What are the cons of pedigree dogs

By Isabella Storyclaire

last updated January 15, 2025

Contributions sourced from

Pros And Cons Of Pedigree Dog Breeding

In the article, Welfare concerns associated with pedigree dog breeding in the UK by Nicola J. Rooney and David R. Sargan, the topic of the welfare for pedigree dogs is discussed. Pedigree dog breeding can be summed up as breeding for certain physical traits the Kennel Clubs look for, specifically in the different breeds of dogs. Rooney (2010) states that, In the UK, numerous pedigree dogs of many breeds experience compromised welfare due to the direct and indirect effects of selective breeding (p. 133). People are breeding these dogs for looks and in turn the dogs health is being compromised. Just like in the article by King, people are selective breeding for physical characteristics and Rooney touches upon the consequences of selective breeding for such characteristics. An in text citation states, The indirect effects of selective breeding for appearance include very significantly reduced genetic diversity unevenly spread across the genome (Jones et al 2008, p. 134). Dogs that are selected for looks with their genetics ignored are more likely to develop health issues, such as collie eye anomaly, cardiac problems, and diabetes to name a few. In both articles, King and Rooney discuss the trend of how dogs used to be bred for their working purpose and over time their companionship with humansshow more content

There are many similarities in the article when comparing it to the previous one. Both articles state there has been a trend between humans and dogs appearance, the trend being that dogs are bred for looks more than purpose nowadays. They also confirm that the health issues breeds are suffering from directly relates to selective breeding, all due to the fact that people are trying to conform to Kennel Club standards. All in all, Kings article was more background information, while Rooney furthers the discussion into the whys and how people should be changing their breeding

The Pedigree Dog Breeding Debate in Ethics and Practice: Beyond Welfare Arguments

Abercrombie, N., Hill, S., & Turner, B. S. (1984). Dictionary of sociology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Google Scholar
Adams, C. (1990). The sexual politics of meat. New York: Continuum.
Google Scholar
Balzer, P., Rippe, K. P., & Schaber, P. (2000). Two concepts of dignity. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,13(1/2), 727.
Google Scholar
Bauman, Z. (1997). Postmodernity and its discontents. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Google Scholar
Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
Google Scholar
Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review,19(1), 310.
Article Google Scholar
Bos, J., Bovenkerk, B., & Feindt, P. Does PLF objectify animals? (Unpublished paper).
Bovenkerk, B. (2016). Animal captivity: Justifications for animal captivity in the context of domestication. In B. Bovenkerk & J. Keulartz (Eds.), Animal ethics in the age of humans: Blurring boundaries in humananimal relationships (pp. 151172). Dordrecht: Springer.
Chapter Google Scholar
Bovenkerk, B. (2012). The biotechnology debate: Democracy in the face of intractable disagreement. Dordrecht: Springer.
Book Google Scholar
Bovenkerk, B., Brom, F. W. A., & van den Bergh, B. J. (2002). Brave new birds: The use of Animal Integrity in animal ethics. The Hastings Center Report, 32(1), 16.
Article Google Scholar
Bovenkerk, B., & Meijboom, F. (2013). Fish welfare in aquaculture: Explicating the chain of interactions between science and ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,26(1), 4161.
Article Google Scholar
Bovenkerk, B., & Meijboom, F. L. B. (2012). The moral status of fish. The importance and limitations of a fundamental discussion for practical ethical questions in fish farming. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,25(6), 843860.
Article Google Scholar
Bowen, G. A. (2008). Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: A research note. Qualitative Research,8(1), 137152.
Article Google Scholar
Brom, F. W. A. (1997). Onherstelbaar verbeterd (irrepairably improved). Assen: Van Gorcum.
Google Scholar
Budiansky, F. (1992). The covenant of the wild: Why animals choose domestication. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Google Scholar
Chan, S. (2009). Should we enhance animals? Journal of Medical Ethics,35(11), 678683.
Article Google Scholar
Collins, S., Forkman, B., Kristensen, H., Sande, P., & Hockinga, P. (2011). Investigating the importance of vision in poultry: Comparing the behaviour of blind and sighted chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science,133, 6069.
Article Google Scholar
Cronon, W. (1996). The trouble with wilderness: Or, getting back to the wrong nature. Environmental History,1(1), 728.
Article Google Scholar
Dabrock, P. (2009). Playing God? Synthetic biology as a theological and ethical challenge. Systems and Synthetic Biology,3, 4754.
Article Google Scholar
DeGrazia, D. (2008). Moral status as a matter of degree. Southern Journal of Philosophy,XLVI(2), 181198.
Article Google Scholar
Deckers, J. (2013). Paper presented at the preconference meeting at EurSafe. Uppsala, September.
De Vries, R. (2006). Genetic engineering and the integrity of animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,19(5), 469493.
Article Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council. (1992). FAWC updates the five freedoms. Veterinary Record,17, 357.
Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry,12(2), 219245.
Article Google Scholar
Francione, G. (2012). Pets: The inherent problems of domestication. http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/pets-the-inherent-problems-of-domestication/#UaMlSKJJM08.
Frankena, W. K. (1939). The naturalistic fallacy. Mind,48(192), 464477.
Article Google Scholar
Fraser, D. (2003). Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: The interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare,12, 433443.
Google Scholar
Harfeld, J. L., Cornou, C., Kornum, A., & Gjerris, M. (2016). Seeing the animal: On the ethical implications of de-animalization in intensive animal production systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,29, 407423.
Article Google Scholar
Holland, A., & Johnson, A. (2012). Animal biotechnology and ethics. Dordrecht: Springer.
Google Scholar
Holtug, N. (2015). The value of coming into existence. In T. Visak & R. Garner (Eds.), The ethics of killing animals (pp. 101116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
Hursthouse, R. (2006). Applying Virtue Ethics to Our Treatment of the Other Animals. In J. Welchman (Ed.), The practice of virtue: Classic and contemporary readings in virtue ethics (pp. 136155). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Google Scholar
Katz, E. (1992). The big lie. Human restoration of nature. Research in Philosophy and Technology, 12, 231241.
Lynas, M. (2011). Geo-engineering, nuclear power and climate change: Playing God is good for the planet. The Telegraph.
MacNaghten, P. (2004). Animals in their nature: A case study on public attitudes to animals, genetic modification, and nature. Sociology,38(3), 533551.
Article Google Scholar
McKibben, B. (1989). The end of nature. New York: Random House.
Google Scholar
Molewijk, B., Stiggelbout, A. M., Otten, W., Dupuis, H. M., & Kievit, J. (2004). Empirical data and moral theory: A plea for integrated empirical ethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy,7, 5569.
Article Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1922). Principia ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Nijland, H. J. (2016). Disentangling the domestic contractUnderstanding the everyday-life construction of acceptabilityOr non-acceptabilityOf keeping and killing animals for food. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Nijland, H. J., Aarts, N. M. C., & Renes, R. J. (2010). Frames and ambivalence in context: An analysis of hands-on experts perception of the welfare of animals in traveling circuses in The Netherlands. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,26, 523535.
Article Google Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2015). Ideas about naturalness in public and political debates about science, technology and medicine. Review of Nuffield Council on Bioethics Reports.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Objectification. Philosophy & Public Affairs,24(4), 249291.
Article Google Scholar
Ortiz, S. E. G. (2004). Beyond welfare: Animal integrity, animal dignity, and genetic engineering. Ethics & the Environment,9(1), 94120.
Article Google Scholar
Parfit, D. (1986). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Palmer, C. (2012). Does breeding a bulldog harm it? Breeding, ethics, and harm to animals. Animal Welfare,21, 157166.
Article Google Scholar
Palmer, C. (2011). Animal disenhancement and the non-identity problem: A response to thompson. NanoEthics,5, 4348.
Article Google Scholar
Palmer, C. (2010). Animal ethics in context. New York: Columbia University Press.
Google Scholar
Palmer, C. (1997). The idea of the domesticated animal contract. Environmental Values,6(4), 411425.
Article Google Scholar
Persson, K., & Shaw, D. (2015). Empirical methods in animal ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,28(5), 853866.
Article Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books.
Google Scholar
Regan, T. (2003). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Google Scholar
Reynolds, T. J., Dethloff, C., & Westberg, S. J. (2001). Advancements in laddering. In T. J. Reynolds & J. C. Olson (Eds.), Understanding consumer decision making: The means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Google Scholar
Robert, J. S., & Baylis, F. (2003). Crossing species boundaries. The American Journal of Bioethics,3, 113.
Article Google Scholar
Roeser, S. (2006). The role of emotions in judging the moral acceptability of risks. Safety Science,44, 689700.
Article Google Scholar
Rollin, B. (1995). The Frankenstein syndrome: Ethical and social issues in the genetic engineering of animals. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Rutgers, L. J. E., & Heeger, F. R. (1999). Inherent worth and respect for animal integrity. In M. Dol et al. (Eds.), Recognizing the intrinsic value of animals: Beyond animal welfare. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Google Scholar
Rutgers, L. J. E., Grommers, F. J., & Wijsmuller, J. M. (1995). Welzijn-intrinsieke waarde-integriteit. Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde,120, 490494.
Google Scholar
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
Google Scholar
Shriver, A. (2009). Knocking out pain in livestock: Can technology succeed where morality has stalled? Neuroethics,2(3), 115124.
Article Google Scholar
Soper, K. (1995). What is nature? Culture, politics and the non-human. Oxford: Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Stone, C. (2010). Should trees have standing? Law, morality and the environment (3rd ed.). (original edition: 1972). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swierstra, T. (2003). De wisselwerking tussen ethiek en technologie. In I. Devisch & G. Verschraegen (Eds.), De verleiding van de ethiek: Over de plaats van morele argumenten in de huidige maatschappij (pp. 154171). Amsterdam: Boom.
Google Scholar
Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York: Random House.
Google Scholar
Thompson, P. (2008). The opposite of human enhancement: Nanotechnology and the blind chicken problem. NanoEthics,2, 305316.
Article Google Scholar
Thompson, P. (2007). Food biotechnology in ethical perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.
Google Scholar
Van den Belt, H. (2009). Playing God in Frankensteins footsteps: Synthetic biology and the meaning of life. NanoEthics,2, 257268.
Article Google Scholar
Van Haperen, P. F., Gremmen, B., & Jacobs, J. (2012). Reconstruction of the ethical debate on naturalness in discussions about plant-biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,25(6), 797812.
Article Google Scholar
Viak, T. (2010). Do animals count for less? In C. M. R. Casabona, L. E. San Epifanio, & A. E. Cirion (Eds.), Global food security: Ethical and legal challenges (pp. 423428). Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen.
Google Scholar
Vogel, S. (2015). Thinking like a mall. environmental philosophy after the end of nature. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Book Google Scholar
Walker, R. L. (2007). The good life for non-human animals: What virtue requires of humans. In R. L. Walker & P. J. Ivanhoe (Eds.), Working virtue: Virtue ethics and contemporary moral problems (pp. 173189). New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Yin, R. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing.
Google Scholar
Zwart, H. (1997). De natuur als criterium voor medisch handelen? In: J. Keulartz & M. Korthals (eds.), Museum aarde: Natuur, criterium of constructie? (pp. 155165). Amsterdam: Boom.
Zweers, W. (1995). Participeren aan de natuur: Ontwerp voor een ecologisering van het wereldbeeld. Utrecht: Van Arkel.
Google Scholar

Getting a Second Dog Pros and Cons

Having a dog has been a fun and wonderful experience for everyone in your family. In fact, it has been so rewarding that you are now seriously thinking of getting a second dog. However, it is important that you really think this decision through, because having two dogs can be an entirely different experience from having one. Before you make a leap of faith off of this cliff, you need to make a detailed list of the pros and cons associated with getting a second dog. As you thoughtfully compile this list, here are just a few things that you might want to take into consideration.

The Pros

If you are enjoying spending time with your dog, then there is no doubt that a second dog can enhance that experience. This might be a little overwhelming if you were the only person in the house, and you suddenly had two dogs totally relying on you for everything every single minute of the day, but if you are a family, there should be plenty of human companionship to go around.

Companionship is one of the main things that people think of when they are considering getting a second dog companionship for their canine friend who may be lonely for someone to play with, sleep with, and socialize with. This can be an especially important consideration if your dog is forced to spend a lot of time home alone each day. With another dog around to keep him company, instead of staring fitfully at the door for hours waiting for someone to come home, he may be so busy goofing around and getting into mischief with his new friend that he may not even notice when you come in through the door.

The Cons

No matter how much we may love dogs, some of that mischief they get into can be a bit destructive. Put two dogs together, and you could potentially have a mess on your hands. They might enjoy their time home alone together, but can you really trust them to mind their manners and leave the place the way you left it?

Even if you end up with two dogs that are extremely well behaved, they still represent twice the responsibility. Essentially, this means the potential for twice the cost: in vets fees, for food and medicine (including tick and flea prevention), for personal care products like shampoos, leashes, and so on. You hope of course that both of your dogs live healthy and active lives. But there is twice the possibility for health problems to arise, and if both of your dogs should need extensive medical care the situation could quickly get out of hand.

So far we have been assuming your two dogs will get along with each other just fine, but in fact that is a big assumption to make. It is entirely conceivable that your old dog will not take kindly to having his or her space invaded, and he or she may take it out on the new addition. The possibility for personality conflict is definitely there. If it turns out your two dogs cant get along, for whatever reason, what are you going to do then, after you have already made a commitment to the new dog by adopting him or her and bringing him or her home?

Beyond the Pros and Cons

In truth, the list of pros and cons really boils down to just two things behavior and health. If both dogs behave well with you and each other, and dont break anything or bite anyone, and if their health is basically sound, then owning two dogs really can be twice as wonderful as owning one. But before you bring the new guy or gal home, here are some steps you should take to make sure your new addition is going to bring nothing but happiness and fun to your lives and your home.

Research your Breeds

All dog breeds have certain personality traits that generally define their character and their behavior. You already know about the characteristics of the dog you have, so what you need to do now is find another dog that will not clash with his personality style. If your dog likes to be active, you dont want to pair him up with a dog that prefers to sleep 16 hours a day. On the other hand, if you have a slothful canine, a frisky puppy from an active breed is hardly likely to be a good fit as the new addition will just end up annoying your already faithful friend. In your research you need to pay careful attention to the experiences of people who have owned any breed you are considering bringing into your home to see what kinds of problems have come up in their relations with other dogs.

Spay and Neuter

Of course if you choose a second dog of the opposite sex, then it goes without saying that you want to take at least one of them to the vet for an operation. But if you are going to be getting two dogs of the same sex, then spaying or neutering will probably do more to head off conflict than any other step you could take. If you choose to have two unaltered dogs of the same sex, then all we can say is, good luck to you.

Training

Hopefully the dog you have has been to puppy school, or received some other kind of training that has helped him become comfortable with other dogs, because this can make a really huge difference in how he will greet the newcomer. If this is not the case, and your dog appears to have some problems with other dogs, then you need to find ways to expose him to them in a non-threatening environment before you bring home the second dog. And of course when your second dog arrives, you may need to repeat the procedure with him.

Introduce them Slowly

When you bring the new dog home, your two canine pals need to be introduced to each other in a series of gradual steps. Take things slowly, and only let them get closer or spend time together unsupervised after you are sure there are not going to be problems. If they can get to know each other in an unhurried pace, in environments where they are made to feel completely comfortable, they should eventually learn to accept and even like each other. You might want to start with the new dog in his or her crate and allowing your dog to sniff him or her without any potential threat.

From there, should things go well, allow the new dog out of the crate and onto a leash, again, reducing threat to your existing dog.

Once it is well established that things are going well, you may let the new dog off the leash, but neither dog has proven that you can leave them unsupervised. This, too, may take some time. Pack structure will need to be established between them and only they know to determine this.

You may hear many people advising that as long as things dont get loud or bloody, let them work it out. This is highly unadvisable. Bear in mind that you are the pack leader and while you do not determine their pack status, you do lead over them both. Allowing them to work it out, in terms of fighting signals to them you are not in control. Recognizing they will determine pack structure is one thing, allowing things to turn into a fight is another. Once a dog has been attacked, he or she is never the same again and your home will always be a source of stress.

However, if you are vigilant, the two should eventually work it out. You should expect a little dominance being presented on either side paws or neck on top of one or the other dog or mounting in a non-mating manner these are normal. If these behaviors are accompanied with growling or fighting, you must be on hand to mediate.

The Final Verdict

After weighing the pros against the cons, it seems clear that you should go ahead and get that second dog, if that is what you really want to do. In almost every instance, two dogs can be brought together in peace and harmony. It is up to you to make sure that you take the steps necessary to make the transition smooth for each animal.