The fact that border collies are smarter than beagles would be purely a function of the more intellectually stimulating environments they grew up in. ("Border collie privilege.")
If a newborn bull mastiff puppy was raised by a family of poodles, it would grow up to be a poodle.
The fact that Labrador Retrievers make better guide dogs than Chihuahuas would be attributable only to their superior prenatal nutrition.
That pit bulls are more likely to be violent than Golden Retrievers is purely a function of their deprived environments and the "despair" they feel.
If a dog were not heterosexually inclined, and you saw this as anything but a genetically/hormonally dictated precondition, you would be considered a horrible person. But if you looked at any of the other differences between dogs as a genetically/hormonally dictated precondition, you would be considered a horrible person.
The variation within a dog breed would constantly be said to be greater than the average difference between breeds.
Every doggy park would have to maintain proportional representation of all major dog breeds.
Any uncastrated male dog which tried to mount more than one female dog would be labeled a "chauvinist" and a "pervert" and a "harasser" and would become an immediate candidate for castration.
An attempt would be made to convert all dogs to vegetarianism.
The fact that dogs are more loyal than cats is purely a function of upbringing and not instinct.
If we let dogs roam free, they would immediately revert to being wolves.
The fact that wolves are smarter than dogs (all of which descended from wolves) has nothing to do with the artificial environments and lack of natural selection that dogs were bred in.
You might therefore say that human society had a dysgenic effect on dogs.
Or rather, you might not, since liberals would control the way we speak about them.