The UK Moves to Ban 67 Dog Breeds: Creeping Canine Wokeness? By Richard Miller (London)
The Daily Mail article from early March 2026 highlights a brewing controversy in UK animal welfare policy: headlines scream that 67 dog breeds could be "banned" in Britain, with sensational phrasing like "is YOUR pooch on the list?" and mentions of beloved breeds including the late Queen Elizabeth II's Welsh corgis, dachshunds, shih tzus, chihuahuas, and others. This has sparked widespread alarm among dog owners, breeders, and the public.
However, the reality is more nuanced — and far less about outright bans on entire breeds than the headlines suggest. The piece is reporting on a voluntary Innate Health Assessment (IHA) tool, a 10-point checklist developed by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APPG/APGAW), in collaboration with groups like the Royal Veterinary College, RSPCA, and Dogs Trust. Launched recently in the House of Lords, it assesses "extreme physical characteristics" in dogs that can cause lifelong pain, discomfort, breathing issues, joint problems, or other welfare harms from birth.
What the Checklist Targets
The IHA focuses on exaggerated traits bred for appearance (often called "conformation" extremes), such as:
Short/flat muzzles (brachycephaly) disrupting breathing
Excessive skin folds
Bulging or outward-turning eyes
Drooping eyelids
Under/overbites
Mottled colouration (linked to health risks in some cases)
Short legs relative to body height (e.g., chest-to-ground gap less than one-third of shoulder height, causing spinal/joint issues)
Other features leading to inherent suffering
These build on the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (which already prohibits breeding dogs likely to suffer) and 2018 licensing regulations for commercial breeders. The tool is currently voluntary but is expected to become mandatory for licensed breeders within about five years (with stricter thresholds over time, e.g., aiming for 9/10 then 10/10 compliance in a decade). The goal is to phase out extreme traits in licensed breeding within 10 years, encouraging healthier versions of breeds rather than extinction.
The "67 Breeds" List
The figure of 67 comes from a compilation (by the Kennel Club and others) of breeds/varieties that might currently fail or score poorly on the IHA due to common traits. It's not a banned list — many breeds would pass easily, and for those that don't, the push is for gradual conformational changes (e.g., slightly longer legs or noses). Examples include:
Affenpinscher
American Cocker Spaniel
Australian Shepherd
Basset Hound varieties
Beagle
Border Collie
Chihuahua
Dachshund (various)
French Bulldog
Pug
Shih Tzu
Welsh Corgi (Pembroke and Cardigan) — flagged for short legs, despite many being healthy overall.
Even Crufts winners (like a recent Australian Shepherd) might fail under strict application. Critics call it a "blunt tool" relying too much on visuals rather than vet checks, potentially risking beloved breeds unnecessarily.
What's Really Behind This Push?
At its core, this is driven by growing evidence of welfare crises in pedigree dogs from selective breeding for "cute" or exaggerated looks over health. Brachycephalic (flat-faced) breeds like pugs and French bulldogs suffer breathing problems, overheating, and birthing difficulties. Short-legged breeds face back/joint issues. Studies from vets and welfare orgs show many such dogs endure chronic pain or shortened lifespans — essentially born into suffering.
This fits a broader trend:
Rising awareness post-pandemic pet boom, with more scrutiny on breeding ethics.
Pressure from vets, charities, and parliamentarians to enforce existing anti-suffering laws more rigorously.
A shift away from breed-specific legislation (like the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which bans types like Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, and XL Bully based on perceived danger/attack risks) toward health-based reforms.
Note: This is separate from the Dangerous Dogs Act bans (currently ~5 types, expanded for XL Bully in 2023–2025 due to attacks). The 67 figure is not about danger — it's purely welfare/health-focused, not public safety.
Reactions and Criticisms
Supporters (APPG, RVC, RSPCA): It's about sustainability — making breeds healthier so they can continue without suffering. Quotes like Marisa Heath's emphasize: "It does not target particular breeds and is not intended to make any breed extinct... quite the opposite."
Critics (breed clubs, owners, magazines like Dogs Today): Overreach, subjective criteria, potential to wipe out cultural icons (e.g., corgis). Some call it "shocking" or "misinformation" to label it bans.
Official clarifications: APGAW has pushed back, calling ban claims "misleading" and noting most breeds would adapt with minor changes.
In short, behind the "67 breeds banned" hysteria is a well-intentioned but contentious effort to curb unethical breeding extremes and prioritise dog welfare over aesthetics. Whether it becomes strict law — and how it evolves—remains to be seen, but it reflects a growing UK consensus that "cute" shouldn't come at the cost of a dog's quality of life.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15615693/67-dog-breeds-banned-Britain-list.htmlWhy was a new tool to determine if a dog is healthy needed now, to the extent that the British parliament has a group devoted to studying this question? Is Britain suffering a plague of unhealthy dogs? Are these legions of unhealthy dogs infecting their owners with diseases of some kind?
None of that seems to be the case; on the contrary, this sudden parliamentary fascination with canine health seems to be entirely a bolt from the blue, and the parliamentary group's criteria for what constitutes sufficient dog health look just as arbitrary: "The cross-party committee has developed a 10-point checklist of extreme physical characteristics which can make for a poorly pooch. They include mottled colouration, excessive skin folds, bulging outward-turning eyes, drooping eyelids, under or overbite and a muzzle that interrupts breathing."
The upshot of this is that numerous breeds of dog that are perfectly healthy but which have a coloration or skin folds or eyes to which parliament objects may end up being banned. And parliament means business: "The assessment – which is currently voluntary but expected to become law within five years – aims to drive out breeds with these sorts of exaggerated attributes."
The claim is that this is all about caring for the poor dears, just as Canada's euthanasia program is supposed to be all about alleviating pain and suffering. Britain's anti-dog push "comes after studies have shown animals of these varieties can sometimes suffer pain, discomfort and frustration from birth." However, "critics have cautioned the new criteria will see some 67 of the most popular types of dog in the UK automatically dubbed unhealthy." These include "widely adored breeds like dachshunds, shih tzus and Scottish terriers – and even the late Queen's beloved Welsh corgis."
https://jihadwatch.org/2026/03/uk-mulls-banning-67-dog-breeds-for-animal-health-but-is-that-really-the-reason
