quarter of these may be essentially unhomeable because of chronic disease or extreme old age, the number needlessly destroyed indicates a serious mismatch between supply and demand for pet dogs. Euthanasia, when properly conducted, should not be a welfare issue in itself, since the dogs are presumably unaware of their fate. However, it is most definitely an ethical issue, one whose acceptability must ultimately be decided by human, not canine, society. Canine science itself cannot therefore provide any kind of answer.

  Moral trade-offs regarding animal euthanasia have changed considerably with time, and today vary substantially between cultures. Dogs in many non-Western countries (and, albeit to a declining extent, in some Western countries as well) experience a spectrum of welfare issues very different from those in the United States and Western Europe. In some societies, it is still commonplace to let dogs roam the streets, and traditions of ownership may be different; for example, dogs may be fed and cared for by a whole community rather than having a single, legally identifiable ‘owner’. But free-roaming dogs contribute to numerous problems: they may potentially transmit diseases such as rabies, become a nuisance through fouling and noise, cause traffic accidents and injure livestock or humans. Population control under these circumstances is often a necessity, whereby the welfare emphasis has to shift from the individual dog to that of the population as a whole: for every dog that is euthanized in a cull, another’s welfare may be improved as reduced competition allows it an adequate share of the community’s resources. (This is particularly true if a sterilization programme is put in place simultaneously to prevent the population from rebounding to its former level.)

  Although village dogs have more control over their own lives than pet dogs and are in that sense more ‘natural’, their individual welfare is often compromised. They have little or no access to veterinary treatment for disease or injury; they may go hungry, they may be mistreated by people who know that they will not be penalized for doing so. Those village dogs that are alive today are a population of survivors; over the generations, vast numbers less suited to the environment they live in (for example, less resistant to local diseases or parasites) will have died without leaving offspring, and most will have suffered before they died.

  The modern pedigree dog lies at the other end of this spectrum, inasmuch as we aim to protect the welfare of each individual animal throughout its lifespan. We shield our dogs from the most dangerous aspects of the man-made environment, for example leashing them near traffic. We feed them nutritionally complete and biologically safe foods. We give them veterinary care that seeks to reduce discomfort and pain. None of these advantages are routinely extended to village dogs.

  In taking dogs into full ownership, removing their ‘right’ to breed at will, we should be able to improve their individual welfare. Unfortunately, although all concerned state that they have dogs’ welfare at heart, the result has not been an unqualified success. One set of challenges to welfare – those imposed by the outside world and by competition between dogs – has been replaced by another: those that have emerged as the inexorable consequences of inbreeding.

  No one is advocating a return to a free-for-all where pet dogs choose their own mates in the way that village dogs do. Controlled breeding is not inherently bad for dogs. By artificially controlling breeding, we have the power to prevent the birth of those dogs that are more prone to suffering, thus raising the overall level of canine welfare. Unfortunately, and despite many good intentions, mankind has not entirely succeeded in this endeavour. Many pedigree dogs suffer from debilitating conditions that are the direct result of our choosing which animals to breed from, and which not to.

  We must radically change the way that dogs are bred – not only to eliminate genetically based defects, but also to establish temperaments that maximize dogs’ capacity to become rewarding pets. Currently, most dogs born each year are the outcome either of the ‘show ring’ mentality, or of unplanned matings. Neither approach is primarily designed to produce pet dogs.

  One possible alternative is the commercial breeding of dogs specifically intended to be pets, with no regard for the artificial demands of the show ring. After all, if owners are prepared to pay several hundred pounds for a puppy whose parents have been selected primarily for conformity to a breed standard, might they not be persuaded to pay the same amount for a dog designed specifically for life as a pet? So far, commercial pet breeding has not lived up to its potential. ‘Pet factories’ are beginning to appear in continental Europe, producing dogs specifically for the pet market; some are derived from existing breeds such as golden retrievers, but there are others too, such as the ‘boomer’, which is usually a fluffy, mainly white, toy dog that trades on the popularity of the fictional (dog) star of the television show Boomer, and can thus claim to be a new type of non-pedigree companion dog. However, there is little indication so far that the products of these establishments make better pets than the average dog from show-ring breeds.

  While it should theoretically be possible to get the genetics right in a commercial setting, there is some doubt as to whether it will ever be commercially viable to provide puppies with all the socialization that they need during the first eight weeks of their life, before they are put on sale. In a strictly commercial setting, it would simply be prohibitively expensive to arrange for all the experiences that puppies require during their socialization period, to say nothing of the logistical difficulties that would accrue once the
puppies are the right age to be displayed for sale. Commercial breeding is therefore unlikely to produce perfect pet dogs for any but the well-off few.

  If dog-keeping is to retain its mass appeal without compromising the welfare of the dogs themselves, small-scale enthusiast breeders should be encouraged to continue to provide the majority of pet dogs. These hobby breeders, who breed dogs because they love them, have the opportunity to provide adequate socialization at no financial cost to themselves, simply by keeping the puppies and their mother within their own home rather than in an isolated pen or kennel. Indeed, small breeders – provided they start with the right stock, and implement the most up-to-date information on how to provide socialization – still have the potential to turn out the best pet dogs.

  Genetic engineering, on the other hand, is unlikely to significantly improve the welfare of dogs. Despite the myriad shapes and sizes that dogs already come in, some constraints still linger on, imposed by the developmental trajectories of the wolf. Radically new kinds of dog could hypothetically be generated if the dog’s gestation period, currently fixed at from sixty to sixty-three days, could be altered from that of the wolf. Incorporation of genes from other canids might make it possible to generate dogs that look more like foxes, or like the round-headed and undeniably cute bush dog.8 Yet while this approach would undoubtedly generate novelties, along with a great deal of controversy, it is not what is needed to save the dog. More than enough genetic variation already exists among today’s dogs to generate a wide variety of animals well suited to life as pets; what is needed, then, is to recognize this role as the dog’s main function, and take the initiative away from those who conceive of dogs as a means to win prizes, whether in the show ring or the working trial.

  Nor is another application of genetic engineering, cloning, the solution to producing the perfect companion dog. Texas billionaire John Sperling had his border collie/husky cross Missy cloned, and the clones certainly do look like her. But was he primarily fond of Missy’s looks or her personality? Because dogs’ personalities are largely the product of their early life experiences, they cannot be replicated using in vitro genetics.

  So what are the barriers that impede the development of a better companion dog? Leaving aside the appearance of such a dog for a moment, there seem to be at least two. The first is that dog breeders rarely decide which dogs to breed from based on which ones have proven themselves the best companions. They may lack information concerning how well the animals they have produced have fulfilled their function as companions. Or they may be primarily focused on whether or not their dogs will be competitive in the show ring, even though most dogs are not purchased for competition. Moreover, it is difficult to hold breeders to account for the quality of the puppies they produce. Failures can readily be blamed on mistakes made by inexperienced owners who have purchased puppies – feeding them the wrong diet, not giving them enough exercise, giving too much exercise, and so on.

  The second barrier is a classic Catch-22: the more responsible the owner of a dog, the more likely that dog is to be neutered. In short, many of the most carefully selected and nurtured dogs, those that fit the companion niche perfectly, almost never pass on their genes to the next generation. Filling their place in the population are puppies produced more or less by accident by irresponsible owners, many of whom are attracted to ‘status’ dogs such as Staffordshire bull terriers and German shepherds (hence the large numbers of these breeds and their accidental crosses that end up, and often end their days, in rescue). While all dog owners are rightly encouraged to neuter their pets in order to reduce the oversupply of dogs, doing so unfortunately works against the goal of creating a more companionate population of dogs.

  Also unfortunate is the fact that breeding for personality is not as straightforward as breeding for looks. Part of the explanation is that genes do not code for behaviour as such, but another part is that the companionship role itself is not clearly defined. Presumably every dog owner and prospective owner has an ideal dog in mind, so there are many such ideals. Yet certain traits seem universally desired. According to research conducted in Australia by Pauleen Bennett, most people there believe that companion dogs should be friendly, obedient, robustly healthy, easy to manage, safe with children, easily housetrained, and able to show affection to their owners.9 (It seems plausible that such traits would be valued in most Western countries.) Many owners also value physical contact with their dog – an unsurprising finding, given that we now know that stroking a dog not only reduces stress hormones but also leads to a surge of the ‘love’ hormone, oxytocin.

  Other characteristics are rated differently by different owners. Some people prefer a dog that is friendly towards everyone, others, especially men, value a degree of territoriality that they see as helping to protect their household. Men also tend to express a preference for energetic, loyal dogs, while many women give a higher rating to calmness and sociability.

  But more importantly, most owners simply do not prioritize personality when they are picking out a dog: for example, many rate looks over good behaviour, and view trainability as relatively unimportant, even though they expect dogs to be obedient. In addition, the reality of what type of dog best fits a person’s lifestyle will also change as that person’s circumstances change. Although dogs’ lifespans are shorter than our own, they are still long by comparison with the modern pace of change in lifestyles.

  That said, personality-based selection becomes even more challenging when we consider how many variations there can be, even within a breed. Many of the ‘companion’ traits listed above are only marginally influenced by genetics. Genetically based physical abnormalities and predispositions to disease can – and should – be targeted through more enlightened breeding, but many other desirable traits such as friendliness, obedience, lack of aggression and a predisposition to affection are strongly influenced by early environment and learning. It is difficult to see how such traits could be actively selected for without, in parallel, improving owners’ understanding of how to inculcate them into their new dogs or puppies.

  Companionship traits may be difficult to select for, but certain other type-specific, behavioural traits need to be reduced in companion dogs. Most of the genetic selection imposed upon dogs during their long association with man has been directed towards useful traits such as ability in herding, hunting and guarding. But now that most dogs in the West are no longer required to carry out such tasks, we need to reduce these links; otherwise, frustration will ensue. I have lost count of the times that I have been asked for advice on whether a cute sheepdog puppy will make a good pet. I always say ‘No, these dogs are bred to work and will probably find living in a town intolerable.’ Yet most of the people I have advised in this way have gone ahead and got sheepdogs anyway, and most have regretted doing so – though not as much as would the dogs concerned, if regret was in their emotional armoury. If such breeds are ever to fit the companion niche, we need to reconfigure them so that they no longer feel this way.

  Finally, although the extent to which we can breed dogs for companionship roles is limited, we must also be careful about going too far in the opposite direction – by increasing our dogs’ capacity for affection to the point where it becomes a burden to them. There is already an epidemic of separation disorders among companion dogs; a dog that was overwhelmingly motivated to be with people would presumably also suffer disproportionately if left alone. Most owners do not want their dog to be too ‘clingy’ (or indeed too bouncy: companion dogs are required to be inactive an average of three-quarters of their lives).

  There is no reason why more dogs cannot be better fitted into the companion role that many of them clearly already fulfil well today. It is to be hoped that the pressure now placed upon breed clubs to produce happier, healthier dogs will not only succeed, but also spark a reappraisal of what the show ring is intended to produce: greater emphasis on dogs’ role as companions and less on their largely outmoded roles as working animals. Furth
ermore, dogs not only need to be bred as companions, they need to be raised as companions, and the most efficient way for this to happen is for puppies to be born in domestic environments, not in barren outdoor kennels or sterile commercial production units. There are considerable challenges to be faced before rearing methods improve, not only because many breeders still underestimate puppies’ need for socialization, but also because there is no obvious mechanism whereby best practice will become widespread, given the sheer number of people involved. The information that breeders need in order to produce well-socialized puppies is now widely available, and its universal adoption should be just a matter of time.

  Even if this information is thoroughly disseminated, however, irresponsible breeding is unlikely to go away. The rehoming charities will inevitably take the brunt of coping with the unwanted dogs that result. But fortunately, they increasingly have available to them the information to adopt more science-based methods for rehabilitating such dogs, and for raising understanding among adopting owners of what makes dogs behave the way they do.