Document type: article published in The Conversation
Author: Valérie Chansigaud
Preview: The European Council and Parliament recently reached a provisional agreement designed to impose stricter regulations on dog and cat breeding, notably by prohibiting the breeding and showing of animals with "extreme traits." This particularly affects certain conformational traits associated with serious and lasting disorders, such as dogs with flat faces, for which breathing difficulties, inability to exercise, and locomotor problems are now well documented issues. This regulatory change is a response to repeated warnings from the veterinary world and growing public sensitivity to animal suffering. It is also part of a long history of the excessive importance placed by human societies on the appearance of domestic animals and their desire to shape it.
Selecting for looks: an ancient practice with multiple uses
It is impossible to date precisely when humans began to practise the selection of animals for aesthetic reasons. Long before the existence of "breeds" in the modern sense of the term (a phenomenon that emerged in the 19th century), animals were already selected based on sex, age, color, or conformation. (...)
A belated concern for health and welfare
Modern breeds emerged in the 19th century, in a cultural context marked by a taste for classification, hierarchy, and social distinction based on the notion of "race." This passion for "pure" bloodlines was not unrelated to the intellectual conceptual systems that were, at the same time, developing racial theories for humans.
For many years, the effects of selection were assessed almost exclusively in terms of productivity, efficiency, or conformity to a standard. Animals were known to suffer but their suffering was widely tolerated, considered to be of secondary importance, or even inevitable. Veterinary practices themselves bore witness to this: for a long time, major procedures, such as the sterilization of female dogs, were performed without aesthesia.
Other procedures, which are now recognized as unnecessary and painful, were also common: for example, dogs' tongue ties were cut in the mistaken belief that this would prevent rabies.
These practices reflect an attitude towards the bodies of animals in which suffering was largely ignored, more from indifference than ignorance.
It was not until the second half of the 20th century that chronic pain, quality of life, and long-term health in animals began to be considered as issues in their own right. Current concerns over dogs with extreme body traits—causing breathing difficulties, locomotor disorders and exercise intolerance—are fully in line with this recent history of sensitivity to animal welfare.
Cats have long avoided this selective breeding process
Recent European regulations would appear more directly concerned with dogs than cats, an impression that chimes with historical, biological, and sociological reality. In France, as in many European countries, there are higher proportions of purebred dogs than purebred cats. This difference can be explained in large part by the histories of dog and cat breeding.
There has been a long-standing and basic interest taken in breeds of dogs. The selection of particular conformational traits became one of the central drivers for dog breeding in the 19th century, systematizing and standardizing much older practices where dogs were differentiated by the functions they perform. Since ancient times, certain dogs have been sought after for warfare or combat, focusing on their size, power, or aggressiveness. (...)
By contrast, cats have long avoided this selection process. The first cat shows in the 19th century rewarded individuals—often alley cats—over representatives of breeds that had not yet become standardized. Cats remained ordinary animals for longer, less subject to the demands of conformational selection.
Recent crossbreeds, such as the Pomsky (a cross between a Siberian Husky and a Miniature Spitz), reflect the current high demand for animals that are perceived as original and endearing, but which are, above all, emblematic of a fashion trend.
The choice of these dogs is less about their needs or health than about standing out from the crowd: people choose a dog as they would choose a pair of shoes, because it flatters their self-image and signals social status. Long criticised by veterinarians, who see the consequences of extreme conformational selection on a daily basis, these practices could now be curbed by new European regulations, which clearly state that any cross-breeding is unacceptable if it compromises the health or welfare of the animals concerned.
It remains hard to predict how dogs will look in the future, though. History shows that advances in animal protection are neither linear nor irreversible. The emergence of brutal or violent ideologies could very well lead to a decline in the consideration shown for animal suffering. The prohibition of extreme traits thus exposes an age-old tension between the vanity of sometimes cruel human desires and the need to establish moral rules to restrict their effects—a debate which is as old as philosophy itself. (...)
