5 ms·

Pug parent here. As many other comments have mentioned, brachycephalic dogs are only one kind that suffers largely as a result of selective breeding by humans.

Pug parent here. As many other comments have mentioned, brachycephalic dogs are only one kind that suffers largely as a result of selective breeding by humans. I have the (somewhat) unfortunate opinion that brachycephalic dogs are also by far the cutest. Nothing makes me happier than being with my pug. I think this particular article brings up two important things about dogs as pets, but fails to connect them properly: 1) some animals suffer much more than others due to selective breeding 2) we should not buy them. Perhaps the author actually intended this, but as written it doesn't go far enough: We should not be supporting animal breeders at all, regardless. Creating animals that are dependent on humans for survival is wrong, as is giving people a financial motivation for creating more of them. Animals are not a commodity—they are living beings that feel just like we do. What I think we should do is take care of the lives we already have (adopt animals in shelters and rescues and take the best care of them you can) but stop breeding animals as human companions, and certainly don't support those who do financially. This viewpoint goes hand in hand with my beliefs on a more philosophical level: veganism and antinatalism.

dukeluke 10y ago
I disagree. From an evolutionary standpoint right now, the best thing an animal could do would be to be liked by humans. If we disband our love for cats and dogs and stop using them as pets, then after a while the only remaining ones would be seen as pests and would be suppressed or eradicated. With that said, I agree that our breeding of purebred pets should be stopped. It hurts the pets with no benefit to us other than bragging rights.
jacamat 10y ago
Well, we invented dogs. So while it is a good morale argument that breeding co-dependency into a species and infantilizing an otherwise very self-sufficient predator is a bad thing, its probably not going to happen. At least not in our lifetime. Which brings us back to improving the standards for breeding that we have today. Some dogs, such as Dalmatians and Bulldogs, are genetic atrocities and should not be bred in the way that they are right now. Not only is it irresponsible, it results in a very poor quality of life for the resulting litter. Standing firmly against these practices as an industry - as pet lovers, as professionals - is a difficult, but remarkably achievable goal.
- tptacek 10y ago
  I don't know why people buy dalmatians. My only experience with the breed was my childhood friend's dalmation, who was an asshole and bit me. But I do know why people buy bulldogs. They're easygoing. They have high medical and upkeep maintenance costs, but very low day-to-day costs. They're suitable for families with small children or other pets. They're grateful for play time when it's available, but not harmed by prolonged inattention. They're not so big that you couldn't own one in an apartment. If there's another, healthier breed with the same characteristics and no major health problems, I'll concede that people should buy that breed and not the bulldog. But I don't think that's the case. Stipulating that you can only get that package of attributes in a health-compromised breed, I don't think you have a very strong argument. If you need those attributes in a pet, your alternative to a compromised dog is no dog at all. While I wouldn't go so far as to claim that bringing a genetically compromised dog into the world is an ethical positive, I can't find a way to it being ethically negative. It seems pretty neutral to me. Obviously: to responsibly acquire one of these dogs, you need to be educated about their issues and committed to ensuring their comfort as best as can be done.
  - jacamat 10y ago
    I looooooove Dalmatian's. They're so pretty and spotty and different looking. On the other hand, I can't for the life of me figure out why someone in their right mind would buy a bulldog. lol. They slobber and fart and cost a small fortune just to keep alive for a reasonable period of time. Not to mention they literally cannot give birth without a C-section which, to me, is just unfathomable to put an animal through just because you like the way the animal looks. But to each their own, eh? > "Stipulating that you can only get that package of attributes in a health-compromised breed, I don't think you have a very strong argument" Not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate? If you want an apartment-sized dog that has like, no health issues, adopt a pit bull. Adopt a mutt. Adopt a labrador. If the dog tears up your shit, hire a trainer. If it needs exercise, exercise it more. Etc. You can certainly choose a breed (or mix) that will have a significantly better quality of life without sacrificing anything personally. In which case, why would you instead choose a breed that is for-sure without-a-doubt no-way-around-it riddled with problems? The ethical negative seems obvious because there are plenty of other dogs that fit the bill without sacrificing their health from jump. I will agree with you on education being an important factor in choosing a dog. But very few people have the in-depth education required to make that choice in the first place so, like I said, the responsibility ultimately falls on the BREEDER.

dukeluke 10y ago

I disagree. From an evolutionary standpoint right now, the best thing an animal could do would be to be liked by humans. If we disband our love for cats and dogs and stop using them as pets, then after a while the only remaining ones would be seen as pests and would be suppressed or eradicated. With that said, I agree that our breeding of purebred pets should be stopped. It hurts the pets with no benefit to us other than bragging rights.

jacamat 10y ago

Well, we invented dogs. So while it is a good morale argument that breeding co-dependency into a species and infantilizing an otherwise very self-sufficient predator is a bad thing, its probably not going to happen. At least not in our lifetime. Which brings us back to improving the standards for breeding that we have today. Some dogs, such as Dalmatians and Bulldogs, are genetic atrocities and should not be bred in the way that they are right now. Not only is it irresponsible, it results in a very poor quality of life for the resulting litter. Standing firmly against these practices as an industry - as pet lovers, as professionals - is a difficult, but remarkably achievable goal.

tptacek 10y ago
I don't know why people buy dalmatians. My only experience with the breed was my childhood friend's dalmation, who was an asshole and bit me. But I do know why people buy bulldogs. They're easygoing. They have high medical and upkeep maintenance costs, but very low day-to-day costs. They're suitable for families with small children or other pets. They're grateful for play time when it's available, but not harmed by prolonged inattention. They're not so big that you couldn't own one in an apartment. If there's another, healthier breed with the same characteristics and no major health problems, I'll concede that people should buy that breed and not the bulldog. But I don't think that's the case. Stipulating that you can only get that package of attributes in a health-compromised breed, I don't think you have a very strong argument. If you need those attributes in a pet, your alternative to a compromised dog is no dog at all. While I wouldn't go so far as to claim that bringing a genetically compromised dog into the world is an ethical positive, I can't find a way to it being ethically negative. It seems pretty neutral to me. Obviously: to responsibly acquire one of these dogs, you need to be educated about their issues and committed to ensuring their comfort as best as can be done.
- jacamat 10y ago
  I looooooove Dalmatian's. They're so pretty and spotty and different looking. On the other hand, I can't for the life of me figure out why someone in their right mind would buy a bulldog. lol. They slobber and fart and cost a small fortune just to keep alive for a reasonable period of time. Not to mention they literally cannot give birth without a C-section which, to me, is just unfathomable to put an animal through just because you like the way the animal looks. But to each their own, eh? > "Stipulating that you can only get that package of attributes in a health-compromised breed, I don't think you have a very strong argument" Not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate? If you want an apartment-sized dog that has like, no health issues, adopt a pit bull. Adopt a mutt. Adopt a labrador. If the dog tears up your shit, hire a trainer. If it needs exercise, exercise it more. Etc. You can certainly choose a breed (or mix) that will have a significantly better quality of life without sacrificing anything personally. In which case, why would you instead choose a breed that is for-sure without-a-doubt no-way-around-it riddled with problems? The ethical negative seems obvious because there are plenty of other dogs that fit the bill without sacrificing their health from jump. I will agree with you on education being an important factor in choosing a dog. But very few people have the in-depth education required to make that choice in the first place so, like I said, the responsibility ultimately falls on the BREEDER.