Paper short abstract:

Using a historical approach, this paper examines the interface between veterinarians and dog breeders, suggesting that differing local epistemologies and conflicting power networks underlie the ongoing friction between two communities with distinct, and sometimes incompatible, identities and ideologies.

Paper long abstract:

Writing in about 1885, the British dog fancier Gordon Stables (himself a medical doctor) opined, '… it is my firm conviction, and has been for years, that not three veterinary men out of ten possess sufficient knowledge … to enable them to cope successfully with the ailments of dogs.' Throughout the long twentieth century, relations between veterinary surgeons and dog breeders have frequently been characterised by mutual suspicion, intolerance and misunderstanding. Using a historical approach, this paper suggests that these conflicts have arisen partly because the two communities have developed separate conceptualisations of health and disease. Conformation regarded as desirable in the show ring has been considered pathological in veterinary circles, and the categories of disease recognised by veterinarians and fanciers have not always corresponded. The transfer of novel health approaches into the breeding community has variously been imposed by professionals or introduced by enthusiasts, with consequent resistance or adoption contingent on the methodology of their introduction. Supported by separate constructions of disease and networks of power, the two communities have powerful but often incompatible identities and ideologies, with the canine body the site of the conflict between them. Modern activists may reference dogs of the past as preferable to those they criticise today, but the historical literature shows that the debate about pedigree dog health is as old as the pedigree dog itself.