I think "deceiving title choice" is a bit strong. Of course you can name your dog whatever you want. I highly doubt that anyone read this and actually thought that there was some sort of global law requiring this.
> That's much less interesting to me than the title suggests.
I'm having a hard time imagining some more interesting, plausible thing that you thought the title suggested.
Fair enough, I suppose I should have worded my complaint the other way around. A better title would have been "Why only 37 dogs of each breed can have the same name registered at the American Kennel Club".
Self-diagnosing a little, I think my skeptical attitude towards institutions is acting up here. It's weird to me when people use "name" when what they really mean is "name registered with institution X". I don't see why anyone should care what the AKC thinks of their dog's name, in kind of the same way that registering a name for a star in a star registry is similarly stupid.
Because the name is the brand, and cames with many benefits attached for both the breeder and the buyer.
For breeders, having your 'product' validated by a third part is a guarantee that is faithful to the breed, and increases its value. Having an unique name avoids scams also (Dishonest breeders can't enter in a competition with a dog named like your famous winner for example). More respectable breeders are supported by a third part and can sell their pups for more money.
For buyers, you are allowed to participate in official dog competitions and win prizes; and, much more important, you have a guarantee that your dog will have a happy life free from pain and suffering.
There is a public, transparent register showing absence or presence of main congenital diseases in the family of your pet. Will be your pet free from hip dysplasia in a few years? Will have a high probability of becoming deaf?. The breeder can't hide this important information to you. Having this info is a must for some dog breeds
So German cities have employees /systems whose job it is to register dog names not totally sure that's the best use of taxpayers money - better bike lanes and electric charging infrastructure or even GASP better support for homeless people.
Yep. My initial guess was some kind of proof that it's extremely improbable to have more than 37 of the same name and breed for whatever reason. My second guess was that (in some country) it was legally required for breeders to name and register their dogs with some central agency. Both seemed somewhat plausible and more interesting than what it turned out to be.
> I highly doubt that anyone read this and actually thought that there was some sort of global law requiring this.
Sure, but it's exactly the desire to reduce the tension between what you know to be true and the title that makes clickbait effective. This could have also been a law from 1700 that was never enforced, or whatever.
> That's much less interesting to me than the title suggests.
I'm having a hard time imagining some more interesting, plausible thing that you thought the title suggested.