Experiences from the trial year
The breed clubs
It was positively surprising to find that most of the clubs welcomed the BSI initiative. The continuous cooperation enabled consensus about the specific risk areas for each breed. Some clubs were initially negative due to the stigmatising of the breed by the BSI listing. The respectful and bilateral atmosphere in the dialogue was essential for the positive outcome. The dialogue will continue and integrate the project for Breed Specific Breeding Strategies.

The judges’ evaluations (1840 evaluations forms covers about 10 000 items!)
The majority of the judges found the BSI project highly recommendable. In general the judges advised keeping a breed on the list rather than omitting it. In 80 % the judges considered the breeds correctly listed. This also even if the dogs did not show BSI issues which was the case in 66 %! Show dogs do not always represent the general breed population and the judges’ opinions reflect their general opinion about the listed breeds. Only five breeds were suggested to be omitted from the list by 50 % of the judges. The judges’ reports were communicated to the clubs which found that some judges had avoided mentioning risk issues in the individual written critiques although having reported this in their evaluations.

A scientific approach
The ambition to get an inventory of the occurrence of exaggerations and deviations in the listed breeds could not be fulfilled since the judges’ reports were not precise enough. It was also noted that dogs with BSI issues were decreasingly entered to shows! This reflects a compliance with the goal of the whole project and a decrease of acceptance of dogs with exaggerations for showing (and breeding?).

The justification for listing a breed is its burden in the compound material. A score system was not possible since the different factors of the material do not allow comparing. It is thus not possible to prove that a breed shall be listed or not.

The trial time is too short (12 months) to allow any updating at present. This will be done at the planned revision in 2012.

Risk evaluation
In the first edition the breeds were divided into three groups according to the estimated risks for health and soundness problems: Urgent attention (7 breeds), increased attention (12 breeds) and Attention (28 breeds). This caused serious negative reactions and disturbed the good cooperation with the clubs and was in fact beyond the aims of the BSI project. The risk evaluation is instead expressed in the text of each breed.

Overall reflections
The aim of the BSI project which is to improve the breeding of pedigree dogs is certainly not possible to assess at this early stage. It was surprisingly easy to introduce the project and the routines in practice. The interest and loyalty for the preventive and reparative perspective is ubiquitous in the Swedish dog world and show judges! No doubt that the awareness of these issues was raised almost instantaneously and most judges have praised the initiative and its practical realisation. Many have expressed that BSI made these problems easier to handle and verbalise. It will be possible to investigate if the BSI routines influence the levels of awards in high risk breeds – There is in fact a tendency for diminishing the numbers of CKs (Certificate Quality) in some breeds.

Only few negative consequences have been noted: A couple of judges have used the BSI to disqualify dogs inadequately. - Dogs with poor breed type characteristics have been preferred to dogs of excellent type. In some cases the instructions have been totally disregarded.

The main reason for the positive outcome so far is likely to be good timing with the general opinion that these problems must be dealt with. – The profoundness of the preparatory work and the continuous bilateral dialogue with the breed clubs were important as well as the structured information to judges and the follow up of their written detailed opinions and observations.