Verified by 
Where's the dog in dog breeding and neutering?
A recent essay by Jessica Dawson and her colleagues called "Throwing the Baby Out With the Bath Water: Could Widespread Neutering of Companion Dogs Cause Problems at a Population Level?" raises many important questions about what we owe to future dogs. In their abstract the researchers write, "This paper summarizes research investigating factors influencing the breeding and rearing of dogs most suited to companionship roles in contemporary, typically high-density, communities, and briefly reviews current breeder practices. It then argues that a fundamental shift to promote inclusion of 'proven' companion dogs in the gene pool, as opposed to dogs meeting conformation or working/sporting standards, is required to successfully meet the needs of modern urban dog owners." (My emphasis) Of course, it's also essential to meet the needs of the dogs themselves. The researchers also note that current breeding practices and widespread neutering produce dogs who wind up in homes to which they're not especially well suited and the people who offer them a place to live don't have the lifestyle or knowledge to give them the best lives possible. (See Canine Confidential and "Should Shelters and Breeders Require Literacy in Behavior?") The entire paper is available online for free so here are a few ideas that came to me after I read it.
The current ecological niches for the vast majority of dogs centers on humans
The current ecological niches for the vast majority of dogs either is a home with a human companion(s) or areas in which they spend a good deal of time on their own and receive some support from humans in varying degrees. It's been estimated that around 85% of dogs in the world, perhaps as many as 700-800 million individuals, are pretty much or totally on their own. (See "Are Dogs Really Our Best Friends or Family?" for details.) Even for these free-ranging dogs, who aren't as free as many people think they are, humans still figure into their time and activity budgets and feeding and roaming patterns. It also turns out that many free-ranging dogs aren't as stressed, aggressive, or wild as they seem to be. For example, in one study of street dogs in Bangalore, India, called “streeties” by the locals, Sindhoor Pangal reported that the dogs she observed didn't show signs of elevated stress. Similar trends were observed in Bali. (See "Personality Traits of Companion and Free-Ranging Bali Dogs" and "Nuances of social interaction in free ranging dogs.")
While we need more studies on free-ranging dogs, it's well known that numerous homed dogs live highly stressed lives. In her book Love Is All You Need, Jennifer Arnold notes that dogs live in an environment that “makes it impossible for them to alleviate their own stress and anxiety.” (Page 4) Dogs are essentially captive beings in the true sense of the word. According to the online Etymology Dictionary, the noun captive means “one who is taken and kept in confinement; one who is completely in the power of another.” The word’s roots come from the Latin captivus, “caught, taken prisoner,” and from capere, “to take, hold, seize.” (See Unleashing Your Dog, "Dogs, Captivity, and Freedom: Unleash Them Whenever You Can," and references therein.) Simply put, “being captive” means that your life is not your own, that the contours of your daily existence are shaped by someone else. It means you lack the ability to choose what you do, who you see, who and what you smell, and what and when you eat. It also means depending on someone else to provide the basic necessities of life, like food and shelter, along with opportunities for meaningful engagement with others and the world. In these ways, dogs kept as pets are captive animals, and humans are their captors because we control all these aspects of their lives.
Should we continue breeding dogs who will have to live in human-dominated environs?
"Even tailored 'prophylactic breeding' that takes into account the eventual human-centered niches of future companion dogs will result in more dogs in an already over-crowded canine world."
Viewing dogs as captive animals is the crucial starting point for understanding our relationships with, and our responsibilities toward, our furry friends. No matter how loving human caretakers are, companion dogs must cope with an asymmetrical relationship. To live in our world, we require them to give up many of their freedoms and natural canine behaviors. Jessica Dawson and her colleagues conclude, "To summarize, we propose a systemic restructuring of the companion dog breeding industry that incorporates increased transparency regarding breeding choices and puppy rearing practices, temperamental evaluation of breeding dogs, and a collaborative relationship between breeders and owners that allows for more suitable dogs to remain within the gene pool." They argue that we need to change attitudes toward neutering and that "responsible ownership" must include potential owners and breeders producing dogs who are suited to be canine companions. In modern high-density human communities, this likely will prove to be a difficult, if not impossible task, and dogs still retain their status as captive beings.
This sounds all well and good and I applaud the researchers' concern with the well-being of the dogs themselves. Clearly, humans dominate dogs' most common ecological niches. If we're to continue breeding dogs, we must take into account their well-being and quality of life and not only our own selfish desires, the result of which are dogs who we know will live short, compromised lives. So, it's only fair and to be expected that breeders should try to make dogs who are well suited to be canine companions in a human-dominated world, rather than selecting for breed standards and other traits that don't serve dogs well. However, the dogs' well-being must trump self-serving human preferences for maladaptive traits.
It's essential to continually ask where's the dog in dog breeding and neutering practices and should we continue breeding more dogs, especially when there are so many dogs who want and need what we hope will be forever homes. As I wrote above, and a thought that has come up in many different discussions on the future of dog breeding, even tailored "prophylactic breeding" that takes into account the eventual human-centered niches of future companion dogs will result in more dogs in an already over-crowded canine world. I'm reminded of a question a 10-year-old asked me a few years ago: "Do we really need more dogs?"
Putting ethics into practice on behalf of dogs and asking difficult and touchy questions
Clearly, there not only are practical issues at hand, but also ethical questions that need to be seriously considered if we continue breeding dogs. The life of each and every individual dog matters because they're alive and sentient beings, so continuing to make more dogs than can possibly find suitable homes in a human-centered world leaves a lot to be desired. (See "Why Dogs Matter," "'Why in the World do People Make These Types of Dogs?'", "A Matter of Breeding: How We've Greatly Harmed BFF Dogs," "Designer Dogs Costa Rica Style: Unwanted but Unique Breeds," and "How Many Dog Breeders Do We Really Need?")
Stay tuned for further discussions of these and other difficult and touchy issues centering on the human control of dog breeding and neutering. Clearly, human-centered interests in producing designer dogs of all shapes, sizes, and phenotypes have derailed natural selection. It's high time to give close and meaningful attention to alternatives to continuing to make future dogs who will live less than optimal lives in various human environs.
