Buckle up, today will be a double debunk; Firstly the headline and article, and secondly, the online claims sprouting from this article.
The Claim
So let’s start with the claim that 67 dog breeds could be banned in Britain. The Daily Mail begins with:
Sixty-seven dog breeds could be banned in Britain if new breeding guidelines set by parliament become mandatory, campaigners have warned.
The all-party parliamentary group (APPG) for animal welfare has launched a new tool to determine if a dog is healthy.
But critics have cautioned the new criteria will see some 67 of the most popular types of dog in the UK automatically dubbed unhealthy, according to The Times.
The claim appears to originate from critics quoted in The Times.
So what did the Times have to say?
Under the heading “Has your dog had its day?” is a list of “breeds that Kennel Club members fear are at risk*”
The asterisk says “list being shared amongst members”
The critics appear to consist of just two people: Beverley Cuddy, editor of Dogs Today Magazine and founder of the Union of Good Dog People and Margaret Hoggarth, secretary of the Welsh Corgi League.
So, basically, some Kennel club members have created a list of breeds they think will be impacted by these new guidelines, and two people have given their opinion to the Times, and this is now being reported as fact that these breeds are going to be banned.
The Reality
The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APGAW), a cross-party group of 120 MPs and Lords that “undertakes evidence-based inquiries to produce policy that provides solutions to welfare issues” covering wild animals, companion animals, farm animals and laboratory animals, has created an Innate Health Assessment (IHA) tool “that allows every dog kept for breeding to be rapidly and reliably scored by the breeder for the presence of 10 innate health ‘extreme conformation’ criteria.”
It has been developed using 15 years of Royal Veterinary College data and is endorsed by pretty much every animal organisation you can think of, including the Royal Kennel Club:
Extreme Conformation
Over centuries, humans have bred dogs to have characteristics that we chose, initially to do the jobs we wanted them to do, but also to look how we wanted them to look. Over time, this inbreeding has led to more and more extreme features, which have led to extreme health problems and chronic pain in some breeds.
There is no benefit to a dog of having a very short face, excessive skin folds or tiny legs, but humans prize those features as they’re considered cute or desirable.
Professor Dan O’Neill from the Royal Veterinary College wrote:
Extreme Conformation is now widely accepted as one of the most pressing health and welfare issues of companion dogs worldwide.
Extreme conformation in dogs describes a physical appearance that has been so significantly altered by humankind away from the ancestral natural canine appearance that affected dogs commonly suffer from poor health and welfare, with negative impacts on their quality and quantity of life
In just the last hundred years, many breeds have changed from healthy, active dogs to chronically unhealthy dogs that cannot engage in activities dogs should be able to enjoy.
For instance, the modern pug can suffer high blood pressure, heart problems, difficulty breathing, a tendency to overheat, problems with teeth, and skin fold infections. Even the double-curl tail, a genetic defect, can lead to paralysis. The British Bulldog is plagued with health problems, meaning it has an average life expectancy of just seven years, and often cannot mate or give birth naturally.
Interestingly, a study last year showed that people preferred the less extreme versions of pugs, French bulldogs and English Bulldogs when showed 3 versions ranging in extreme features.
Innate Health Assessment
Worries about the quality of life for dogs with these extreme features, not to mention the costs associated with caring for and treating them, have led to the creation of this IHA tool.
It is a series of 10 visible criteria which can be used to assess these features. Here are four examples taken from the IHA tool:
The idea being that dog breeders will stop picking dogs with the most extreme features to breed from, but only breed from dogs that do not exhibit these features.
It is voluntary at present, and would need parliamentary legislation to make it mandatory. But it is something that official dog breeders are being asked to sign up to. If a dog exhibits three of the ten features, they should not be used for breeding, but if there are only two features, that is OK. In 2030, it will reduce to one feature, and it is hoped that by 2035, no one will breed dogs with any of these extreme features.
Pugs, bulldogs and dachshunds existed long before these exaggerated features were bred into them. They didn’t develop these features naturally. So breeding these features back out does not mean these breeds are being banned.
So why the fuss?
It appears the Times began the backlash with their article: “Queen Elizabeth’s favourite dog in danger of being banned”, which quoted the critics mentioned earlier, and pulled together the so-called list of 67 dog breeds that would be banned.
The APGAW put out a statement saying:
The suggestion that the Innate Health Assessment (IHA) could lead to beloved breeds such as corgis becoming “banned” is misleading and irresponsible. The IHA is a voluntary welfare tool designed to encourage breeding from dogs with healthy conformations. It does not target particular breeds and is not intended to make any breed extinct, quite the opposite as it is about making those breeds healthier and sustainable by moving them towards good innate health. Indeed, many breeds cited as at risk- including corgis and dachshunds – have already passed the assessment in practice.
The Times did include this in their article, while keeping the “Queen Elizabeth’s favourite dog in danger of being banned” headline.
The Chairman of the Royal Kennel Club said:
We are disappointed to see the misinformation being shared around the potential impact of the IHA on the future of pedigree breeds. We continue to work very closely with APGAW, the IHA team and our breeder community.
This includes a meeting next month where we will bring together representatives from the breeding community and the IHA team to discuss potential evolution of the current IHA criteria which we believe may benefit from some adaptation. This will be for the very small number of breeds where this may be productive. Ultimately, both APGAW and the RKC agree that we all want healthy body shapes for our dogs and there is great strength in working together and listening to each other to effect meaningful change.
The Times quoted most of the statement, but chose not to include the first sentence! Maybe because they are the ones fueling and spreading the misinformation…
The Daily Mail put out their own article: Revealed: The 67 dog breeds that could be banned in Britain… is YOUR pooch on the list? It contained all the same quotes, misinformation, and “it has been suggested”/“campaigners claimed” insinuations. Alongside the many photos of Queen Elizabeth and her corgis! Corgis are mentioned several times in the article as being in danger of being “banned”, despite the APGAW spokesperson being quoted in the article as saying corgis already pass the assessment.
Ironically, much of the reporting on extreme dog conformation I found came from… the Daily Mail:
- What your pedigree dog breed looked like centuries ago: Dachshunds, bulldogs and basset hounds have been cruelly overbred to have floppier ears and tiny legs – as vets warn obsession with flat-faces has left pugs enduring a ‘lifetime of suffering’ (2022)
- Want a healthy dog? Vets reveal the 10 extreme body conformations owners should AVOID including flat-faces, sloped backs and short legs – so, does your pooch have any?(2024)
They were very against these extreme conformations causing dog suffering then, and now that it is being tackled, they appear most put out.
So is it just clickbait?
A British sense of not liking being told what to do?
Or is it something more sinister?
A quick look at the comments section is telling:
- Another anti British retoric, can we ban useless governments?
- Muslims don’t like your dogs, because they’re haram, UK protect your dogs – stand up!
- Ban illegal immigrants first!
- No! This is all about appeasing a protected class who are offended by dogs. So, no, dogs are not the issue and should not be banned. However if they’re so inclined to ban any group – I know where they should start!
- Starmer wants to please his Muslim brothers. The most anti British MP in history!
And if you go on Twitter…?
Are Muslims trying to ban dogs?
If the story had stopped at exaggerated headlines, that would be one thing.
But online, the story quickly mutated into something else entirely.
So this is debunk number two. I covered this last year, and on the Bear and Monk Debunk podcast earlier this year.
No, Muslims are not banning dogs. That’s just not happening.
But in case you’ve seen any of these claims, I’ll do a rapid-fire debunk:
- “This is an Islamic area now. Don’t walk your dogs here” sign in London
- This was investigated by the police and was thought to be put up by Britain First agitators to stir up local division
- For Public Purity leaflets in Manchester, claiming to be “a Muslim effort to preserve the purity of public spaces in the UK according to Islamic laws and beliefs”
- This “campaign” listed its email address on their Facebook as: gofuckyourself@ilovedogs.com! It was not a Muslim campaign at all, but another Far-right attempt at stoking up hatred against Muslims
- “Camden is banning dogs to appease Muslims”
- Camden Council is running a consultation on whether areas such as playgrounds, sports grounds and picnic sites should remain dog-free as they have been for the last nearly 10 years. Nothing to do with Muslims.
- “Folkestone and Hythe are appeasing a minority of foreigners in our country with a dog off the lead ban”
- See the Camden claim! Folkestone and Hythe have a 1.2% Muslim population…
- The Welsh government tried to ban dogs to appease Muslims.
- A report on tackling racism in Wales interviewed a number of people. Two people (both Black African) mentioned dogs, one with respect to people not picking up dog poo, and one said she was scared of being attacked by dogs. The report suggested some dog-free community areas would be good. Nothing to do with Muslims!
- “Be courteous to your Muslim neighbours by keeping dogs on a leash and away from people practising Islam” signs in Pitt Rivers in Canada
- Again, an agitator campaign like the London and Manchester ones
You get the picture!
I have been covering these “Muslims are banning dogs” claims for over a year now, and I have yet to come across one that has any credibility.
A voluntary scheme designed to breed healthier dogs somehow became a story about banning your pets – and then a conspiracy about Muslims.
That says far more about the media ecosystem than it does about dogs.
This article first appeared on Emma’s brilliant substack, to which you can subscribe here. It is reproduced by kind permission.
