Colour Dilution Alopecia – not so simple!

In the last week of April, I had the pleasure of chairing another of The Kennel Club’s webinars, organised by the Health Team. It was a free webinar for owners and breeders who wanted to find out more about the dangers of breeding for fashionable colours, using the example of colour dilution alopecia – including what research has told us to date, and how best to support dogs affected with this condition.

Colour Dilution Alopecia (CDA) is a genetic condition found in some breeds that causes hair thinning and loss, which can leave the skin prone to sunburn, infection and dermatitis. The condition is associated with dogs who have a “dilute” colour (e.g. blue, lilac, isabella or silver). While the disorder is commonly described in Dachshunds and Dobermanns, it has also been recognised in other breeds. With the rise in popularity of “fashionable” coloured dogs, it’s crucial to understand the dangers that can be associated with breeding for certain colours and what breeders can do to try to reduce the prevalence of conditions associated with dilute coat colours.

My introduction to the webinar shared some data on the 2021 registration statistics of those breeds where there are Non Breed Standard (NBS) colours in their registration options. This applies to about 10% of the KC’s registered breeds. At one extreme, French Bulldogs had 70% of their 2021 registrations as NBS and 53% for Bulldogs. Labradors had 1% NBS but, with over 61,000 registrations, that still amounts to over 800 NBS dogs.

Colour Dilution Alopecia is a concern to many of us in the Dachshund community because it is reported in the dilute colours (blue and isabella). We ran a breed health survey in 2021, supported by The Kennel Club, specifically to find out how prevalent the condition was. Our 2018 survey had shown skin diseases and allergies to be the second most prevalent health concern in all colours (after IVDD – back disease) and we wanted to find out if this was a particular issue in the increasingly popular dilute colours. Most people will be aware that Mini Smooth Dachshunds have grown in popularity over recent years (under 3000 registered in 2013 and over 15000 registered last year). Shockingly, registrations of dilute Mini Smooths have grown from 0.1% in 2018 to 20% last year. Not only has the breed become extremely fashionable, but “rare” colours have too (often aided by the influence of social media).

In Fitch Daglish’s 1952 book “The Dachshund”, he refers to blue dachshunds, so it is clear that the dilution gene has been in the breed for a very long time. This is not something that has been added by cross-breeding. The high number of dilute puppies now being bred is down to intensive selection for the dilute coat colour in the UK population. Our 2021 health survey showed 80% of blue dachshunds were affected by CDA and 86% of isabellas.

Dr Rosario Cerundolo (Head of Dermatology at Dick White Referrals) presented during the webinar on the signs, diagnosis and treatment of CDA. He showed examples of the condition in several breeds, including Dalmatians, Russian Toy Terriers and Dachshunds. Electron microscope images illustrated the structure of hairs in dilute dogs that causes patches of hair thinning or loss and may also include flaky and/or itchy skin. It is an early-onset, lifelong condition, often being seen from around 6 months of age and cannot be cured; it can only be managed. 

The genetics of CDA

Dr Joanna Ilska (KC Genetics Health Manager) was the second speaker at the webinar and she discussed the research evidence and genetics of CDA. While the gene variants for dilution are now known and can be identified with DNA tests, the gene (or genes) that cause CDA have not been found, to date. Joanna explained that, while dilute colour is a predisposing factor for CDA in Dachshunds, the 2 traits are not irrevocably linked. The fact that dilute colours in some other breeds do not suffer from CDA and not all blue or isabella Dachshunds do either, shows this is not a simple genetic condition. The evidence also does not support the view that other health conditions are caused by the coat colour. So, the fact that many of the dilute dogs in our 2021 survey also suffered from autoimmune conditions is more likely to be a result of close inbreeding, use of popular sires, and strong selection within a narrow population pool.

The scientific evidence on the association between colour dilution and CDA was reviewed by the veterinary and genetics specialists on the KC’s Genetics & Health Screening Dog Health Group and they recommended an educational approach rather than a ban on registration of dilute Dachshunds. This webinar was part of that educational approach. 

Recognising that where there is demand, there will be supply, Joanna stressed the dangers of breeding for “rare” colours and offered some practical advice to minimise the risks. This included carrying out all recommended health screening, breeding from dogs over the age of 2 once they were known to be unaffected by CDA, and avoiding close inbreeding and popular sires.

Discouraging “rare” colours

You may have read the recent press release on the recommendations from the NBS Colour Working Party. The Colour Watch system mentioned in their report will be one element of the KC’s approach and provides a framework for marketing and communication to puppy buyers, breeders and owners. Work is also underway as part of the KC’s strategic review to establish more effective ways within the registration system to promote well-bred puppies with breed standard colours and relevant health-tests. For several breeds, there have also been changes made to Breed Standards and to the lists of BS and NBS colours in the registration process.

How to raise awareness?

The Colour Watch system will be a key element in the KC’s approach to raising awareness of the risks of breeding for so-called rare colours and NBS colours. Several breed club communities are already producing educational materials and we have seen great examples of these at Discover Dogs and on club websites. Clearly, there is a role for breed clubs and councils, as well as the KC. 

The KC would, of course, be pleased to collaborate with breed clubs and their charities on joint campaigns that help raise awareness. One simple step would be for breed clubs to share links to this webinar and the other resources in the KC Health YouTube channel. If breed clubs are serious about protecting the health of their breed, they need to be proactive on social media. On Facebook, there are dozens of Dachshund Facebook Groups and it’s likely the same for other breeds. It is a massive task, though, and we need to address both supply and demand.

‘The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it’s the illusion of knowledge’: Stephen Hawking 

Advertisement

Dog Health Improvement – what’s working?

I am grateful to Dr Brenda Bonnet for sending me a copy of an interesting and useful paper published in January by a team from the University of Copenhagen Department of Veterinary Medicine. [Mapping of initiatives to prevent inherited diseases and exaggerated phenotypes in dogs – Bruun, Fredholm, Proschowski & Sandøe]

The team describes and examines 4 types of initiative designed to address the negative effects of dog breeding. These are: research, actions in the breeding community, education of the buying public, and legislation. The study draws on source material from the FCI and Kennel Clubs, animal welfare organisations, published research, and legislation.

I’ll cut to the chase and say that the report’s conclusions and recommendations mirror a couple of key points I’ve written about numerous times in this column:

• We need data and evidence, but endlessly seeking more data or the “perfect” set of data  won’t make much difference to dog health
• The real issue that we need to address is human behaviour change and most of the solutions developed so far have been developed in isolation and fail to “join the dots” in what is a complex system

Research initiatives

There are 3 main types of research initiative; epidemiological studies to establish evidence of the prevalence and severity of diseases; research to develop tests and diagnoses of diseases; and research to develop treatments. In the UK, the VetCompass studies that I have written about previously are among the most well-known and useful epidemiological research. These studies, together with breed health surveys (run by the KC and breed clubs), provide good baseline data and the potential to measure improvements over time. They also enable us to set objectives for improvement and to prioritise among different conditions. Our UK Breed Health and Conservation Plans are the key documents summarising this research and individual breed improvement plans.

We are all aware of the pace of development of new DNA tests but a major concern is the relevance of these. Just because a particular mutation has been found in a breed doesn’t necessarily mean it is associated with the clinical manifestation of a disease. Resources such as the IPFD’s Relevance Ratings in their DNA test database make it clear where tests are worth considering within a breed’s improvement plan.

Additionally, it’s all too easy for breeders and buyers to mistake “health-tested” for “healthy” and we still have a lot of education to do in this regard. 

Initiatives by breeding organisations

The Danish paper acknowledges that Kennel Clubs and Breed Clubs have taken some effective action to improve breeding programmes but admits these are limited to dogs within the registries. We know there are at least as many “pedigree” dogs bred outside the UK KC registry and, therefore, these breeders are hard (or impossible) to reach with education programmes.

Unsurprisingly, amendments to Breed Standards are one attempt to limit the negative effects of extreme conformation or exaggeration.

Traditions like coat colour and specific conformational aspects are quoted as being considered to be equally important as health and welfare, which mitigates against many of the necessary improvement actions being adopted by breeders.

The paper describes breeding programmes imposed by Kennel Clubs as being “a balanced consideration of many aspects related to the breed, its health and breeders”. For example, the size of a breed is important and if too many criteria are included, many dogs would be excluded from breeding with a resulting further loss of genetic diversity and the emergence of new diseases. There will always be debate about whether KCs have got the balance right and the pace of improvement that is possible.

Initiatives such as Breed Watch and Breed Health and Conservation Plans are 2 key elements we have here in the UK, to support judges, breeders and breed clubs.

Open Studbooks and the introduction of unregistered dogs or cross-breeding with phenotypically similar dogs are other strategies available in some Kennel Clubs. These have the potential to increase genetic diversity and help breed away from issues in some breeds.

The paper concludes that the effectiveness of initiatives by the FCI and KCs is difficult to evaluate. They doubt whether instructions are being followed by show judges and breeders. They also worry that any improvements will be very slow to be seen.

Initiatives to influence buyers

There is plenty of research to suggest that many buyers do not emphasise health in their decision-making. Fashion and societal influence (e.g. via social media) often play a larger part in determining choice of breed.

There have been campaigns by veterinary groups and animal welfare organisations to discourage people from buying brachycephalic (and other) breeds. The paper concludes that these have not “had any measurable effect”. It is clear that traditional marketing campaigns and ever more websites with information for buyers simply won’t work (on their own). This, of course, takes me back to my point about the science that is missing is Behavioural Science.

Legislative initiatives

You’d have to have spent the last year sleeping under a rock not to be aware of the legislation that has been introduced in Germany, Austria and the Netherlands to address welfare issues in pedigree dogs (breeding and exhibiting). The Norwegian court cases against the NKK and breeders of Cavaliers and Bulldogs have also been widely discussed.

While much of the new legislation does send strong signals about what is and is not acceptable, there appear to be significant variations in interpretation and enforcement. We’ve seen the same issue with the UK breeder licensing regulations, with huge variations between different local authorities. Legislation also risks driving breeders underground; unhealthy dogs will still be bred but are invisible to law enforcers. The unintended consequences of badly thought-through legislation should not be underestimated.

So, what works?

It would be easy to conclude from the Danish paper that nothing much works! I have written previously about the COM-B behavioural change model (Michie et al) and I still think this holds the key to achieving breed health improvements. The focus has to be on human behaviour change (breeders, judges, buyers, owners, vets) and we will need a different combination of initiatives for each group. It would be helpful to have a “roadmap” of options for different groups and it would be even more helpful if there was increased collaboration and pooled resources rather than multiple scattergun approaches.

Who’s looking at the bigger picture?

It’s very easy to get so focused on what’s going on in your own breed (or breeds) that you lose sight of the bigger picture and wider context of what’s happening in the world of dogs. For some breeds, particularly the brachycephalics, there has been a huge amount of scrutiny for many years. The most proactive breed clubs and Breed Health Coordinators have focused on getting messages across about good breeding practices and the value of health screening programmes. Some, though, are less proactive and are perhaps wondering what new legislation is going to hit them. If their short-term focus is on tinkering with their Breed Standard or uptake of a single-gene DNA “health” test, I suspect they will be in for either a disappointment or a shock. While it may be true that “backyard breeders” are the cause of many health issues through poor breeding practices and a disregard for the Breed Standard, it’s likely that those in breed club communities will be impacted first. Breed club communities and those who show their dogs are an easily identifiable target for criticism.

At a National level, Kennel Clubs have to juggle and balance priorities across multiple breeds. Decisions that are made for one breed can often have wider implications across other breeds. Here in the UK, there was a time when the KC would consider implementing “Control Schemes” in specific breeds. Probably the best-known example is CLAD testing in Irish Setters.

With effect from 1 July 2005, the Kennel Club would only register Irish Setters that are proven to be clear of CLAD, or hereditarily clear of CLAD e.g. both parents are clear. With effect from 1 January 2008, the Kennel Club ceased to accept any registrations for Irish Setters produced from a CLAD carrier parent mated to a clear or hereditarily clear parent. Breeders wishing to register progeny from a carrier after this date were required to apply for permission prior to the proposed mating, and applications are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing

I remember going to a meeting more than 20 years ago with Professor Jeff Sampson (the KC’s geneticist at the time) where we asked if a control scheme could be introduced for Miniature Dachshunds so that cord1 PRA could be eradicated from the breed. Thankfully, in hindsight, Jeff argued that this would not be in the best interests of the breed and could actually make things worse by further reducing genetic diversity. We had similar discussions with the KC about banning registrations of Mini Wires that were affected by Lafora Disease or that were untested. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and we now know that early onset PRA in Miniature Dachshunds is not caused solely by the cord1 mutation. We have also been able to reduce the risks of breeding Lafora-affected puppies without having the constraints of a Control Scheme.

These days, the KC’s health and genetics advisors are very much aware of the challenges associated with loss of genetic diversity and, I believe, the current policy is that Control Schemes are not considered to be an effective tool for managing inherited diseases. This is a good example of how the role of the KC is to understand the bigger picture and to educate breed clubs and breeders on the potential adverse consequences of what might seem like “simple” solutions.

The KC policy that puppies from merle-to-merle matings cannot be registered is another example of where seeing the bigger picture can (and should) influence a decision. The number of merle-to-merle matings was always very low and the risks of breeding health-compromised puppies was known to be high. As such, this decision made sense across multiple breeds where the merle gene is present. The impact of this policy on genetic diversity is low but the impact on avoiding significant health risks is high.

Unintended consequences

I’m sure there are plenty of other examples where breed clubs might argue for registrations to be restricted on the basis of health tests or where they believe there are health issues associated with particular aspects of the Breed Standard (e.g. conformation or colour). Stepping back and considering the bigger picture and potential undesirable consequences might lead us to alternative approaches. For example, if people can’t register with the KC, will these dogs continue to be bred outside the KC system or will their breeders register them with false details? In the former case, we still end up with unhealthy dogs that may suffer from lifelong illnesses and, in the latter case, we end up with a KC registry based on unreliable information. The KC might also have to consider whether a decision that apparently makes sense in one breed would have knock-on effects if applied to other breeds.

At an international level, the challenges of joining the dots and making sense of varying KC policies and diverse national legislation are even greater. Our KC has reciprocal agreements with many other KCs and the FCI acts as a worldwide body for 98 members and contract partners, with oversight of 355 breeds.

What is truly in the best interest of all dogs?

The International Partnership for Dogs is another organisation taking a broader perspective on the world of dogs. They have recently published their Annual Report for 2021. In her opening remarks, Acting CEO Katariina Mäki says “we continue to work with our stakeholders to educate our global community and promote what is truly in the best interest of all dogs”. She also says “We need collaboration among our stakeholders now more than ever”. That group of stakeholders includes KCs, groups with breed-specific interests, academics/researchers and members of the pet industry, including DNA test providers. Their Harmonization of Genetic Testing for Dogs Database now includes 82 academic and commercial Genetic Test Providers (GTPs) in 22 countries. IPFD’s online platform dogwellnet.com is their main channel for connecting with the dog community and, if you haven’t already done so, I’d recommend joining the 2000+ people who have signed-up for a free account which will give you access to all of their resources. If you’re a breeder or breed club officer, the information and tools available for 182 breeds are immensely valuable. Over the past couple of years, IPFD has put a lot of effort into creating over 1000 Breed Relevance Ratings for the list of nearly 2000 breed-specific DNA tests that are available. These evidence-based ratings, together with Globally Relevant Integrated Health Profiles (GRIHP) describe the big picture of health on conditions of interest within a specific breed.

Next month, IPFD will be running their second Virtual Dog Health Workshop with a focus on Genetic Diversity. I’ve been invited to attend, so I expect there will be plenty to share in future “Best of Health” articles.

COMPRAM: A model for collaboration

In October, I attended a webinar run by the Operational Research Society of which I am a member which I thought had some relevance to problems we are trying to solve in the world of pedigree dogs. The speaker was Professor Dorien De Tombe from the Netherlands who has developed a methodology for solving complex societal problems. Examples of complex societal problems include climate change, terrorism, urban planning, poverty. Healthcare issues such as obesity, malaria and SARS-COV2 are also included.

These are real-life problems with a high degree of complexity and with many different individuals, groups and organisations involved; often with conflicting agendas and where emotions can run high. One of the key points is that they are interdisciplinary problems and cannot, therefore, be solved by one particular set of experts or narrow interest groups that have their own “simple solution” in mind.

De Tombe’s COMPRAM model for dealing with these types of problems was endorsed by the OECD in 2006 when they advised governments to adopt the approach to handle problems that threaten global safety. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, of course, and she pointed out that most governments failed to act in an appropriate way to deal with the complexity of SARS-COV2. The result, unsurprisingly, is a whole series of unanticipated and undesirable consequences (a topic I have written about before).

You don’t have to look very far into the world of pedigree dogs to see that we too face a number of complex societal problems. Animal welfare, puppy farming and cruelty are obvious examples where “simple solutions” such as yet more legislation have consistently failed to make much of an impact. Similarly, the health of pedigree dogs including inherited diseases, genetic diversity and exaggerated conformation are also clearly complex. We can add into the mix some of the more current discussions about what should or should not be registered by the Kennel Club and we have a series of interconnected issues with widely diverging views on what “the solution” is.

Knowledge, power and emotions

De Tombe has been developing methodologies and tools for handling these sorts of complex problems since 1994. In fact, she avoids using the term “solving” and prefers to say “changing” because a solved problem for one person or group is often the start of a problem for other individuals or groups. All these problems have 3 main elements: knowledge, power and emotions. 

We know there are problems with pedigree dogs; lots of data has been collected and analysed and there is ongoing research to develop our knowledge further. Different individuals and groups have “power” and often also their own definitions of both the problem and a desired solution or end goal. We have seen that these complex problems result in high emotions; you only have to read the social media posts of dog owners, breeders, vets and campaigners to see this.

The process for handling these problems can be broken into 2 phases. In the first phase, the problem is defined. In the second phase, the problem is changed (solved). All too often, people who are emotionally invested in the problem leap straight to phase 2 and present their preferred menu of (what they believe are) solutions.

Problem definition is critical

My reflection on the De Tombe approach is that organisations such as the Kennel Club and the International Partnership for Dogs invest significant effort in working with the right people to define the various complex pedigree dog problems. 

Problem definition starts with becoming aware that there is a problem, asking questions about it and actively putting it on the agenda to be handled. In the case of the KC, the Dog Health Group and its 4 sub-groups are multi-disciplinary experts who can analyse data, exchange knowledge and begin to conceptualise the problem. The definition of a problem usually includes some historical perspectives (how did a breed originate, what did it look like, what were its genetic origins) as well as the current situation. It may also include a recognition that the current situation could become much worse if no action is taken.

To the rest of the world, perhaps this looks like delaying tactics or “kicking the can down the road” but the aim is two-fold; firstly to develop an expert understanding of a particular problem and secondly to build collaborative relationships with those who have the power to own and implement solutions.

Start with the end in mind

Changing the problem starts with considering the detailed data and evidence, plus defining the desired goal. The desired goal is the direction in which the experts or those involved in the problem would like to change the problem. Goals are about what we might want to improve, increase or reduce (e.g. increase longevity, reduce welfare harms). They are not what we might want to “do” (e.g. change the Breed Standards, make health testing mandatory, prevent particular dogs from being registered). Start with the end in mind!

In this second phase, other groups or individuals (beyond those experts who initially defined the problem) can come together to develop ways to handle the problem from the basis of good evidence. In the case of pedigree dogs, representatives of breed clubs are key people to involve. For health issues, each breed has a Health Coordinator and many also have health committees and the KC tries to work closely with these to formulate viable changes. The development of Breed Health and Conservation Plans is a good example of the collaborative approach taken. The Brachycephalic Working Group is another example of how a group of people with different views has been brought together to develop a consensus action plan. The 4 International Dog Health Workshops and, more recently, the IPFD’s DNA Test Reporting Workshop are further examples of how a collaborative approach can lead to practical and supported improvement actions. 

Pitfalls to avoid

There are many pitfalls in the process of handling complex problems. I’ve already mentioned the desire of some people to leap to solutions which they are passionate about before the problem or goal has even been defined.

Inviting the wrong people to participate in the process can also lead to inappropriate solutions if, for example, a small group of “loud voices” dominates the discussion. Groupthink is another team issue whereby poor quality analysis and decision-making goes unchallenged. Inviting “outside experts” to comment or play devil’s advocate can help avoid this.

It’s all too easy to end up with negative reactions to the solutions that are proposed and implemented. A key step in the De Tombe approach is for the decision-making team to take time to discuss the possible consequences and reactions before going ahead with them. Elijah Goldratt said “The world of business is awash with ill-considered solutions to ill-defined problems”. 

There are already some great examples of collaborative approaches to handle complex canine problems and we should always bear in mind that, for every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong!

Judging for health should not be controversial

A recent Our Dogs “Question Time” feature on vet checks at Championship shows for Best of Breed winners in Breed Watch Category 3 got me thinking about the role of judges in protecting breed health.

It’s hard to believe that it’s 9 years since vet checks were introduced at Crufts 2012 for what were then known as “high profile breeds”. The plan for these checks had been announced by the KC during 2011 but its significance had probably not been realised until the show in 2012. It’s worth recalling that these checks were introduced in the period following Pedigree Dogs Exposed and at a time when there were attempts to shame Crufts off our television screens completely. Pedigree dogs were in the spotlight and the KC was arguing that dog shows had the potential to be a force for good in demonstrating fit and healthy purebreds. Professor Patrick Bateson, in his 2010 report on pedigree dog breeding, had also referred to the influence of dog shows on dog welfare:

“I was persuaded that showing and judging constitute a powerful lever for change. That has been demonstrated clearly in the past in the documented and undisputed changes in form that have taken place in many breeds. My concern therefore is that this powerful lever should be effectively applied to achieve the desired improvements in welfare.” and…

Judging is not an exact science but it needs to be informed by recent advances in knowledge. It would be improved with a mechanism for re-training or updating judges over time (what in other circles would be termed continuing development). It would also be enhanced by the introduction of a mechanism for singling out judges who manifestly upheld welfare principles and kept themselves up-to-date.”

At the time, the vet checks were hugely controversial among the show community and made headlines because 6 of the 15 Crufts Best of Breeds failed the examination and were unable to enter their Group competitions. Social media responded with new groups set up in protest at the KC’s actions. That year’s KC AGM also had some heated discussion but a proposal to halt the vet checks was not supported.

The veterinary press, unsurprisingly, took a different perspective and were generally supportive of the vet check process. In a letter to the Vet Record, the 2 Crufts vets (Alison Skipper and Will Jeffels) wrote “The fact that the KC gave two ordinary general practitioners the authority to overrule the decisions of internationally famous judges at the world’s biggest dog show, and trusted us to make impartial decisions about the dogs we examined, is a great mark of confidence in the integrity and ethics of our profession. We should not let them down. We very much hope that many other vets will support the KC by volunteering to carry out these checks at a championship show.”

In contrast, the following year all the high profile breeds passed their Crufts vet checks and proceeded to the group competitions. 

Breed Watch

The concept of high profile breeds has now been incorporated into the Breed Watch scheme with those breeds being in Category 3. The fact that there are now just 9 Category 3 breeds is a reflection of the progress made by those that have been moved to Category 2. Vet checks remain as a reminder to both judges and exhibitors that health points of concern that are visible to the lay-person should not be acceptable in the show-ring.

Whether vet checks should be extended to all breeds prior to group competition is debatable. Personally, I’d have no issue with it and, if the dogs are fit and healthy, judges and exhibitors should have nothing to fear. The logistics of it could, however, be quite challenging and with more vets involved they would clearly need to have been fully briefed on their role. On balance, I think vet checks are proportionate for Category 3 breeds. The onus is on those in Category 2 not to allow unhealthy exaggerations to creep in that would result in them being moved to Category 3.

Breed Watch health reporting for CC judges of Category 2 and 3 breeds is mandatory but voluntary for Category 1 breeds. Honest reporting of any concerns can only be beneficial if we are serious about shows being a showcase for healthy pedigree dogs.

The tail wagging the dog?

It’s also easy to argue that judges and vets completing visual assessments at Championship shows is the “tail wagging the dog”. If the first time that a judge has to make any comment on the health of a dog they are assessing is when they first award Challenge Certificates, then we’ve missed a huge part of their apprenticeship. First time CC judges will have spent a minimum of 7 years on their journey of education, mentoring and hands-on judging. Awareness of health matters should be baked into that process. How many people realise that Breed Watch is embedded into the introductory section of every Breed Standard?

“Breeders and judges should at all times be careful to avoid obvious conditions or exaggerations which would be detrimental in any way to the health, welfare or soundness of this breed. From time to time certain conditions or exaggerations may be considered to have the potential to affect dogs in some breeds adversely, and judges and breeders are requested to refer to the Breed Watch section of the Kennel Club website here https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/events-and-activities/dog-showing/judging-dog-shows/breed-watch/ for details of any such current issues.”

As such, aspiring judges should be learning about Breed Watch and how its principles are meant to be applied, throughout their education. I wonder how much time is spent at Breed Appreciation Days discussing how to assess for visible health concerns compared with how to assess length of ribbing or turn of stifle. Similarly, how many mentoring sessions involve a discussion of visible points of concern as well as discussing dogs’ hind angulation? It really shouldn’t be too much of a stretch to do this because, in some breeds, the visible points of concern are closely aligned to faulty construction or movement. Surely we should be encouraging education and assessment of Breed Watch aspects throughout a judge’s career.

I have to declare an interest as I am a member of the KC’s Breed Standards and Conformation Group (BSCG), a subgroup of the Dog Health Group. The BSCG sets policy for Breed Watch and reviews the reports submitted by judges. Opinions expressed here are my own and not those of the BSCG.