Let's Ban Breeding!/? - A Legal Case in Norway - part 3/3

Ruling Nature

The whole concept behind the trial and the verdict was summed up briefly by Dyrebeskyttelsen Norge: “dogs must be bred to be healthy”.

There are numerous reasons why animal welfare is a trending topic in the current climate of opinion. We care for and feel strongly bonded to animals, especially companion animals, and dogs have gained a unique status within human society.
How to solve welfare matters is a vast and exciting topic, including when we can state that an animal is suffering. We claim to know precisely, but many times we fail. And recently, probably due to exaggerated enthusiasm, some animal welfare approaches and objectives have gone to the other extreme. There is the trending idea of 100% healthy animals who are not allowed to suffer and never face any negative life experiences. Neither stress nor any kind of disease is acceptable. Dogs ought to experience a happy and healthy life—almost as an obligation. This is a goal no one can achieve; it is utopian. It might work in theory, but real life is a different platform. 

It may surprise some, but a dog is a living organism. Veterinarian medicine has been developing rapidly, we have highly advanced diagnostic tools, and the available treatments have evolved in an unimaginably rapid phase during the last few decades. Science produces an excessive amount of new knowledge; however, we are not even close to announcing we know everything. The opposite applies: the more we discover, the more obvious how much we don’t know yet.
And then we expect dogs must be bred to be healthy; furthermore, it is a legal obligation now. It is a noble attempt that is utterly unrealistic.

And how can you dictate to biology by law? How could you ensure health for a biological organism just because the law says so? How can you say that when a living entity starts life but then sufferes any disease, it must undoubtedly be a human’s fault? 

I met pro-verdict comments stating that law is the law; you must follow it. The thing is that if all laws ever written had been correct and applicable, we wouldn’t need lawmakers in countries like Norway with civil law systems. The law is ever-changing and occasionally when tested foundto be wrong or inefficient eventually.

The concept of legally controlling Nature this way is a false objective. You cannot set and apply a generalised and oversimplified truth on health. Biology is far more complex.
Indeed, artificial selection means human activity accompanied by responsibility, but assessing and proving the negligence or wrongdoing of a human is not that simple. Even the most professional and careful efforts can lead to unwanted results. That you can truly call “unfortunate circumstances”. 

And by the way, what is healthy? And when can you call a biological organ “legally healthy”? I mean, when can you say that an animal’s health state meets the utterly vague legal requirements? “Be healthy” is a too short and non-defined requirement and definition. It is close to being nonexistent.
Which of the thousand shades of “being unhealthy” do you consider an unacceptable state and consequently aim to eliminate it?

If you accept the will of the lawmaker and its enforcement via a juridical verdict, let’s take a closer look at where it may lead to.
Law applies to all. As a reaction to the accusations that the whole lawsuit is only attacking registered breeders, pro-verdict comments expressed that everyone taking part in dog reproduction should abide by the law. That would include puppy farms, legal or illegal, and backyard breeders as well.

Regardless of whose responsibility it is, the host or the owner, Luna, the Labradoodle should not have been bred, especially for the second time. That procedure should be against the law.
And if we strictly follow the logic behind the lawsuit, the next step should be the ban of the Labradoodle in Norway. Considering Luna’s case demonstrates perfectly that there is a risk of complications during birth for both the bitch and the puppies.
Let’s take this further. If someone collects one hundred mixed-bred dogs and proves that 20% of the population can be affected by inherited diseases with a genetic background, will mixed-bred dogs be banned?
Is it possible that one day the reproduction of dogs will be banned entirely in Norway as they do not comply with the rule “dogs must be bred healthy”?

Puzzle Unsolved

The media coverage of the lawsuit took a simplified position: two breeds got banned as a consequence of health problems. Breeders, breed clubs found guilty. Period. Simple story.
Yet, under the surface, so many unanswered questions lurk, perfectly presenting the colossal and chaotic mess in the topic of breeding and maintaining dog health—both in relation to this case and in general.

When and who can say that the individual has done their best? Do you indeed want humans to be able to play God and overrule Nature? Where is the boundary between the responsibility of the human act and the mysterious rules of Nature? Who will draw that line?
Is it wise to stick to the concept of 100% healthy animals and build up our attempts in accordance?
Where can you find the definite meaning of such terms as “healthy”, “healthy breeding”, “serious breeding”, and “scientifically based” when our knowledge of science has constantly been evolving, in many cases re-writing itself?
Can you oversimplify the matter of healthiness this much? Can you relate diseases based on genetics and conformation directly to specific breeds or groups of breeds? Are health and fighting unwanted health conditions that simple?
To what extent and how can you use law in solving animal welfare matters?
To what extent and how can you use science in the law?
Can you use ever evolving science in a courtroom as hard evidence?
And who will take responsibility if misinterpreted or wrongly implemented scientific knowledge leads to more harm eventually?

How is it possible that the actual acts of the individual are not taken into account when they are judged and ruled?
How can you serve justice when you use scientific results from other countries during a different time period instead of examining the local population in question? And how can you serve justice at all when one is found guilty based not on their acts but theoretical probabilities?
How can you serve justice when you take six people to court and condemn and stigmatise the rest of those engaged in the same activity?

Exactly what benefits does this case provide for the dog population as the verdict can be employed effectively only on the registered population? Is there any concept on handling the unregistered population, as, currently, law enforcement has no procedure for the more or less invisible population of unregistered dogs? How do you enforce the law on those whose activity is below the radar and thus you cannot control it?
How will this verdict and the concept behind it improve dog health in the long run, when even the Norwegian authority expressed that they do not support a total ban as that is not the proper and effective way to handle and fight breed-predisposed diseases?

Why is there a double standard in animal welfare organisations? Why do they express a solid, no-exception concept in one case and yet on a different occasion, they raise an utterly different narrative?
All of these are valid questions, and it is not easy to find the proper answers. However, it would be wise and highly advised to seek clarity. As previously announced many times, Dyrebeskyttelsen Norge aims to take other breeds and breeders to court following a favourable verdict. They hope, together with some other animal welfare organisations, that other countries take up their concept, and that this trend will spread across Europe.
Before that, it would be highly recommended to have a concept with sound and informed reasoning and no black holes in explanations. Otherwise, such attempts will on the whole cause irreversible harm which will not be excused by some possible more minor benefit.

The NKK filed their appeal, and their hearing is scheduled for the second part of September 2022. By the time you read these thoughts, we might even have the next decision that hopefully answers many of our concerns. Or purely puts more oil on the fire.

Let's Ban Breeding!/? - A Legal Case in Norway - part 1/3
Let's Ban Breeding!/? - A Legal Case in Norway - part 2/3

This writing is a chapter of the book “Let’s ban breeding!/?” to be published at the beginning of 2023.