Are We Really About to Ban 67 Dog Breeds?

Apparently, the Uk is about to ban 67 dog breeds.

Border Collies.

Corgis.

Dachshunds.

Chihuahuas.

Beagles.

Staffies.

And a whole host of other breeds that you probably wouldn't immediately put into the same category as a French Bulldog or a Pug.

If you've seen the headlines recently, you could be forgiven for thinking the government has drawn up a list of 67 dogs and decided they have all got to go.

It makes for a great clickbait headline that brings out the hatred in the comments.

It also isn't quite what is happening.

And, as usual, the truth is considerably more complicated.

So, because I am incapable of leaving these things alone, I went down the rabbit hole.

And I think there is actually a really important conversation hiding underneath all the noise.

Let's start with the obvious question.

Should we be breeding dogs with physical characteristics that make their lives harder?

I don't think anyone who genuinely cares about dogs can argue with that.

If we deliberately breed a dog that can't breathe properly, that's a problem.

If we breed a dog whose skin folds become chronically infected, that's a problem.

If we breed a dog whose eyes are so prominent that they are vulnerable to injury, that's a problem.

If we breed a dog whose body shape makes it difficult to walk, run, sleep, eat or exercise normally, that's a problem.

We shouldn't need a new law to tell us that.

But apparently, we do.

And that is where the Innate Health Assessment comes in.

The IHA is a ten-point assessment developed by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare. It is designed to look at physical characteristics that may be associated with poor welfare.

The idea is fairly simple.

Look at the dog.

Assess ten physical characteristics.

If the dog passes at least eight, it passes the assessment.

The criteria include things like muzzle length, skin folds, eye position, jaw alignment, leg structure, spinal flexibility and tail length.

It also includes merle colouring.

And this is where things get interesting.

Because I started looking at this and thinking:

Hang on a minute.

What exactly are we measuring?

Some of these criteria make perfect sense.

If a dog's eyes are so prominent that they are constantly at risk of injury, that's a welfare problem.

If a dog's eyelids roll inward and rub against the eye, that's a welfare problem.

If a dog's muzzle is so short that it cannot breathe normally, that's a welfare problem.

I'm completely on board with tackling those things.

But then we start getting into more complicated territory.

Because a physical characteristic that **can** cause a health problem isn't necessarily the same as a physical characteristic that **does** cause a health problem in every individual dog.

And that's a really important distinction.

Take short legs.

There are dogs with genuinely pathological skeletal abnormalities that cause pain and mobility problems.

There are also breeds that have short legs because humans deliberately selected for that body shape.

Are those two things automatically the same?

I don't think they are.

And then we get to merle colouring.

This one really made me stop and think.

The concern with merle isn't simply that a dog is merle.

The concern is primarily genetic.

Breeding two merle dogs together can produce puppies with serious health problems, including deafness and eye abnormalities.

That's a genuine welfare issue.

But we already have tools that can help responsible breeders avoid those matings.

So are we dealing with a problem caused by the dog's colour?

Or are we dealing with a problem caused by irresponsible breeding decisions?

Again, those aren't quite the same thing.

And that matters.

Because if we are going to legislate breeding, we need to be absolutely certain that we are targeting the thing that actually causes the harm.

Then we get to the 67 breeds.

This is where the internet has gone into overdrive.

"67 DOG BREEDS COULD BE BANNED!"

It sounds terrifying.

But the 67 breeds aren't an official government list of breeds that have been declared unhealthy.

They are a list that has been circulated by campaigners and media outlets of breeds that could potentially be affected if the IHA were to become part of breeding regulation.

That's a very different thing.

The IHA itself says it is designed to assess **individual dogs**, not ban breeds.

PDSA has also said that the claim that 67 breeds will be banned is misinformation.

And that makes sense.

Because if you have a Border Collie that passes the assessment, why would anyone need to ban Border Collies?

If you have a Dachshund that passes the assessment, why would anyone need to ban Dachshunds?

The stated goal is supposed to be to stop breeding from individual dogs with extreme characteristics.

In theory, I have no problem with that.

But here's where I think we need to be careful.

If you prevent enough individual dogs from breeding, you inevitably start changing the breed.

You might gradually breed away from certain characteristics.

You might make muzzles longer.

You might reduce excessive skin folds.

You might select for healthier eyes.

You might change body proportions.

And actually, maybe that's exactly what we need to do.

Maybe the future of some breeds isn't about preserving them exactly as they are today.

Maybe it's about changing them.

Making them healthier.

Making them more functional.

Making sure they can actually live the lives we expect them to live.

But we need to be honest about what we're doing.

Because if we change a breed enough, at some point we have to ask whether it is still the same breed.

And if we're going to do that, we need to do it carefully.

Not because we care more about breed purity than dog welfare.

Quite the opposite.

Because we care about both the welfare of individual dogs **and** the genetic future of the breed.

## Which brings me back to the Border Collie.

I've seen Border Collies included in the lists of breeds supposedly at risk.

And my first reaction was:

Really?

The Border Collie?

A dog that has been bred for generations to run, work, turn, stop, think and move?

A breed that, when bred for function rather than fashion, is generally athletic and physically capable?

That doesn't mean Border Collies don't have health problems.

Of course they do.

Every breed does.

But this is exactly why I think we need to be careful with this debate.

A breed is not a single dog.

And a dog is not a checklist.

We can have a breed with health problems and still have individual dogs within that breed that are healthy.

We can have a breed that is generally healthy and still have individual dogs that should never be bred.

That's why I actually like the idea of assessing the individual dog.

But then I start wondering why we are talking about 67 breeds being "banned" in the first place.

Because that headline completely changes the conversation.

Instead of talking about whether we should breed healthier dogs, we're suddenly arguing about whether the government is going to take away people's dogs.

And we're back to fear.

And once fear enters the conversation, sensible discussion tends to leave through the nearest exit.

So, where do I stand?

I think the IHA is trying to solve a very real problem.

I don't want to see dogs deliberately bred into a lifetime of pain or discomfort.

I don't want dogs that can't breathe properly.

I don't want dogs whose bodies prevent them from running, playing, eating or sleeping normally.

I don't want puppies being produced because people think a particular look is "cute" when we already know that look can come with a lifetime of veterinary problems.

So yes.

Something needs to change.

But I'm not convinced that every part of the IHA is equally straightforward.

Some of the criteria seem to have a very strong welfare argument behind them.

Others deserve more discussion.

And some, in my opinion, need much more evidence before they become the basis for legislation.

We also need to be careful that we don't replace one simplistic approach with another.

Because dogs aren't machines.

You can't necessarily look at one physical characteristic and know everything about an individual dog's health.

That's why the IHA itself says it doesn't replace breed-specific health testing.

And I think that's important.

A visual assessment should be one piece of the puzzle.

Not the whole puzzle.

We need genetics.

We need veterinary health screening.

We need to look at actual function.

We need to consider behaviour and welfare.

We need to consider longevity.

We need to consider genetic diversity.

And, perhaps most importantly, we need to listen to responsible breeders who have spent decades working with these breeds.

Not because breeders should get a free pass.

They absolutely shouldn't.

But because if we're going to change the future of dogs, we need the people with practical knowledge in the room.

## Maybe the question isn't:

"Are they banning 67 dog breeds?"

Maybe the real question is:

"Can we finally agree that breeding dogs for extreme characteristics is a welfare problem—and find a way to fix it without creating a new set of problems along the way?"

Because I think that's the conversation we actually need to have.

And perhaps the uncomfortable truth is that there isn't going to be a perfect answer.

There probably isn't a magic checklist.

There probably isn't a single piece of legislation that fixes everything.

But we can do better.

We can breed dogs that can breathe.

Dogs that can move.

Dogs that can see.

Dogs that can sleep.

Dogs that can run.

Dogs that can play.

Dogs that can simply be dogs.

And if we can do that without throwing away healthy genetic diversity and without treating entire breeds as the problem when the real problem is the extremes we've created within them, then perhaps we might finally be heading in the right direction.

Because, ultimately, this shouldn't be about preserving a look.

It shouldn't be about winning an argument.

It shouldn't be about protecting a breed at all costs.

And it certainly shouldn't be about banning dogs because humans can't agree on what healthy looks like.

It should be about something much simpler.

The dog.

And whether the life we've bred them into is a life worth living.