Are there any effective methods other than banning breeding?

 

I previously wrote a blog post predicting the impact a breed ban would have on its gene pool. At least according to my prediction, it won't positively affect the breed's global gene pool. A positive scenario of this is where breeders and clubs in other countries are influenced by this and become more open to diverse methods (ex., open studbook, outcrossing) to expand the gene pool and reduce the incidence of specific diseases. But that is still not ideal, since they'll lose part of the potential gene pool by that.

So, I have been thinking for a long time about whether there might be alternatives to a breed ban.

1. Temporary Ban on Participation in Dog and Cat Shows Until Their Situation Gets Better

This method involves suspending participation in dog and cat shows until health status and genetic diversity are improved to some extent through stricter breeding protocols or outcrossing, in cases where it is determined that the majority of individuals of a specific breed are at a very high risk of exposure to certain diseases and that there are almost no healthy individuals within the breed.

I considered this because popular sire syndrome is a major driver of genetic diversity loss and the spread of health problems within breeds; therefore, breeders who prioritize long-term preservation over show standards can profit from it.

2. Shifting decision-making authority, particularly regarding health and genetic diversity, from the registry to the veterinary and genetics communities.

This is crucial because, unlike existing interventions that merely remove specific breeds from the registry without significantly impacting substantive systemic issues, it addresses the systemic problems of pedigree dogs and cats.

At the end of this paper, they mentioned direct systemic changes.

"The changes need to be drastic, and if those currently charged with responsibility for organized dog breeding feel unable to rise to this challenge, then perhaps it is time that they should step aside and let others who do prioritize the health and welfare of dogs to take the reins."

Inspired by this, I mention this in my petition.

"If the stance of kennel clubs or cat registration bodies does not change within the next five years, consideration should be given to legal intervention to transfer their decision-making authority on health and genetic diversity to veterinary and genetics experts who prioritize the genetic health of dogs and cats above all else."

In other words, just as with the preservation of endangered wildlife, the decision-making authority should be given to experts if registries didn't change their stance.

Then why has the current legal action forced a ban on the breeding of specific breeds?

I believe the reasons are that, since the discussion usually revolves around phenotypes, consideration of the gene pool has been relegated to the background. And it is simpler than tampering with the registry's entire system. Furthermore, the entities filing lawsuits for this ban were animal advocacy organizations, which means although the outcome is depending on the stance of individual organizations. For example, there are animal 'welfare' organizations, and there are animal 'rights' organizations; They may look similar on the surface, but their core philosophies and goals are different. But sustainable breed preservation is not a primary goal for them.

However, I believe that for legal action to be effective—that is, for the welfare and sustainability of all breeds—we must look at the big picture.