Every breed needs a choreographer!

I recently read a paper published by Save the Children, the charity, that described a range of approaches to collaboration in the field of humanitarian aid. It struck me that many of the things described had parallels that could be of use to us. Clearly, sorting out the challenges of pedigree dog health is not on the same scale as dealing with world poverty but, increasingly, we do have to find more effective ways to work together as individuals, groups, and organisations. While the improvements we need to make are often quite simple to define, the underlying causal factors are too complex and interconnected for one organisation to come up with “the solution”.

There is lots of talk about “collaboration” but it’s hard to pin down exactly what this means and, no doubt, different groups will have different views.

For example, the International Partnership for Dogs (IPFD) describes itself as a non-profit organisation whose mission is to facilitate collaboration and sharing of resources to enhance the health, well-being, and welfare of pedigreed dogs and all dogs worldwide. By contrast, the Brachycephalic Working Group (set up in 2016) has a framework document that describes a “partnership approach to improving brachycephalic health and welfare”. They don’t use the “collaboration” word at all but talk about having shared objectives and shared actions.

The Save the Children paper says there is a persistent gap between the promise of collaboration and the real-world ability to apply it in practice. It goes on to say that the promise of collaboration has resulted in lots of energised work but all this seems to contribute more to noise and confusion than practical application. That’s not something we can afford to end up with in our canine health work.

If we go back 10 years, most of the organisations working on canine health and welfare did so in their own self-sufficient ways. There was the KC, the vets, charities, researchers and campaigners. Breeders pretty much got on with their own thing, in their own way. Today, it is obvious that the pace of improvement has not been fast enough and that there are growing gaps between funding and needs. There will always be more projects that need to be done than resources available to fund them.

More than pooled resources

Essentially, collaboration is a way of integrating the work of distinct organisations. Collectively, they share objectives but each of the parties retains their independence to act on their own or with other groups, depending on the need. It’s more than a simple pooling of resources, though; the shared purpose is what binds the collaborators together.

One model of collaboration is the “supply chain” approach which works well where there is a requirement to deliver high volumes of consistent quality services. Health testing fits with this model; there is a chain from funders such as the KC Charitable Trust, through researchers such as the AHT, to service deliverers such as commercial testing labs and BVA screening panels and back to the KC with its health recording and reporting database.

A second model of collaboration is where several organisations work side-by-side, doing broadly similar things but allowing for a degree of flexibility and tailoring to meet local needs. The various Brachycephalic Breed clubs fit this model; each breed has slightly different challenges and needs, but together they have to address a common challenge. Each breed’s club activities are independent but, collectively, they are able to share learning and tools.

A third model of collaboration is the network approach which works well for big, complex problems that require diverse skills and where the problem they are trying to solve may be ambiguous and changing. This is, broadly, the world of the IPFD which brings together multiple, independent individuals and groups with different capabilities. The connections between these people are flexible and new connections can readily be made to meet unique needs. No one organisation is naturally in charge and membership of the network is likely to change in response to the evolving state of the wider system. So, for example, this year’s IPFD workshop featured new themes (the concept of breed and supply/demand) and dropped a previous theme (numbers/data).

What success looks like

The Save the Children paper suggests there are 5 core capabilities for successful collaboration:

  • Aligned goals – all participants need to agree what the purpose of the work is before they start looking at detailed options and activities
  • Responsibility and reward – there should be clear roles and incentives to contribute
  • Trust – the participants must have confidence in each other; there should be no surprises
  • Integrated work – information, processes and tools should be shared to enable consistency and efficient ways of working
  • Review and learn – take time to check on progress and achievements; learn from mistakes

The choreographer

Collaborations appear to need someone to own the whole system for them to stand a chance of succeeding. Someone must work across the organisational boundaries that define the contributing participants’ normal work. The role is much more than simply being able to chair a committee or to get different representatives to work together. In the Save the Children study, this role was called the choreographer. He or she was typically a “uniquely skilled and passionate individual” who was able to use their cross-cutting position and ability to see the bigger picture to help shape effective ways of working. They are often “door-openers” who can bring in, and connect, new skills and resources to help solve a complex problem.

A Stanford Innovation Review said “Most multi-stakeholder collaborations excel at vision and fail in execution. They need someone to maintain a constant drumbeat, ensuring that all partners maintain a clear and consistent connection to the overarching purpose of the partnership”. 

This sounded, to me, very much like the description of attributes required to be a Breed Health Coordinator (BHC). Although there is a role description for BHCs, the reality is that their success and the impact they can have on their breed’s health depends on a few key attributes. Firstly, they need passion and persistence. Often, it is their self-motivation that helps them to work through the resistance that they inevitably come across. Secondly, they need to be able to see the “big picture”, not just for their breed but for dog health, in general. To that extent, they have to be flexible in their approach and to be prepared to adapt plans if they aren’t working out. Finally, they need to be given freedom and support by their breed clubs and councils. If they are tied down to slow, committee-based, decision-making and breed politics, they simply cannot do their job. The appointment of a Breed Health Committee can help share the workload and, often, a Health Committee’s recommendations can carry more weight than just a single person (the BHC), asking for something to be done. The inclusion of “pet owners” on these committees can also bring a useful perspective that is not influenced by breed or club politics.

So, if we want collaboration in breed health improvement to succeed, I’m convinced every breed needs a choreographer. Does your breed have one and are you supporting him or her?

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

Advertisements

The challenges of developing and implementing Breed Health Strategies

I was one of the facilitators in the Breed-specific Health strategies theme at the 4th International Dog Health Workshop (IDHW4), held in Windsor, recently. Our group comprised vets, breeders, Kennel Club and Breed Club representatives. We set ourselves the task of defining the key challenges associated with developing and implementing breed strategies and coming up with potential solutions. Our starting point definition was that a Strategy is an Action Plan with a Rationale. It, therefore, is based on having data and evidence of what needs to be improved plus specific doable actions that will make a difference.

The first challenge we considered was how do Breed Clubs get started with developing a strategy. At least 3 issues lie behind this; transparency/trust, lack of resources and degree of influence.

Where breeds have been able to create a climate of transparency and trust by publishing open registries of health data this is a constructive approach as long as the data aren’t used to “expose and shame” individuals. Peer pressure and recognition, for example with Gold/Silver/Bronze health schemes is often more productive. Another suggested solution was to wait until there is a significantly large set of test results before publishing them, en masse. It is also important to use language carefully when reporting test results so as not to alienate breeders.

We have seen over many years that, in some breeds, there is strong cognitive dissonance around the need for improvement. This often manifests itself as what was described at IDHW4 as “normal for the breed”. It’s not just owners and breeders that may be guilty of this, some vets have fallen into that way of thinking as well. The challenge is to recognise what is “normal for a dog”.

Breed Clubs depend on volunteers and will always be stretched for resources. Running events (shows, fun days) will, inevitably, take priority over time to support health work. However, clubs could look wider afield for volunteers, from among their members and not just rely on existing committees. Many breeds would, no doubt, discover a diverse pool of talent, willing to help. Otherwise, with a declining pool of helpers, clubs will find their influence diminishing.

How to engage breeders

Our group discussed 3 main challenges related to engaging breeders in improvement: lack of knowledge/understanding, too many unachievable requirements and the fact that they don’t feel responsible for overall breed health.

Education and communication are key to this. Many breed clubs run seminars and conferences addressing health matters but these are likely to reach only a small proportion of the target audience, especially owners who do not belong to clubs. The use of social media is increasingly important to support this education and every breed should have an active social media presence, at least on Facebook. Instagram is also a useful channel, being focused on the use of images to grab people’s attention. It’s not great for directing people to other websites such as club health pages, so the use of Twitter, with posts including hyperlinks can help as well. Wider use of social media is also more likely to influence demand for puppies by influencing buyers and helping them to recognise what a well-bred puppy means.

Another point about education is that a breed’s messages must be backed-up by evidence. Providing links to references and peer-reviewed papers adds a degree of credibility to differentiate a club’s information from the anecdotal “advice” often shared by others in social media discussions.

As the number of DNA tests proliferates, it is going to get more difficult for breeders and owners to make sense of what is important for the future health of a breed. A collaborative approach to prioritising what needs to be done to protect a breed for the future is essential. Here, in the UK, the KC is involving breed clubs in the development of Breed Health and Conservation Plans. The Brachycephalic Working Group is another great example of how, by bringing interested parties together, realistic and achievable priorities and plans can be agreed. Breeders who are members of clubs are more likely to take notice of recommendations that have been developed with the involvement of their peers.

The genetic testing theme at IDHW4 also discussed the validation of tests and we need to ensure breeders and owners are better equipped to know which tests are worthwhile. Just because a test is available commercially, doesn’t mean it is appropriate for it to be used.

Breed clubs can also incentivise breeders (members and non-members) to participate in health improvement activities. They can ensure screening sessions are frequent and accessible, or offer subsidies and “member prices”.

Measuring the impact of our strategies

We shouldn’t create and implement breed strategies if we don’t know how their impact will be measured. That means identifying a manageable number of performance indicators during the creation of the strategy: decide what you want to achieve, then decide what you need to measure. 

There are breed-level indicators such as those published by the KC on genetic diversity (e.g. Coefficients of Inbreeding, Effective Population Size) and disease-level indicators (e.g. Hip/Elbow Scores, DNA test results). At a breed level, these indicators invariably take time to show improvement. In business, they would be described as “Lagging Indicators”. To give confidence that these are likely to move in the right direction, a breed also needs “Leading Indicators”. These are measurements that respond in the short-term and, if they go in the right direction, are good predictors of the slow-to-change breed-level indicators. Examples could include the proportion of litters bred from health-tested parents, the proportion of matings that are below the previous year’s median hip score, or the number of webpage hits and downloads of advice.

The working group at IDHW4 also agreed that it was important to share data with researchers, vets, breed clubs, KCs, breeders and owners. They might need this presented in different ways, ranging from peer-reviewed papers, through web and newsletter articles or with infographics and posters. Collaborative events such as the IPFD workshops and the dogwellnet.com website also provide valuable ways for good practices, information and data to be shared internationally.

Not just a Talking Shop

These IPFD workshops are not just “talking shops”. Since IDHW3, breed-specific health strategy resources have been developed and added to dogwellnet.com. There are now examples of strategy documents from many breeds in the Nordic countries and the UK. Templates for these are also now available, together with a PowerPoint presentation summarising what might be expected in a strategy.

The dogwellnet site now also includes guidance documents, such as our KC’s Breed Health Strategy Guide, and a number of blog posts on the theory and practice of strategy development and implementation. Individual breeds also initiated international discussions using dogwellnetonline Forums to review evidence and critique published papers of relevance to their strategies.

We now need to ensure the energy and enthusiasm at IDHW4 is translated into actions that will benefit our dogs.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Breed-specific Health Strategies – my presentation at IDHW4

When I spoke at the 3rd International Dog Health Workshop in Paris in 2017, I started by saying that breed health improvement is not a conformation problem, a genetics problem, or a veterinary problem. It’s a change management and a continuous improvement problem.

For IDHW4 held in the UK recently, I said the challenge is not “are you improving?” but (a) “how fast are you improving?” and (b) “can you prove it?”.

We now know what a Breed-specific Health Strategy looks like. There are examples from the Nordic countries (RAS & JTO) and the UK now has its Breed Health and Conservation Plans. All these are based on the principle that a strategy is an action plan with a rationale.

Of course, we need to ask what is driving the development of breed strategies and I think there are 2 forces at work. Firstly, there is pressure for change and secondly, there is vision for change. Breeds will end up with strategies either because they are told to do it or because they want to do it; reactive or proactive. It’s a choice.

We also have to understand the landscape of breed strategy drivers. Both pressure and vision for change can come from one or more of:

  • Governments/Legislators
  • Kennel Clubs
  • Breed Clubs
  • Veterinary Surgeons
  • Scientists & Researchers
  • Breeders
  • Owners & Buyers
  • Campaigners
  • Media

Brenda Bonnett, CEO of the International Partnership for Dogs said:

“For many years, lecturing about breed-specific issues in dogs, even before the existence of IPFD, in discussions with the breeding community, veterinarians and others, it was becoming self-evident that if concerns were not addressed by the dog community, society would likely impose ‘solutions’ on them.  This is coming to fruition in many areas, and society and the media wants to move at a much faster pace than many in the pedigreed dog world.

A couple of my favourite quotes on planning come from General Eisenhower and the management guru Peter Drucker. Eisenhower said: “Plans are nothing, planning is everything”. He meant that the thought process and engagement of the right people in producing plans is more important than the document that pops out at the end. Drucker said, “Eventually, plans must degenerate into hard work”. If Breed Strategies sit on a shelf (or website) and nobody does anything different, we shouldn’t be surprised if canine health doesn’t improve.

Spray and pray!

One of the models I use when working with my clients to plan and implement projects and programmes makes the connection between the work that needs to be done and how benefits will be achieved. For dogs to benefit, i.e. become healthier, we need to establish new behaviours. Plenty of organisations are defining projects and processes and creating outputs such as breed strategies, legislation, toolkits, websites and so on. However, if there is no support for them because of the way plans have been developed, people’s behaviour is unlikely to change. All too often, the groups designing the projects, processes and outputs are not the same ones as will have to change their behaviour for dogs to benefit. Outputs get “lobbed over the wall” in the hope that breeders/owners/judges/buyers will change their behaviour. If the people who have to change their behaviours are involved in the design of the solutions, they are far more likely to support them. Otherwise, it’s just “spray and pray”.

It might be a bit of an exaggeration to say that the people designing the solutions aren’t involving the people who have to implement them because there are some excellent examples of very collaborative approaches. Those are the models we should follow; for example the Brachycephalic Working Group in the UK.

At the heart of breed improvement is human behaviour change. When it comes to behaviour change, we need to answer 2 questions: Can people change and will people change?

Canine health and welfare improvement are not unique in having to achieve human behaviour change and, surprise surprise, there is plenty of peer-reviewed evidence of what works in other fields. Complex problems such as Adult Social Care, Criminal Justice, Obesity and Smoking are all being tackled with interventions requiring behaviour change.

Behaviour change techniques

One of my favourite frameworks is the COM-B Model developed by Susan Michie and colleagues at University College London. In her 2011 paper which reviewed 19 behaviour change models from other studies, she identified Capability, Opportunity and Motivation as the 3 sources of behaviour. The Behaviour Change Wheel that she produced summarises a range of interventions and policy tools that can be used to influence Capability, Opportunity and Motivation. There is even a Taxonomy of 83 Behaviour Change Techniques available as an online toolkit. We don’t need to be starting from a blank sheet of paper. In a recent paper, Michie also reported on which interventions were most successful in changing behaviours for human health problems. Significantly, coercion and threat were the least likely to work; beating people up and telling them they have to change is of little value. She also reported that, for many of the health problems, around 9 or 10 different intervention types were required to implement successful change. In other words, a single, one-size-fits-all solution will be unlikely to achieve sustainable behavioural changes.

I reflected on an example from my breed, Dachshunds. Over the past 7 years, we have achieved an important improvement in the health of Mini Wire Dachshunds by tackling Lafora Disease, which is a form of epilepsy. A DNA test is available and we have moved from 55% of litters being bred with “at risk” puppies in 2012 to the position now where only around 5% are affected. That has been achieved by adopting techniques from 8 of the 9 COM-B intervention categories and 6 of the 7 policy categories. Our work has involved breeders, buyers, owners, vets and our clubs and breed council.

In Dachshunds, our approach to Lafora Disease has been part of our wider breed health strategy and the process we follow is based on a guide developed by our Kennel Club. It has 4 stages: Lead, Plan, Engage and Improve. All 4 stages are required for a breed health strategy to become sustainable and I prepared a poster that was on display at IDHW4 to illustrate some of the work we have been doing.

In my opinion, breed health strategies need more focus and effort on leadership and engagement in order to get better and quicker improvement results. There are lots of plans in many forms but, without leadership and engagement, dog health will not improve.

I ended my presentation with 3 quotes:

“The ‘tell, sell, yell’ strategy for Change Management never works.”

“Culture change happens in units of 1.”

“And that is how change happens. One gesture. One person. One moment at a time.”

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

International Canine Health Awards 2019

The International Canine Health Awards returned for the seventh year to celebrate some of the world’s finest researchers and scientists whose work has had a positive impact on the health and wellbeing of dogs.

The 2019 awards were run by the Kennel Club Charitable Trust and included substantial cash prizes donated by Vernon and Shirley Hill of Metro Bank, to go towards new or continued research.

The awards ceremony took place on Thursday, 30th May in Windsor at the start of the 4th International Dog Health Workshop. Professor Steve Dean, Chairman of the Trustees, was master of ceremonies and offered apologies from Mr & Mrs Hill who were unable to be in Windsor, although they (and their dog Sir Duffield) sent a video message to all the attendees. Mr Hill said “We are proud to support these important awards again, to fund research that may transform canine and human health by encouraging the same visionary thinking and innovation that Metro Bank champions. At Metro Bank, ‘Dogs Rule’”.

The four categories for the International Canine Health Awards were:

  • International Prize in Canine Health for outstanding contribution in the field of canine health and welfare with a prize fund of £40,000 for future projects. The award was presented to Dr Danika Bannasch who is Professor of Population Health and Reproduction at the University of California, Davis.
    She has made significant contributions to our understanding of of the genetic basis of many genetic disorders. She has been responsible for the development of DNA tests for 7 canine diseases including hormonal defect hyperadrenocorticism and chondrodystrophy.
  • Lifetime Achievement Award with a £10,000 prize fund was won by Associate Professor Gary Johnson from the Department of Veterinary Pathology at the University of Missouri. The award citation said that Gary Johnson is proof that it isn’t necessary for a vet to wield a scalpel or dispense a medicine to make a difference to animal health. His work on canine genetic diseases is reckoned to have saved the lives of many more dogs than most practising vets will manage during their careers. His lab was one of the first to adopt whole genome sequencing and, from 153 whole genome sequences, has identified 83 heritable diseases.
  • Student Inspiration Awards were split into undergraduate and postgraduate, with a prize fund of £10,000 for the post-graduate and £5,000 for the undergraduate winner. The post-grad winner was Adrian Baez-Ortega from Cambridge University who has been working in the field of bioinformatics – the combination of biology and information technology. His recent work has been on the evolution of canine transmissible venereal tumours. The under-grad winner was Nivan Mamak from Edinburgh University. In 2018, her vacation project was an investigation of paroxysmal dyskinesia in a family of Golden Retrievers. These student prizes aid further education costs, the development of these young people’s careers, or support a further project.
  • Breed Health Coordinator Award – with a £1,000 prize fund, went to Liz Branscombe (Flat-coated Retriever BHC). Liz is a registered veterinary nurse and, as well as acting as BHC, is also one of the KC’s team of BHC Mentors who spends time helping other breeds with their breed health improvement work. As well as working with her breed, Liz says an important part of her role is to pass on information from the breed community to the vet profession, which she has done as an author of articles in the vet press and as a regular public speaker.

After the final award was presented, it was great to see one of last year’s students, Alice Denyer, return to talk about how her prize had helped with her studies and research over the past year. Proof indeed, of the impact these awards can have in the real world!

Steve Dean concluded the presentations with further congratulations to the winners and thanks to the awards judges and KC team who staged the event. He then invited the assembled International Dog Health Workshop attendees to stay for a buffet dinner and celebratory drinks.

We need to stop trying to change people’s minds!

I am looking forward to the 4th International Dog Health Workshop (IDHW) co-hosted by the Kennel Club and International Partnership for dogs in Windsor at the end of May. I have been helping to organise one of the themes, Breed Specific Health Strategies, which is the subject of a series of workshop sessions. I will also be making a short presentation on this topic in the Day 1 plenary session.

When I spoke at the 3rd IDHW in 2017, I started by saying that the challenge we face is not a veterinary one, nor even a scientific one. My view was that the challenge we faced was a change management one and how to drive continuous improvement in breed health. This year, I will be saying the challenge is not “are you improving?” but “how fast are you improving?” and “can you prove it?”. Frankly, describing all the actions that are being taken is no longer good enough. If we can’t measure the impact on breed health, we can’t demonstrate that any of those actions were of value.

Prof. Åke Hedhammar, who is leading the theme on extremes and exaggerations in dog conformation, has said something similar in his briefing note to participants:

“We propose to once more focus on the health issues related to a brachycephalic constitution as the highest profile and worst with relation to exaggerations and extremes. In an introductory talk in plenum I will admit that we – despite the magnitude of attention, the raising of awareness across several stakeholder groups, and many actions taken – have failed, so far, to make significant changes in the health status of these breeds. Perhaps many initiatives have not been designed to fully evaluate impacts. There has certainly been a failure to impact the public perception of, and desire for brachycephalics.”

From a change management perspective, it boils down to one thing: if there is no change in (human) behaviour, there will be no improvement in (canine) health.

When I worked with the late Philippa Robinson, as part of our Dog-ED initiative we put together a model describing the elements needed to link health improvement activities with measurable benefits:

As Åke pointed out, we’ve seen lots of projects and new processes that have created outputs such as reports, websites, guidance, educational resources and even new legislation. There has been collaboration to generate support but, in my view, there just haven’t been enough new behaviours to result in rapid enough improvements in dog health. Given the wide range of people interested in dog health, there are lots of people among whom we might need to see new behaviours. Primarily, though, it falls to buyers, breeders and owners to start doing things differently.

Lots of the outputs generated have been focused on changing people’s minds in the belief that they will then change their behaviour. Provide more information, educate them, help them see the error of their ways, stigmatise them; how many of these have caused people to change their behaviour at all, or fast enough, to make a difference for dogs?

One-size-fits-all solutions rarely work

My very first “Best of Health” article described canine health improvement as what is known in business as a “Wicked Problem”. It’s complex and needs to be viewed as a system. Simple, one-size fits all solutions (e.g. change the Breed Standards; introduce more regulation), rarely work and often have unintended consequences. The scale of the challenge can seem daunting but it has parallels in the world of human health where issues such as obesity and crime are being addressed using a systems approach (sometimes!). There is lots of practical work being done, based on good research, in the field of behavioural change.

One of my favourite models for human behaviour change is Dr Susan Michie’s Behavioural Change Wheel. She created the COM-B model from a 2011 study of peer-reviewed papers on behaviour change. She concluded: “Interventions and policies to change behaviour can be usefully characterised by means of a Behaviour Change Wheel comprising: a ‘behaviour system’ at the hub, encircled by intervention functions and then by policy categories.

In the COM-B model, Capability, Opportunity and Motivation interact to generate behaviour. Capability and Opportunity address the question of whether a person can or can’t adopt a particular behaviour while Motivation addresses will they or won’t they adopt it. Both capability and opportunity can influence motivation; for example (but VERY simplistically), if a breeder understands the importance of a particular health screening programme and it is available nearby, they may be more motivated to participate in it.

Coercion vs. incentives

COM-B provides a way to design interventions aimed at changing behaviour. Michie’s work has created a taxonomy of 93 behaviour change techniques, drawn (primarily) from work in public health. The model also differentiates between “interventions” (activities aimed at changing behaviour) and “policies” (actions taken by authorities to enable interventions). So, for example, introducing new canine legislation is a policy approach with the intervention typically being focused on coercion or restriction. This approach to restrict breeding relies on the behavioural change technique of “future punishment” (if you don’t comply, you will be punished). Interestingly, a 2019 paper by Michie reported that coercion and restriction were the least cost-effective interventions in a public health setting, while use of incentives was more cost-effective.

Michie also points out that interventions operate within a social context and should be evaluated against 6 criteria (abbreviated to APEASE):

CriterionDescriptionExample questions to answer
AffordabilityAn intervention is affordable if it can be delivered within an acceptable budget to all those who should benefit.What is the budget to implement the proposed intervention and ensure it is working as intended?
PracticabilityAn intervention is practicable if it can be delivered and implemented as designed.Who will implement the proposal?
Effectiveness and cost-effectivenessEffectiveness refers to the effect size of the intervention in relation to its objectives. Cost-effectiveness is the ratio of an intervention’s effect to its cost.Does the evidence support the recommendations for the intervention?
AcceptabilityAcceptability refers to the extent to which an intervention is judged to be appropriate by relevant stakeholders (and this may differ for different stakeholders).What are the views of vets, KC, breeders, owners and have they all been considered?
Side-effectsAn intervention may have unwanted side-effects or unintended consequences.What might be the unintended consequences or displacement actions?
EquityAn intervention may reduce or increase the disparities between different potential beneficiaries.What will be the effect on other breeds or other owners?

The Quality Guru Joseph Juran said: “If you always do what you always did, you’ll always get what you always got”. Is it time we took a more behavioural and systems-oriented approach to look at why canine health improvement is not happening or not happening fast enough?

Where do Breed Health Strategies come from?

It might sound like a daft question to ask where Breed Health Strategies come from but I think it is of fundamental importance for those of us in breed club leadership roles. It’s also not something that just Breed Health Coordinators should be concerned about.

Here in the UK, the Kennel Club has been supporting breeds to develop Breed Health and Conservation Plans (BHCPs). In the Nordic Countries, these breed strategy documents are abbreviated as RAS and JTO. Whatever they are called, they summarise the current state of a particular breed, drawing on a wide range of evidence ranging from registration statistics and breed health survey results to peer-reviewed research reports and insurance claims data. They also summarise agreed action plans to address the identified priorities.

You might conclude that it is Kennel Clubs and Breed Clubs that are driving the need for, and development of, breed improvement strategies. I think we should step back and recognise that there are actually 2 potential driving forces behind this. Firstly, it might be driven by our own clear vision of the value of doing it or, alternatively, there might be pressure on us to do this. It boils down to are you doing it because you want to or because you are told to; i.e. is it a proactive or reactive approach.

Driven by stakeholders?

I hate having to use the term Stakeholders, but it does describe the range of individuals and groups who have an interest in improving the health of pedigree dogs. They include governments, kennel clubs, breed clubs, vets, researchers, breeders, owners, buyers and campaigners (and probably more!).

Kennel Clubs and breed clubs have 2 main choices: either they take the lead and develop evidence-based strategies for health improvement or they will have something forced upon them. If they take the lead, they can shape the direction each breed takes, based on the best available research evidence. If they don’t, they will be at the mercy of others who may be promoting simple solutions to what are actually complex problems. The danger is that, if KC and breed club leadership isn’t proactive enough, we will end up responding to badly-framed legislation (maybe including bans on particular breeds) and a constant barrage of anti-pedigree publicity (like we see in the press every Crufts).

Kennel Clubs in the Nordic countries have been at the forefront of developing breed-specific health strategies and that has undoubtedly enabled them to set the agenda for promoting pedigree dogs. However, even they have not been immune from pressure brought to bear by the veterinary profession which has expressed grave concerns about some of the Brachycephalic breeds. Here, in the UK, the formation of the Brachycephalic Working Group is a great example of our KC and breed club representatives engaging positively with others who are campaigning to improve the health of dogs in these breeds.

I have no doubt that, however proactive we might be, the pace of change will never be fast enough for some people. The late Philippa Robinson, who campaigned for breed health improvement on so many fronts, often used the phrase “trendlines, not headlines”. By this, she meant we should be looking for the evidence of underlying trends that demonstrate improvement and not simply cherry-picking attention-grabbing headlines. She also meant that those of us trying to drive improvement shouldn’t allow ourselves to be overly distracted by headlines. Someone will always be looking to grab the headlines and, with a world of social media, the tendency to try to distill a complex story down to a tweet of 140 characters is not going away any time soon.

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong” – HL Mencken.

The influence of the show ring

Judges and exhibitors have a role to play, too. Most Breed Standards have been modified to ensure exaggeration is discouraged. Further work still needs to be done, in some cases, but I doubt that changing a few Breed Standards will have much impact on dog health. Too many of the puppies in popular breeds such as Bulldogs, Pugs and French Bulldogs are bred by people who wouldn’t know what a Breed Standard was, even if it smacked them in the face.

The KC asks Championship Show judges to submit reports on any visible concerns for Breed Watch Category 2 and 3 breeds (and this is an option open to judges of Category 1 breeds with no visible points of concern). Our KC has regularly argued that the show ring can have a strong (positive) influence on the health of pedigree dogs. That is true but it is easily undermined if judges reward and promote dogs that have either visible faults or obvious exaggerations.

Breed clubs have to take the lead

Kennel Clubs have limited resources and have to prioritise where they invest their time and money. Here, BHCPs were prioritised for the Breed Watch Category 3 (formerly “High Profile”) breeds. At last year’s Breed Health Coordinator Symposium, Bill Lambert told us that there was a “model” BHCP which any breed could use as a template. Effectively, he said breed clubs don’t have to wait for the KC to begin the work of developing a strategy for any particular breed. He fired the starting pistol and gave permission, if anyone needed it, for all of us to take the initiative.

Clearly, an individual breed club community isn’t going to have the time or expertise that Dr Katy Evans brought to the initial batch of BHCPs. But, we all have people who are passionate about their breed and there is a wealth of readily accessible evidence. Somehow, we have to create the capacity and capability at breed level. There are plenty of simple first steps that many breeds are already taking to demonstrate their commitment to improving the health of their dogs. It’s a shame we no longer have Philippa Robinson’s KarltonIndex Awards to recognise, celebrate and reinforce all this good work.

I also feel strongly that breed clubs should be putting their BHCP out in the public domain. The content is mostly information that is already in the public domain. Publishing a single reference point of available evidence clearly demonstrates the culture of openness and honesty about breed health that we should all be encouraging. What have we got to hide?

If we don’t take the lead to create and publish evidence-based breed health strategies because we want to do this, we will have them “done to us”. We almost certainly won’t like these and they will quite likely include requirements that actually have unintended consequences that may make things worse for the dogs.

I’ll be leading the Breed Health Strategies workshop stream at next month’s International Dog Health Workshop here in the UK; co-hosted by the Kennel Club and IPFD. I’ll be reporting on behalf of Our Dogs so look out for daily tweets (@sunsongian) and a full report in the paper.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.