The single greatest threat to any enterprise comes from those who ignore or deny problems, probabilities, and possibilities.
You know the type.
These are the folks who ignore “check engine” lights for 20,000 miles, and are suddenly surprised when their car gives up the ghost 70 miles from home.
These are the folks who become day traders, invest in crypto, and confidently put all their chips on red to win.
What could go wrong? Nothing!
Pride cometh before the fall, and untreated hubris is too often fatal.
Consider the Titanic. The ship was famously over-built, with sixteen high and heavy bulkheads designed to keep the ship afloat even if two adjoining main compartments were open to the sea, and she was designed to survive a breach of three adjoining compartments at once in 11 of 14 possible combinations.
It was *unthinkable* that she could be sinkable.
And so, when the Titanic set sail from Southampton on the 10th of April 1912, her new crew, who had only signed on four days earlier, were not yet in sync.
Running at night, in a thick fog, and fighting a coal fire that had started in a forward bunker even before the ship started, lookouts were not even issued binoculars.
What could go wrong? Nothing!
We all know what happened, but did we learn the lesson?
What if the captain had heeded the iceberg warnings he received from six other ships the day of the sinking?
What if the captain had slowed down or heaved to for the night?
What if they had thought of counting lifeboats *before* they left Southampton, rather than after the ship had sunk?
What if the lookouts had foresight because they had been issued binoculars?
What if the captain had steered a course 1 degree further south?
If he’d done that, he would have been 18 miles outside the iceberg belt that he plowed into at full speed.
But of course he did none of that.
And why would he? What could go wrong?
Nothing!
My car mechanic and I were talking about check-engine lights.
I’d brought in my car when the console lights went out. It was nothing — I had accidentally hit some switch I’d never hit before. He flicked it back — no charge.
“Grease is cheaper than parts,” I said, explaining why I’d brought it in.
He laughed. “Truth!”
Did I mention, he’s my mechanic for life?
The old aphorism is that “a stitch in time saves nine”.
In the world of dog training, it’s said a bit differently; “If you do less, sooner, you won’t have to do more, later.”
In all things, the message is the same: it’s best to face problems, probabilities, and possibilities earlier, rather than later.
You can train a small Bonsai plant with nothing more than tiny scissors and a short piece of thin wire. If you wait 20 years, however you will need a saw, a car jack, and another 10 years of regrowth to set things right.
If you do less, sooner, you won’t have to do more, later.
Denial often comes with a steep price.
Sure you can ignore things for a while, but eventually the karma credit card bill comes due, and it generally comes with compound interest.
And isn’t that so often true in the world of dogs?
Over 40 percent of American dogs are obese. That’s not a hard problem to see or fix, but we too often ignore it, rationalize it, and deny it, and dogs pay the price.
Some breeds have extreme morphologies resulting in common health problems ranging from respiratory distress to neurological damage, from spinal issues to skin infections, from damaged eyes to damaged teeth, from shot hips to obligate caesarian birth.
Does anyone think it’s in any breed’s interest to deny problems, probabilities, and possibilities?
And yet, it’s done every day.
Cite the studies, give the data, show the costs, and you will quickly be accused of “bashing” a breed, such is the overarching denial of the breed-blind, the rosette chaser, and the puppy peddler.
Nearly every breed has some significant probability of having an inherited health issue due to jaw-dropping levels of inbreeding.
Do we deny it? At what cost to breeds in general, and to our own well-loved breed in particular?
Can any problem be fixed if it is denied?
What about temperament, drive, and internal codes?
What about the very real breed-specific problems faced by Pit Bulls, Jack Russell Terriers, Border Collies, and Malinois — to name just four breeds — that too often prove to be too much for novice owners unable to cope with exercise, drive, and training demands?
Do we deny that these hard-wired breeds should come with a warning label?
I hope not.
And yet….
And yet, the check engine light is on for a lot of breeds, and it’s often been on for a hell of a long time.
Having ignored problems for 50 years, a slight course correction is no longer always possible.
Fifty feet from the iceberg, it’s a “hard left on the rudder” and a cry to reverse engines and man the lifeboats.
In mainland Europe, “torture breeding” laws are being passed to curb the very worst excesses caused by decades of breeder denial and gaslighting.
In Britain, a rapid rise in veterinary costs has resulted in an investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Regulation to increase transparency and to give consumers new tools to redress complaints is now in the offering. The vets, of course, say no new regulation is needed.
Problems? What problems?
Also in the UK, a wide consortium has come together to create something they are calling an Innate Health Assessment “tool”.
The Innate Health Assessment tool focuses on reducing welfare issues caused by "extreme" breeding, requiring a pass in at least 8 out of 10 criteria.
Think of it as a “check engine” light, and you’ve got the right idea.
Are UK dog breeders going to be forced to produce morphologically and genetically healthier dogs?
I don’t know. All I know is what my mechanic says: He can fix it now for less, or more for later.
Right.
“Grease is cheaper than parts.”
