Previous Articles
|
|
|||||
|
09 October 2003 Designer pets
Well, those dog breeds are, in a sense, the earliest examples of genetically modified organisms. All across the world, in different places, humans have bred animals with certain traits or characteristics in mind, to serve certain human needs.
Quite a few dog breeds were produced to pander to human needs for a little baby-like creature to cuddle and carry around. Thus, we have all these toy breeds down to the tiny Chihuahua, so small you can carry it in the palm of your hand. With greater consciousness now about animal welfare, there's a growing movement in western countries to stop this kind of breeding. A friend sent me the Aug. 3 issue of the London Sunday Times magazine, with a cover story: "Are we a Dog's Worst Enemy? Why Europe wants to outlaw pedigree pets." To understand why there is this move to "ban" pedigreed pets, we have to look at how all these different dog breeds came about. Although genetics as a science did not emerge until the 19th century, humans seemed to be aware that they could make certain animal traits dominant-from the color of the coat to body shape-by inbreeding, that is, mating closely-related animals. The inbreeding used to produce all these purebreds has resulted in problems. The long bodies and short legs of dachshunds, for example, mean they are vulnerable to spinal cord problems. German shepherds ("police dogs") and English sheepdogs, on the other hand, are prone to hip dysplasia or a misalignment of the hipbones, a trait resulting from selective breeding to obtain their sloping backs. These breeds' susceptibilities are passed on genetically. In other breeds, the physical characteristics are themselves a liability. The "champion" here, according to the Sunday Times article, is the bulldog, described as "a waddling, wheezing, disease-prone lump of nonsense." I know bulldog lovers will object to this description but the Sunday Times article points out that the bulldog is the product of breeding that selected traits for congenital dwarfism. Not only do they suffer from dwarfism, bulldogs, together with the boxer, pekingese and other flat-faced dog and cat breeds, have problems with their respiratory systems as well as shortened tear ducts, so these breeds are always gasping for breath and have "perpetually weeping eyes." All this happened because people wanted dogs with large heads and small bodies, traits that remind us of babies and children. Not all the genetic vulnerabilities are related to the particular breed's physical appearance. As with humans, some diseases can be passed on genetically. Afghan hounds, the Sunday Times tells us, are vulnerable to a "unique form of respiratory paralysis" and "necrotic myelopathy" (a muscle disorder). Cocker spaniels tend to have visual problems that may result in blindness; King Charles spaniels are "champions for leaking heart valves and have a weakness for heart murmurs, cataracts and slipped kneecaps" while basset hounds are "magnets for bone and joint failures." As if all these breeding-related problems were not enough, the Sunday Times article points out that "cosmetic" changes are imposed on dogs belonging to certain breeds. Tail-docking is one such procedure, still required for some 74 dog breeds. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in Britain has already expressed its disapproval of these procedures. It isn't just the pain of the surgery but the impaired natural function of the tail. Removing the tail of a dog deprives it of a way of communicating with other dogs, especially to reduce aggression. Tails are also needed for steering and balance -- I was fascinated to learn that because male dogs have to lift one leg, the tail actually helps for counterbalance! So what's Europe going to do now? There is a group called the Companion Animal Welfare Council that's lobbying the European Parliament to declare certain standards for heights and weights, as well as ratios for legs to body and heads to body to allow pets to lead healthy, functional lives. If a certain breed does not conform to these standards, then they would have to be "banned." There is, of course, opposition to these moves, especially from owners of the problematic breeds but we really should be thinking more seriously about how we might be producing "genetically modified freaks." As a dachshund owner, who has cared for several pets suffering from spinal cord problems, including paralysis, I'm in favor of taking steps to address the problems. If you own a purebred dog that suffers from one of the diseases or disorders that they're known to be susceptible to, then don't breed that dog because it'll just pass on its disorder to another generation. My sister and brother-in-law, who also own dachshunds and have spent quite some money for surgery to correct its spinal disorder, have told me they will no longer buy dachshunds in the future, much as they love the ones they have right now. They will be careful to choose dogs that do not belong to breeds with known serious genetic disorders. If you're still in the process of getting a dog, you might want to think of a mongrel or the "askal" ("asong kalye," or street dog), who tend to be sturdier and give as much affection as purebred dogs. In fact, I've always looked at the askal as more intelligent and certainly less neurotic than purebreds. If you already have purebred dogs, then love them, together with whatever congenital problems they have. But think, too, of how in the future, we might contribute toward a more humane world by moving away from designer pets, modified genetically or through surgery just to satisfy human whims. |
||||||
Home | Read the latest Article | Article Index | Send an Email | Search Articles
