Buzz
Dog breeding is a delicate subject, so let’s make one thing clear: I'm not here to stir up controversy. While I stand by animal rights, I’m not the type to turn down a juicy steak. There are practices I support—and plenty I don't—but the purpose of this article isn't to get political.
Instead, this list focuses on certain facts about dog breeding, particularly the breeding of dogs for show, which I personally find quite unsettling. You may not share my perspective—and that’s what the comments section is for, after all. However, the facts presented here are indisputable. Here are ten of them:
10. It’s a Blow to Evolution
The concept of natural selection refers to the way organisms naturally evolve, as outlined by Charles Darwin. In short, each living organism carries a unique set of genetic traits. Features like eye color, body structure, and tongue shape are all influenced by specific genes. According to natural selection theory, traits that benefit a species are more likely to be inherited, since individuals with these traits have a higher chance of survival. As a result, each species continues to evolve and improve. This is Evolution 101—and it’s the mechanism through which humans developed the ability to write things like 'Evolution 101.'
Now, let’s turn our attention to selective breeding, also known as artificial selection. This is the complete opposite of natural selection and undermines the essence of evolution. Nature, generally speaking, has its own way of determining what’s best for itself. Left undisturbed in a healthy environment, a species of dog (or any other organism) would evolve into its most optimal form. But when a dog breeder intervenes in this process, altering the natural course, the results can be quite problematic. Selective breeding isn’t inherently bad, but some of the outcomes it has produced in certain breeds are truly disturbing (more on that shortly).
9. It Diverts Resources from Animal Shelters
You remember how, at the end of every episode of The Price Is Right, Bob Barker would remind viewers to get their pets spayed or neutered? Well, there’s a very good reason for that: widespread overpopulation. In the United States alone, between three and four million dogs are euthanized in shelters each year because they have no homes to go to.
Spaying or neutering pets might seem harsh, but it plays a crucial role in controlling the number of animals, ensuring it aligns with the number of homes able to provide for them. Dog breeders, however, exist specifically to produce more dogs. While the concept itself seems harmless, the issue arises when professional breeders flood the market with dogs, pushing shelters that aim to rescue animals further to the margins. If purebred dogs were not so easily accessible, those seeking pets would have little choice but to adopt from shelters, which, it should be noted, would also be less overcrowded to begin with.
8. Show Dogs Are Not Allowed to Be Spayed or Neutered
The American Kennel Club (AKC), which serves as the pedigree registry in the U.S., is also responsible for organizing the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, which airs every year on television. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to show off your dog and take pride in them—that’s undeniably endearing. However, the issue is that at events like this, showing off your dog isn’t the primary objective.
As stated on the AKC website itself: “Spayed or neutered dogs are not eligible to compete in conformation classes at a dog show, because the purpose of a dog show is to evaluate breeding stock.” Setting aside how cold and detached that sounds, the real concern is that this policy actively encourages overbreeding. The message seems to be: “Keep breeding until you find the perfect dog,” which contributes to the overpopulation problem mentioned earlier.
7. Inbreeding Causes Genetic Disorders
Incest is actually illegal in many parts of the world and can be heavily penalized (with punishments ranging from lengthy prison sentences to life imprisonment, depending on the region). This includes consensual sexual acts that don’t result in pregnancy, even though preventing pregnancy was originally the justification for prohibiting incest. So, incest is taken quite seriously among humans, as it can lead to genetic issues like Joffrey Baratheon.
When it comes to dogs, however, inbreeding is often encouraged. It's easy to mate two dogs with similar genetics because they share so much of it. While this can result in a desired trait, especially in terms of appearance, it also raises the likelihood of passing on avoidable genetic defects. For instance, deafness is common among Dalmatians, and Boxers often suffer from heart disease.
Inbreeding is a widespread issue, primarily due to pedigree registries (such as the AKC) that restrict registrations to a small pool of “purebred” dogs. And they are indeed purebred; a recent study showed that a population of twenty thousand Boxers had the same genetic diversity as a group of just seventy dogs.
6. Traits Are Chosen for Looks, Not Functionality
As mentioned earlier, selective breeding is not inherently evil. While it may not be natural by definition, if conducted correctly, it can efficiently propagate the healthiest and most desirable traits within a breed. The issue arises when it comes to purebred dogs, where the desired traits are often chosen quite arbitrarily.
Take the English Bulldog as an example. The “official standard” (set by Kennel Clubs) calls for “massive, short-faced heads” with “broad and square” skulls. This standard leads to the squashed faces seen in bulldogs—and surprisingly, faces like these do not contribute to their overall health.
Such appearance-based breeding has caused numerous health issues for bulldogs—even for the “perfect” specimens—including cancer, respiratory diseases, blindness, and heart problems. They also experience significant difficulty during birth, which seems like something breeders would want to prevent. And this is just one breed. Consider the bulging eyes of pugs, which are prone to developing severe diseases, primarily leading to blindness, yet they remain the official standard.
5. Tail Docking and Ear Cropping
Here’s an extreme example of the obsession with appearance in dog breeding. It appears that not all traits breeders desire can be inherited—at least not quickly enough to satisfy some. This is where procedures like tail docking and ear cropping come into play.
Tail docking began as a means to avoid paying taxes on dogs (because “dogs with tails” used to be taxed). Although the tax motive is long gone, the practice persists under the new rationale that it prevents potential tail injuries in the future. It’s not unlike the procedure some people might suggest for newborns: cutting off their feet at birth to stop them from ever stubbing their toes later in life.
What’s even more troubling is that procedures like tail docking and ear cropping are part of many breed standards. The boxer, for instance, should have a “high, docked” tail, with “an undocked tail” being “severely penalized.” This is straight from the official registry’s website. And the situation is even worse: although many countries have banned or restricted tail docking, in the United States it’s still common—and often performed without anesthesia.
All of this continues despite numerous studies demonstrating the advantages of tails for dogs (they help with balance and communication, for instance). If it’s any comfort, the American Veterinary Medical Association opposes the practice. However, this may only make matters worse, as it provides untrained breeders a rationale to remove tails on their own.
4. Behavior is Pretty Much an Afterthought
Let’s circle back to those dog shows, which are the final goal for dogs bred to meet the “official standards” set by Kennel Clubs. As we’ve seen, these standards often focus on arbitrary, cosmetic, and sometimes harmful traits—but what about the dogs’ behavior? Surely how they act should be just as crucial as how they look, right?
It turns out that in dog shows, the behavior of the dogs being judged is barely considered at all. The only real requirement is that the dog doesn’t actively attack anyone, which would lead to disqualification. Of course, this decision is in the hands of the judges, meaning a dog can be dismissed for something as minor as “showing their teeth” or “rolling their eyes.” The only meaningful test of temperament is during the “sparring” portion, where two dogs are placed face to face and expected to react accordingly—i.e., not at all. And this is only applicable to Terrier breeds; for other dogs, behavior hardly matters.
3. Pure Breeding Is The Racism of The Animal Kingdom
This is likely the most subjective point in the list, which is why I’ve saved it for last. The health issues and the unnecessary focus on looks are valid criticisms of breeding dogs for shows—but this final one is mostly a matter of personal opinion. It's a fairly common view among animal lovers, though, and it goes like this: judging an animal’s worth based on its lineage is wrong.
There’s a reason why this kind of thinking is frowned upon when it comes to humans: it’s simply awful. It’s the mindset that led to separate water fountains and prohibitions against interracial marriages. It’s like claiming that white people are superior to black people or that brown hair and dark eyes are an inferior combination. It’s like calling someone a Mudblood—you just don’t do it unless you’re a terrible person. Yet, we have mutts and mongrels, and countless Kennel Clubs keeping track of which dogs are considered “better” than them.
To be clear, I’m not trying to be overly dramatic or overly sensitive; I understand that this is not on the same level as human racism. What I’m pointing out is the elitist mindset in professional dog breeding, especially in the biggest kennel club in the United States, which cares only about appearance.
But is it really fair to disqualify a show dog just because it has the wrong-colored nose (like the bulldog) or is half an inch taller than what’s considered average (like the whippet)?
I believe it’s not. I think professional dog breeding—and especially dog shows in the United States—could really stand to improve. After all, dogs are amazing creatures. Let’s start treating them like the true best friends they’re meant to be.
2. Health Is Essentially A Non-Issue
Here’s the situation: the AKC doesn't care about the health of the dogs. Their only health requirement for registration is that the dog be up to date with vaccinations—but beyond that, the health of the dog doesn’t matter. As they put it: “AKC registration means a dog, its parents, and its ancestors are purebred. It does not indicate health or quality.”
To be clear, the AKC is just a registry—but they offer zero incentive for show breeders to actually care about their dogs. In fact, the AKC seems almost to work against ensuring the quality of their breeders. They have only nine field inspectors, and these inspectors have, on more than one occasion, certified breeders who were later jailed for animal cruelty just months afterward.
These shockingly lax health standards have led some kennel clubs to distance themselves from the AKC, who responded by banning them from showing their dogs. While there’s nothing in the rules preventing a healthy dog from competing, showing a dog with the AKC effectively supports their disregard for health standards. And that’s a real problem because there are so many professional breeders who genuinely care about these issues, and they should be supported for their commitment to doing things the right way.
Even worse, this isn’t just passivity. The Humane Society of the United States has pointed out over eighty proposed bills that the AKC has openly opposed, all aimed at improving the basic care standards for dog breeding. And by basic, we mean things like “regular feeding” and “veterinary care.” Because who needs food and medicine when your dog has pure blood, right?
1. Seriously, Judges Don’t Care About Behavior
The final point doesn’t even address the core issue. The “official standards” not only determine how a breed should look but also dictate what their temperament should be like, and this plays a role in judging. Take Bulldogs, for example. They’re supposed to be “equable and kind, resolute and courageous . . . pacific and dignified,” which only accounts for three percent of their total points in shows (they can earn double that by having a perfect nose).
Once again, the dog’s personality barely matters. The frustrating part is that those vague, idealized personality traits are the only things the judges are meant to focus on. Boxers, for example, are expected to be dignified, as well as “playful, patient, and stoical with children.” Pointers? Dignified and congenial. Dalmatians? Dignified. Bloodhounds? You guessed it—dignified.
And this is where the real issue begins to surface: bloodhounds were never meant to be dignified. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but bloodhounds are bred to hunt. This skill is completely disregarded by the official standards. The Pointer doesn’t need to be skilled at pointing, nor does the fox terrier need to excel at tracking foxes. The historical traits of these and every other breed are overlooked in favor of superficial looks and, apparently, the “dignity” of their posture.
The closest the AKC comes to acknowledging a dog’s original purpose is by not penalizing “honorable wounds” for hunting dogs like dachshunds. It sounds reasonable at first, but then you realize they actually dock points for “dishonorable wounds,” whatever that means.
