Circular Logic & the IHA

You know what’s interesting?

If we calmly point out that the Innate Health Assessment (IHA) may be too blunt a tool and should have been sanity-tested on healthy dogs as well as obviously exaggerated ones — just to make sure it doesn’t produce false fails — we’re immediately accused of all sorts of things.

Apparently we’re using “media privilege” to unfairly defend small ethical breeders.

Or we’re “scaremongering”, because there is supposedly nothing to fear.
Healthy dogs won’t fail.
The tool is “only voluntary.”
Corgis, Scotties and Dachshunds will all “sail through.”

And if they don’t?

Well then breeders can simply cross them with something else. Problem solved.

We’re also told we’re “on the wrong side of history.” That dogs are suffering everywhere and that rescue centres prove it’s the breeders’ fault.

One IHA supporter put it like this:

“What would be lovely is if those who are against the IHA and say it is not a useful tool actually came up with their own solution and way of tackling this problem…”

In other words: criticism isn’t welcome unless you produce an entirely new system first.

But there are other approaches. The Royal Kennel Club’s Nose-to-Tail health framework, for example, looks far more like a veterinary MOT — a nuanced assessment done by vets rather than a quick visual tick-box.

Then there’s the other argument:

“Your breeders have nothing to fear from the IHA and if dogs fail the test then you have to recognise this is because the dogs have welfare problems.”

So apparently breeders have nothing to fear.

Except if they fail — which proves the dogs were suffering all along.

Even when experienced breeders are pointing out that perfectly healthy dogs could fail a crude measurement.

That’s the circular logic critics are worried about.

The irony is this: the people raising these concerns are the same small ethical breeders who already health-test, study pedigrees, and provide lifetime support for their dogs.

They weren’t meaningfully involved when the tool was created.

And now when they ask reasonable questions about unintended consequences, they’re told they’re hysterical, scaremongering, or defending suffering.

But asking for evidence, testing and scrutiny is not hysteria.

It’s how good policy is made.

So here’s the real question:

Is it the critics’ fault if a welfare tool wasn’t properly sanity-checked before being promoted as the solution?

“Media privilege”? No.

Just a responsibility to ask questions when policies could shape the future of our dogs.

The Union of Good Dog People wants to help make the dog world better – we need to have a seat at the table to do that.