>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.

But the AKC can do it with or with out approval by any club-they are a private business that registers dogs

>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.

Weren't this"bloodhounds" actually already crossed with other breeds ?

> please read the research

Please read what we are saying about it.

[Mod edited]

Please do not insult other members

> 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.

The Kennel club already has a system for including outcrosses, be they purebred but without pedigree or needed for some other benefit.  This is why The Steynmere boxer/corgi crosses were accepted into the registration system for the breed after the fourth generation of back breeding to Boxers. 

Welcome, dextersmom.  It is always interested to meet the people that these productions are obviously aimed at but please note the TOS that you have so recently signed up to does not permit you to use insulting language.

Ditto Dextersmum. Do you have something positive to contribute to the discussion?
Some practical suggestions on improving the health of our poor unsuspecting dogs?
Some valuable knowledge gained after years of being involved with dogs at various levels?

Welcome to Champdogs, Dextersmum.

I'm sorry you think that we are all morons. In fact I can't quite understand why you have bothered to post here, if we are all so stupid.

Perhaps if you were to read through the whole of this thread you might realise (unlike Jemima, who seems to be incapable of accepting the fact) that there are two sides to every story - and that while the version promoted by Pedigree Dogs Exposed might indeed be the truth, it is certainly not the whole truth, and very far from 'nothing but the truth'.

Which bit did you find insulting?

> 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.
>

There really is now no credible scientific opposition to the backcrossed dals - the resistance comes purely from the breeders.

Yes, you make a good point re Bruce's boxer/corgi outcross. Why was his outcross accepted while others have not been? I think for several reasons. That it was done by a respected "insider" undoubtedly helped, particuarly that Bruce was a show breeder and sat on the KC/BSAVA Scientific Committee. (Significantly, in other countries where Bruce's reputation is not such a big deal, there has been much more opposition with I think Germany recently voting to not accept the bobtail boxers). I also think that it was significant that, with the docking ban looming, the outcross was going to allow breeders to maintain the docked-tail look which was/is considered so important by some.

But undoubtedly, that Bruce is a gentleman who approached the whole project in a particular way helped smooth the process. Diplomacy is clearly important. And anticipating the inevitable response I should say that Bruce has openly supported PDE for its non-diplomatic response:

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/News/36-KC-support

The argument about the bloodhounds not being of sufficient "type" does not wash, incidentally. Neither was the corgi in Bruce's boxer/corgi outcross. Those familiar with "the science of genetics" will be aware that you can be back to type within three-to-four generations even with two such phenotypically-different breeds.

Jemima

> Which bit did you find insulting?

Calling people 'morons' isn't exactly polite ;)

Dexstersmum,your brief summary of those breeders who post on this forum is extremely unfair and untrue.I neither show nor breed,I've just spent most of my life working with dogs and competing in various dog sports(so its fair to say my opinion on show breeders is unbiased).The vast majority of show breeders are extremely caring and knowledgeable(and often spend large amounts of money health testing their dogs),the vast majority of show dogs are very healthy and have good temperaments.

> The argument about the bloodhounds not being of sufficient "type" does not wash

As I understand it, the argument was more about the fact that these were claimed to be purebred bloodhounds, when they quite obviously weren't.

> There really is now no credible scientific opposition to the backcrossed dals

You are really not giving any credit to the concerns spelt out so far are you?

>the resistance comes purely from the breeders.

Who did you think would respond but why would that make the resistance any less reasonable?  Breeders are the very ones that will be concerned about other genetic problems that may be introduced by outcrossing.  Responsible breeders of course.  I am sure we will need to brace ourselves for a new wave of puppy farmers promoting outcrossed Dalmatians as "problem free".

I have found a definition of the word moron. It reads "people having an intelligence quotient of between 50 and 70 and are able to work under supervision." Sorry if you found that insulting. But your collective inability to grasp basic concepts of genetics, single gene disorders, complex gene disorders together with your collective steadfast refusal to engage in any meaningful steps towards addressing them, combined with your petulant hatred of Jemima Harrison and now I see from the above "poll" your collective abject refusal to co-operate with a second documentary [Insult removed - Mod]. However you can at least take comfort in your abilties to work under supervision. Pity, however that your supervisors are the KC.

How come if the first film missed out so much good work being done by breeders i.e. no doubt by your good selves would you want to hide that from the viewing public? Surely you should be welcoming another opportunity to promote all your best efforts. Perhaps you decline to co-operate because really when put to the test your good work does in fact not amount to very much at all.

>> please read the research
> Please read what we are saying about it.

Isabel, I have spent many hours researching the dalmatian issue. I have read every scientific paper on it, talked to several researchers and breeders and examined all the evidence/arguments about it - for and against. Having done so, I think it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that dalmatian breeders here should be proactively exploring a similar project (or embracing the existing one) in order to alleviate these dogs of a significant health issue.

Likewise, patched dals - for despite the comments here, just breeding from hearing dals will never completely solve the dalmatian deafness problem as it is linked to pigment. It is possible to produce hearing dogs from bilaterally deaf parents - and vice versa. The genetics is clearly complex and despite considerable research it could be a very long time before a useful genetic marker or markers are found. In the meantime, I welcome the change in the breed standard as it will result in fewer deaf dogs (as long as the showring learns to accept and reward the patched dogs, of course). That means fewer dead dogs. At least the ridgeback breeders cull their ridgeless dogs at birth. Dalmatian breeders have to wait - what is it - three weeks or so to discover that your dal puppies are deaf? Putting them to sleep at this age is no fun for either breeder or dog and anything that reduces the death toll should be embraced fully.

Jemima

> How come if the first film missed out so much good work being done by breeders i.e. no doubt by your good selves would you want to hide that from the viewing public?

Perhaps, despite our low IQ, we have calculated that this particular medium is not our best option for enlightening the public as to the full story.

>breeding from hearing dals will never completely solve the dalmatian deafness problem as it is linked to pigment.

Exactly. It's linked to the lack of pigment which makes the skin pink and the coat white. Even patched dals can be deaf. While there is even a small area of white on the dalmatian there is a possibility that it will be deaf; but even pure-black labradors can be congentially deaf, so even breeding out the white entirely is no guarantee.

>Dalmatian breeders have to wait - what is it - three weeks or so to discover that your dal puppies are deaf?

Five weeks. All puppies are deaf for about the first 2 weeks of life. Perhaps you need to do a little more research into the testing system ...

Dextersmom, if your manners are typical of Jemima's supporters, is it any wonder that many people here don't want to be associated with her production company? Jemima herself acknowledges that gentlemanly manners and diplomacy work wonders in getting things done. Perhaps you should listen to her.

>Why was his outcross accepted while others have not been? I think for several reasons. That it was done by a respected "insider" undoubtedly >helped, particuarly that Bruce was a show breeder and sat on the KC/BSAVA Scientific Committee. (Significantly, in other countries where >Bruce's reputation is not such a big deal, there has been much more opposition with I think Germany recently voting to not accept the bobtail >boxers). I also think that it was significant that, with the docking ban looming, the outcross was going to allow breeders to maintain the >docked-tail look which was/is considered so important by some.

>But undoubtedly, that Bruce is a gentleman who approached the whole project in a particular way helped smooth the process. Diplomacy is >clearly important.

Bruce's work with Corgis to produce the Bobtailed boxer was accepted because he was working with a SINGLE DOMINANT GENE this meant that it was, and still is, easy to identify which dogs carry the gene.  This, along with his interest and knowledge of dog breeding and his qualifications and career as a geneticist are likely reasons for the widespread acceptance of his work ;)  He approached the subject in a reasoned, knowledgeable and professional manner, giving clear indications as to what he hoped to achieve and how he proposed to achieve it.  He then clearly demonstrated the method and proved by genetic testing that his work had been successful.  His motives were also clear, which probably helped too.

Unfortunately the genetic conditions affecting many breeds are NOT caused by a single gene, they are caused by a collection of polygenes working together or by the interaction of genes.  Some conditions do not show themselves until they are 'switched on' by an external factor, stress, illness or environmental conditions can be possible triggers.  This makes identifying the cause or causes of a problem and it's mode of transmission very difficult and time consuming, not to mention expensive, it can take time for breed clubs to raise the vast sums required to finance the investigations which may lead to reliable genetic tests.  Crossbreeding in these cases will not improve things, only make things more difficult to eradicate. 

> Please dedicate all your precious time to exposing more of their atrocious behaviours towards their poor unsuspecting dogs.

Excuse me ? You know nothing about anyone on this forum.

What behaviour of mine is atrocious towards my dogs ? Please enlighten me ?

I have since 1971 only bred from healthy fit for purpose dogs-who have had all the available health tests available at the time the litter was conceived.

My dogs are not kennelled nor restricted they live indoors with me & do go everywhere with me, they are all trained & socialized & well able to do the job their breed was developed to do(even my Cavaliers go mouse hunting)

So please do enlighten me

I have found a definition of the word moron. It reads "people having an intelligence quotient of between 50 and 70 and are able to work under supervision." Sorry if you found that insulting. But your collective inability to grasp basic concepts of genetics, single gene disorders, complex gene disorders together with your collective steadfast refusal to engage in any meaningful steps towards addressing them, combined with your petulant hatred of Jemima Harrison and now I see from the above "poll" your collective abject refusal to co-operate with a second documentary suggests to me that you must all indeed have levels of intelligence as suggested by the term moron, both mental and emotional. However you can at least take comfort in your abilties to work under supervision. Pity, however that your supervisors are the KC.

Through experience I have found that those who have no reasoned argument, or actual ability to think often resort to accusations of this nature and abuse.   I see that nothing has changed in this respect.

The targets of your poor behaviours are not limited to dogs I see from the "Show Manners" thread started by Marion. Don't you just love the show world.

> I have found a definition of the word moron. It reads "people having an intelligence quotient of between 50 and 70 and are able to work under supervision."

Oh dear I'm no moron then as I have an IQ of 169 & I'm a member of MENSA

So why would I not want to appear on the program ? because they can edit interviews to produce some thing that bears no resemblance to want was actually said or asked

The Kennel Club does not"supervise"me they run the health schemes that record the results of the health tests that I have done on my dogs & also run a register of dogs of pedigree bloodlines(& also non pedigrees for Canine Activities)

You clearly have come here to to stir the already muddy waters

One for the special button I think

Ohh well met MM!  so am I - top 1% too  - some morons we are ;)

> Please dedicate all your precious time to exposing more of their atrocious behaviours towards their poor unsuspecting dogs.

My poor unsuspecting dogs are as healthy as good husbandry and scientific knowledge will allow.

It is a little known fact that A major figure in the breed in the UK who was influential was the first to have dogs eye tested when PRA emerged in the breed, though a name hadn't been ascribed at the time.

In some ways because of the clinical tests breeds had reduced affected dogs to such an extent that it actually hindered the DNA tests being developed,a sin order to develop tests you need to have affected animals and their relatives to study.

Fortunately since October the PRA that has occurred in the UK population (in tiny numbers) has been compared with the forms in breeds who have a test and found to be prcd-PRA, and we are in a position to eradicate it without loosing genetic diversity.

Why is the impression being given that ALL pedigree dogs are sick and full of exaggeration and health issues.

The vast majority of breeds are generally healthy and what problems have been found are being addressed by conscientious breeders (of course puppy farmers, breeders for the pet market don't).

Here is a UK champion in our breed born in 1962 http://ravenstone.awardspace.com/_wp_generated/wp43c07c32.jpg  there are dogs of this type to be seen today.

> your collective inability to grasp basic concepts of genetics, single gene disorders, complex gene disorders

On the contrary, I would say that most of the breeders contributing to this debate understand such concepts quite clearly - as do those of us that are not breeders, but could still see the flaws in Ms Harrison's original programme.

> your collective abject refusal to co-operate with a second documentary suggests to me that you must all indeed have levels of intelligence as suggested by the term moron

Maybe, rather, it is our very clear understanding of Ms Harrison's oft reported statement that "There is no requirement of me as a programme-maker to give equal weight/airtime to opposing views."

>The targets of your poor behaviours are not limited to dogs I see from the "Show Manners" thread started by Marion. Don't you just love the >show world.

Please point out where anyone on this forum has endorsed the bad behaviour and manners being discussed?  I think you may perhaps have misunderstood the thread?

LOLOL ;-)

> Exactly. It's linked to the lack of pigment which makes the skin pink and the coat white. Even patched dals can be deaf. While there is even a small area of white on the dalmatian there is a possibility that it will be deaf; but even pure-black labradors can be congentially deaf, so even breeding out the white entirely is no guarantee.

The point is that the level of deafness in dals is much higher (actually the highest of any breeds, no?) than it needs to be. All the evidence suggests that it IS guaranteed that embracing patched dals will reduce the level of deafness.

>> Dalmatian breeders have to wait - what is it - three weeks or so to discover that your dal puppies are deaf?
> Five weeks. All puppies are deaf for about the first 2 weeks of life. Perhaps you need to do a little more research into the testing system ...

Blimey. Five weeks. It's even worse than I thought. But whether three weeks or five weeks, the point here is that an unncecessary number of puppies are put to sleep.

Are you saying you would prefer to do this than accept patched dalmatians? Because that, bottom line, is what it comes down to.

Jemima

>Blimey. Five weeks. It's even worse than I thought. But whether three weeks or five weeks, the point here is that an unncecessary number of puppies are put to sleep.

>Are you saying you would prefer to do this than accept patched dalmatians? Because that, bottom line, is what it comes down to.

It's not the bottom line at all. I have produced patched dalmatians in my litters, but, without having to breed from  a patched dal, I have still never produced a bilaterally deaf puppy. It can be done. There are lines which, over several generations, have produced no patches and 100% fully-hearing puppies. It can be done.

If your future programme suggests that only by breeding from patched dalmatians can deafness be reduced then it'll be clear to everyone that your research is faulty and incomplete - or you're not interested in the facts.

The way to help would be to make BAER testing much more easily available (it can only be done in less than half a dozen places nationwide) so that more people can get their litters tested before sale, and appropriate breeding restrictions can then be applied.

ETA: By the way, the lua descendents aren't very typical of the breed, but then US dals are different to ours anyway, so that could have a bearing on their appearance.

Yes, MM they already do the health tests, but they want health testing made compulsory along with breed surveys.  Have you not read the link? 

Why is it MM that whenever anyone mentions anything about the GSD on this forum, you automatically start the usual about the Alsatians. 

The issue is the future, (not the past), the health and welfare of the Breed, regardless of linage.

Let's face it, if health testing and breed surveys were made compulsory, all GSD breeders, Alsatianists too or whatever they call themselves these days, would either have to test/breed survey or they could not reg their dogs.  Its about time Alsatian was dropped from the name too IMO, it is the German Shepherd Dog Breed.

> It's not the bottom line at all. I have produced patched dalmatians in my litters, but, without having to breed from  a patched dal, I have still never produced a bilaterally deaf puppy. It can be done. There are lines which, over several generations, have produced no patches and 100% fully-hearing puppies. It can be done.

What are your litter stats? I'd be (genuinely) interested in knowing how many litters/puppies/unilateral deafness. But the fact remains that there is a very high incidence of deafness in dals and that it can be reduced by embracing patched dogs.

> If your future programme suggests that only by breeding from patched dalmatians can deafness be reduced then it'll be clear to everyone that your research is faulty and incomplete - or you're not interested in the facts.

Where have I said this?

Jemima

> Let's face it, if health testing and breed surveys were made compulsory, all GSD breeders, Alsatianists too or whatever they call themselves these days, would either have to test/breed survey or they could not reg their dogs and unfortunately many still breed unregistered dogs as there seems to be a ready market for them, so the breed as a whole would not benefit.  This is the problem with popular and exploited breeds, in many numerically small breed the breeders are in fact more responsible as a whole so can impact things for the better across the breed with more effect.  Good breeders don't have to be legislated/ruled into health screening, good husbandry and ethical behaviours.  Those who won't adhere to accepted good standards will get around any rules if it will profit them, and this program has given them the ideal tool, they don't KC reg so their pups must be healthier.

Many would say it is the showring that is ruining breeds and allowing health issues, yet it is quite clear that in many breeds where there are health issues there is almost no uptake in health testing in the working fraternity.  They claim their dogs must be healthy as they work.

A friend of mine has an ESS pup that was run on for work, it is crippled with HD, it has a very illustrious working pedigree, not a pet bred one.

>Many would say it is the showring that is ruining breeds and allowing health issues, yet it is quite clear that in many breeds where there are >health issues there is almost no uptake in health testing in the working fraternity.  They claim their dogs must be healthy as they work.

Very true :(

If members cannot conduct themselves in a reasonable way on forum and with civility and respect for other peoples opinions then they will be removed

Please keep this discussion on topic and civil

Thanks

[Mod edited]
they only thing that programme did was promote breeding crossbreeds and designer mutts
look at puppy adds worded not pedigree so are healthy
bred by BYB and puppy farmers
same as the pedigree pups bred by the same BYb
who do not health test or have a clue other than using fred  blogs  dog up the road
by the way the Kc do not control me
or my dogs
mine are healthy and health tested
and surprize surprize live long lives living as they should on my sofa
enjoy the odd show
and oh shock n horror
i bred a litter and they were all healthy and health tested
[Mod edited]

Did you not read my post?

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

Actually MM, all the research I have read has NEVER mentioned Papillon as being one possible breed for SM. I'd be very interested to hear if you've seen it mentioned anywhere in which case I'll stand corrected. Lots of other breeds yes, even Staffies but not Papillons. Luxating patellas exist yes, as it does in most small breeds including Cavaliers -so you don't breed from those dogs. All in all the Papillon has to be one of the healthiest breeds of all, with a common longevity of over 15 years. I personally cannot see why they can't use that as an outcross for the Cavalier -we know it was one of the breeds used to create the Cavalier in the first place so why not? In this instance, doesn't the possible benefits outweigh everything else? Jeff Sampson is about to sort out permission for the 4 Belgian Shepherds to be inter variety bred again due to the small genepools, I know a lot of people are against it, but I for one will welcome it with open arms. Malinois are very healthy dogs indeed, but there is only one (show bred) dog in the country that isn't closely related to my bitches and for various reasons I'd rather not use him (the obvious one being that he's going to be used on so many other bitches including 2 or 3 I've bred, so it won't really help me), so unless I go abroad (where many breeders DON'T hip score or eye test as they consider it pointless as there is no problem) I'll be stuck in a couple of years for my next litter. Being able to pick a really good Tervueren for a one off intervariety mating will be very welcomed by me. No, it's nowhere near the same as using a different breed altogether, but I don't see what harm there would be in giving it a go.

>Blimey. Five weeks. It's even worse than I thought. But whether three weeks or five weeks, the point here is that an unncecessary number of puppies are put to sleep.

It's only worse for the breeder/s involved. The puppies don't suffer at all.

>What are your litter stats? I'd be (genuinely) interested in knowing how many litters/puppies/unilateral deafness.

My personal stats (since the advent of BAER testing in 1992; only two litters in 5 years, and my last litter was 9 years ago) are 1 patched puppy (bilateral hearing); 5 unpatched bilateral hearing; 4 unpatched unilateral hearing. My litters prior to BAER testing contained 2 patched puppies and no totally deaf. Unilaterism was undetectable then. If you contacted the AHT I'm sure they'd be able to give you much more information about this subject; and are completely unbiased and objective, not subjective.

>Where have I said this?

You haven't ... yet. I said "if your future programme suggests ...". I sincerely hope it doesn't, because it would be misinformation.

dextersmom,

How interesting that you register now, zoom in on this debate and in such a vociferous way. Are you, perchance, a colleague or friend of Ms Harrison's? Of course she is entitled to support but I just wondered.....?

Your comments border on the facetious. They add nothing to the debate. If you are a geneticist then, by all means, enlighten us with your thoughts.

With regard to your final paragraph: unless you have gone with a fine tooth comb through all of Ms Harrison's rushes for PDE, not to mention production and research notes detailing conversations with all would be participants, you cannot know how many breeders tried to promote their good work first time round, only to find their efforts left on the cutting room floor. Once bitten twice shy, as they say.

I have no doubt that PDE was originally sold to the KC not as an expose but as a vehicle to document good work and progress within pedigree breeding, along with some bad examples for the sake of balance. In the event there were no good examples or mention of work in progress. Now, whether this was the editorial choice of Ms Harrison or just another example of a commissioning editor sexing things up in the edit is moot. One thing is clear, why would you put your head on the block again when you have no say over the final cut?

I would love to see the first pitch document to the BBC and compare it to what was sent to the KC, now that would make for an interesting read.

I have no doubt that PDE was originally sold to the KC not as an expose but as a vehicle to document good work
How true - this is the KCs own statement - made before the broadcast:
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1976/pg_dtl_art_news/pg_hdr_art/pg_ftr_art

" ... we still fear that, when broadcast, this programme may omit much of the positive information supplied, with the result that it will be damaging to the reputation of pedigree dogs, dog breeders and the Kennel Club."
Got it in one, Ronnie.

Jemima, will the follow-up rectify this?

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

I'm sure you'd find it informative and very relevant, Jemima, to know that one of my dals is a confirmed stone-former. His litter brother (who was always fed exactly the same diet, which as you know from your research is highly influential in crystal/stone formation) is confirmed clear. In fact, out of 5 puppies only one has urine problems, which on the face of it is better than the result of the experimental cross! Clearly this is a far more complex subject than a simple cross-breeding will solve.

>unfortunately many still breed unregistered dogs as there seems to be a ready market for them, so the breed as a whole would not benefit. 

Ref GSD's, the aim behind it is to promote the KC as a badge of quality by only allowing health tested and breed surveyed dogs to be KC reg or perhaps reg on a different tier to other non tested/surveyed dogs

The purpose then is to promote this to the public so they know exactly where to go to get a quality dog.   KC reg dogs - because at the moment the KC reg everything and anything and the truth is, is that the average JP just can't differentiate.

As you say, this will not prevent many still breeding unregistered/non health tested dogs however; the public then have no excuse for keeping these breeders in business.  Nothing to do with the KC.  If there isn't a market for unreg/non health tested dogs, then they are out of business.  In time, maybe we could have a documentary about JP keeping PF and BYB in buiness but firstly the KC need to clean up their act.

Not ideal I know, I don't think anything is ever going to be ideal and it would take time over many generations.  It's a small step by step process. 

>Those who won't adhere to accepted good standards will get around any rules if it will profit them, and this program has given them the ideal tool, they don't KC reg so their pups must be healthier.

The way things are at the moment, any wise thinking reasonable person would know that dogs not KC reg are not going to be any healthier than KC reg dogs.  That doesn't stop unreg breeders using the argument in the current state of play. 

>There is almost no uptake in health testing in the working fraternity.  They claim their dogs must be healthy as they work.

Not strictly true B, although there will always be exceptions to the rule, at the very least I would expect working line GSD's to be hip and elbow scored and many in the working fraternity do just that.

> 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.

The breeders of the type of GSD seen in the breeds homeland haven't suddenly started to want breed surveys, compulsory health testing since PDE, the senior breed clubs(GSD League & BAGSD) have been wanting this for over 20 years, however the clubs whose members breed to the breed standard of the 1950s(the one that had the notorious "noted suspicious of stragers added to cover up the poor temperaments of that era)continually vote against any such proposals as their members do not want any health assessments nor impartial assessments of their dogs again the current breed standard nor their working abilities, they are also the ones wanting to split from the GSD & call their dogs"Alsatians" & bring back the breed standard of the 1950s.

This is why, Spender, I always point out that the breeders who prefer to call the GSD an Alsatian do not health test & would not want compulsory testing/assessments of their dogs.

> Actually MM, all the research I have read has NEVER mentioned Papillon as being one possible breed for SM. I'd be very interested to hear if you've seen it mentioned anywhere in which case I'll stand corrected. Lots of other breeds yes, even Staffies but not Papillons. Luxating patellas exist yes, as it does in most small breeds including Cavaliers -so you don't breed from those dogs. All in all the Papillon has to be one of the healthiest breeds of all, with a common longevity of over 15 years. I personally cannot see why they can't use that as an outcross for the Cavalier -we know it was one of the breeds used to create the Cavalier in the first place so why not

Hm interesting please note I said possible.

The modern Cavalier is far closer to the Royal Spaniels & Blenheim Spaniels who were bred together & became the King Charles Spaniel(which were also more like modern Cavaliers than Charlies are)(BTW they also have SM but breeders deny this of course).

So are you saying the Pap was introduced in the 18th C to produce the King Charles ??really can you point me to the historical evidence of this ? I thought the Pug was introduced in the 19th C to make the faces flatter so that they looked more"human" The modern Cavalier has behind it allegedly Daschunds & Welsh Springer Spaniels, so these breeds surely must have SM in their genes as well ? A better course of action for me would be to look at the Kooikerhondje they are far more like the Cavalier & of course are also a small gudog

There is one Pap known to be behind the Modern Cavaliers

>In fact it is said that the famous Ann's Son, winner of the special "old type" class at Crufts 3 times and who was the living model when the breed standard was drawn up, was out of a tri King Charles Spaniel bitch but sired by a Papillon

If you say the Pap doesn't have any incidence of SM, I would need biological evidence of this to prove it(as in the original pap had no SM not the modern ones)

As to the BSD they are all from the same bloodstock originally surely , so going back to one of the other BSDs in a breeding plan wouldn't concern me.

I just love the fact you felt the need to justify your intelligence levels to me - you haven't a clue about who I am. I also love the fact that so many of you can only stomach the thought that there are fans of PDE out here by assuming we must all be on their payroll. Not guilty. No, why once I was as close to showing as Marion is (she who began the show manners thread). But once up that close to showing I thought better of it. As big a fan as I am of Jemima Harrison one thing she can never ever claim is to have united you all against a common enemy. Friends who have remained in showing tell me the venom between exhibitors remains as poisonous as ever and in fact most of you hate each other more than you hate JH herself.

The point about PDE is not that it exposed the fact that breeders routinely cull pups that don't meet the breed standard, we knew that already. It is not that it exposed the fact that winners are often carrying inherited disease, we knew that already. No the real impact of PDE was in its exposure of the shallowness with which show dogs are loved. I remember when the docking ban was approaching and Boxer breeders actually said to my face " if they bring that law in I won't breed Boxers anymore", and OMG they have been true to their word. That means that the only intrinsic value of the breed to them was in its imposed stumpy tail. The same is true of RRs. Surely to ridgeback breeders there is more to value and appreciate in a ridgeback other than just a perfect ridge and violin whirls? surely there is more to the Dalmatian than a set of well defined spots? Er no. If breeders don't get the features they require in their dogs the dogs have little or no value to them. That is the scandal of dog showing today.

I am a pleased as punch I gave up the show world long before PDE was commissioned because the difference bewteen my Dexter and your show dogs is that he is loved for just being him. He does not need to win rosettes to earn my adoration, he does not have to be the envy of other breeders to gain my affection. He does not have to be talented enough to be cast as the leading dog in Annie either. No all he has to do is be him - a big buffalo boxer dog. With a Tail!!!

> I'm sure you'd find it informative and very relevant, Jemima, to know that one of my dals is a confirmed stone-former. His litter brother (who was always fed exactly the same diet, which as you know from your research is highly influential in crystal/stone formation) is confirmed clear. In fact, out of 5 puppies only one has urine problems, which on the face of it is better than the result of the experimental cross! Clearly this is a far more complex subject than a simple cross-breeding will solve.

No, you're wrong here, Jeangenie. This is a simple recessive trait and it's really quite simple.

The incidence of stone-forming "purebred" dals is hotly debated but let's assume, for arguments' sake, that the one in five in your litter is typicall - i.e. 20 per cent.

But if you mate a LUA dal with a "purebred" dal, statistically half of those puppies will inherit the LUA gene and so will not be stone-formers. This pairing halves the rate of risk to 10 per cent - just one in 10 of the pups.

If the backcross project was embraced more widely, it would ultimately be possible to rid the breed of this problem entirely. Selection could easily produce a homozygous-LUA dalmatian (and remember that this is the genetic norm in every other breed of dog). That this hasn't been done yet is because of fears re genetic diversity - it would require too much inbreeding of the LUA dals. But if more were produced, this concern would disappear.

Jemima

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

Oh I see that I've been pigeon-holed again and that is irritating.

I wonder Ms Harrison - what you think of the work being done on EBVs in the Cavalier King Charles Spaniels by Sarah Blott?
The team at the AHT seem very positive about it.

If you dont reply to this I will assume that either you dont want to discuss the matter of proactive breeders who do all they can to improve their breed   OR
You added me to your ignore list.

>if you mate a LUA dal with a "purebred" dal, statistically half of those puppies will inherit the LUA gene and so will not be stone-formers.

But even if they were purebred dals, not all would be stone-formers. If you test to find out which ones are stone-formers (or unilaterally deaf as another example) and either completely remove them from the gene pool, or restrict their use to 'clear' mates, then you can reduce the incidence without introducing other problems. It's called selective breeding - for health.