International Partnership for Dogs Calls for Collective Actions for Health and Welfare of Pedigree Dogs

Press Release:

The International Partnership for Dogs (IPFD) is calling on stakeholder groups – including dog show enthusiasts, kennel and breed clubs, legislators, dog owners, veterinarians, welfare advocates – from all regions and countries to come together to address issues currently impacting the health, welfare, and breeding of dogs.


Our article, Reframing Current Challenges Around Pedigree Dogs: A Call for Respectful Dialogue, Collaboration and Collective Actions (also available in Dutch, Finnish, French, German, and Spanish), responds to a wave of recent legislative actions, especially in Europe. Although primarily focused on brachycephalic (flat-faced) breeds, regulations may eventually impact all pedigree and non-pedigree dogs.


“This is a call for each one of us to examine how our personal attitudes, attachments, and beliefs impact these discussions, says Dr. Brenda Bonnett, CEO, IPFD. “And it is a call to work collectively for what is truly in the best interest of dogs and the people who care for them.”


A key part of IPFD’s mission is to encourage, initiate, and facilitate collaboration among key stakeholders in the dog world to enhance dog health, well-being and welfare, and support human-dog interactions. “IPFD is a multi-stakeholder, international organization,” says Dr. Pekka Olson, IPFD Chair. “And it is perfectly positioned to encourage and facilitate open, respectful dialogue and collective actions in the best interest of both dogs and people.” Many of today’s challenges have been part of discussions at and actions from IPFD’s International Dog Health Workshops. The new IPFD International Working Group on Extreme Conformation in Dogs is one such initiative.


IPFD has compiled extensive resources to advance the conversation called for in this article. Together with collaborators from various sectors, we are creating a roadmap for the future, i.e. to help us to Think Globally, Act Locally.


“While we understand and respect the differences in attitudes and realities in different regions and across stakeholder groups, we also know there is common ground and shared purpose,” Bonnett adds. “Everyone who has any interest in dogs, pedigree dogs, and the world of ‘dogs and people’ is encouraged to become engaged in addressing challenges. This article and accompanying resources will support this process.”


The International Partnership for Dogs (IPFD) is a non-profit organization leading a global, multi-stakeholder effort to address issues affecting dog health, well-being, and welfare. Our main platform is DogWellNet.com. Our people include a Board comprised of individuals with respected international reputations, and a small but committed team of consultants in several countries. Volunteers from our Partners and Collaborator organizations and a network of experts are integral to what we do. 


Our Contributors, Partners, and Sponsors include national kennel clubs, international cynological organizations, groups with breed specific interests, educational/academic and professional organizations, and key players in the pet industry. Together we foster collaborative action to achieve our shared goals, support human-animal interactions, and benefit all dogs worldwide.  

For More Information:

Follow developments and find further resources on DogWellNet.com and learn about the IPFD.

Contact article author, Dr. Brenda N. Bonnett, CEO, IPFD, at Brenda.Bonnett@ipfdogs.com

General enquiries info@ipfdogs.com.

More data won’t improve dog health

At the end of the 4th International Dog Health Workshop, Dr Dan O’Neill said something along the lines of; “This is no longer about the dogs, it’s about the people”. Readers of this column will probably be tired of me getting on my Human Behaviour Change hobby-horse but that’s what Dan was alluding to; unless people change their behaviour, dog health won’t be improved.

The point I want to make about data is that it’s necessary but not sufficient. I suspect that presenting data to owners, breeders and judges might persuade 5-10% of them to do something different. Presenting data just doesn’t motivate many people to change their behaviour. Why is that?

Fear of Maths

Many breeds are overwhelmed by data from research papers, surveys and insurance companies, some of which gets analysed and turned into reports, but all too often breed clubs and breeders simply don’t have the skills to get real insight from the data.

Perhaps some people are “scared of maths”; others may not have the time and yet others may not see data analysis and interpretation as important for breed health improvement. Plus, some people think that “numbers speak for themselves” and don’t bother to present data in a way that might be helpful to others.

Add to that the manipulation of data by the media and the political spin put on “official statistics” and it’s no wonder that health data can get a bad press. 

​Breed Health Coordinators, in particular, are grappling with ever more complex data to understand how to improve their breed’s health. We have EBVs, COIs, Medians, Means, Odds Ratios and Confidence Limits, to name just a few terms that litter our breed health reading material. Who can we turn to to make sense of the numbers, provide insight and guidance?

People just don’t “get risk”

We have seen clearly over the past few months of the Covid19 pandemic that the majority of the public simply do not understand risk. At the time of writing (July), the median Infection Fatality Rate for England was 1.3%. That figure, however, masks a huge range of risks, depending on how old you are. Nearly 1 in 5 infected over the age of 75 had died. Under the age of 25, fewer than 50 infected people had died. People in that younger age group have more chance of being killed in a car accident than from Covid19.

When it comes to risk in canine health, some people struggle to understand risk-based screening programmes such as those available for hips and elbows. These are complex, multifactorial diseases which means, statistically it’s possible for a dog with a good score, still to have bad hips. Similarly, mating 2 dogs with good hips could still result in puppies with clinically poor hips, or dogs with poor hips could produce a puppy with no problem. The probabilities are that dogs with better grades will produce puppies with better grades and vice versa. Unfortunately, many breeders want “definitive” answers just like they might get with a DNA test that gives a Clear, Carrier or Affected result.

In the recently developed Respiratory Function Grading Scheme launched by the KC for brachycephalic breeds, advice for breeders is based on a risk matrix. This enables breeders to identify combinations of a screened sire and dam that would minimise the risk of producing puppies at risk of BOAS. There are no certainties about the puppies’ BOAS status but, by selecting from lower risk combinations, over time, breed health will be improved. This principle applies to all the clinical screening programmes for complex conditions.

Alternative facts

One of the other challenges to getting people to make the move from data to action is that there may well be “alternative facts” that can be used to disprove the overwhelming evidence that exists. All that is needed is one research paper that contains data that apparently contradicts the prevailing evidence. It’s then easy to cherrypick from that paper and persuade others that all the other evidence is flawed. I came across an example of this recently where evidence from a paper on surgery for a health condition was being used to contradict screening evidence. The two data sets simply weren’t comparable.

It’s tempting for those with scientific training to think that more data and evidence is the answer but, all too often, this just results in responses such as:

  • My dogs have never suffered from that condition and I’ve had the breed for x decades
  • It’s only research, what we need are facts
  • It’s too soon to be making these decisions about breeding recommendations
  • It’s only a problem with the commercial and back-street breeders; our dogs are better/healthier

For many pedigree health issues we already have plenty of data so if people aren’t acting on that data by now, providing more data is unlikely to persuade them to change their behaviour.

The “science” that is missing is that of Human Behaviour Change and an analysis of the lack of action from a behavioural change perspective would lead to very different conclusions than “give them more data/evidence”. We need to understand which of 3 types of reasons are preventing people from taking action to improve canine health. 

Firstly, do they have the capability to change, including do they know why it is important and how to take action? Mostly, science has answered those questions, so a lack of action is less likely to be due to a capability gap.

Secondly, do they have the opportunity to take action? This includes, for example, whether people have the time or money to participate in screening programmes. More importantly, this is also affected by whether they see their peers taking action; if nobody else is worried about low genetic diversity, why should I be? Social norms are powerful influencers, so finding ways to incentivise early adopters are vitally important.

Finally, do they have the motivation to act to improve breed health? Are they worried about any adverse consequences if they don’t act? Do they feel they want to or need to act and do they believe it would be a good thing to do? There is plenty of evidence that some health issues have become normalised, both by owners and vets. “It’s normal for a (breed name)” or “They all do that” are clues that an issue has been normalised.

In conclusion, we should stop trying to beat people into submission with more data and put more emphasis on finding answers to why people can’t or won’t change.

 

To end on a slightly more humourous note, remember “A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems.” [Paul Erdos]. 

 

Culture eats strategy for breakfast!

I’m not overly persuaded by the many comparisons of Covid19 testing and death rates in different countries. Statisticians David Spiegelhalter and Sylvia Richardson said recently:

…it’s tempting to link a country’s statistics to the measures they have taken to control the virus: for example, has Sweden’s more relaxed policy been as effective as lockdown? But countries differ in so many ways: basic demographics, compliance and social networks, testing capacity and policy, health service characteristics and so on.”

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE

We face a similar situation in the world of dog health; there are lots of
examples of comparisons made between different breeds. Our main interest has, inevitably, been focused on breed health in the UK but, for some breeds, there have also been international comparisons.

It’s perfectly valid and useful to make comparisons of the prevalence of particular diseases across different breeds. Many of these differences can be attributed to genetics and/or conformation. Indeed, the fact that we have created so many different breeds makes the pedigree dog a really useful resource in the search for the genes associated with diseases that may have parallels in humans.

International comparisons within breeds can also be useful and breeds such as Irish Wolfhounds and Bernese Mountain Dogs have extensive databases that can be used to investigate different health issues across the world. Increasingly, there is also genetic data from Genomewide Association Studies (GWAS) that is identifying different geographical clusters within breeds. This information could be used to address the lack of genetic diversity in some breed population sub-groups.

In my breed, Dachshunds, we are often (rightly) criticised for exaggerated length and shortness of leg and the claimed association of this with Intervertebral Disc Disease (IVDD). It is argued by some that we need to amend the Breed Standard to encourage shorter bodies and longer legs with more ground clearance, similar to that specified in the FCI Breed Standard. Unfortunately, this ignores the fact that the prevalence of IVDD is little different between FCI registered Dachshunds and UK dogs. In fact, there is more variation in IVDD prevalence between the 6 Dachshund varieties despite the fact they all share the same Breed Standard. For those interested, Wires and Longs are the least likely to have IVDD and Smooths and Mini Smooths are about 4-5 times more likely to have it. The research into the conformational differences and their association with IVDD is also contradictory. Nevertheless, it is clear that some Dachshund breeders (and judges) need to remind themselves of the original function of the breed and the KC mantra of “fit for function”.

3 levels of benchmarking

When I run benchmarking skills workshops, we talk about 3 levels of benchmarking: Metrics, Process and Culture. Metrics tell you “what the performance is”; Process tells you “how that performance was achieved” and Culture tells you “why” those processes achieved the particular level of performance.

Just comparing the metrics (e.g. disease prevalence or mutation frequency) ignores processes (such as breeder education, testing protocols and recording systems) and the cultural issues such as leadership, teamwork, compliance and enforcement. 

There’s a quote I use in relation to organisation design: “All organisations are perfectly designed to get the results that they do”.

For breed health improvement: “all breeds are perfectly designed to get the health that they do”.

Whatever any government, kennel club, breed club or campaigning group says about its strategy for improving canine health and welfare, it’s worth remembering Peter Drucker’s quote “Culture eats strategy for breakfast”.

International resources

Benchmarking metrics is easy, but tells you very little about how to improve.  Benchmarking processes tells you how others do what they do.  Adding in an understanding of the “soft stuff” helps explain why they get the performance that they do and is probably the most difficult area to adopt/adapt for your own breed’s use.

Visitors to the International Partnership for Dogs website (dogwellnet.com) will find a wealth of resources supplied by Kennel Clubs and Breed Clubs from around the world. It is a unique resource of data and tools (metrics and processes) that have been freely given and then curated in a single, accessible format.

Among the data, you can find breed health survey results and information on registration statistics. Having led the Breed-specific Health Strategies workstream at the 4th International Dog Health Workshop, I’m particularly interested in the tools and techniques that are being collated. These include examples of Breed Health Strategy templates which any breed club could use to get a baseline picture of what’s going on in their breed. In the UK, these are our Breed Health and Conservation Plans. The KC has completed these for 51 breeds so far and each Breed Health Coordinator for the remaining breeds has been given a simplified self-completion template to help them make a start.

The IPFD has plans to develop a Health Strategies Database along similar lines to its existing Harmonisation of Genetic Testing database. This would be an interactive resource including health conditions where recommendations have been made by Health Strategy Providers (HSPs) including kennel and breed clubs and veterinary organisations. It will include information on prevalence, severity, screening tests/programmes, links to health data etc.

This would be supported by an IPFD Expert Panel who would provide collective opinions on key questions, e.g. the quality and utility of genetic tests, their application within breeds, geographical areas, etc. and in the context of the broader view of health in the breed.

It’s all about people!

Making these internationally-sourced resources available is great but their applicability will be very dependent on the cultural context in each breed and each country. For example, approaches that have been successfully applied in the Nordic countries where there are fewer breeders than in the UK may simply not be workable here. In the USA, things will be different again; we’ve seen from their Covid19 lockdown protests that some Americans don’t take kindly to being told what to do! 

I also think there would be some value in categorising the various types of breed health improvement intervention (processes) using human behaviour change principles. I’ve written before about Susan Michie’s (UCL) behaviour change wheel which identifies 7 policy categories and around 90 different types of behavioural change technique. We will only improve breed health if individuals’ behaviour changes (breeders, buyers, judges, vets etc.). Behaviour change research in the field of human health (e.g. smoking and obesity) suggests that successful change typically requires around 10 different techniques to be employed. Incidentally, this explains why the reliance on “breeder education” has been consistently unsuccessful.

Returning to my initial thoughts on Covid19, some readers will be aware that Susan Mitchie is one of the advisors to the government on behaviour change associated with the pandemic. So, if you are interested to understand what’s been done in the past few months to shape your behaviour, I’d recommend you do some reading on behaviour change techniques. 

Breed Health Improvement Strategies – a webinar for the Danish Kennel Club

Ian Seath hosted a webinar on Breed Health Improvement Strategies for the Danish Kennel Club on June 11th 2020. An important subject that is more current than ever, where some breeds are faced with a difficult time in relation to health and considerations for the future of the breed.

Course content:
Part 1:
– What is a Breed Health Strategy?
– Why every breed needs one
– A process for developing a Health Strategy
– The role of human behaviour change in breed health improvement
Part 2:
2 UK case studies:
– The Dachshund Breed Council’s improvement strategy and achievements
– Addressing Lafora Disease in Miniature Wirehaired Dachshunds

Puppy buyers: mismatched expectations?

IMG_2281On the day the UK Covid-19 lockdown was announced, I wrote a Friday Essay for Our Dogs describing some of the potential unanticipated consequences of the pandemic and the government’s response to it. I asked, “what do we think will happen to the current trend in declining registrations of pedigree dogs?”. Even at that point in the pandemic, there was emerging evidence that puppy enquiries were booming and that seems to have continued. Breed Club Secretaries that I have spoken with have seen a massive increase in the number of enquiries. As a consequence, the Kennel Club has been busy providing advice for buyers and breeders to try to head off some of the potential problems that might arise. One of the concerns is that, once life returns to some semblance of normality, many of those dogs may be surrendered to rescue organisations.

We have known for a long time that there is a group of buyers that do virtually no research and appear to buy on impulse. A KC survey in 2017 showed that 1 in 5 people admitted they spent no time researching where to buy a puppy. More than one-third of respondents (34 per cent) admitted they were clueless about how to find a reputable breeder for their puppy and were therefore vulnerable to the scams that should ring alarm bells. Choosing a puppy took 36 per cent of people in the survey 20 minutes or less! It would be surprising if much has changed since 2017 and, with so many people having “time on their hands”, the temptation to buy a puppy on impulse is probably much greater.

Those of you who read my “Best of Health” articles (thank you!), will know that one of my recurring messages is that addressing canine health and welfare problems is actually a human behaviour change (HBC) issue, rather than a veterinary or scientific one. Unless breeders, buyers and owners (and a few others) change their behaviour, we will continue to see dogs suffering.

How hard can a puppy really be?

I’ve recently been speaking with Justine Williams who launched the Our Family Dog website last year. She’s also interested in human behaviour change and has been applying some of the HBC principles and tools in the design and content of her website and a support forum. Her blog recently featured an article titled: “How hard can a puppy really be?” where she describes the mismatch between the expectations and reality of owning a puppy. She says: “The reality of what new puppy owners have let themselves in for only hits home as the sleepless nights, piles of poo and puddles of pee on the carpet, and having to be on puppy watch 24/7, begin to take their toll”.

An Open Access paper published at the end of April discusses some long-term research into the dog-owner relationship. It found that how owners’ expectations and beliefs changed over time depended on whether they had experience with dogs (owning a dog presently, in the past, or never). In the first six months of ownership, especially for people with no prior experience with dogs, the owners had to adapt their expectations and beliefs. In the subsequent year, only a few differences based on dog ownership history were found. 

Who are the puppy buyers?

A recent study by a marketing communications company, Pegasus, identified 4 core pet owner “behaviour types”:

  • The Nerdie Newbie – New and eager young pet owners who want to be the best owner they can be. They are proactive in safeguarding the health and wellbeing for their pet
  • The Selfie Sidekick – Pet owners who see their pet as part of their lifestyle aesthetic. Likely to refer to their pet as their “fur baby”, they place higher importance on the appearance of their pet over its health and wellbeing
  • The Good Companion – Older, more experienced pet owners who love and value their pet as another member of the family; health and wellbeing is an absolute priority for their pet and they have an established, organised routine 
  • The Practical Caretaker – Pet owners who don’t “anthropomorphise” their pets. Pragmatic in their care, they understand their pet has different health and wellbeing needs to themselves but could have a more reactive approach to health and care

Research by the KC has also identified different buyer profiles and this highlighted attitudes to dog health, in particular. 

Hit the “panic button”

Justine, at Our Family Dog, has identified 4 key buyer/owner problem behaviours which she has mapped to the early stages of the dog ownership journey. The behaviours are:

  • People launch into getting a puppy without any preparation
  • People make impulse buying decisions
  • New puppy owners ‘panic’ and access poor quality information on puppy care during the early weeks (8-12)
  • People use unqualified trainers, feed the wrong diet and leave dogs alone for too long (from 12 weeks onwards)

When I was speaking with her, I suggested there must be something we can learn from the challenges faced by first-time human parents. She agreed and said there’s a lot of HBC thinking behind organisations such as NCT (National Childbirth Trust) where, for example, they have resources to support the first 1000 days (from pregnancy to a child’s 2nd birthday). The peer-support offered through Mumsnet is another example. Our Family Dog has worked hard to collect stories from new dog owners and these help other new owners to realise that a puppy is hard work and it’s perfectly normal to panic or despair. 

Thinking about the dog ownership journey as a series of discrete stages is a really helpful way of identifying the problem behaviours that owners make and for developing practical tools and tips to get them through to the next stage.

The reality is that it’s extremely hard to overcome the impulse-buyer problem but we can make sure that good quality advice and support is available when novice owners “hit the panic button”. 

[Justine Williams’ blog post is here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-hard-can-puppy-really-expectations-versus-reality-williams/]

The Dachshund Breed Council’s Advice for Buyers and Tips for New Owners