user120: Does breeding and selling dogs fit into right livelihood provided that you make a concerted effort to make sure the animals find homes with responsible owners?

Edit:
Thanks for the answers so far. I am especially interested in answers that are rooted in the Pali Canon.
There are two relevant suttas that I found:

The Vanijja Sutta
The Dighajanu (Vyagghapajja) Sutta

However, it seems like there is dispute about how to translate and understand the relevant passages. Any answers that specifically address these issues would be appreciated.

user111: Under Samma Ajiva, five kinds of wrong livelihoods are identified:

trading in animals for slaughter
dealing in weapons
dealing in slaves
dealing in poison
dealing in intoxicants

So breeding dogs for petting is fine!

user289: Depends on which system your in. In the Mahayana system, the precepts have an animal liberation theme, i.e. not using animals for anything.
In the Upasaka precepts.

(15) If an upāsaka who has accepted this precept raises cats or
  foxes, he has committed the sin of negligence. ...
     (16) If an upāsaka who has accepted this precept raises animals,
  such as elephants, horses, cows, goats, camels, or donkeys, and
  refuses to give them away to someone who has not received the
  [upāsaka] precepts, he has committed the sin of negligence. Without
  rising above this impure act, which is conducive to continuing his
  cyclic existence, ... he cannot avoid going down an evil
  life-path.

ref: http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra33c.html
And in the Brahma Net Sutra precepts


On Harming Sentient Beings

A disciple of the Buddha must not sell knives, clubs, bows, arrows, other life-taking devices, nor keep altered scales or
  measuring devices.  He should not abuse his governmental position to
  confiscate people's possessions, nor should he, with malice at heart,
  restrain or imprison others or sabotage their success.  (82) In
  addition, he should not raise cats, dogs, foxes, pigs, and other such
  animals.  (83) If he intentionally does such things, he commits a
  secondary offense.

ref: http://www.buddhasutra.com/files/brahmanet.htm
I'm a vegetarian myself, and sympathetic to animal right issues-- the pet trade, zoos, and circuses do involve a certain amount of unneeded suffering and death on the animals parts, but for some people, their dog or cat is the only reason they have any sympathy at all for non-humans. So pets are a sort of unvolunteered diplomats for their species and animals in general.
Anyhow, here is one asian, dog charity I follow- https://www.facebook.com/pages/Duo-Duo-Animal-Welfare-Project-%E5%A4%9A%E5%A4%9A/380841222033262

user18: With Buddhist morality, you have to remember there are two levels:

The conventional, that is used like fence posts to demarcate boundaries and provide a framework. This includes the precepts, and the other teachings of the Buddha on right livelihood, ascetic practices, etc.
The ultimate, that deals with actual mental immorality, similar to a real fence that actually prevents escape. This involves mental states of greed, morality, and delusion.

The fence posts are important on a conventional level, since without them, one wouldn't know where to put the fence, and the fence would most likely collapse without their support. Precepts support practice, and provide clear indication of what is out of bounds. They don't describe true morality.
So, conventionally speaking, breeding dogs may not be wrong livelihood in the Theravada, as per the other answers, but most non-monastic livelihood is "wrong" in the sense that it generally involves desire beyond what is functional (i.e. can arise in an enlightened being). How wrong depends on many factors, often independent of the actual livelihood. How you treat your dogs, euthanization, etc.  Often, the level of "wrong" is not significant, and simply slows down one's progress towards enlightenment. The point is not to let one's livelihood become a barrier towards nibbana.

120: <p>Does breeding and selling dogs fit into right livelihood provided that you make a concerted effort to make sure the animals find homes with responsible owners?</p>

<hr>

<p><strong>Edit</strong>:</p>

<p>Thanks for the answers so far. I am especially interested in answers that are rooted in the Pali Canon.</p>

<p>There are two relevant suttas that I found:</p>

<ol>
<li>The <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.177.than.html" rel="nofollow">Vanijja Sutta</a></li>
<li>The <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.054.nara.html" rel="nofollow">Dighajanu (Vyagghapajja) Sutta</a></li>
</ol>

<p>However, it seems like there is dispute about how to translate and understand the relevant passages. Any answers that specifically address these issues would be appreciated.</p>
 111: <p>Under <a href="http://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/samma-ajiva/index.html" rel="nofollow">Samma Ajiva</a>, five kinds of wrong livelihoods are identified:</p>

<ol>
<li>trading in animals for slaughter</li>
<li>dealing in weapons</li>
<li>dealing in slaves</li>
<li>dealing in poison</li>
<li>dealing in intoxicants</li>
</ol>

<p>So breeding dogs for petting is fine!</p>
 289: <p>Depends on which system your in. In the Mahayana system, the precepts have an animal liberation theme, i.e. not using animals for anything.</p>

<p>In the Upasaka precepts.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(15) If an upāsaka who has accepted this precept raises cats or
  foxes, he has committed the sin of negligence. ...
     (16) If an upāsaka who has accepted this precept raises animals,
  such as elephants, horses, cows, goats, camels, or donkeys, and
  refuses to give them away to someone who has not received the
  [upāsaka] precepts, he has committed the sin of negligence. Without
  rising above this impure act, which is conducive to continuing his
  cyclic existence, ... he cannot avoid going down an evil
  life-path.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>ref: <a href="http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra33c.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra33c.html</a></p>

<p>And in the Brahma Net Sutra precepts</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="32">
  <li>On Harming Sentient Beings</li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>A disciple of the Buddha must not sell knives, clubs, bows, arrows, other life-taking devices, nor keep altered scales or
  measuring devices.  He should not abuse his governmental position to
  confiscate people's possessions, nor should he, with malice at heart,
  restrain or imprison others or sabotage their success.  (82) In
  addition, he should not raise cats, dogs, foxes, pigs, and other such
  animals.  (83) If he intentionally does such things, he commits a
  secondary offense.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>ref: <a href="http://www.buddhasutra.com/files/brahmanet.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.buddhasutra.com/files/brahmanet.htm</a></p>

<p>I'm a vegetarian myself, and sympathetic to animal right issues-- the pet trade, zoos, and circuses do involve a certain amount of unneeded suffering and death on the animals parts, but for some people, their dog or cat is the only reason they have any sympathy at all for non-humans. So pets are a sort of unvolunteered diplomats for their species and animals in general.</p>

<p>Anyhow, here is one asian, dog charity I follow- <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Duo-Duo-Animal-Welfare-Project-%E5%A4%9A%E5%A4%9A/380841222033262" rel="nofollow">https://www.facebook.com/pages/Duo-Duo-Animal-Welfare-Project-%E5%A4%9A%E5%A4%9A/380841222033262</a></p>
 18: <p>With Buddhist morality, you have to remember there are two levels:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The conventional, that is used like fence posts to demarcate boundaries and provide a framework. This includes the precepts, and the other teachings of the Buddha on right livelihood, ascetic practices, etc.</p></li>
<li><p>The ultimate, that deals with actual mental immorality, similar to a real fence that actually prevents escape. This involves mental states of greed, morality, and delusion.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>The fence posts are important on a conventional level, since without them, one wouldn't know where to put the fence, and the fence would most likely collapse without their support. Precepts support practice, and provide clear indication of what is out of bounds. They don't describe true morality.</p>

<p>So, conventionally speaking, breeding dogs may not be wrong livelihood in the Theravada, as per the other answers, but most non-monastic livelihood is "wrong" in the sense that it generally involves desire beyond what is functional (i.e. can arise in an enlightened being). How wrong depends on many factors, often independent of the actual livelihood. How you treat your dogs, euthanization, etc.  Often, the level of "wrong" is not significant, and simply slows down one's progress towards enlightenment. The point is not to let one's livelihood become a barrier towards nibbana.</p>
