Breed Health at the start of a new decade – What’s your vision for 2030?

It’s that time of year when New Year Resolutions have either already been forgotten or are well on the way to become good habits. It’s also the time of year when many Breed Health Coordinators (BHCs) will be reflecting on their achievements in 2019 and looking ahead to plans for 2020. One of my Christmas holiday tasks was to draft our Annual Health Report which is published by our Health Committee in January. Our first one was published in 2009, inspired by the good practice set by the English Springer Spaniel BHCs. It’s a task that has become easier every year because we now have a template to follow and access to plenty of data.

We also have a Breed Health and Conservation Plan which we agreed with the Kennel Club in 2018 and published last year. I’ve written about BHCPs before so I will simply restate my enthusiasm for this fantastic resource. The BHCP pulls together a wide range of information about a breed and, through discussion with breed representatives, leads to an action plan for improvement. Our initial BHCP was reviewed and updated in 2019 so we’re now into our second action plan.

The KC Health team is now working with the third cohort of breeds to produce their BHCPs and, to accelerate the process, issued a template to all the remaining breeds so their BHCs and Health Committees could make a start on the task. It’s probably quite daunting at first glance but, for many breeds, much of the information is already in the public domain (e.g. registration trends and health survey results). As usual, the challenge for all the volunteers working on breed health is how to find the time to do it.

A goal without a plan is just a wish

Our Annual Health Report includes a summary of what we have achieved in the past year and sets out what we want to achieve in the coming 12 months. We don’t succeed at everything we plan to do and that’s a reflection of the real world; some plans turn out to be unrealistic, some simply can’t be resourced and some just weren’t important enough to get done. It can appear, some years, as if the following year’s plan is just “more of the same”. That’s fine, too, as there are lots of things that we just have to keep on doing in order to achieve our overarching goals of breed improvement. These include fundraising, collecting health and death reports, providing information to buyers and owners, and running screening programmes.

I can’t help thinking that now that we’re in 2020, it’s a good time to set a 10-year vision. There’s a neat symmetry about having a vision for 2030. It’s also probably a realistic timeframe to think about because changing the health of a breed inevitably takes time. For example, it took us 9 years to reduce the proportion of litters at risk of containing puppies affected by Lafora Disease from 55% to 2%. That includes the time to develop a viable DNA test, to influence breeders to use it and to reduce the mutation frequency in the population.

My New Year challenge for BHCs is to define what you want to have achieved by 2030. It doesn’t matter whether you call these your Goals or Objectives. The important thing is to describe what will have improved in 10 years’ time. For most breeds, there will probably only be 3 or 4 objectives. For us (Dachshunds), we want to reduce IVDD prevalence, improve eye health and reduce the rate of loss of genetic diversity. There are other things we would like to achieve but it doesn’t make sense to set 10 or 12 objectives.

Note that objectives are what we want to achieve, not what we plan to do. In order to achieve our objectives we have to have committed breed club leadership, we need to develop evidence-based actions and we need to engage with buyers and owners. What we do each year may be new or more of the same but all of our actions are focused on achieving those objectives.

What do you want to improve?

There aren’t that many things that any breed might want to improve. Generically, they are likely to be several of the following:

  • Reduce the prevalence of particular health conditions
  • Improve temperament, behaviour or working traits
  • Reduce the effects of low genetic diversity
  • Reduce conformational exaggerations

You also have to be realistic about how much improvement you can achieve. If we were able to halve the prevalence of Dachshund IVDD in 10 years, that would be significant progress, albeit probably not enough. We have data on breed average Coefficients of Inbreeding so it’s possible to set targets for these as well.  Of course, if we reduce overall levels of inbreeding, we will automatically reduce the risk of diseases caused by recessive mutations. Reducing conformational exaggerations is also likely to result in health improvements.

How are you going to get there?

The 3 broad enabling strategies for achieving breed health improvement are described in the Kennel Club’s Health Strategy Guide:

  • Demonstrate leadership
  • Develop evidence-based plans
  • Engage breeders, owners and buyers

Bluntly, if there is poor leadership interest in improving your breed’s health, you’re not going to make much progress. BHCs typically need to build a team around them to provide support and additional capacity.

A breed’s plans should be evidence-based; that means using information from surveys, research papers and the other data contained in a Breed Health and Conservation Plan.

The final element in making progress is engagement with breeders, owners and buyers. They are the primary groups whose behaviour needs to be influenced if the plans are to be implemented. There are others to engage with (e.g. vets, KC, researchers, judges) but taking action on both the supply and demand side of the dog population is essential.

That’s probably a good place to end and remember something Dr. Dan O’Neill said at the conclusion of the 4th International Dog Health Workshop: “We need to stop saying it’s all about the dogs. It is clear that it is really all about the people”.

Happy New Decade.

Breeders, the good, the bad and the future

Question: What’s the definition of a Puppy Farmer? Answer: Anyone who breeds more litters than you do!

The problem with the Puppy Farmer label is that it’s laden with emotion and it’s a term that gets used to brand some breeders who clearly aren’t farming puppies with little regard to their welfare, socialisation or the homes they go to.

As part of our Dachshund Health Committee, we have 3 Pet Advisors. These are experienced owners who are not involved in breed club committees and who don’t show their dogs. They are all experienced owners and their role is to offer advice and support to people thinking of buying a Dachshund and to those who may be new to the breed. Needless to say, they spend lots of their time answering fairly basic questions on the numerous Facebook Dachshund Groups.

Recently, we have been discussing how we can improve the advice we give to potential owners so they can find the most reputable breeders possible. This is particularly important in the case of Mini Smooth Dachshunds where we have seen demand for the breed grow exponentially in the past 4 years. Demand far outstrips supply and, even with the growth in availability of KC Registered dogs, there is a booming market for imports which are often brought into the UK illegally. 

We have, therefore, been trying to categorise the different types of breeder so that potential buyers can look out for warning signs and make more informed decisions. We ended up with an infographic describing 4 types of breeder.

Large Commercial Breeders: They are characterised as ‘high volume; low welfare’ and would typically fit the Puppy Farmer label. Breeding puppies is purely a business. They typically have multiple breeds for sale and advertise regularly online. Bitches are bred from continually throughout their lives, producing puppies that are either sold on-site or via dog dealers. Their puppies generally do not receive adequate healthcare and most receive little human interaction or socialisation. The problem for puppy buyers is that their adverts often look highly credible to novice buyers and puppies may actually be “sold” from a network of respectable-looking premises. The recent case of more than 100 Dachshunds seized in raids across the North-West of England is a topical example of this sort of breeding operation. Hopefully, Lucy’s Law will make life more difficult for this type of breeder but it wouldn’t be surprising if they find a way round it.

Hobby Breeders: These are ‘low volume; experienced’ breeders. They have extensive knowledge of their breed and are up-to-date on the latest health and genetics information. They are likely to be involved in some type of dog activity such as showing, working or obedience. They carefully vet their potential puppy buyers and will usually provide a lifetime of support to their puppy owners. They understand how to rear puppies well and often act as mentors for newcomers to their breed who want to begin breeding. While the term Hobby Breeder may seem to imply ‘amateur’, these breeders are most certainly not amateurs and take their responsibility for their dogs and the future of their breed seriously. Since the introduction of the Dog Breeding Licensing legislation last year, many of these breeders will almost certainly not be having more than 1 or 2 litters per year in order not to require a breeding license. Recent figures from the KC suggest 81% of breeders who register puppies with the KC only breed 1 litter per year.

Professional Breeders: These are ‘experienced breeders running legitimate businesses’. Similar to hobby breeders, they breed more often, with more dogs and are, invariably, licensed by their local authority. They usually show their dogs and may have a grooming or kennel business associated with their breeding business. They may own several breeds and will be very knowledgeable about all of these. Their puppies will be well-reared and will usually have a lifetime guarantee of support. A recent comment in Our Dogs said that these breeders are often frowned upon because of the number of puppies they breed and that this is a misguided attitude. These professional breeders fill a genuine market demand for good quality puppies. Without them, that demand would invariably be filled by puppy farmers.

We struggled to come up with a suitable name for the fourth type of breeder. “Backyard Breeder” seemed too derogatory and didn’t really describe this group, so we ended up with “I’m not (really) a Breeder”. These people breed few litters and have little knowledge or experience. They may be producing puppies for the right or the wrong reasons and everyone has to start somewhere. If it’s their first litter, they may have little or no knowledge or experience of breeding but they may have the support of an experienced mentor who has helped them choose a suitable stud dog. Alternatively, they might just have used a dog down the road, with little thought. If they have bred ‘to make money’, ‘because it would be nice for Daisy to have pups” or “they have friends who have told them they should”, then buyers should think carefully before committing to buy. 

In an ideal world, we would want to encourage more Hobby Breeders because the demand for well-bred KC registered pedigree dogs outstrips supply. Existing Hobby Breeders should be encouraging their puppy buyers to get involved in KC activities, for example, training via the Good Citizen Dog Scheme, and to consider breeding from their dog when it is old enough. Discouraging them from showing or breeding (e.g. with endorsements) simply makes it more difficult for us to bring on the next generation of pedigree dog enthusiasts. Hobby Breeders and Professional Breeders should be helping the “I’m not (really) a breeder” to learn more about their breed and about breeding. Breed Councils and Clubs can do the same. That’s why the Dachshund Breed Council is developing a set of resources for potential breeders. We want to see more, better-bred Dachshunds and fewer puppy-farmed or poorly-bred ones available. It’s also why our Pet Advisors are so important in helping potential buyers decide if a Dachshund is the right breed for them and how to find a really good breeder of KC registered puppies. 

Our challenge is to convert the “I’m not (really) a breeder” people into “Hobby Breeders” who will help secure the future of our breeds.

Canine anxiety and puppy-rearing

Earlier this year I analysed some data collected by one of our Dachshund Breed Rescues. We wanted to see whether the massive increase in popularity of Miniature Smooth Dachshunds was feeding through into a rehoming and rescue problem. Unsurprisingly, the 2 are linked and this particular rescue charity has seen a 4-fold increase in rehoming cases from 2017 to 2019. Of those, 70% were not Kennel Club registered and that figure mirrors what we know about the market for pedigree dogs. Far more are bred outside the KC registration system than within it.

The analysis of the rescue data showed that a quarter of all cases were associated with biting or aggression. That is a worryingly high proportion, especially when compared with the findings of one of our breed surveys. In 2012, our survey asked about behaviour and temperament, and just 1% of Mini Smooths were reported as being aggressive with people (5% were aggressive with other dogs).

My suspicion is that many of these rehoming cases are a result of badly bred dogs producing puppies that are badly reared and then sold to inexperienced owners who know very little about canine behaviour and can’t cope.

Last month, I wrote about the breeding recommendations in a recently published paper “Throwing the baby out with the bathwater” (Dawson et al). Firstly, the authors recommended that breeding choices and puppy-rearing processes should be based on knowledge of good practices. Secondly, they advocated that all dogs should be independently tested for suitability before being bred from. In addition to suitability from a health point of view, they suggested behavioural testing is important to check their suitability to be good companion animals. Dogs that are themselves good companions, are more likely to produce puppies that will be good companions as well.

Fearfulness and its causes

I’ve been re-reading another paper on behaviour: “Early life experiences and exercise associated with canine anxieties” published by Hannes Lohi and Katriina Tiira in 2015. It’s an Open Access paper so you can download the full version, yourself. The study collected data from a Finnish family dog population to identify environmental factors that might be associated with canine fearfulness, noise sensitivity and separation anxiety. I was particularly interested in the findings on fearfulness, in light of the aggression/biting data found in the rescue Dachshunds. The paper notes that aggressiveness is often motivated by fear and that bite injuries from human-directed aggression are an important public health concern. In 2017/18 there were just under 8000 NHS hospital admissions for dog bites and this figure has risen by almost 5% since 2015. However, a 2017 paper (Westgarth et al) suggests that the real burden of dog bites is considerably larger than those estimated from hospital records.

While fearfulness is known to have relatively high heritability, 2 major environmental factors are also known to affect this: lack of juvenile experiences and aversive learning. In the Lohi/Tiira paper, they found that a puppy’s maternal care and the amount of socialisation had the largest effects on fearfulness. Fearful dogs had received poorer maternal care and were less well socialised compared with less fearful dogs. Additionally, fearful dogs also lived in households with fewer other dogs and with more human adults. Bitches and younger dogs also tended to be more fearful. There was also a tendency for fearful dogs to get less exercise and they were more likely to live indoors, rather than spending their time indoors and outdoors.

It’s fireworks season

In our area, the firework season seems to have spread well beyond Bonfire Night and there will inevitably be another week of loud noises as we approach the New Year. Noise sensitivity was the second issue investigated by Lohi and Tiira. They found that dogs with noise sensitivity got significantly less daily exercise than dogs with no noise sensitivity. They were also more likely to have been neutered and were likely to be their owner’s first dog. The more dogs an owner had and the more dogs they had previously owned, the later the age of onset of noise sensitivity in their current dog. Overall, the evidence suggests that more socialised dogs were less likely to be noise sensitive.

I (don’t) want to be alone

Among social media discussion groups, there seem to be endless questions about Dachshunds with separation anxiety. It’s not just Dachshunds, of course. According to Dogs Trust, surveys have shown that between 13% and 18% of owners reported separation-related issues with their dogs. One study (albeit a small sample) found 85% of the sample had behavioural and psychological signs of stress when left alone.

The Lohi/Tiira study found that separation anxiety was more common in dogs that received less exercise. Other studies (Sargisson 2014) have shown that dogs tend to develop separation-related behaviour if they are male, sourced from rescues or puppy farms, and are separated from their littermates before 8 weeks. Protective factors include ensuring a wide range of experiences outside the home with other people from 5-10 months old, stable daily routines and the avoidance of punishments. 

No surprises!

It probably comes as no surprise that the largest explanatory factors associated with fearfulness were maternal care and the amount of early socialisation (up to 3 months old). However, it is important to note that comments on maternal care in the Lohi/Tiira paper were made by the owners, not the breeders. This reflects their recollection of what they had seen when they visited the breeder before taking the puppy home. The importance of the “See Mum” message cannot be overstated and, in practice, buyers should aim to see the puppies interacting with their mother at least once before the day they take their puppy home. It’s also worth reading the Puppy Plan (Kennel Club and Dogs Trust www.thepuppyplan.com) as a week-by-week checklist of experiences that well-reared puppies should have been exposed to. 

The findings on exercise also come as no surprise to me. Our dogs love to sniff when they are out, off the lead. This is an important aspect of their mental stimulation as well as them getting physical exercise. So many of the cases of separation anxiety and destructive behaviour that I read on social media are, I’m convinced, due to the dogs simply not getting enough exercise. The authors note that exercise may work as stress resilience, particularly as the resilient effect of exercise on anxiety and depression has been recognised in people. It is known that exercise increases serotonin production in animals and people, and this acts as an antidepressant. Interestingly, the study also found that dogs with less daily exercise were more aggressive to other dogs. The amount of daily exercise may be an indicator of the overall quality of dog management. 

In conclusion, I think buyers need to be much more aware of how their potential puppy has been socialised. They also need to be much clearer on their responsibilities for socialisation and exercise. Breeders probably need to exaggerate when explaining the amount of exercise a dog will need. Otherwise, we will continue to see dogs suffering from anxiety in their new homes and growing demand for rescue and rehoming services.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Last month, I commented on the potential unintended consequences of breeders endorsing their puppies because “that’s what responsible breeders do”. There aren’t enough well-bred, KC registered puppies to meet demand and an estimated 70% of pedigree puppies are not KC registered. If someone has bought an endorsed puppy (dog or bitch) and is determined to breed from it, they are more likely to look for an unregistered mate and produce a litter of yet more unregistered puppies. They are unlikely to go back to their puppy’s breeder for advice or to understand what health tests may be required. It is debatable how much knowledge they will have about canine husbandry, how to care for a pregnant bitch or how to rear and socialise puppies.

Not only might this result in more pedigree dogs being bred outside the KC registration system but it probably also increases the chances of the puppies growing up with temperament and developmental issues.

A quick trawl through any of the online puppy sales sites shows just how many unregistered dogs are being bred and advertised. Many of the puppies (certainly in my breed) look rather untypical specimens and seem to command virtually the same prices as KC registered ones.

More “responsible owner” fallacies?

In this country, many new owners are encouraged by their vet to neuter their dogs. The BVA’s policy on neutering states:

“Neutering helps to reduce the number of unwanted litters. BVA strongly supports the practice of neutering cats (castration of tom cats and spaying of queens) and dogs (castration of dogs and spaying of bitches) for preventing the birth of unwanted kittens and puppies and the perpetuation of genetic defects. Such surgical intervention removes the problems associated with finding homes or increasing the stray population.”

The 2018 Dogs Trust survey said there were 56,000 stray dogs across the UK, which is the lowest level reported by councils for 21 years. That’s about half a percent of the UK dog population and hardly seems the best evidence for neutering. About 10,000 of those strays ended up in welfare organisations. The Dogs Trust report also estimated that 130,000 dogs come into rehoming charities every year.

A recent paper (Throwing the Baby Out With the Bath Water: Could Widespread Neutering of Companion Dogs Cause Problems at a Population Level? – Dawson et al) starts by saying “In many countries, ‘responsible dog ownership’ also involves spaying and castration”. In the USA, Australia and New Zealand, neutering is normal practice now and, in some cases, puppies are neutered at a very young age, before they go to their new homes. In contrast, in several European and Scandinavian countries, routine neutering is not the norm and is considered to be mutilation, similar to ear-cropping or tail-docking. In those countries, it is illegal. Here, just over half of all dogs are neutered as part of so-called responsible dog ownership.

More than health impacts

There have been numerous studies on the association between neutering and dog health. These cover large breeds where there are links with musculoskeletal conditions such as hip dysplasia and cranial cruciate ligament disease, and also with osteosarcoma and diabetes. In my own breed, our 2015 and 2018 breed surveys identified an association between neutering and an increased risk of back disease. A VetCompass study published this year showed that spaying of bitches increased the risk of urinary incontinence.

The information on the effects of neutering on behaviour is more mixed, with some studies suggesting it increases the risk of nervous aggression and others saying it reduces dog-dog aggression.

The Dawson paper considers the possible effects of widespread neutering on the breeding of dogs and their success as human companions. The authors describe 3 types of breeder:

  • Hobby breeders – who are often very experienced in a breed and often also participate in canine activities such as showing, obedience or agility. These people breed for their hobby/sport primarily, rather than to supply the pet market.
  • Commercial breeders – who breed primarily to make a living (profit) and specifically target the pet market, with higher volumes of puppies.
  • The general public – who have a dog and decide to breed from it, possibly without much experience of husbandry, whelping or puppy-rearing. They may be described as “backyard breeders” and probably know very little about health testing or genetics. They possibly breed because “it would be nice for Daisy to have puppies” or “to make a bit of money”.

No doubt breeders in all 3 groups would describe themselves as “responsible” but, Dawson et al go on to explain the changes they feel are needed if dogs and owners are not to be exploited.

Firstly, breeding choices and puppy-rearing processes should be based on knowledge of good practices. Clearly, schemes such as the Assured Breeder Scheme and the Dog Breeding Standard can help here. The free resources for breeders on the KC Academy is another useful starting point.

Secondly, they advocate that all dogs should be independently tested for suitability before being bred from. In addition to suitability from a health point of view, they believe behavioural testing is important to check their suitability to be good companion animals. There are several canine mentality/behaviour tests available, but programmes such as the KC’s Good Citizen Dog Scheme is another option. Dogs that are themselves good companions, are more likely to produce puppies that will be as well.

Thirdly, experienced breeders should be helping their puppy buyers who may be interested in having a litter so that these people don’t become “backyard breeders”. It would be relatively easy to include advice on breeding in the puppy pack that is given to new owners. Advising them not to neuter could also be beneficial from a genetic diversity perspective by keeping breeding options open. Widespread neutering excludes thousands of ideal companions from the gene pool. This includes dogs neutered by their breeder before sale or those who are sold with a contract stipulating they should be neutered or not bred from.

The paper concludes by saying: “Over the long term, a more considered approach to the breeding of companion dogs would help lessen the gap between owner expectations and the dogs available to them. However, this is only possible if attitudes toward neutering are addressed and “responsible ownership” is broadened to include a dynamic partnership between owners and breeders to produce dogs most suited for life as companions.

If we don’t change our thinking on what is meant by “responsible breeding” and take a population-wide view, we risk continuing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. More and more unregistered puppies will be bred by inexperienced people and the gene pools of our closed stud books will get even smaller.

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?

.

.

.

.

.

.

..