International Politics and how it is affecting our breed

I apologize in advance. This is a long read. But our breed is under fire, along with many others, in countries outside of our own. Not shedding light on this, and not doing anything about it, welcomes the powers that be here to try to overstep in the same ways, and this is NOT OKAY.

Please educate yourself on these new practices happening in countries like Germany. The list of affected breeds is quite long, and whether or not you fancy the Basset Hound, a breed you love just as much may be victim to the same government and AR overreach.

DORTMUND 2026: WHAT EVERY DOG SHOW EXHIBITOR NEEDS TO KNOW

The events unfolding at the Hund & Pferd dog show in Dortmund, Germany, are raising some very important questions about animal welfare, breed standards, responsible breeding, and the future of dog shows.

For those who may not be familiar with the situation, the Veterinary Authority of the City of Dortmund imposed extensive requirements for this year's November 6–8, 2026, event under Germany's Animal Welfare Dog Ordinance (Tierschutz-Hundeverordnung).

These requirements include restrictions based on physical characteristics, hereditary conditions, and specific veterinary examinations.

And yes, breeds such as the Basset Hound and Bloodhound have been specifically identified.

Let's clarify what is happening.

WHY ARE BASSETS AND BLOODHOUNDS BEING AFFECTED?

One of the externally visible exclusion criteria concerns is what the authorities describe as "overlong hanging ears". The specific requirement states that dogs whose ear tips touch the ground when their nose touches the ground are to be excluded. The authorities have specifically identified Basset Hounds and Bloodhounds as breeds requiring particular attention to this criterion, and the breeds were excluded from showing yesterday.

According to the event's official information, each dog must be assessed individually. A dog whose ears do not clearly rest on the ground in the specified position, and which has no associated clinical symptoms such as inflammation, swelling, pain, or hematomas, may still be eligible to show.

However, the criterion itself has generated significant controversy. The VDH (German Kennel Club) has publicly questioned the scientific justification and practical interpretation of this particular ear-length requirement.

WHAT IS THE LAW ACTUALLY TRYING TO ADDRESS?

Germany's §10 Animal Welfare Dog Ordinance prohibits exhibiting dogs when hereditary characteristics result in certain forms of suffering, pain, or damage.

This includes situations where:

• Body parts are unsuitable for their normal function and cause pain, suffering, or damage.

• Hereditary behavioural disorders cause suffering.

• Normal interaction with other dogs causes pain or avoidable suffering.

• Keeping the dog itself is only possible with pain, avoidable suffering, or resulting damage.

The intention is to prevent dogs from being exhibited when hereditary physical characteristics or conditions negatively affect their welfare.

Animal welfare is absolutely important.

But the debate is about how those requirements are defined, how they are applied, and whether the criteria are scientifically justified and proportionate.

THE BIGGER CONVERSATION: ANIMAL WELFARE AND RESPONSIBLE BREEDING

As breeders and exhibitors, we should all want healthy dogs. We should want dogs that can breathe comfortably, move freely, see properly, hear appropriately, interact normally, and live without unnecessary pain or suffering. We should be willing to examine our breeding decisions honestly.

But we also need to recognize that responsible breeding involves more than simply looking at one physical characteristic in isolation. A dog's overall health, anatomy, function, clinical condition, genetics, and quality of life all matter.

There is an important difference between identifying a characteristic that genuinely causes suffering and automatically assuming that every dog displaying a particular breed feature is unhealthy.

There is also an important difference between a genetic predisposition, a genetic test result, and a dog actually experiencing clinical disease. These distinctions deserve careful, evidence-based consideration.

AS A BASSET HOUND BREEDER AND EXHIBITOR, THIS IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT TO ME

We love our Bassets for their beautiful ears, their distinctive appearance, their movement, their personalities, and everything that makes them the breed we cherish. But loving our breed also means being willing to discuss health and welfare honestly. We should never dismiss legitimate welfare concerns simply because they involve characteristics we love.

At the same time, we should expect regulations affecting our dogs to be supported by sound veterinary evidence, clear definitions, and fair, consistent assessment.

The goal should not be to preserve appearance at the expense of welfare. Nor should the goal be to exclude dogs based on assumptions without considering the individual animal. The goal should be healthy dogs that can comfortably live the lives their breed was intended to live.

HOW IS IT FAIR TO EXCLUDE A DOG BREED THAT IS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR THEIR EARS TO TOUCH THE GROUND AS PART OF ITS STANDARD AND FUNCTION?

And honestly, this is exactly the question that makes the Dortmund situation so controversial, particularly for those of us who breed and show Basset Hounds.

How can a characteristic that is specifically described in a breed's standard, and historically associated with its function, suddenly become a reason to exclude that dog from an event?

There is a very important distinction here. The Basset Hound's ears aren't simply decorative.

The Basset Hound was developed as a scent hound. Its long ears, low-set head, loose skin, and distinctive structure are part of the breed's historical development. The ears are traditionally understood to help stir scent from the ground toward the nose when the dog is tracking.

The Canadian Kennel Club explains that breed standards reflect the characteristics associated with a breed's original function, and that conformation judging should prioritize dogs that are healthy and sound in both mind and body.

That is an important point.

A breed characteristic should not automatically be treated as a welfare problem simply because it looks unusual compared with another breed. A Basset Hound's ears are supposed to be long. A Bloodhound's ears are supposed to be long. Their physical characteristics are part of what makes them recognizable and functional as scent hounds.

But that does not mean every possible degree of ear length is automatically healthy, either.

And that is where the discussion needs to become more nuanced.

WHAT IS THE ACTUAL ISSUE WITH DORTMUND'S REQUIREMENT?

The concern is that the criterion uses a physical measurement:

Whether the ear tips touch the ground when the dog's nose touches the ground.

That creates a very specific question:

Does the ear touching the ground, by itself, demonstrate that the dog is experiencing pain, suffering, or impaired welfare?

An ear touching the ground does not automatically establish that a dog has an ear infection, painful inflammation, hematomas, impaired mobility, or any other clinical condition. Conversely, a dog whose ears do not touch the ground could still have significant ear disease.

This is why a physical measurement alone can be a questionable substitute for an individualized welfare assessment.

THE FAIRNESS ARGUMENT

I think there are four important considerations.

1. Breed-specific anatomy must be considered. A measurement that might be unusual for one breed could be entirely normal for another. If authorities are going to establish a physical threshold, they should explain how that threshold accounts for the breed's anatomy, historical function, and accepted breed standard.

2. The actual health of the individual dog matters. There is a difference between a dog having long ears and a dog having ears that are chronically painful, infected, damaged, or otherwise causing welfare problems. A reasonable assessment should distinguish between those situations.

3. The standard should be scientifically supported. If a particular ear length is considered harmful, there should be evidence explaining why that measurement represents a meaningful welfare risk. The question should not simply be whether the ears touch the ground, but what the measurement demonstrates about the dog's actual welfare.

4. Regulations should be consistent and proportionate. If the concern is that ears may become injured or contaminated, the assessment should address that risk directly. If the concern is chronic ear disease, the assessment should consider clinical evidence. If the concern is a hereditary anatomical characteristic, the authorities should explain the evidence connecting that characteristic to suffering.

The restriction should address the demonstrated welfare problem rather than automatically penalizing a normal breed characteristic.

MY BIGGEST CONCERN AS A BASSET HOUND BREEDER

I absolutely support protecting dogs from suffering. I also believe we have a responsibility to breed dogs that are healthy, functional, and capable of living comfortable lives.

But I struggle with the idea that a dog could be excluded simply because its ears reach the ground, when that characteristic is part of the anatomy associated with its breed.

If a Basset Hound has healthy ears, can move comfortably, has no associated clinical problems, and is otherwise fit to participate, what exactly has been demonstrated by the ear-touching-ground measurement that justifies excluding that individual dog?

That is the question I would want answered.

And I think it is a perfectly reasonable question for breeders, exhibitors, veterinarians, and animal welfare authorities to discuss. Because responsible breeding should not mean abandoning the characteristics that define a breed. It should mean understanding those characteristics, evaluating their consequences, and making informed decisions that protect the dog's welfare.

We should be breeding healthier Basset Hounds, not simply shorter-eared Basset Hounds.

And if a particular characteristic is genuinely causing harm, we should address that harm with evidence, responsible breeding decisions, and appropriate veterinary care. But if the characteristic itself is not causing demonstrated suffering, then excluding a dog solely because it possesses that characteristic deserves serious scrutiny.

Ultimately, the question should not be: How long are the dog's ears?

It should be: Is this dog healthy, functional, and comfortable in its own body?

That is the distinction I believe deserves far more attention in this discussion.

#BassetHound #Bloodhound #DogShows #DogShowCommunity #ResponsibleBreeding #AnimalWelfare #DogBreeding #VDH #Dortmund2026 #PurebredDogs #HealthyDogs