Why Are Border Collies on the List?

A closer look at the Border Collie, the Innate Health Assessment and the problem with judging a dog by a checklist

Of all the breeds I've seen mentioned in connection with the much-discussed "67 breeds", one keeps making me stop and scratch my head.

The Border Collie.

Really?

The Border Collie?

The dog that has been selectively bred for generations to run, turn, stop, gather, think, problem-solve and work alongside humans?

The dog that can spend hours on a hillside in the rain doing the job it was bred to do?

The dog that, in the right hands, can be an astonishingly athletic and physically capable animal?

I'm not saying Border Collies don't have health problems.

Of course they do.

Every breed does.

But if someone showed me a list of dogs that were supposedly at risk of being phased out because of poor breeding, I probably wouldn't have put the Border Collie near the top of it.

So I decided to look a little closer.

And this is where things get interesting.

Because the first thing we need to establish is something that seems to have been lost in all the headlines.

The Border Collie hasn't been officially declared an unhealthy breed.

There isn't a government announcement saying:

"Border Collies are unhealthy. Get rid of them."

The Border Collie appears on a list published by PETA of 67 breeds that could potentially be affected if the Innate Health Assessment becomes part of future breeding regulation.

That's important.

Because the list isn't the same thing as a government ban.

And it isn't the same thing as the IHA declaring that every Border Collie is unhealthy.

The IHA is supposed to assess individual dogs.

So perhaps the more useful question isn't:

"Why are Border Collies being banned?"

Perhaps it's:

"What is it about a Border Collie that could potentially cause it to fail an IHA?"

And that's where I think we need to start asking questions.

Let's look at the Border Collie itself.

The Kennel Club describes the Border Collie as a medium-sized working sheepdog.

The breed standard calls for a dog that is well proportioned, with a body slightly longer than the height at the withers.

The movement should be free and tireless.

The dog should be capable of covering ground efficiently.

It should have enough bone to convey strength without being coarse.

In other words, this is supposed to be a functional dog.

And that matters.

Because the whole argument behind the IHA is that we shouldn't breed dogs with physical characteristics that compromise their ability to live a normal life.

I'm completely behind that.

But if we're going to assess a Border Collie, surely we need to ask:

Does this particular Border Collie have a physical characteristic that actually compromises its welfare?

Not:

Does this dog look like my idea of the perfect dog?

Those are two very different questions.

Let's take the ten IHA criteria one at a time.

1. The muzzle

The IHA requires the muzzle to be at least one-third the length of the skull.

Now, the rationale behind this is easy to understand.

Extreme brachycephaly can cause serious respiratory problems.

No argument from me there.

But the Border Collie isn't a brachycephalic breed.

It doesn't have the squashed face of a Pug.

It doesn't have the compressed airway of a French Bulldog.

It isn't built around an extreme short-muzzled conformation.

So, at least on the face of it, I can't see a convincing reason why a normally constructed Border Collie should fail this criterion.

If one did, I'd suggest that the problem wasn't the Border Collie breed.

It would be the individual dog.

And that's exactly how the IHA is supposed to work.

2. A tail long enough to wag

Again, the Border Collie doesn't immediately raise alarm bells.

The breed has a naturally long tail.

It uses it for communication.

It can wag it.

It can move it.

It can carry it.

So unless we're dealing with an individual dog with an abnormal tail, this doesn't appear to be an obvious problem.

And yet, this raises another interesting question.

The IHA isn't simply asking whether the dog can communicate.

It's asking whether the tail is long enough to wag.

Is that always the same thing?

I don't know.

And that's precisely the sort of question I'd like to see properly researched before any visual measurement becomes a legal requirement.

3. A flexible spine

This one is more interesting.

Border Collies are athletic dogs.

They run.

They jump.

They turn at speed.

They work over uneven ground.

They need a functional spine.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

But there are inherited spinal and neurological conditions that can occur in dogs.

So what does a visual test of spinal flexibility actually tell us?

Can we look at a Border Collie and reliably determine whether it is genetically predisposed to a spinal disease?

No.

That is where health testing comes in.

The Border Collie's health screening regime includes testing for a number of inherited conditions, alongside eye and hip screening.

So, again, we come back to the same problem.

The IHA can potentially identify an obvious physical abnormality.

But it can't tell us everything about a dog's genetic health.

And thankfully, it doesn't claim to.

The IHA itself says it isn't a replacement for breed-specific health testing.

Which brings me to a question I think is worth asking:

If we're already asking responsible Border Collie breeders to undertake genetic testing and health screening, what additional information does a ten-point visual checklist give us?

Sometimes, probably quite a lot.

But perhaps not always.

4. Natural leg length

This is one of the criteria that made me particularly curious about the Border Collie.

The IHA is concerned about dwarfism and disproportionate limb length.

That's understandable.

There are forms of skeletal dwarfism that can cause serious welfare problems.

But Border Collies aren't a dwarf breed.

They have normal-length legs for their body.

They're built to move.

They're built to work.

They're built to cover ground.

So, again, I struggle to see how a normally constructed Border Collie would fail this criterion.

Unless we're not talking about Border Collies as a breed at all.

Unless we're talking about individual dogs.

And if that's the case, then perhaps the whole "67 breeds" headline is simply the wrong way to frame the conversation.

5. Merle colouring

And here we reach the elephant in the room.

Merle.

The Border Collie comes in merle.

Blue merle.

Red merle.

Brown merle.

Sable merle.

And several other recognised variations.

The Kennel Club recognises numerous merle colour combinations in Border Collies.

But there is a very important rule.

Merle must not be bred to merle.

Why?

Because producing puppies with two copies of the merle variant can increase the risk of serious problems affecting hearing and vision.

This isn't controversial.

It is a genuine welfare concern.

The Kennel Club has prohibited merle-to-merle Border Collie matings for registration since 2013 because of the associated risks to hearing and vision.

So perhaps we have found our answer.

Perhaps the Border Collie is on the list because of merle.

But here's where I think we need to slow down.

Because there is a difference between saying:

"Merle-to-merle breeding creates a serious welfare risk."

And:

"Merle colouring itself makes an individual dog unsuitable for breeding."

Those are not the same statement.

The first is about genetics.

The second is about the individual dog.

And I think that distinction matters enormously.

A responsible breeder can test.

A responsible breeder can understand inheritance.

A responsible breeder can avoid breeding two merle dogs together.

The risk can be managed.

That's not the same as saying the risk doesn't exist.

It absolutely does.

But if the objective is to prevent puppies being born with avoidable genetic problems, why wouldn't we target the breeding combination that creates the risk?

Why would we necessarily exclude every merle dog?

That's the question I'd like answered.

Because if we're going to make a characteristic an automatic failure on a breeding assessment, we need to be absolutely certain that the characteristic itself is the welfare problem.

Not simply that it is associated with a welfare problem under certain breeding circumstances.

That's a very different thing.

6. Smooth skin

Border Collies generally don't have excessive skin folds.

So again, this doesn't seem to be a problem for the breed.

7. Eyelids

This one is more complicated.

Border Collies can suffer from inherited eye conditions, which is why eye testing is an important part of responsible breeding.

But an eyelid that turns inward is not the same thing as an inherited eye disease.

The IHA is looking for a physical conformation that can cause welfare problems.

The health testing programme is looking for inherited disease.

Both matter.

But they're measuring different things.

And that's why I think the IHA should complement health testing rather than compete with it.

8. Jaw closure

Again, the typical Border Collie has a normal scissor bite.

There can, of course, be individual abnormalities.

But a normal Border Collie shouldn't fail this criterion.

9. Straight legs

Now, this is interesting because Border Collies are working dogs.

They're built to move.

They need functional limbs.

But anyone who has watched a Border Collie working sheep will know that "straight legs" isn't the same as "perfectly rigid legs."

Movement requires flexibility.

It requires angulation.

It requires the ability to accelerate, stop and turn.

So what exactly does "straight legs" mean?

Does it mean no pathological bowing?

If so, I agree.

Does it mean an idealised visual shape?

That's more complicated.

Because form and function aren't always as simple as drawing a straight line.

10. Deep-set eyes

Again, the Border Collie doesn't have the extreme bulging eyes associated with some brachycephalic breeds.

So a normally constructed Border Collie should presumably pass this criterion.

Which brings us back to where we started.

Why is the Border Collie on the list?

The honest answer is:

We don't actually know with certainty.

At least, I haven't found evidence that the IHA has published a breed-by-breed explanation saying:

"Border Collies are included because of X, Y and Z."

What we do know is that Border Collies appear on the list of 67 breeds circulated by PETA.

We know the IHA has ten criteria.

We know the Border Collie has recognised merle colour variations.

We know merle-to-merle breeding carries a known welfare risk.

And we know responsible Border Collie breeders are already expected to undertake breed-specific health testing.

But that's not the same thing as saying:

Border Collies are unhealthy.

And it certainly isn't evidence that Border Collies should be banned.

In fact, I think the Border Collie exposes a much bigger problem.

We keep talking about breeds.

But the IHA is supposed to be about individual dogs.

And those two things don't always fit comfortably together.

Imagine two Border Collies.

Dog A is a healthy, athletic working dog.

It has good movement.

It breathes normally.

It has normal eyes.

It has a normal jaw.

It has no excessive skin folds.

It has a flexible spine.

It can run all day.

It can work all day.

It has passed all the appropriate health tests.

It is merle.

Dog B is also a Border Collie.

It isn't merle.

It looks perfect on the outside.

But it carries genetic risks that haven't been tested for.

Or perhaps it has poor hips.

Or a hereditary eye condition.

Or a temperament that makes it unsuitable for breeding.

Which dog is healthier?

The answer isn't as simple as a ten-point visual checklist.

And this is why I think the conversation needs to be bigger.

Because health isn't one thing.

There is physical health.

There is genetic health.

There is structural health.

There is reproductive health.

There is behavioural health.

There is longevity.

There is temperament.

There is welfare.

And they all matter.

I don't want to defend bad breeding.

I want to make that clear.

I'm not arguing that we should continue breeding dogs with extreme characteristics because "that's the breed."

I'm not arguing that appearance should come before health.

I'm not arguing that breeders should be allowed to ignore inherited diseases.

And I'm certainly not arguing that merle-to-merle breeding is acceptable.

It isn't.

What I am arguing for is a little more nuance.

Because the minute we start saying:

"This physical characteristic equals unhealthy."

we need to be very sure that we've got the science right.

And when we're talking about legislation, we need to be even more careful.

Because laws don't always have the nuance of science.

A law likes a line.

Pass.

Fail.

Allowed.

Not allowed.

Eight out of ten.

And that's convenient.

But dogs aren't convenient.

They are complicated biological organisms.

And sometimes the difference between a healthy dog and an unhealthy dog isn't a single physical characteristic.

It's the interaction between genetics, structure, environment, breeding decisions and individual variation.

So perhaps the Border Collie isn't the problem.

Perhaps the Border Collie is the test.

The test of whether we're capable of creating legislation that understands the difference between:

A breed and an individual.

A risk factor and an actual disease.

A physical characteristic and a welfare problem.

A genetic risk and an irresponsible breeding decision.

A dog that looks different and a dog that is suffering.

Because I think most of us agree on the destination.

We want healthier dogs.

We want dogs that can breathe.

Dogs that can move.

Dogs that can see.

Dogs that can hear.

Dogs that can run.

Dogs that can work.

Dogs that can play.

Dogs that can live long, comfortable lives.

Where I think we may disagree is how we get there.

And I don't think asking questions about the IHA means you don't care about dog welfare.

Quite the opposite.

If we're going to change the law, we should be asking difficult questions now.

Not after the law has been written.

Not after breeds have changed.

Not after genetic diversity has been lost.

Now.

Because perhaps the most important question isn't:

"Can this dog pass the test?"

Perhaps it's:

"What does this test actually tell us about this dog?"

And if the answer is only part of the story, then perhaps we should make sure we're looking at the whole dog before we decide its future.

After all, that's what we tell dog owners to do.

We don't judge a dog by one behaviour.

We look at the whole picture.

We look at context.

We look at history.

We look at genetics.

We look at environment.

We look at the individual.

Maybe breeding legislation deserves the same level of thought.

Because if we're going to change the future of dogs, we need to make sure we're not just creating a better-looking checklist.

We need to create better lives for the dogs themselves.

And perhaps, in the end, that's the real test.