2020: A dream or nightmare year for pedigree dog health?

At the start of 2020, I wrote in Our Dogs that it would be a good time to set a 10-year vision for dog health. There was a neat symmetry about creating a vision for 2030. It was also probably a realistic timeframe to think about because changing the health of a breed inevitably takes time. For example, with Lafora Disease in Miniature Wire Dachshunds, it took us 9 years to reduce the proportion of litters at risk of containing puppies affected 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 Breed Health Coordinators (BHCs) was to define what they wanted to achieve in their breed 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 my breed, Dachshunds, we want to reduce back disease (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.

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 obviously 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 could reduce overall levels of inbreeding, we would automatically reduce the risk of diseases caused by recessive mutations. Reducing conformational exaggerations is also likely to result in health improvements.

A goal without a plan is just a wish

In the UK, we have Breed Health and Conservation Plans (BHCP) which are agreed with the Kennel Club and published by many breed clubs. A BHCP pulls together a wide range of information about a breed and, through discussion with breed representatives, leads to an action plan for improvement. Some UK breeds reviewed and updated their plans in 2019 and 2020 so are now into their 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. However, it’s worth noting that, for most breeds, there is already a solid evidence-base which should make it easy to reach a consensus on what their health improvement priorities should be.

An international focus on legislation

During 2020, we saw that the topic of pedigree dog health is truly an international concern. The legislation affecting brachycephalic breeds in the Netherlands has probably been the most high profile but there have been similar moves in France, Germany, and Finland. The proposed German legislation has had a focus of conversations on social media related to the amount of exercise dogs must be given and the potential difficulty of policing any such legislation. However, an aspect that should concern us is the threat to ban dogs with “extreme exaggeration” from participating in dog shows. We can be pretty sure that it won’t just be the brachycephalic breeds that are targeted; short-legged breeds including the Dachshunds are also likely to be within the scope of these proposals.

It’s evident from what has happened in the Netherlands that data and evidence have made very little difference to the framing of the legislation affecting brachycephalic breeds. Despite the case presented by the Raad van Beheer (Dutch KC), their government seems to have been persuaded by a small group of vets at Utrecht University that legislation based on measuring the craniofacial ratio is a suitable tool to improve breed health.

Dr 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.”

Shortly after the announcement of the proposed French legislation, our Kennel Club hosted a webcast on the subject of Brachycephalic Obstructive Airway Syndrome (BOAS). KC Chairman Tony Allcock chaired a discussion panel that discussed some of the issues facing brachycephalic breeds and the role the KC is playing in addressing BOAS through the Respiratory Function Grading Scheme (RFGS) developed at Cambridge University. It’s important to recognise that the RFGS is just one strand of work being done here in the UK and it was also useful to hear about the role of the Brachycephalic Working Group during the webcast. This multi-stakeholder group has taken a wide-ranging approach to address the brachycephalic issue, encompassing both the supply side (i.e. breeders) and demand side (i.e. buyers).

Evidence and collaboration

The increasing internationalisation of breed health reinforces the case for the existence of the International Partnership for Dogs (IPFD). Their independent, non-political, position has always been grounded in a combination of evidence and collaboration. Their latest initiative is GRIHP – Globally Relevant Integrated Health Profiles – which has the potential to shape a more balanced conversation about pedigree dog health.

The IPFD website says: A Globally Relevant Integrated Health Profile (GRIHP) describes the Big Picture of health on (all) conditions that are of interest within a breed and is intended to inform owners, breeders, and those counseling them. Health Strategies are breed-specific recommendations and requirements developed by Health Strategy Providers (HSPs) including, e.g. kennel clubs, breed clubs, and veterinary organizations. Health strategies may encompass detailed descriptions of breed history and development, evidence/ statistics on conditions of interest, health/temperament screening suggestions or official programs, and more, depending on the breed, the HSP, the country, and/or specific organisations.

A useful aspect of the GRIHP reports is that you can see which disease screening programmes are being implemented in different countries. This helps provide a consensus view of what breed clubs, kennel clubs, and breeders are currently focusing on. What it doesn’t necessarily tell us is whether these screening programmes are the most important ones; they might simply be the most readily available ones. Information on DNA tests is already collated by the IPFD. Their Harmonisation of Genetic Testing database now includes a “relevance rating” based on published research evidence to support the use of DNA tests in given breeds.

We certainly need to see more GRIHP reports for pedigree breeds. Not only will they present useful data but they also exemplify the good work being done, internationally, to improve the health of pedigree breeds.

A role for individual breeders

In the past year, I heard an increasing number of conversations and saw online discussions where the term “Preservation Breeder” has been used. This seems to have originated from the USA and there’s a useful YouTube video on the AKC Channel from the 2019 American Kennel Club Delegate Meeting. The presentation defines Preservation(ist) Breeders as those who are preserving breed type and chronicling their heritage and history over the decades and centuries through their individual AKC parent clubs.

The presentation describes “purposefully bred purebred dogs” that are “intentionally bred for predictable type, health and welfare” as opposed to randomly bred dogs that are “brought into this world with no predicated welfare for their existence”. There’s a strong emphasis on the fact that preservationists carry out health testing and a claim that research and the development of DNA markers make purebred dogs on track to be the healthiest colony in the world.

Some of the challenges described in the AKC video are equally relevant in the UK. “A sub-culture focused on exhibiting dogs, rather than breeding them” is interesting because I have also written about the negative consequences of breeder/exhibitors placing endorsements on their puppies. If show-breeders do not encourage others to breed, even if they are just for “pet homes”, the registered gene-pool will get smaller. Not only that, but none of us are getting any younger and an ageing population of exhibitors risks cutting off the next generation of enthusiasts and preservation breeders. We no longer have the big breeding kennels and the days of the many knowledgeable stockmen and women are surely long gone. The video also talks about a lack of breed club and breeder education; without a good understanding of canine genetics and breeding strategies, how can clubs make decisions or recommendations that will actually enable the preservation of their breeds?

I’ve written previously about breeds as genetic pools and this is a way of thinking that is particularly relevant for someone who wants to be considered as a preservation breeder. Bloodlines and varieties within a breed may be useful additional sources of genetic diversity. Bloodlines are usually linked to a particular breeder or kennel and may be historically distinct or exhibit a distinct type within an overall breed. The risk, of course, is that certain bloodlines become “flavour of the month”, maybe as a result of show success and this can lead to the genetically unhelpful strategy of breeders flocking to use a so-called Popular Sire. The genetic diversity of a breed then becomes swamped by a particular bloodline and little or nothing of other bloodlines may survive.

We can take advantage of genes from other sub-populations such as working dogs that could contribute to show populations (and vice versa), or by importing non-UK dogs, or by looking at genetic diversity that could come from different varieties of the same breed. Preservation breeders must strive to balance type, health, and temperament by clever population management.

So, if you want to be a Preservation Breeder, it’s clear that preserving the status quo is the wrong mindset. The legislative trends we saw during 2020 mean breeders can no longer bury their heads in the sand when it comes to conformational exaggerations that impact on dog health. We should reflect on how, in some breeds, conformation has moved beyond a tipping point where the rest of the world now believes legislation is the only way to ensure dogs can live healthy lives.

In conclusion, I have to ask, was 2020 a dream year for envisioning pedigree dog health over the next decade or was it simply the start of a nightmare that threatens pedigree dogs?

Polarising conversations: how can we bridge the gaps?

When I first became a management consultant, my new line manager told me on my induction day never to discuss sex, religion or politics when I was with a client. All of these topics have the potential to be polarising conversations, with differences of opinion prevalent and the potential to offend others. Polarisation seems to be a characteristic of politics, in particular, these days. In the world of dogs, we have a long list of polarising topics including raw feeding, vaccination and non-recognised colours, to name just 3.

Some people don’t discuss controversial topics in an effort to avoid the seemingly inevitable confrontations and hurt feelings. Others take delight in these conversations, particularly on social media where they can hide behind a keyboard and write things that they may not be prepared to say to someone’s face. At its worst, it degenerates into online trolls.

An article in Psychology Today (2018) suggests that polarities are not “problems” to be solved, but rather they are situations that must be handled. It said: The litmus test for whether or not you’re facing a problem or a polarity is found in the answer to the question, “Does this situation have a solution?” If it does, it’s a “problem;” if it doesn’t, it’s a “polarity.” “Polarities” can be frustrating divides because they are basically a pair of interdependent and mutually essential values that both must be considered when decisions are being made. If diverse ideas were just a “problem” to be solved, it would make things a lot simpler in many ways. Unfortunately, opposing perspectives are often polarities and these require a much more mature and responsible treatment.

Is CNR a polarity or a problem?

Over the past couple of years, the Kennel Club has been working with breeds that were concerned about rising numbers of dogs being registered as “Colour Not Recognised” (CNR). This was also discussed in a forum meeting held at Stoneleigh in July 2019. There are some breeds where CNR colours/patterns exist naturally as a feature of the genetics of the breed. In others, it appears that new colours/patterns have been introduced as a result of cross-breeding because they were, historically, never evident in the breed. One of the problems originally raised was that it was impossible to identify and trace dogs’ colours in pedigrees if they were grouped under CNR and this undermined the purpose and integrity of the registration system. CNR also, apparently, gave a certain cachet to these dogs and made them more marketable by unscrupulous, commercial, breeders who have little concern for health or breed preservation. As a result of consultation, the approach reached has been to divide registration colours into “Breed Standard” and “Non Breed Standard”.

While the move to BS and NBS colour lists may have resolved some of the perceived problems, it has left a clear polarity: at one end of the spectrum is the view that NBS colours should not be registered at all and at the other is the view that the registration system exists to record pedigreed dogs. Arguably, that polarity has always existed and boils down to fundamental differences of opinion as to the definition of “the problem”.

How can we bridge the gaps?

Similar polarised positions exist across a range of dog health and welfare issues, including the health of brachycephalic breeds, breeding practices and approaches to dog training. 

The Psychology Today article says When you are speaking to someone who holds different values or holds a different political persuasion or has divergent ideas about major social justice issues or just sports and taxes, you just can’t “assume” that your view is right and their views are wrong. You have to accept that sometimes you’re going to have to “agree to disagree.”

I have written before about how giving people “more facts” is rarely successful as a means of influencing them. Scientists often default to a “deficit model” for communicating science. The assumption is that people don’t yet know enough about a topic such as breed health. The solution? Simply tell people the facts, thereby addressing their knowledge “deficit” and increasing their support for the science and the evidence. However, there is research evidence that people’s past experiences and underlying beliefs often act as a perceptual filter that can affect how they react to scientific data. If lecturing people won’t work, we need to take time to understand how the other person’s experiences and beliefs have shaped their current (opposite) views.

We know that people are resistant to persuasion when they feel pressured to admit their pre-existing knowledge and views are wrong. This is particularly so if it also challenges their self-identity and we have seen examples of this in the reactions of some breeders and judges to the emerging brachycephalic legislation outside the UK. The recent IPFD paper that called for open, respectful discussions said that “emotionally charged in-fighting or proclamations of being ‘at war’ with others weaken collective efforts to support the health and welfare of dogs”

Sometimes, engaging in personal conversations away from the polarising topic can be a useful starting point. A more empathetic approach is key to understanding how another person feels, no matter how different their views may be from our own. Active listening is one of the key tools for a constructive conversation. If you can begin to see the world through their eyes, you can then shape the conversation accordingly. 

Learning from journalists’ conversations

Some really interesting research was commissioned by the Solutions Journalism Network to look at ways in which journalists could cover controversial issues more effectively. Their goal was to help understand how to get people to open up to new ideas, rather than closing down in indignation. They concluded that, instead of focusing on each (or just one) “side” of a story, adding complexity and widening the conversation can actually be helpful. There are 5 powerful questions to ask:

  • Why is this personally important to you?
  • Which life experiences have shaped your views?
  • For those who disagree with you, what would you like them to understand about you?
  • What do you want to understand about those with whom you disagree?
  • Imagine that you got what you wanted in regards to this issue, how would your life change?

These days, it seems that people are so used to being combative, especially with someone who shares opposing views. They don’t expect you to listen to them, they expect a fight, not to be asked “can you tell me more?”. Perhaps counter-intuitively, by asking open questions and listening, better communication happens and we end up closer together instead of further apart.

Beware: prejudice is a great time-saver; it enables you to form opinions without having to gather the facts. [Anon.]

  

Do we need to get MEAN to improve dog health?

Last month, the International Partnership for Dogs published its call for collaboration in a paper (Think globally, act locally) that was discussed in the Our Dogs editorial and by David Cavill in his column.

The paper reviews actions and attitudes that influence ongoing developments relative to pedigree dogs. It is a call for open, respectful discussions, within and across stakeholder groups (e.g. dog show enthusiasts, kennel and breed clubs, legislators, dog owners, veterinary and welfare groups), as well as countries and regions. It is a call for everyone to examine how our personal biases, attachments, and beliefs affect these discussions; and a call to work together for what is truly in the best interest of dogs and the people who care for them.

It concludes by saying “There are no quick and easy solutions. IPFD is working with collaborators to help create a roadmap to engage all stakeholders. Those deeply committed to ensuring the survival of all that is good about pedigree dogs need to participate in open and respectful dialogue to identify actions for the benefit of all dogs and people. Each of us should honestly consider how our own attitudes, and our actions – or inaction – have contributed to the current situation. And then, together, let us find a positive way forward.

There is a clear message that each of us can and should take action to improve the health of dogs,, i.e. a “me first” approach. However, it is also evident that some individuals and groups are better placed to take a leadership role that has the potential to accelerate the pace of health improvement. I make no apology for repeating my hobbyhorse theme that what is needed is human behaviour change.

Behavioural Insights Team

In 2010, the Prime Minister’s Office set up the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) as ‘the world’s first government institution dedicated to the application of behavioural science to policy’. The team applies behavioural insights to inform policy and improve public services. One of the first papers describing their work was “MINDSPACE: influencing behaviour through public policy”. It describes ways of “nudging” citizens into new ways of acting by going with the grain of how we think and act. Hence, the BIT was sometimes referred to as the “Nudge Unit”.

MINDSPACE is an acronym for:

Messenger  – we are heavily influenced by who communicates information 

Incentives – our responses to incentives are shaped by predictable mental shortcuts such as strongly avoiding losses 

Norms – we are strongly influenced by what others do 

Defaults – we “go with the flow‟ of pre-set options 

Salience – our attention is drawn to what is novel and seems relevant to us 

Priming – our acts are often influenced by subconscious cues 

Affect – our emotional associations can powerfully shape our actions 

Commitments – we seek to be consistent with our public promises, and reciprocate acts 

Ego – we act in ways that make us feel better about ourselves 

While all 9 elements of MINDSPACE may be relevant to nudging the desired behavioural changes needed to improve dog health, I want to focus on just 4: MEAN. As an aside, the imposition of legislation to address brachycephalic health is an Incentives intervention; people will generally act to avoid losses (e.g. fines or bans). However, compliance-based approaches don’t have a great track record, particularly in the world of animal welfare.

The Messenger matters

The weight we give to information often depends on the reactions we have to the source of that information. We are affected by the perceived authority of the messenger (whether formal or informal).  One study showed that interventions delivered by health educators were more effective in changing behaviour compared with interventions delivered by either trained facilitators or teachers.

Whilst expertise matters, so do peer effects. Role models from our peer group can be very influential; people often like to be seen to do what the “top people” do. 

We also have to be wary of messengers that people dislike and who are, therefore, not likely to be influential. For example, if breeders have negative views of their governing body (KC), they may be less likely to listen to messages coming from representatives, however expert they may be, from that organisation.

Ego trips

We tend to behave in a way that supports the impression of a positive and consistent self-image. When things go well, we take the credit; when things go wrong, it‟s other people’s fault. We have an inherent drive to protect our ego and to act and think in ways that make us feel better about ourselves and that we’ve made the right decisions for our dogs. 

Legislation may enforce a degree of compliance, through fear, but rewards and recognition can also be used to nudge people in the right direction. The brachycephalic breeds that have Gold-Silver-Bronze Health Award schemes are a good example of a positive approach. Recognition of early adopters and financial incentives such as screening subsidies can also help make people feel better about the actions they are taking to safeguard their breed’s health.

Affect – the act of experiencing emotion

Emotional responses to words, images and events can be rapid and automatic, so that people can experience a behavioural reaction before they realise what they are reacting to. I wrote recently that “More data won’t improve dog health” where I argued that beating people over the head with more facts was likely to fail. Of course we need data and evidence but, all too often, we have failed to engage with people on an emotional level. 

We sometimes talk about the Instagram Generation and, perhaps, we should give more thought to the power of images and videos (via YouTube), particularly to encourage behaviour change in dog buyers. Stories from owners and buyers talking about their experiences can be very powerful. Infographics are another useful medium but if they are simply used to present yet more data they won’t really engage at an emotional level. 

Norms and peer-pressure

Awareness of “social norms” – the commonly held views of our peers – can exert pressure on people to conform. If everyone else is using a health screening programme, it’s hard to be one of the few who are not. The reverse also applies, of course. Normative pressure depends on there being visibility of who is exhibiting the desired behaviour, so published lists of screened dogs or Gold Certificate holders, help to reinforce what is wanted.

Social networks (online and offline) are incredibly important in explaining group behavioural norms. It’s the echo chamber effect on Facebook; it’s hard to be a dissenting voice when a group is constantly repeating a particular message. However, in changing behaviours for dog health, there’s not much value in “preaching to the converted”. We will need to have some challenging conversations with different groups!

Different strokes for different folks

One of the really important pieces of work now being done by the IPFD is to develop a “roadmap” of tactics and options to help the various stakeholders act on breed health improvement. There are no simple or one-size-fits-all solutions. The MINDSPACE model might just be a useful checklist to help shape the roadmap and identify creative possibilities. 

It’s time to get a GRIHP – a new resource from the IPFD

We have seen over recent months that the topic of pedigree dog health is truly an international concern. The legislation affecting brachycephalic breeds in the Netherlands has probably been the most high profile but there have been similar moves in France, Germany, and Finland. The proposed German legislation has had a focus of conversations on social media related to the amount of exercise dogs must be given and the potential difficulty of policing any such legislation. However, an aspect that should concern us is the threat to ban dogs with “extreme exaggeration” from participating in dog shows. We can be pretty sure that it won’t just be the brachycephalic breeds that are targeted; short-legged breeds including the Dachshunds are also likely to be within the scope of these proposals.

Dr 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.”

Shortly after the announcement of the proposed French legislation, our Kennel Club hosted a webcast on the subject of Brachycephalic Obstructive Airway Syndrome (BOAS). KC Chairman Tony Allcock chaired a discussion panel that discussed some of the issues facing brachycephalic breeds and the role the KC is playing in addressing BOAS through the Respiratory Function Grading Scheme (RFGS) developed at Cambridge University. It’s important to recognise that the RFGS is just one strand of work being done here in the UK and it was also useful to hear about the role of the Brachycephalic Working Group during the webcast. This multi-stakeholder group has taken a wide-ranging approach to address the brachycephalic issue, encompassing both the supply side (i.e breeders) and demand side (i.e. buyers). 

I wrote last month about how more data won’t improve breed health. It’s evident from what has happened in the Netherlands that data and evidence have made very little difference to the framing of the legislation affecting brachycephalic breeds. Despite the case presented by the Raad van Beheer (Dutch KC), their government seems to have been persuaded by a small group of vets at Utrecht University that legislation based on measuring the craniofacial ratio is a suitable tool to improve breed health.

Evidence and collaboration

The increasing internationalisation of breed health reinforces the case for the existence of the International Partnership for Dogs (IPFD). Their independent, non-political, position has always been grounded in a combination of evidence and collaboration. Their latest initiative is GRIHP – Globally Relevant Integrated Health Profiles – which has the potential to shape a more balanced conversation about pedigree dog health.

The IPFD website says:

A Globally Relevant Integrated Health Profile (GRIHP) describes the Big Picture of health on (all) conditions that are of interest within a breed and is intended to inform owners, breeders, and those counseling them. Health Strategies are breed-specific recommendations and requirements developed by Health Strategy Providers (HSPs) including, e.g. kennel clubs, breed clubs, and veterinary organizations. Health strategies may encompass detailed descriptions of breed history and development, evidence/ statistics on conditions of interest, health/temperament screening suggestions or official programs, and more, depending on the breed, the HSP, the country, and/or specific organisations. 

The Big Picture for a breed should include information not only on conditions that have genetic or other screening tests available, but also all conditions that may impact the health, behaviour/temperament, well-being, and welfare of individuals and breed populations; ideally accompanied by an indication of the relative importance of each item, which may involve commonness, severity, and other factors.

Depending on the breed these Get a GRIHP articles will include:

  • Breed nomenclature and description of types and characteristics
  • Health and welfare issues, including:
  • statistics on common and high-risk conditions
  • available health, genetic and other screening tests that are recommended or required
  • Population statistics from various countries; statistics on trends in popularity
  • Management strategies and recommendations for owners and breeders, as well as resources to support veterinary-client communication.

Get a GRIHP on Corgis and Dachshunds

Corgis and Dachshunds are the first 2 breeds with GRIHP reports. In the UK, we already have Breed Health and Conservation Plans being developed by our KC and these are focused on action plans for UK breed clubs. The value of GRIHPs is that they open up the scope to reflect internationally available data and evidence of breed improvement strategies.

For example, with the Corgis, you can see international registration statistics from 6 countries. While the UK population may be on the Vulnerable Breeds list, this international perspective shows Finland has seen a significant growth in popularity.

Another useful aspect of the GRIHP reports is that you can see which screening programmes are being implemented in different countries. This helps provide a consensus view of what breed clubs, kennel clubs and breeders are currently focusing on. What it doesn’t necessarily tell us is whether these screening programmes are the most important ones; they might simply be the most readily available ones. Information on DNA tests is already collated by the IPFD. Their Harmonisation of Genetic Testing database now includes a “relevance rating” based on published research evidence to support the use of DNA tests in given breeds. Just because a test is being sold for a breed, doesn’t necessarily mean it is valid and relevant for that breed.

Some of the most useful information in the GRIHP reports is the Swedish Agria mortality (death) and morbidity (illness) data. They compare the featured breed with “all breeds” and other pedigree breeds to give a clear view of relative risks. Interestingly, back disease for Mini Dachshunds is shown as being 5 times more likely than in “all breeds” combined. Other sources typically quote Dachshunds as being 10-12 times more likely to have a back problem. Pekingese are shown as the highest risk breed for back disease in the Swedish data. 

Returning to my initial discussion about legislation that targets specific breeds, the Swedish data on back disease shows that it is not only the short-legged breeds that have an increased risk. The comparator data really do pose some challenging questions for anyone looking to impose apparently simple solutions (such as legislation) on targeted pedigree breeds. Corgis, for example, have a lower mortality rate (Risk Ratio 0.7) than “all breeds” and a marginally higher morbidity rate (RR 1.07). In the Dachshunds, both sizes have a lower mortality rate than “all breeds” and the Standards have a lower morbidity rate. 

We certainly need to see more of these GRIHP reports for other breeds. Not only will they present useful data but they also exemplify the good work being done, internationally, to improve the health of pedigree breeds.

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.