Dalmations?

[Izzy's Valkyrie]

What do you think? "pure" coat or longevity?

Spot the difference: One of these dalmatians will be healthy for life, so why are dog-lovers so furious? | Mail Online

 

[Psyfalcon]

luadalmatians

The one in the first link is a rather poorly marked one, even for a low uric acid Dal. The discussion should be in a past thread... where did it go?

 

[xpaeanx]

Personally, I would go with Longevity.

I have no problem with selective cross-breeding if done for a real purpose, and if the breeder(s) use quality, health-tested, good tempered dogs.

 

[Zoom]

Selective out-crossing is good for an overall gene-pool, provided the crosses are undertaken for a particular purpose and aren't deviating from the original too far. Pointers and Dals have very similar structures and as we've seen in that boxer/corgi thread, after enough generations of selective breeding, you have animals that are indistinguishable from the "pures", except for one particular features, be it LUA or prick ears.

 

[AGonzalez]

I'd really be interested to know what GypsyDals position is on this. I don't have much of an opinion on Dalmations, having never really been around them, so it'd be nice to hear from someone who is "into" the breed.

 

[Groch]

Izzy,

Thank you for posting this article. It presents a facinating choice and it will be intersting to see what the Dalmation groups do.

I'd really be interested to know what GypsyDals position is on this. I don't have much of an opinion on Dalmations, having never really been around them, so it'd be nice to hear from someone who is "into" the breed.

I have not much Dalmation experience either, but if the article's facts are correct then I can not see how their could be ANY justification for allowing 25% of a breed to face serious health problems just to keep its bloodline pure.

Dalmations, like all breeds, are not "natural", there is nothing being preserved that was not originally caused by humans. If humans are going to mess with mother nature then we have a moral obligation to do so in a way that does not cause the animals unreasonable sickness and pain.

25% is certainly unreasonable. For all of my whining about docking/cropping, this is many many times worse.

Conciously perpetuating serious genetic defects (if that is what is happening) does not "protect" a breed, it causes severe backlash agains the breed, and its owners.

My brother was considering owning a King Charles Spaniel, until he read about Syringeomelia, mitral valve disease, and hip displasia. People who care about these breeds should do everything possible to breed healthy dogs even if it effects breed "purity".

 

[Groch]

Another thought, which should have been my first thought.

Do you think this Dalmation controversey is actually about money rather than dogs.

If these disease-free Dalmations are accepted as authentic, then wouldn't it cause a SEVERE drop in the $ value of existing bloodlines. Certainly no one looking for a pet would want one.

I can understand the dissapointment if you own a champion from old stock. But I think the traditional breeders are to some degree responsible for letting things get as bad as they appearently are.

 

[AGonzalez]

Good point Groch, in the same breath though, are these Lua Dalmations being brought to light because of their health or because there might be a market for a dog that supposedly has good health? I wonder if they are carriers for anything else other than just having Low Uric Acid...
Maybe it's kind of like the Goldendoodle debate (please dear Lord let's not start that again) where one side says they are healthier than either parent breed, etc...

That's why I was curious if Gypsy would chime in on this, she may know a bit more than what we are reading and there may be, as Paul Harvey said, "The Rest of the Story".

 

[Gypsydals]

ACamp, part of me likes the idea of Lua dals, but the other part of me is skeptical about it. I have not met a LUA dal in person, so I really can't comment on it. I have seen their pictures and honestly to me, their outlines scream more pointer than dal at this point. My question about the whole program(which has been asked on dal lists before) is what kinds of other problems are being introduced into dals by adding a pointer in the mix? That question is never discussed or really answered. I do not want to trade one problem for another.

 

[Maxy24]

Since this is truly for purely medical purposes and to make the breed healthier I have no problem with it. However I'm sure in time they will develop their own health problems but perhaps they will not be as severe as what the dalmatian suffers.

 

[AGonzalez]

ACamp, part of me likes the idea of Lua dals, but the other part of me is skeptical about it. I have not met a LUA dal in person, so I really can't comment on it. I have seen their pictures and honestly to me, their outlines scream more pointer than dal at this point. My question about the whole program(which has been asked on dal lists before) is what kinds of other problems are being introduced into dals by adding a pointer in the mix? That question is never discussed or really answered. I do not want to trade one problem for another.

That's what I was wondering honestly, whether introducing pointers was adding in other genetic problems and helping the uric acid ordeal, or if it was just making a mess of things.

Thanks for the reply, I'm always the skeptic so it was nice to know that I'm not the only one going "yeah but is there more being introduced to this that can cause problems as bad or worse?"

 

[bubbatd]

Very interesting !!! I'd say let nature take it's course , but it's us who have " made " these breeds .

 

[Gypsydals]

A big part of me says leave Dalmatians the way they are. Because truthfully, I do not want a dal that doesn't look like one. We really wont know what else is being introduced if anything for another 10 years or so. Its just been in the past few years that the LUAs was started back up.

 

[Gypsydals]

The other thing I would like to point out about that article is the quote here.
"Around a quarter of the beloved animals - or 25.25 in every 101 - will suffer serious health problems during their lives, leaving them in agonising pain and facing an early death."
It does not say that the health problems are caused by stone forming.

 

[xpaeanx]

AC and Gypsy...

health

That gets a little bit into the health of the pointers.

According to this they only ever mixed in one pointer...

Now I'm sure there are byb type breeders out there saying they have LUA dals, but this seems to be the site for the specific "project."



As I said before, as long as things are under taken by a serious and responsible person who is really doing it for the better of the dog, and not as some kind of marketing gimick, I have no problem with selective outcrossing. Of course, all dogs used should be from known lines, health-tested, and only paired after much consideration.

 

[Gypsydals]

I know what it says. I am still undecieded on how I feel about it. Yes I care about the health but the statisics that article and many others has come up with I don't believe are quite accorate. Keep in mind that there are DIFFERENT kinds of stones than just the urate stones that are in dals, there is also the sturate which ANY breed can produce. There is no mention of which stones these 25% of stone formers are producing. So by going by those statistics they have printed, between Ivans breeder(who has been breeding for 13 yrs), another breeder who has been breeding since 1986 and myself, we should between the three of us had atleast 1 stoneformer. And there has been none that has formed the urate stones(which is the stones most dals form) and only one has formed the sturates(which is what any breed can form and most do) that sturates that dog had was due to his HIGH salt diet, not his genetic disposition. IF and when everything is tabulated fairly AND we can see an improvment in body type and spotting. Don't get me wrong I do love the idea of getting rid of the possiblity of forming stones. But I do not want a dal that doesn't look and/or act like something else. If I wanted that I could get a mix from the pound.

 

[Groch]

Gypsydals,

I am rather shocked by your response. You seem to be arguing that if the insufferable pain and early death (the statistics indicate average onset of the stones during the 4th year) result in a less than optimal spotting pattern then you are against them being recognized. "If I wanted that I could get a mix from the pound".

Most of us think of our dogs as family members. If any of us had the option of specifying that our next child would have blue eyes...with the only downside being that there was a 20-25% chance that she would suffer unspeakable pain and and early death at 18, who would even think of it.

I guess I just don't understand how breeders think of their dogs. How could you ever recommend the breed as a family pet?

 

[MafiaPrincess]

Like Gypsy.. I want my dogs to look like breed standard.. Otherwise I too could go to the pound.

she's not advocating suffering. All she said was the stats seemed to be skewed in the direction of making the LUA dals seem like an extreme need. I've known a good number of dal owners who also have never had an issue. It's too early to tell one way or another that they are a good idea.. or that they can actually make them close enough to the standard to make anyone really into the breed want one.

The boxer project.. those dogs bred true enough that serious boxer people if I remember correctly by the end couldn't tell between the crossbred ones, and a PB boxer. The LUA dals aren't close enough to that.

 

[Groch]

Like Gypsy.. I want my dogs to look like breed standard.. Otherwise I too could go to the pound.

she's not advocating suffering. All she said was the stats seemed to be skewed in the direction of making the LUA dals seem like an extreme need. I've known a good number of dal owners who also have never had an issue. .

75% are fine! That means as a breeder only 25% of the families you home your dogs with will be heartbroken.

It's too early to tell one way or another that they are a good idea.. or that they can actually make them close enough to the standard to make anyone really into the breed want one.

Please look at the link to the LUA website referenced in this thread. They have been tracking this since 1970, with nearly perfect results. If you had a kid with a 25% chance of dieing and an option to cut that risk by 90% you would not say "lets wait a few more generations."

My guess is that the reason the entire project nearly died in 2005 has to do with money and power. That is after all what causes most of the problems in the world. I would have hoped that 30 years ago the Dalmation clubs would have embraced this and made the commitment to register only LULA dogs, with the commitment to spend the next 30 years of breeding making sure they met the orignal standard in temperament and appearance. The problem would now be solved.

But, the dog world, and the rest of the world, does not work that way.

 

[Pops2]

i'm in favor of careful planned crossbreeding to fix health problems (as some legit breeders are alleged to have done under the table in the 70s to combat PRA) unless the breed has the capacity to fix itself. i am strongly against publicizing it as it will only encourage nimrods to sell crossbreds out of their backyard as "healthier" versions of the original. if something is nagging at you here, think "non drooling" american mastiff.