A sequel to PDE Of course breeders will be flocking to get involved(NOT)

>"Even if the Kennel Club had planned the changes, or mooted them, there's no doubt we speeded things up.

And was that extra speed worth it at all cost to pedigree dogs?

> breeders will be flocking to get involved(NOT)

I pity the poor saps who take this at face value and maybe talk openly about all the health testing they have done prior to the PDE and how they continue to do so.
In my experience this just gets a " Methinks she protests too much" response despite being on my second generation of MRI -clear dogs.
I wonder if stating that the PDE programme did not change their already good practice, will get short shrift.

After all the feedback JH has had, I do hope she finds space in her next doc to acknowledge the work already done by dedicated dog breeders and not take all the credit for her productions magical effect........It remains to be seen - but I for one would admire her for being more balanced in her position.

After all the feedback JH has had, I do hope she finds space in her next doc to acknowledge the work already done by dedicated dog breeders and not take all the credit for her productions magical effect........It remains to be seen - but I for one would admire her for being more balanced in her position

So would I but I cannot for one moment believe that this latest programme will be any better balanced than the first one. It was to shock, not help the pedigree world for one moment. All it has managed to do is to help the puppy farming or non registered breeders to help sell their puppies, gosh she must be so proud!!!!
I have only ever bred three litters, two of those litters have produced three JW winners and two with RCC's. I have kept in touch with all my puppy owners and when they have requested another puppy from me I have put them in touch with breeders that I trust and respect as I don't breed very often. I have never had any adverse comments about my puppies health or temperament but I was due to have a litter after the 'programme' (although my bitch missed in the end) and when people contacted me all they could quote was that programme. I of course could answer all their questions but some were definitely looking to trip me up. That programme did a lot more damage than we really fully know about.

Not even in a blue fit!

Anyone who was willing to co-operate with that production team/company would need to be examined by a psychiatrist IMHO ;)

So, you're asking me to believe that potential puppy buyers were trying to "trip you up" (by presumably asking searching questions regarding health and inbreeding) and yet these same puppy buyers are also somehow leaving their brains/critical faculties at the door and buying indiscriminately from puppy farmers with no searching questions about health and inbreeding?

I see the KC also reported that there was no aggression/rudeness from visitors to  Discover Dogs either - just people asking intelligent/sensible questions, many about health. Surely this is what you all want - for puppy-buyers to know what questions to ask in order to be able to distinguish between good and bad breeders?

Alison, these people called you; they were interested in your breed;you were able to answer and reassure the people who called you. That is terrific and I am sure they will be back.

As for all that "damage"... we now have revised breed standards on the way that will give brachycephalic dogs a chance to lead less compromised lives; dalmatians more of a chance of not being born deaf (patches are no longer to be a disqualifying fault); ridgeless ridgebacks a greater chance of survival; the promise of less-wrinkly neapolitan mastiffs, etc etc. This is undoing damage that has been perpetrated over many years - and it is massively more important than the denting of a few breeders' egos or pockets.

Jemima

>dalmatians more of a chance of not being born deaf (patches are no longer to be a disqualifying fault)

Apart from blindness or aggression in the ring, we don't have any 'disqualifying faults' in UK showing, unlike other countries. Patched dalmatians aren't guaranteed to be normal hearing (I know of several which are unilaterally deaf, just like their unpatched brethren) so the chance of deafness will remain the same.

Allowing patches won't rid the breed of deafness, but should reduce it. Given that around 20 per cent of dals are born unilaterally or bilaterally deaf (25 per cent in the US), this is welcome and the reason why the KC has made the change in the breed standard.

Please see:

http://www.steynmere.com/DALM_DEAFNESS.html

Jemima

As I see it the answer in Dalmatians is to select against unilaterally deaf dogs for breeding and breed only from full hearing.

> This is undoing damage that has been perpetrated over many years - and it is massively more important than the denting of a few breeders' egos or pockets.
>
>

Ah I see why no credit was given in your programme to breeders who already did all the proactive health work for the good of their breed -

you seem to see it as ego massaging. A very short sighted view I think when this could give puppy buyers a first class route to a healthier pup.
And I don't fit your other stereotype either...my health testing costs have way, way over run any money I've recieved from the sale of 2 puppies in the last few years.
I gave 2 puppies (the results of A to A MRI scan matings) to others to forward the health of CKCS.

In the last week I've had 3 enquiries for puppies (I have none) and none of them had seen or even heard of the programme PDE -but as always -I go through my little speech about the pitfalls of buying a pup from breeders who dont health test their breeding dogs - all news to them....... SO Jemima perhaps you might like to make a production that redresses this and actually gives positive guidance or are some breeds now toxic in your view?

> As for all that "damage"...

The damage, from my point of view, is in the perception of the general public, and the way this is being manipulated by puppy farm websites and staff in puppy superstores.  You only have to google a few of these sites, or look at ads in the free papers to see they are picking up on your  message of "show dogs being unhealthy" and using an advertising angle to suggest that their "purely pet bred" dogs are, therefore, a much healthier option.  This is doing a great dis-service to the pet buyers, who sadly do not all do the research and home work they should.  By omitting from your programme the potential probelms in puppy farmed pups and those from pet shops, you did that trade an enormous service.  Whilst we, the dog breeding fraternity, looked at your programme in depth, the average member of the public watched with interest, experienced the horror you aimed for, and without any further thought filed it at the back of their minds.  It may well pop up again when they are looking for a pup and see the banner headlines on the websites claiming "healthy pets - guaranteed because we only breed from pets".  They then "know" this to be true, because they watched your programme, and you demonised show breeders, but did not mention the local pet superstore!

>As I see it the answer in Dalmatians is to select against unilaterally deaf dogs for breeding and breed only from full hearing.

That's pretty much done anyway, and is what has reduced the incidence of deafness in UK dalmatians to overall 5% bilaterally deaf.

I assume that the breeding flashy to flashy in boxers will be banned, as this is well known to increase the incidence of deafness in the puppies?

Jemima, I am quite happy to have improvements made in the health of any breed that has a problem. What I was most concerned at in the programme was the lack of any statement that there are good breeders that should be sought out and check all the health schemes that are relevant for the breed are being used. I really believe that it has done more damage than good. Shame as it could have helped if it had been presented correctly.

Yes that was my point, so I don't see a problem with Dal breeding, the problem is being very responsibly addressed by those who hearing test and breed accordingly.

Of course those breeding Pets on the back of the films don't.

"As for all that "damage"... we now have revised breed standards on the way that will give brachycephalic dogs a chance to lead less compromised lives; dalmatians more of a chance of not being born deaf (patches are no longer to be a disqualifying fault); ridgeless ridgebacks a greater chance of survival; the promise of less-wrinkly neapolitan mastiffs, etc etc. This is undoing damage that has been perpetrated over many years - and it is massively more important than the denting of a few breeders' egos or pockets."

Jemima - will you ever actually admit that breed standards were being revised before you made your programme? 

And why do you think that your programme will give ridgeless RRs a greater chance of survival?  A sad fact of life is that there are few people who actually want a ridgeless RR.

And I am horrified that the BBC actually aired a programme made by someone who said the following:
"We have been criticised for not including the good things in the first film, but we did that for a reason - it would not have had the impact it's had."

> And I am horrified that the BBC actually aired a programme made by someone who said the following:
> "We have been criticised for not including the good things in the first film, but we did that for a reason - it would not have had the impact it's had."

I know :-(.  Spurring the Kennel Club on and educating the public that their actions could provide even more impetus could have been achieved with a film highlighting all that was already in hand.  Why it was being done, how they were going about it and what to do to make sure you were supporting responsible breeders but what it would not have done, perhaps, is raise the professional profile of the company making the film.

Well you may not see a problem with Dal breeding, but the Kennel Club most certainly does - hence the change re patches. Allow the patches and the rate of deafness will reduce. Even if it's only by a couple of per cent (and the evidence is that it will cut the rate of unilateral deafness by almost two thirds), that is worth it.

Only breeding from hearing dogs can never be the solution because it is a pigment issue. 

As Bruce Cattanach explains:

"Many investigators have pointed to the reduced incidence of deafness in Dalmatians with pigmented patches (Strain et al 1992; Holliday 1992, Greibrokk 1994, Famula et al 1996; Strain and Tedford 1996).

The most compelling data are presented in Table 4.  Bilateral deafness in patched animals was consistently lower (about 2%) than that found in dogs without patches (about 8.4%).  Likewise, the frequency of unilateral deafness was also substantially reduced (8.5% to 23.5%).

The relationship between patching and lower incidence of deafness was also seen among the progeny of the single male described by Strain et al (1992) that produced a low incidence of deafness.  Among his 210 puppies a high proportion (21.9%) were patched compared with the lower overall frequency (9.8%) in the main study.

Consistent with the association between patching and a reduced incidence of deafness in Dalmatians is the observation that in Bull Terriers, where there appears to be breeder tolerance of head patching, the incidence of deafness is lower than found in Dalmatians (Table 1).

In laboratory mice it has also been noted that the more extreme the amount of white areas in the coat, the greater the likelihood of an absence of pigment cells in the inner ear and the greater the risk of deafness (Steel 1995).

Just as selection against blue eyes has been found to reduce the incidence of deafness, it may be expected that selection for patches would have the same effect."

As for flashy-to-flashy boxers... the pairing will result in some white dogs, hence the problem. The incidence of deafness in white boxers is comparable to the deafness-rate in dalmatians so if you see a justification for not breeding boxers on these grounds, the same surely applies to dals?

Bruce Cattanach again:

http://www.americanboxerclub.org/white-deafness.html

Jemima

>Only breeding from hearing dogs can never be the solution because it is a pigment issue. 

There never will be a total solution because, as you say, it's a pigment issue.

The fact is that the incidence of bilateral deafness can be steadily reduced whilst still maintaining the traditional appearance of the breed. Unilateral deafness is functionally normal - and that is what matters as a welfare issue.

The incidence of deafness is lower in bull terriers because many of them are solid colours, which are included in the figures.

> dalmatians more of a chance of not being born deaf (patches are no longer to be a disqualifying fault)

Er there are NO disqualifying faults in the UK KC Breed Standards I suggest you actually read them

> and yet these same puppy buyers are also somehow leaving their brains/critical faculties at the door and buying indiscriminately from puppy farmers with no searching questions about health and inbreeding?

No they don't, most are of the opinion that only KC registered dogs have genetic conditions, because they are all so inbred, I've seen so many adverts for unregistered puppies that state"Not KC registered""Not inbred""Vet certified free from disease" & the gullible public, thanks to the PDE, is taken in, after all they get a pedigree from the"breeder"who of course can put anything on a pedigree form, GP vets are not qualified to do DNA/clinical health testing so will simply look at the dog to be bred from to see if it has any visible clinical conditions.

I've had people asking me why I have registered Border Collies(either ISDS or KC)-didn't I see that program-better to get a puppy from a pet home or farm that isn't registered for much less money, as all registered dogs are diseased & in bred too much. We have a selection of unregistered Border Collies attend our club, one has been having fits since he was 7 months old & has HD & CEA, another has CEA & another is obviously the wrong dog in the wrong home that was obtained from a relative, who let his bitch have a litter to his dog for her health !!!!

> we now have revised breed standards on the way

We ??? That is a bit presumptive isn't it or do you own the copyright to the KC Breed standards ?

> This is undoing damage that has been perpetrated over many years - and it is massively more important than the denting of a few breeders' egos or pockets.

Yer right & the people who are having difficulty selling their fully health tested KC reg dogs(who were health testing before you were born let alone the PDE program), because the Gen Public expect them to be as cheap as unregistered unhealth tested dogs They deserve to have their "egos"& pockets dented do they ??whilst puppy farmers & pet & BY breeders are selling their puppies cheaply to simply make money Yes that is such a good result(NOT)

I haven't been on here for a long time, but I just HAD to say, I find  the temerity of people who have never bred a litter and yet feel they can explain to breeders with decades of experience how to reduce a problem just ... well ... breath-taking.
If it was that easy and straightforward, don't you think responsible breeders would have done it years ago?
Obviously not.

This is undoing damage that has been perpetrated over many years - and it is massively more important than the denting of a few breeders' egos or pockets.

My pockets have been damaged by 30 yrs of health testing, I don't need any help with that, thanks.
As for my ego, it obviously wasn't big enough to prevent me from NOT breeding from 4 champions to prevent the spread of a non-lifethreatening hereditary condition - just like the majority of caring breeders I know.

*claps* here, here, Moonmaiden. 

Yes Hear Hear .That PDE did a lot of damage ,people who are gullible have been taken in by it and us RESPOSIBLE Breeders who have been health testing our dogs for many years now have a problem selling our healthy pups and BYBs are the route a lot of buyers think is the safest .I have a litter and luckily I have good homes for my babies no thanks to those people who misinformed the public .

> "We have been criticised for not including the good things in the first film, but we did that for a reason - it would not have had the impact it's had." <

This quote disturbs me greatly, the admission of loss of balance for the sake of dramatic affect. 

By the documentary makers own words it brings into question the validity of the entire documentary; surely this is tantamount to holding your hands up in the air and declaring that the production company has no intention of being seen as serious documentary makers but is more interested in the emotional manipulation of it's viewing public.  Do they have so little faith in their viewer's intellectual ability?  I, naively as it seems, thought the role of a documentary was to record the entire truth - not a version edited to suit a particular arguement or opinion. Personally, I think the documentary highlighted many salient points but under this admission it looses all credibility, the admission of loose of balance makes because it impossible to judge how big an issue the subject is/was, or even if it was truely relevant to commission it in the first place. 

Shame because I distinctively remember the programme being advertised as a "Documentary" and not an edited version of the truth tailored to suit a particular arguement ......

I have been involved in pedigree dogs for only just over 20 years and have seen many changes for the better in that time regarding the KC rules and Health research.

There was a time when there was no restriction on number of litters a bitch could have, or her age.  First the number of litters and upper age were brought in, then the lower age limit.

Hip and eye test results started to be printed on puppies registrations and the results of the tests made public (not just the passes or good results).

DNA testing for hereditary conditions now enables the conscientious breeder to eliminate health issues without reducing the gene pool.  Many people forget that often the gene pool has been reduced when selecting against problems.

The documentary as far as I am concerned is at least those 20 years out of date.

The Kennel Club did a wholesale change in breed standards before my time in the breed where some descriptions that might encourage exaggeration were altered.  A few years ago a clause was added that faults should be taken into account with ref to welfare and health,a nd further tightening up and changes have been in the pipeline.

A lot of us responsible breeders would like to see thing happen more quickly re compulsory health testing.  I can't see how the ills of any breed can be laid at the KC's door.  Education of new breeders and ensuring judges judge to a sensible standard without rewarding exaggeration is needed.

People are not in breeds long enough to notice the changes creeping in.

I would like to see judges required to make a report on their entry to the KC noting any negative traits that are becoming common place in a breed so that breed clubs can receive advice for example that a lot of mouths are becoming incorrect etc.

I think Jemima should put herself forward as an MP for Labour at the next election, not only have they bought in a lot of unpopular laws concerning dogs, the way she can side step answering any questions she doesn't want to read, is worthy of a seat in the H of P!

> I think Jemima should put herself forward as an MP for Labour at the next election,

Well by her own admission she's failed absymally as a "Documentary Maker".   Her strengths obviously lie elsewhere, with such a talent for publicity, complete disregard for the truth (rather than an aspect of it), possessing a particularly healthy ego (I refer to the "bullying" comment as evidence), I see a very bright future ahead amongst the leagues of Spin Doctors.

Sorry Ms Harrison, but credibility like virginity, is fragile.  Once gone, it never returns.  Shame

"will show how it's possible to rid the breed of its uric acid problem by an outcross to a Pointer."

Pointers have a higher incidence of bloat and worse examples of hipscores than dalmatians. This cross could be potentially disastrous.

> Pointers have a higher incidence of bloat and worse examples of hipscores than dalmatians. This cross could be potentially disastrous.

As well as being useful for what purpose?    A Pointer can be a very trainable working gundog breed, the Dalmatian's uses as a carriage dog aren't in the same category.

>I find  the temerity of people who have never bred a litter and yet feel they can explain to breeders with decades >of experience how to reduce a problem just ... well ... breath-taking.

Totally agree :(  

Unfortunately, health problems are not as easy to breed out as one would think.  It can take several decades of work with geneticists, and other experts and enormous amounts of money just to identify what the cause of a problem is and how to identify that cause.  Even more money and time to develop reliable tests, if that is even possible.  Crossbreeding to dilute the problem seems a simple and easy solution and can work in the short term, but only stores up problems for the future, when breeders find themselves back at the beginning, but with less information than they started with because the relevant pedigrees and DNA samples have been lost in the mists of time.

> Crossbreeding to dilute the problem seems a simple and easy solution and can work in the short term, but only stores up problems for the future

Exactly.

Ms Harrison seems to have as little regard for the science of genetics as she does for presenting a balanced view of anything else.

>A sequel to PDE Of course breeders will be flocking to get involved(NOT)

Actually, there are quite a few GSD breeders who might want to get involved; they want help to push the KC into giving them what they want, what we should have had years ago, compulsory surveys and health checks

http://coldwetnose.blogspot.com/2008/12/german-shepherd-world-unites.html

> Crossbreeding to dilute the problem seems a simple and easy solution and can work in the short term, but only stores up problems for the future

Exactly, and even worse it brings in a whole new set of health issues that the other breed may posses.

Health issues caused by mutations are what nature does, if the mutation works the organism reproduces and the change gets passed on.  We only have to look at the multitude of genetic conditions the human race has,a dn humans tend not to inbreed.

In nature an organism only needs to survive long enough to ensure the next generation and rear it, so health issues that impact on longevity and come on late in the organisms life will not be selected out.

No domestic form of breeding can replicate the ruthlessness of natural selection, nor would we want to.

Wolves get HD, but then most of them don't live long enough for it to have a major effect if expressed in mild to moderate form.

The problem as I see it is that many dogs are bred in modern times by people who haven't the required knowledge.  Old stockmen knew intuitively not to breed from poor doers etc.  Also selection was much more ruthless, which maintained hardiness in breeds that mainly had some job to do.

The modern dog living as a Pet may not show up it's lack of thriftiness and be bred from anyway on sentimental grounds alone.

>> Crossbreeding to dilute the problem seems a simple and easy solution and can work in the short term, but only stores up problems for the future
> Exactly.
>
> Ms Harrison seems to have as little regard for the science of genetics as she does for presenting a balanced view of anything else.

Now that IS irritating. The science of genetics underpinned the whole film. The science of genetics reveals - unequivocally - that inbreeding within often VERY small gene pools is almost always recipe for disaster and, as Professor Steve Jones (one of the country's leading geneticists) said in the film it threatens "a universe of suffering" for our dogs. The science of genetics drove Imperial College to produce a report which showed there had a cataclysmic loss of genetic diversity in pedigree dogs.  The science of genetics reveals that outcrossing, done carefully, is a valuable tool to help restore lost diversity/health. In the case of dalmatians, it has been done with huge success. Please see:

http://www.luadalmatians.com/

Jemima

>In the case of dalmatians, it has been done with huge success.

'Huge success'? Let's see - they're on their 12th generation (25 years) from the original outcross, and still say "whether LUA Descendants impact significantly on urinary uric acid related clinical syndromes compared to either their HUA littermates or to AKC registered Dalmatians remains to be proven."

Jemima, have you been in contact with the BDC about hearing testing? The KC don't keep records of BAER results (it's run independently, not through the BVA) so they won't be able to give you accurate figures.

Yet again, Jemima has been "selective" about what she chooses to present and how she presents it!

More spin, it seems. Shame; I thought she was doing well.

> 'Huge success'? Let's see - they're on their 12th generation (25 years) from the original outcross, and still say "whether LUA Descendants impact significantly on urinary uric acid related clinical syndromes compared to either their HUA littermates or to AKC registered Dalmatians remains to be proven."

It is depressing that you use this statement to question the LUA dals. Yes, it is a huge success: these dogs are indistinguishable from AKC dals; not a single one has suffered from any uric-acid-related health problem; all the evidence points to the fact that it has cured a signifant health problem in the breed and they've done this without introducing any health issues from the pointer outcross . But of course there are not that many LUA dals - hence the above statement which, correctly, is acknowledging that as compelling as the evidence is so far (and it is), greater numbers are needed to be categorically, scientifically sure, given that not every non-outcrossed dals suffers high uric acid level problems.

This is the lowdown on these dogs.

http://www.luadalmatians.com/faq.html

Jemima

> Actually, there are quite a few GSD breeders who might want to get involved; they want help to push the KC into giving them what they want, what we should have had years ago, compulsory surveys and health checks
>
> http://coldwetnose.blogspot.com/2008/12/german-shepherd-world-unites.html

Thank you for that. We have, indeed, been contacted by several GSD breeders - as well as many forward-looking breeders/club committee members in many different breeds. The prevailing views here really are only one side of the story.

Jemima

> The prevailing views here really are only one side of the story.
>

The prevailing view is the prevailing view but, at least on this board, all views get an airing and the balance is there for all to see.

>It is depressing that you use this statement to question the LUA dals.

Sadly it's par for the course that you find it depressing to be faced with a realistic alternative view.

>given that not every non-outcrossed dals suffers high uric acid level problems.

Exactly - they sensibly and realistically acknowledge that they have no way of knowing whether or not these crossbred descendents would have had uric acid problems if they had been pure bred.

> But of course there are not that many LUA dals

Which is significant in itself. Why not? surely if this outcross was the answer to the problem it would have been embraced enthusiastically around the world?

Please read more of the research. The science is compelling. See also:

http://www.dalmatianheritage.com/about/Seltzer.htm

Jemima

I don't think any scientist would use phrases such as "compelling" or "huge success" on such a small project, indeed they don't in their own summing up.  Interesting perhaps, or worth continuing research. 
I think it is this sort of lack of balance that most people found failed your programme.
Are we to take it that rather than a programme that now highlights what is being done, albeit thanks to yourself, there are to be new breeds targeted such as the Dalmatian?

> surely if this outcross was the answer to the problem it would have been embraced enthusiastically around the world?

Ah if only it were so simple. Despite the science being compelling, there has been widespread resistance to the backcrossed dals. The problem is misplaced notions of "purity" - the backcrossed dals are seen by many as mongrels and, although the AKC was keen to embrace them, the Dalmation Club of America has voted to not allow the dogs even as a subject for discussion.

And just look at what happened when the KC recently registered some working bloodhound packhounds - the threat of legal action from the breed club not wanting their dogs sullied by any outside blood, despite bloodhounds being very compromised genetically and greatly in need of this genetic boost.

These rigid breed lines are a relatively new phenomenon - and are a product of our modern kennel clubs.  In "Stonehenge on the Dog" written in the late 1800s, there's a whole chapter on crossing to different breeds to improve functional ability (speed/stamina) of our retrievers/setters etc and there was considerable gene flow between breeds up until the 1950s for various reasons (eg bottlenecks caused by the two world wars). 

Jemima

>I don't think any scientist would use phrases such as "compelling" or "huge success" on such a small project, indeed they don't in their own >summing up.  Interesting perhaps, or worth continuing research. 
>I think it is this sort of lack of balance that most people found failed your programme.

Exactly. Compare this (single) crossbreeding to Bruce Cattenach's boxer/corgi crossbreeding, and you'll see major differences in procedure and success rate.

If it were found that each puppy inherited a dominant gene that introduced the ability to convert uric acid to urea the advantage would be convincing. But the gene isn't as cooperative as that, so to proclaim it to be 'compelling' and a 'huge success' is over-dramatisation in the extreme.

But that's what makes producers famous, isn't it?

> Actually, there are quite a few GSD breeders who might want to get involved; they want help to push the KC into giving them what they want, what we should have had years ago, compulsory surveys and health checks

Not the GSD breeders I know, they already do all the health tests & I can hardly see members of the GSD(Alsatian)Club of UK flocking to have compulsory testing done as few of them do any testing at all & certainly wouldn't want their dogs surveyed against the Breed Standard(which IMHO should only be done by qualified SV judges)

> Please read more of the research. The science is compelling

It's certainly very interesting. As I'm not a dog breeder, I'm not directly involved, and in fact I actually think that outcrossing, done with knowledge and thought, is sometimes a good thing. (Co-incidentally, I worked for several years at an Arabian Horse Stud. Our stallions produced stunning pure-breds, but also excellent Anglo-Arabs and Welsh Cob/Arab crosses, that were very 'fit for purpose' as riding animals)

However, I have to agree that the science is not 'compelling'. Even with such a small sample, I would have expected a higher incidence of LUA Dalmations by now in order to call the results of this experiment 'compelling'.

As always, you are very unfair to the KC - and to British breeders. The reason that the Bloodhound clubs were so against the registration of packhounds was, as I understand it, mainly because they were being claimed as purebreds, NOT an outcross, although from what I have read the pedigrees were somewhat doubtful, and the phenotype was not particularly typical. Bruce Cattenach's experiment, and its acceptance by the KC shows just how flexible both the KC and the breeders can be, when presented with a properly conducted experiment.

The problem with any outcross, is not the idea of an outcross. It is the selection of a suitable animal to take part in the experiment.

> I don't think any scientist would use phrases such as "compelling" or "huge success" on such a small project, indeed they don't in their own summing up.  Interesting perhaps, or worth continuing research. 
> I think it is this sort of lack of balance that most people found failed your programme.
> Are we to take it that rather than a programme that now highlights what is being done, albeit thanks to yourself, there are to be new breeds targeted such as the Dalmatian?

As I said, Isabel - please read the research and decide for yourself on the backrossed dals. This may help - two articles by the Chairman of the Dalmatian Club of America's Health + Research Committee. In the first, written in 2006, he is cautious. But within a year, as evident from the second article, he became a true proponent of the Backcross Project.

http://www.thedca.org/backcrossreview.html

www.luadalmtians.com/geneticallyfixed.pdf

We always intended to include the Dalmatian Backcross Project in PDE because it's a marvellous example of what can be done to alleviate a health problem. As such, it will almost certainly feature in the sequel. This is the fascinating "backstory"  to the project recently posted on the Canine Genetics list by dal breeder Denise Powell.

-------------------------------------------------

"Plenty of spade work, as you call it, was done. Bob Schaible, who
began the Dalmatian backcross project, kept the Dalmatian Club of
America informed every step of the way. He sent reports to the board
and brought dogs and information to the club's National for many
years and had the blessing of the club's board when he applied for
AKC registration for two dogs from the F4 generation.

In 1981, the AKC reviewed Schaible's documentation, contacted the
Dal club and were told the club supported Schaible's project and
supported as well his request for registration. The two dogs were
registered. Those facts were published in the AKC Gazette magazine
in the minutes of a meeting that was held after the AKC received a
letter of protest signed by seven Dal breeders.

Over the next few years, those seven breeders worked to elect
different people to the Dal club board and railed against the
backcross project at Dal club meetings and in the club magazines.
Then in 1984 they put the question to the general membership and the
majority of the club voted that they were not in favor of AKC
registration for Schaible's Dals. The AKC was notified of the vote
and placed a hold on further registration of Dals from this line.

At that point the backcross project became a taboo subject at Dal
club meetings and in the club magazine. During the next 20 years,
the backcross project faded from memory. Many of the people who
joined the club since 1984 were not even aware of the backcross
project when in 2005 the veterinary liaison for the Dal club
suggested that it was time to reconsider the backcross project.

The reason for the vet's recommendation to the club was that an
ultrasound study of Dal bladders indicated that urate stone disease
was much more common than people thought. The vet's recommendation
came at about the same time that word was filtering out from UC
Davis that researchers there were very close to being able to
identify the gene mutation that causes all Dals (and individuals of
other breeds) to have very high levels of uric acid in their urine.

Between 2005 and 2008 the Dalmatian club formed a committee to
gather information about the backcross project and the research that
was being done at UCDavis. The committee reported to the board and
to the general membership in articles in the club magazine and on a
website that was created for that purpose.

The committee also organized a special event at this year's National
at which 10 or so backcross Dals were exhibited in a ring before a
crowd of 100-150 people. The dogs were on view for the next three
days in a booth along with informational flyers, posters, and a
slide show. The board encouraged all who attended the National to
fill out a questionnaire and to express their views about the dogs
and the backcross project. But the board did not permit any
discussion of the topic at the annual membership meeting.

Response from the people who saw the dogs and who responded to the
questionnaire was overwhelmingly positive. It was at this point that
opponents of the backcross project stepped up their opposition and
began telling everyone who would listen that the dogs were ugly,
their spots were awful, they had horrible temperaments, etc. They
even began to put it out that urate stone disease was not a problem
in the breed. Then they pushed for a vote to ask the membership if
it was time to discuss AKC registration for descendants of the
backcross project. A bare majority of those who voted voted NO
effectively putting an end to the momentum that had been building
for the past 3 years.

The head of the club's health committee resigned after the vote and
the owners and breeders of descendants of the backcross project are
trying to decide what to do next. I'm one of those breeders and I
think we should stay with the United Kennel Club, who is delighted
to be the registry for these Dals that are not only good
representatives of the breed but they have a health advantage that
is not found in AKC Dalmatians."

>The science of genetics underpinned the whole film. The science of genetics reveals - unequivocally.....................

However as you MUST know HD is not 100% genetic, if it was then breeding a 0 scored dog to a 0 scored bitch would only produce 0 scored offspring-truth is it doesn't.

Also there is no way of DNA testing for Epilepsy, there are so many forms of Epilepsy that it is an almost impossible task to find a merker gene-eg Brain Tumours can cause siezures(even very small undetectable ones), accidental injury can cause seizures, poisoning/reaction to drugs can cause seizures. hormones can trigger seizures(I have a friend whose unregistered GSD has female sex hormone related epilepsy-since spaying just under a year ago she has only had one very petit mal episode)

SM may or may not be purely genetic-the research is still being done on this. My vet is treating a Cavalier from unregistered parents who will probably be PTS because of the level of her symptoms-no KC dogs behind this bitch for over 25 years-so not bred for the showring & allegedly has no common ancestors in the last 20 years in her pedigree)

To widen gene pools isn't just a case of bringing in other breeds, the genome of each breed must be mapped to ensure that no added conditions are added or doubled up on.

I am well aware that Ms Cuddy(the leader of the KC hating "masses"yet who still shows/judges at KC shows-a somewhat bizarre position IMHO)is pushing for recreation of the Cavalier-using Paps(slipping patellas, possibly SM as it found in more breeds that Cavaliers), Cockers(PRA, Epilepsy, HD etc) etc Hardly the way to produce a"better"Cavalier

The only way to truly outcross would be to use wild dogs that have not been developed by man-hm interesting thought dingo crosses, wolf crosses, etc etc etc there would then be no breeds of dogs at all, only mongrels fit for what purpose I wonder ?