The Innate Health Test (IHA) is a new tool designed by the All Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APGAW). Its stated aim is \u201c\u201cto raise awareness of the significant welfare issues affecting animals resulting from people breeding them to look a certain way and exaggerating the normal physical characteristics (\u2018conformation\u2019) for their species to such an extent that their health and welfare is compromised.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The IHA was primarily developed as a reaction to the surge in popularity of brachycephalic breeds. These are the \u2018flat faced\u2019 dogs \u2013 especially Pugs, French and English Bulldogs. Dachshunds are also increasingly in demand and the IHA also focusses on dogs with minimal ground clearance. We use the word \u2018demand\u2019 deliberately. Unfortunately being fashionable is a really bad thing for dog breeds. As soon as a breed becomes part of celebrity culture or a status symbol, disaster looms, with unscrupulous people rushing to cash in on the fad. The fluctuation in the popularity of different breeds has been going on for many decades and opportunistic individuals, breeding to make money, will adapt to the market trends, with complete disregard for the devastation they leave in their wake. A reasonably new and extremely worrying development, is the subset of irresponsible breeders who actively try and create \u2018unique\u2019 dogs, by introducing novelty features that haven\u2019t historically existed in the breed. Marketed as \u2018rare\u2019 and sold with high price tags, these poor animals are created solely to be as distinctive as possible, regardless of the impact on their quality of life. The seller takes no further interest once the dog has been purchased. There is certainly not the lifetime of aftersales support and responsibility- the hallmark of ethical breeders, who do everything they can to breed dogs that lead long, healthy lives.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The process leading to the selection of the criteria hasn\u2019t been disclosed, even on request, so it is impossible to know whether the 10 features included in the IHA are really representative of the most \u2018common and serious extreme conformations\u2019 as is claimed. Especially worrying, there is no indication of possible criteria that the IHA may include as it evolves, giving it the almost limitless potential to eliminate any features that deviate from a wolf like body plan. A dog fit for hunting is not one that will fit most homes and lifestyles. If the only dog available is one that people can\u2019t have, could this lead to a decline in dog ownership, with a consequential impact on mental and physical health in the human population and a substantial impact on dog related businesses? The inference of potential poor health could be leading to increases in insurance premiums and this could also prevent many dogs from receiving necessary healthcare, if owners can\u2019t afford the costs.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The solution put forward in the form of the IHA is a simple, visual assessment of prospective parent dogs, leading to a binary pass\/fail outcome for each of 10 physical features. A full \u2018healthy\u2019 pass is a score of 10\/10 but a dog will fail overall, if it has more than two \u2018extreme conformation\u2019 features. Currently this is voluntary but the developers of the tool are lobbying for it to be included in the statutory guidance as a part of dog breeding licencing. A fail indicates the dog shouldn\u2019t be bred, but also comes with the implication that it is leading a life of suffering \u2013 it is, by definition, innately unhealthy. This is heart breaking for those who love and live with these dogs every day of their lives and know that\u2019s simply not true. Not only is this proven by their longevity, fitness and behaviour, the science itself only indicates that potential risk may be sometimes be associated with certain features, they do not result in inevitable misery.\u00a0
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The impact of the IHA is being felt far more immediately \u2013 as the intention is to raise awareness of the suffering caused by extreme conformation. With this narrative being pushed strongly in the media, owners may be publically branded as \u2018cruel\u2019, leading to a serious negative impact on the mental health of those for whom their dogs are a central part of their lives. A dog may be a champion in dog sports or an active, healthy companion, but even if it only has a particular coat pattern or doesn\u2019t have a long tail, then the IHA unequivocally says that it\u2019s suffering. This is a term usually suggestive of severe physical or mental distress but the evidence of our eyes and experience of living with our dogs apparently counts for nothing, when science supposedly suggests otherwise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The effectiveness of the IHA to tackle actual welfare issues is doubtful. The practical testing phase in its development has been largely kept under wraps, but the little that has been divulged, indicates the trial assessments were done using a tiny number of dogs at rescue centres and none of the equally small number of test assessors were breeders \u2013 the target market for the tool! There is good evidence to suggest low consistency in the outcome of assessments, where a dog doesn\u2019t fit the obvious pass\/fail images used as guidance. Visual judgement can\u2019t discriminate between an \u2018innately healthy\u2019 and \u2018innately unhealthy\u2019 dog in the real world, so is this really the \u2018dog breeding revolution\u2019 it\u2019s supposed to be?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bizarrely, given the tool is based on 15 years of research, it takes the retrograde step of ignoring scientific developments over the same period. Instead, it reverts to using the subjective method of judging a dog on appearance, which has been blamed for causing the issues in the first place! It also directly contradicts the sound advice given to puppy buyers for decades \u2013 do not to choose a dog based on looks. Now they\u2019re being asked to do exactly that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The IHA has been praised for its simple brilliance as a visual checklist, but as all good breeders are quick to point out, breeding dogs responsibly is anything but simple. It takes an enormous amount of research and effort. The selection of prospective parent dogs is crucial and must not be dumbed down to whether a dog has \u2018good ground clearance,\u2019 as a legal pass to breed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While there\u2019s definite merit in identifying certain features as \u2018high risk\u2019 and requiring extra caution in breeding decisions, the IHA doesn\u2019t allow any further progress. If a dog fails the simple visual assessment, it\u2019s barred from breeding \u2013 regardless of its general physical functionality or clinical health status. This will have a devastating impact on the genetic diversity of many healthy breeds, where even a portion of the population would \u2018fail\u2019 as they\u2019re caught in the net intended for a more specific catch. The impact on breeds where the visual assessment would eliminate every individual from future breeding, would be a breed ban \u2013 if not in as many words. Thus we predict the demise of many familiar, traditional breeds that are part of the cultural heritage of the UK \u2013 including the Corgi, the Scottie and the Rough Collie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The intentions behind the IHA are undoubtedly good and with substantial revision, it could indeed be a turning point in tackling the real welfare concerns, arising from dogs being bred without care or consideration. All we want is for the people who are the most experienced and knowledgeable in the field of dog breeding to be listened to. Let us help to make the progress we all want to see, towards healthy, functional dogs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Innate Health Test (IHA) is a new tool designed by the All Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APGAW). Its stated aim is \u201c\u201cto raise awareness of the significant welfare issues affecting animals resulting from people breeding them to look a certain way and exaggerating the normal physical characteristics (\u2018conformation\u2019) for their species to such […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":599,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"content-type":"","om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-598","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-policy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/598","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=598"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/598\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":600,"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/598\/revisions\/600"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/599"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=598"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=598"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=598"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}