Ethical Considerations in Merle Breeding: Responsibility and Welfare

The science of merle genetics is well established. The tools for safe breeding are readily available. Yet double merle puppies continue to be born in numbers that speak to a failure not of knowledge, but of ethics. As breeders, we must confront uncomfortable questions about our motivations, responsibilities, and the moral weight of the decisions we make.

This article is not about the genetics - you can find that elsewhere on this site. This is about the principles that should guide how we apply that genetic knowledge. It is about the ethical framework within which responsible breeding must operate.

The Fundamental Ethical Question

Every breeding decision involves bringing new lives into existence. These lives will experience joy and suffering, companionship and loneliness, health and illness. The breeder who makes the decision to create these lives bears moral responsibility for what those lives contain.

When a breeder chooses to pair two merle dogs without testing - or worse, with full knowledge of the risks - they are making a choice that has a 25% probability of producing puppies with significant disabilities. This is not an accident or an unforeseeable consequence. It is a mathematically predictable outcome of a deliberate decision.

The Welfare of the Individual Dog

Animal welfare ethics typically considers five freedoms: freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom from discomfort, freedom from pain, injury, and disease, freedom to express normal behaviour, and freedom from fear and distress. How do double merle dogs fare against these standards?

A blind, deaf dog may be well-fed and housed comfortably, but their ability to express normal canine behaviour is fundamentally compromised. They cannot respond to their owner's voice, cannot be warned of approaching dangers, cannot engage in the rich sensory world that defines canine experience. Their freedom from fear and distress is challenged by every unfamiliar environment, every unexpected touch, every situation their impaired senses cannot help them navigate.

This is not to say that double merles cannot have good lives - many do, with dedicated owners who accommodate their needs. But we must honestly acknowledge that we are asking these dogs to adapt to disabilities that we knowingly created when we could have prevented them.

The Economics of Irresponsibility

An uncomfortable truth underlies much of the double merle problem: economics. Merle dogs command premium prices. The temptation to maximise merle puppies per litter creates pressure toward merle-to-merle breeding. Some breeders view the occasional double merle as an acceptable cost of doing business. This pressure is especially intense in breeds where merle is new or "exotic".

This calculation treats living creatures as commodities, their suffering as an externality to be minimised in profit calculations rather than prevented through ethical practice. It is a framework that has no place in responsible animal breeding.

Consider the full economic picture:

• Veterinary costs for affected puppies often exceed any breeding profits
• Reputation damage can destroy a breeding programme's long-term viability
• Rescue organisations bear costs that irresponsible breeders externalise
• Puppy buyers face unexpected lifetime care expenses
• The cost of genetic testing is trivial compared to these downstream expenses

Breeder Responsibility to Puppy Buyers

The relationship between breeder and buyer involves implicit promises. When someone purchases a puppy, they are trusting that the breeder has made responsible decisions about that puppy's creation. They are trusting that known risks have been mitigated, that available tests have been performed, that the breeder has prioritised puppy welfare over convenience or profit.

A breeder who sells a double merle puppy without fully disclosing its status and likely health challenges has violated this trust. A breeder who produces double merles through negligent testing practices has failed their buyers before those buyers even appeared.

Ethical breeding requires transparency:

• Honest disclosure of all genetic testing performed
• Clear explanation of merle status and its implications
• Education about safe breeding practices if the puppy may be bred
• Commitment to take back any dog the buyer cannot keep

The Question of Continued Merle Breeding

Some animal welfare advocates argue that we should simply stop breeding merle dogs entirely. Given the risks, they suggest, the pattern is not worth preserving. This position deserves consideration, even if I ultimately disagree with it.

My view is that merle can be bred safely and ethically through strict adherence to established protocols. The pattern has cultural and historical significance in several breeds, and the dogs themselves - when properly bred - are healthy, functional animals. The problem is not the merle gene itself but the human choices surrounding its management.

However, I hold this position conditional on breeders actually following safe practices. If the breeding community proves incapable of self-regulation - if double merles continue to be produced in significant numbers despite available knowledge - then the argument for more restrictive measures becomes compelling.

Regulatory Considerations

Various jurisdictions are beginning to address merle breeding through legislation. Some countries have banned or restricted merle-to-merle breeding. Kennel clubs increasingly require testing or documentation. These regulatory approaches reflect societal recognition that voluntary compliance has been insufficient.

Ethical breeders should welcome appropriate regulation. If rules require us to do what we should be doing anyway, they cost us nothing while constraining our less scrupulous competitors. Opposing regulation only makes sense if one wishes to preserve the option of irresponsible practice.

The Role of Breed Clubs and Registries

Breed clubs and registries occupy a unique position in canine ethics. They set standards, maintain pedigrees, and shape breeding practices across entire populations. Their policies on merle breeding directly influence outcomes for thousands of dogs.

Responsible organisations should:

• Require merle testing before registration of litters from certain colour combinations
• Refuse registration of offspring from merle-to-merle matings without documented testing
• Educate members about cryptic merle risks
• Support research into merle genetics and health outcomes
• Sanction members who persistently produce double merles

Personal Ethical Commitment

Abstract ethical principles must translate into concrete personal commitments. I suggest the following as a minimum ethical standard for anyone breeding dogs in merle-affected populations:

1. I will test every breeding animal for merle status, regardless of appearance or pedigree
2. I will never breed two merle carriers together without DNA confirmation that at least one is non-merle
3. I will be transparent with puppy buyers about genetic status and testing
4. I will accept lifetime responsibility for any puppy I produce
5. I will educate other breeders and advocate for safe practices
6. I will support appropriate regulation of merle breeding

These commitments are not burdensome for anyone genuinely committed to animal welfare. They are simply the minimum requirements of ethical practice in merle breeding.

Conclusion: Ethics as Practice

Ethics is not an abstract philosophy - it is expressed through the choices we make every day. In breeding, those choices have direct consequences for living creatures who cannot consent to the conditions of their existence. We owe them our best judgment, our careful practice, and our honest acknowledgment when we fail. Puppy buyers also play a crucial role by demanding accountability from breeders.

The merle pattern is beautiful. The dogs who carry it can be wonderful companions. But neither beauty nor companionship justifies the creation of suffering that we have the knowledge and tools to prevent. Ethical merle breeding is not just possible - it is the only acceptable approach.