Law Change for Dog Breeding

[Ylvamoon]

I'm just wondering if anyone is aware of the introduction of the Innate Health Assessment Tool that would put an end to extreme conformations in dogs.
It is a 10 point visual assessment to help breed fit and healthy dogs.

This in return would mean no more pugs, bulldogs or even dachshunds.

Just wondering what the lovely and passionate people from the doghouse think.

https://licensedbreeder.co.uk/what-is-the-innate-health-assessment-iha-tool/?srsltid=AfmBOooSBi1b7CORRijMzzMOvMdWrj3suBPdp_QDDLuUQUqtGWBgDo-L

The problem is the people who do agree there are serious issues with certain breed traits aren't the sort of people you (i.e. dog lovers) need to convince. The Kennel Club drive me to absolute bloody despair over things like this:

https://www.royalkennelclub.com/health-and-dog-care/health-dog-care/health/getting-started-with-health-testing-and-screening/respiratory-function-grading-scheme/

"From 2026 onwards, all Bulldogs, French Bulldogs, and Pugs with a Grade 2 or Grade 3 RFG Scheme assessment will not be eligible to attend Crufts."

Quite frankly, the fact they need a sodding scheme to determine just how much a dog suffers is problematic enough. Grade 1 - which they will still allow to show - still means the dog is affected, and obviously if that dog is then bred with another Grade 1 it's hardly going to improve the breed is it?

No animal lover buys a dog that was bred to suffer, or breeds a dog that suffers, IMO - and as long as those people exist, they will continue to do all they can to have dogs that look a particular way. Stop breeding pugs/frenchies/dachshunds etc, they'll just find another breed to destroy.

If I am completely honest - and I probably will get slammed for this - there is a tiny part of me that would rather they carried on destroying pugs and dachshunds rather than those breeds being eliminated. If only because, as I said above, once those breeds are gone those people will set their sights on something like a border terrier or poodle and destroy that breed as well. They'll find a way to get the deformed animal they want regardless of any laws that are imposed. Just like how people find a way to justify puppy farms.

I do, however, disagree with the idea of not breeding dogs just because they don't have tails - for some breeds there is a genetic mutation (Aussie Shepherds) that means they don't have tails. And in working dogs that can be necessary.

I know that the general public has no input on this.

And I do have my own thoughts on the KC with their breed clubs developing breed standards...
But in the end, it is the general public that buys dogs as pets and people who care should know about these developments.

From your link: To test how the tool actually behaves, we carried out an assessment using a French Bulldog with moderate features.
The result suggesed the dog passed the assessment, scoring 8 out of 10 criteria, which the system classified as an 80% pass

So no, it won’t ’mean no more pugs, bulldogs or even dachshunds’.

Nor is it a law change ‘The scheme introduced by the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare (APGAW) is voluntary and intended to breed out extreme deformities for all breeds.’ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/18/uk-voluntary-health-assessment-flat-faced-dog-breeds

The real issue is, as that article says, that most dogs aren’t bought from registered breeders so I can see that there will still be a lot of poorly bred dogs from unscrupulous greeders

I just don't understand why anyone would want a pug or bulldog.

The issue with tails is that there are three ways (aside from an accident) that a dog can end up with not enough tail to wag:

1. The bobbing gene (eg Aussie Shepherds), where embryos with 2 copies of the gene are usually reabsorbed. They are sometimes born, and do not survive.
2. Breeding for a very, very short or corkscrew tail, like many Frenchies and bulldogs. These sometimes tuck into a 'tail pocket' that can get infected. The mutation that causes the corkscrew tail is highly correlated with malformed vetebrae elsewhere in the spine.
3. Extreme docking, which is banned in the UK. Some working dogs are allowed to be docked here; they are left with at least a third of their tails.

IMHO, it's the second one that this rule change is chasing, and rightly so.

I'd also like to see the KC campaigning to bring down both the Co-efficients of inbreeding of certain breeds, and the COIs of individual dogs. We know that high COI is correlated with all sorts of issues, including am increased risk of auto-immune problems. A low COI doesn't guarantee you a healthy dog, but it ups your odds.

I'm not sure why they're after merle colouring. The issue there is merle x merle breeding, where the puppies can have sight and healing problems. Merle x anything else is fine. The solution there is to refuse to register merle dogs in breeds where there were never merles until recently e.g. Frenchies, and to require breeders to test in breeds where merle is known to exist, because some dogs are 'cryptic merles' where it isn't obvious that they carry the gene.

I agree @TheHungryHungryLandsharks re the Kennel Club, but it's like a cult.

And their bloody shows and judging desires are the reason that they arenow having to put these safetey rules and grading in place!

I once (under a different username) was critical of what they have done to the poor German Shepherd in the name of chasing and awarding ribbons and received this in reply from a KC nut:

"😂😂😂😂"

As if I didn't know what I was talking about. It gives me the rage.

The kennel club is a cult. I woukd love to go to Crufts and just be around dogs and dog stuff all day (and get very spenny), but I just cannot in all good conscience go.

Seeing so many more merle dogs this year so far, it’s really taken hold as the next status marker.

The real issue is, as that article says, that most dogs aren’t bought from registered breeders so I can see that there will still be a lot of poorly bred dogs from unscrupulous greeders

Poor, breeding from non registered breeders is definitely an issue, but I feel we cannot rule out show breeders and breed standards having an negative effect on different breeds.

We also need to remember, anyone can be registered as a breeder.

We need clearer regulation of all breeders. And TBH I would say potential owners too. Met someone who complained their adolescent dog had no recall. No training. Not walked every day. No wonder.

Regulation of breeders would be easier - good breeders don’t sell their puppies to homes where the owner has no clue. I must turn down dozens and dozens of applications every time I have a litter, if not more.

But also better understanding from the general public of what it entails owning a dog and being a good breeders. Take Guide Dogs UK: they support consecutive litters in the same calendar year (first season after whelping), breeding after the age of six and breeding before 18 months, more litters than the KC says is acceptable. They health test their dogs before joints are developed (to ensure better health scores). Whilst you have ‘charities’ like that undergoing those sort of practices, you’ll never stop the unethical breeders. Why would they stop when the same public support the same disgraceful breeding tactics in charities?

(And not aimed at you @Ylvamoon) but I am sick of people hating breeders whilst failing to see any issues with charities who have the same breeding practices). It’s hypocritical.

@TheHungryHungryLandsharks I don't hate all breeders. You'd be surprised if you met me in RL. I have very little knowledge of charity breeding, so can't comment on this.
But, many many years ago when I looked for my first breed specific puppy, a show breeder once told me she needs to breed from carriers as the dogs are just to nice not to. (that's dogs carrying a faulty gene established via DNA test). She has multiple show champions, so we all know the way she made that decision.

In reality though, it's unnecessary and is a continuation of that specific fault/ illness in the dogs. Partially because humans are greedy and all the rest of it. This obviously had an impact on my view of dog breeding.

Over the years, I have seen UK dog breeding deteriorating and it makes me sad. Look at the Tibetan Terrier (as I know the breed well) it's meant to be a small to medium sized dog. Most dogs that enter the show ring are small. A direct result of this is the issue with dwarfism in the breed. There's now a DNA test recommendation if you want to breed.
I have a beautiful Tibetan boy, he's what I would say a beautiful example of the breed both inside & out. But he's hight is near the top of what is allowed according to UK breed standard. He wouldn't even get placed. Now the crux is, his parents come from top show kennels in Europe and are of similar size & stature. I bought him from a UK breeder that cares about the dogs not the pretty ribbons that you get at dog shows.

I'd like UK dog breeding to be more welfare oriented. I'd like to see people buying dogs as pets or for sports or work to be more educated and picky about where their dogs come from. But that's a dream, not shared by many.

@Ylvamoon a show breeder once told me she needs to breed from carriers as the dogs are just to nice not to.[...] In reality though, it's unnecessary and is a continuation of that specific fault/ illness in the dogs.
While breeding a carrier to get a show winner is (in my view) ethically wrong, in some breeds if you were to cut out all the carriers, you would trash your gene pool unless you did it gradually and carefully.

Something I'd like to see the KC do is restrict the number of litters that a stud dog can sire. When you have numerically small breeds where 25% of puppies born in a five-year span are sired by one dog, you will increase COI and you will increase your odds of recessive genetic diseases showing up. It's also an issue in larger breeds, but isn't as obvious - yet.

The kennel club will never dictate strict ethical standards. It’s a money making machine. That is all.
There should be strict rules to ensure dogs are bred that are fit for purpose. That the dogs and bitches used for breeding have their welfare safeguarded.