'impure' Dalmatian Angers Traditionalists At The Elite Pedigre

[felix]

Every purebred Dalmatian world wide has the same peculiar gene.

Yes, liver is allowed. Perhaps they meant it had black and liver spots?

Thanks. I must admit, it makes sense now.

[shortstep]

Shortstep, I read what you wrote more carefully. I don't think a dog can carry two genes for bobtail.

Agree with Felix, but none of these outcrosses are done without full permission from the controlling body.

And yes, brown (liver) spots are acceptable, bit of dodgy reporting.

And shortstep, problem is that these articles in the paper - most of which Jemima engineers - do absolutely no good for purebred dogs at all. Whether they are true or not is unimportant - as whether PDE was true or not is important. And it is more difficult to refute the blurry allegations made in the article than to refute the truth.

So what if some breeders don't like it? It is not important. If they ALL went one way, there would be media articles about the reducting of the gene pool blah blah.

So there is no winning, is there?

No kidding, she is going to use what ever she can to make purebred dogs and their breeders look bad. But when she hands you a gun you do not need to point it straight at your foot and shoot eh? We can be very much smarter.

For example instead of the man saying they are not purebreds and should not be in the ring and he will be mad if (the healthy dog) wins (beats the sick dogs).

Instead we need to use words carefully. And stop the constant bagging of other breeders, and this really is another example of that rearing it's ugly head again and again it brings grief to the show folks. Perhaps saying instead, 'It is an exciting time in the dog breeding world and the bright future of purebreds has much offer'.

Anyway moving on, it really is an exciting time for dogs and dog breeders.

Edited March 7, 2011 by shortstep

[Janba]

My objection to the backcross program and to the bob tail boxer program isn't that they introduced the genes from another breed but that they only used ONE dog from that other breed. Can you guarantee that that one dog didn't carry a rare recessive gene that will be a deletarious as the gene they are trying to replace?

[The Spotted Devil]

My objection to the backcross program and to the bob tail boxer program isn't that they introduced the genes from another breed but that they only used ONE dog from that other breed. Can you guarantee that that one dog didn't carry a rare recessive gene that will be a deletarious as the gene they are trying to replace?

Agreed Janba - that is an issue. I guess that over use of a sire/lines led to the problem in the first place??

[shortstep]

My objection to the backcross program and to the bob tail boxer program isn't that they introduced the genes from another breed but that they only used ONE dog from that other breed. Can you guarantee that that one dog didn't carry a rare recessive gene that will be a deletarious as the gene they are trying to replace?

Oh this is bit of a stretch for me, but I think it is like this.

Most diseases are homozygous (change this to Poly meaning needing several or many genes to be present for the disease to be expressed), so unless the dog is affected (has all the genes required for the disease to be expressed) then the off spring cannot have the disease and neither can any of the future offspring of that dog all the way forward into the future of other breed.

If you use more than one dog for the cross, then you increase the chance that they will bring along the other genes needed to match up with the other cross dog and then the disease has all the genes needed to be expressed forward into the new breed. The risk would go up with each new cross dog used.

I just changed it to Poly, sorry it is multiple genes.

Edited March 7, 2011 by shortstep

[shortstep]

My objection to the backcross program and to the bob tail boxer program isn't that they introduced the genes from another breed but that they only used ONE dog from that other breed. Can you guarantee that that one dog didn't carry a rare recessive gene that will be a deletarious as the gene they are trying to replace?

Here is their explanation

ON THE ISSUE OF POINTER RELATED DISEASES

One and only one AKC registered Champion Pointer was used to form the Dalmatian Pointer cross to introduce the canine dominant normal uric acid gene . As far as can be determined, Dime - the Pointer - was healthy, and specifically did not exhibit any known or outwardly recognizable health defects.

Those individuals concerned whether this one Pointer may introduce untoward health problems in the Descendants of the Dalmatian Pointer cross may consider the following reasoning why that should not be a significant concern.

1. Since only one Pointer was used, that individual contributed only one gene copy (of his two copies) to his Descendants. The other gene copy for any trait, healthy or unhealthy, originated from the Dalmatian dam (Lady Godiva). As they say, "it takes two to tango". If the gene from the Pointer coded for a dominant health problem then all of the progeny would exhibit that. Neither the Pointer nor the progeny are reported to have exhibited any dominant health problems. If the Pointer carried and contributed a recessive gene to his progeny, then again, "it takes two to tango" and the other copy must have come from the Dalmatian lineage, especially since in subsequent generations only Dalmatians were used. The resultant "disease" if evident (none have been evident to date after 12 generations of breeding) would have originated just as equally, if not more likely, from the Dalmatian than the Pointer parental lineage.

2. Of the ~350 known canine diseases, the large majority exhibit a polygenic inheritance pattern. A few diseases, like the Dalmatian specific uric acid defect, follow a single gene inheritance pattern. After 12 generations of breeding, it is known that about 0.02% of the DNA of the Dalmatian Pointer Cross Descendants is not the same as AKC registered Dalmatians. We know that this small percentage includes three genes on chromosome #3 that are closely linked, and one of those is responsible for normal uric acid metabolism. The others are thought to be so-called housekeeping genes that deal with intracellular processes only. The selection pressure placed by the breeder's choices over the 12 generations selected for these three closely linked genes, and not others. Whether the residual DNA even codes for other genes, and whether those genes may or may not code for health problems per se, is unknown. However, the likelihood that this small amount of residual Pointer DNA codes only for a unique Pointer breed related disease is quite low. If that were the case, the disease would either have to be dominant (which is extremely unlikely as discussed in #1), or the disease would have to be recessive, in which case the Dalmatian lineage would have had to contribute the other genetic component.

3. Current Descendants of the Dalmatian Pointer Cross are at the 12th generation. In the 12th generation, the Pointer is one of 4,096 dogs, thereby contributing 0.0244% of the genetic material in that generation to the next generation - the 11th generation. From the perspective of the entire 12-generation pedigree, the Pointer is one of 8,190 dogs and contributes 0.0122% of the genetic material to the progeny. These percentages appear miniscule when framed in comparison to the sire and the dam of a litter that each contributes 50% of their genetic material to their get.

4. If the Pointer were carrying a recessive health defect, and if the LUA/HUA Descendants carried that defect forward, then the only way that it could be expressed is by breeding a Descendant to another carrier. If breedings in successive generations only to AKC registered Dalmatians produced a recessive defect or disease, then it is at least equally attributable that the recessive trait originated from the Dalmatian parental lineage, if not more so given the overwhelming percentage of AKC Dalmatians in the pedigree versus the single Pointer.

5. Breeding an LUA Descendant to an LUA Descendant is one theoretical way to uncover a recessive gene carrier. Again, only one Pointer was used, so you would have to theorize that the Pointer contributed the exact same recessive gene copy to every one of his get. That may or may not be true. If one used identical twins (which have never been produced) it is theoretically possible to have the exact same copy culprit recessive gene passed to the get. The mathematical probabilities become even more unlikely when one considers that most canine diseases result from multiple genes - polygenic inheritance. The same Pointer - the only Pointer ever used - would have had to contribute the exact same copy (recessive, diseased) of each of the genes responsible for a specific health defect, to each of his get, and those get would have to be mated in order to make the homozygous condition to produce the disease. The odds are extremely unfavorable for that to happen. Such a mating has never been done.

6. Matings of 12th generation LUA Descendants to produce the 13th generation LUA progeny, even if done as LUA x LUA, puts the Pointer as 1 of 16,382 dogs and results in 0.006% of the genome originating from the Pointer. The likelihood of passing any relevant genetic material that may cause disease from the Pointer is approaching zero in this scenario. If one gene (out of the estimated 20,000 canine genes) spontaneously mutated and caused disease, the chance could be estimated as 1 in 20,000 or 0.005%. Thus if an unanticipated disease presents in the 13th generation (or higher) Descendants, the attribution could be equally argued to be the Pointer, spontaneous mutation, or chance alone.

7. Lastly, it is important to point out that LUA/HUA Descendants at the 12th generation may have significant common ancestor effects. Depending on the pedigree, there can be as many as 50 crosses to popular sires such as CH. Coachman's Chuck-A-Luck and CH. Count Miquel of Tuckaway. From the perspective of estimating probabilities on pedigree analysis of specific traits (healthy or unhealthy), these popular ancestors may have up to a 50 fold chance of impacting that trait than a single ancestor, or in particular the single Pointer that is 12 or more generations back in the pedigree.

The national Pointer breed club has recently completed a national health survey and when those results are available they will be posted on this website as well.

Edited March 7, 2011 by shortstep

[Jed]

Janba, in the case of the boxer, one gene only was introduced. And in case, the corgi had no nasty recessives.

www.steymere.com

[juice]

I think its a great idea, as the owner of a dally who has had a blockage due to stones.

They are the only breed with this problem, and if it can be removed that has to be good, sour grapes if you ask me

[Steve]

My objection to the backcross program and to the bob tail boxer program isn't that they introduced the genes from another breed but that they only used ONE dog from that other breed. Can you guarantee that that one dog didn't carry a rare recessive gene that will be a deletarious as the gene they are trying to replace?

I cant but considering the guy who did it all was one of the world's best at this sort of thing and montored all pretty well its a pretty safe bet.

[Boxerheart]

more info: http://www.luadalmatians.com/

This is a good link with lots of information.

Like this

Current Descendants of the Dalmatian Pointer Cross are at the 12th generation. In the 12th generation, the Pointer is one of 4,096 dogs, thereby contributing 0.0244% of the genetic material in that generation to the next generation - the 11th generation. From the perspective of the entire 12-generation pedigree, the Pointer is one of 8,190 dogs and contributes 0.0122% of the genetic material to the progeny. These percentages appear miniscule when framed in comparison to the sire and the dam of a litter that each contributes 50% of their genetic material to their get.

They are the same about the bob tailed boxer .they are up to about 12 generations just here in Australia but they still carry on about them being mongrels.

Mongrel dogs or ignorant dog breeders?

And so they are. I have no probs if a crossing is done for a health benefit, properly researched and with a breed that is similar in construction and temperament to the breed to be crossed.

The Bob tail Boxer was a cross with a corgi, and an admitted cosmetic flight of fancy. They were accepted into the UKs Studbooks going even against their own rules and the first dog to Australia came out with gaps on its pedigree. In addition the Bob tail that we are now stuck with in the breed is not an original Boxer trait, and as this is not being bred out but rather retained I will never see them as anything but Borgis and crossbreds. This is designer dog breeding if it were breed development the Borgi would have it's own breed category separate from the German Boxers Gene pool.

If a crossing had been done to obtain help eliminate say ARVC in boxers I would not have a problem.

Steve I am actually quite disgusted that you of all people can't see the difference. The Borgi was never created with the welfare of the breed in mind.

They are here now, but they should have their own breed subcategory - English Bobtail Boxer

Those of us who don't want to play roulette with our puppies tails have no want of this misshapen gene.

[Steve]

Disgusted I cant see the difference? Of course I can see the difference in why each was originally done but the end result is the same and now 14 plus generations on its done.

There isnt a chance on earth that anyone can be sure they havent got a drop of corgi blood in there and the ANKC accepted the pedigrees and registered them as being able to be bred and that has nothing what ever to do with me not being able to see the difference of why each program was instigated.

[shortstep]

Janba, in the case of the boxer, one gene only was introduced. And in case, the corgi had no nasty recessives.

www.steymere.com

Jed I am confused again, sorry to mince words around but I want to understand exactly what you are saying.

When you say only one gene was introduced, you mean they were only after one gene from the corgi?

Or do you mean that after the generations have now transprired, that there is now only one corgi gene left in the boxer?

Or something else again? LOL

Edited March 7, 2011 by shortstep

[Paptacular!]

more info: http://www.luadalmatians.com/

This is a good link with lots of information.

Like this

Current Descendants of the Dalmatian Pointer Cross are at the 12th generation. In the 12th generation, the Pointer is one of 4,096 dogs, thereby contributing 0.0244% of the genetic material in that generation to the next generation - the 11th generation. From the perspective of the entire 12-generation pedigree, the Pointer is one of 8,190 dogs and contributes 0.0122% of the genetic material to the progeny. These percentages appear miniscule when framed in comparison to the sire and the dam of a litter that each contributes 50% of their genetic material to their get.

They are the same about the bob tailed boxer .they are up to about 12 generations just here in Australia but they still carry on about them being mongrels.

Mongrel dogs or ignorant dog breeders?

And so they are. I have no probs if a crossing is done for a health benefit, properly researched and with a breed that is similar in construction and temperament to the breed to be crossed.

The Bob tail Boxer was a cross with a corgi, and an admitted cosmetic flight of fancy. They were accepted into the UKs Studbooks going even against their own rules and the first dog to Australia came out with gaps on its pedigree. In addition the Bob tail that we are now stuck with in the breed is not an original Boxer trait, and as this is not being bred out but rather retained I will never see them as anything but Borgis and crossbreds. This is designer dog breeding if it were breed development the Borgi would have it's own breed category separate from the German Boxers Gene pool.

If a crossing had been done to obtain help eliminate say ARVC in boxers I would not have a problem.

Steve I am actually quite disgusted that you of all people can't see the difference. The Borgi was never created with the welfare of the breed in mind.

They are here now, but they should have their own breed subcategory - English Bobtail Boxer

Those of us who don't want to play roulette with our puppies tails have no want of this misshapen gene.

I can see the benefits of incorporating the pointer into the dalmatian gene pool for health reasons.... but the corgi into the boxer gene pool for purely cosmetic reasons has never sat quite right with me.

[shortstep]

I think I may have found the reason people DNA test Bob tailed dogs for the Bob tail gene. It is so they can prove the dog was not docked.

Peae correct me if I am wrong.

[KatrinaM]

Shortstep

QUOTE

As I really do not understand why you need to test.

So Animal Network has a better balance sheet?

I think that is a lot of codswallop.

It's a dominant gene, why would anyone (except cretins) be breeding to produce a lethal homozygous gene?

www.steynmere.com

Like in the Australian Stumpy Tail Cattle Dog where long tail pups are only put on limited register?????

[shortstep]

Shortstep

QUOTE

As I really do not understand why you need to test.

So Animal Network has a better balance sheet?

I think that is a lot of codswallop.

It's a dominant gene, why would anyone (except cretins) be breeding to produce a lethal homozygous gene?

www.steynmere.com

Like in the Australian Stumpy Tail Cattle Dog where long tail pups are only put on limited register?????

Are they really?

Do you know why they do this?

Edited March 7, 2011 by shortstep

[Jed]

Janba, in the case of the boxer, one gene only was introduced. And in case, the corgi had no nasty recessives.

www.steymere.com

Jed I am confused again, sorry to mince words around but I want to understand exactly what you are saying.

When you say only one gene was introduced, you mean they were only after one gene from the corgi?

Or do you mean that after the generations have now transprired, that there is now only one corgi gene left in the boxer?

Or something else again? LOL

I think you should go to the site

www.steynmere.com

Left hand side of the page - I think it is "bobtails" - click on the link

Dr Cattenach can explain it far more lucidly than I can, although I do understand it. :D

Edited March 7, 2011 by Jed

[Jed]

Boxerheart

If a crossing had been done to obtain help eliminate say ARVC in boxers I would not have a problem.

Bobtail lines do not, in themselves, have a gene for ARVC. And you could mate a NBT to a non BT from NBT lines without any fear of ARVC

Boxerheart

Those of us who don't want to play roulette with our puppies tails have no want of this misshapen gene.

And you shouldn't have any trouble avoiding them, as all pedigrees in Aus are notated "NBT" where a bobtail appears in the pedigree, so if you can read a pedigree, you'll be right.

Better than the rest of us.

I don't want CM etc in my lines, so I have to work through lots of pedigrees without notations, to avoid those things

Shortstep, the pedigrees are notated so the RSPCA doesn't drag the owner off, and presumably so that when the exhibition of docked dogs is forbidden, the owner can prove the dog is a NBT. I understand the other reason is that people who do not like the bobtail gene can avoid it more easily.

I have no idea whether they are required to be DNA tested or not. I hadn't heard it was a requirement - but who knows?

Edited March 7, 2011 by Jed

[shortstep]

Boxerheart

If a crossing had been done to obtain help eliminate say ARVC in boxers I would not have a problem.

Bobtail lines do not, in themselves, have a gene for ARVC. And you could mate a NBT to a non BT from NBT lines without any fear of ARVC

Boxerheart

Those of us who don't want to play roulette with our puppies tails have no want of this misshapen gene.

And you shouldn't have any trouble avoiding them, as all pedigrees in Aus are notated "NBT" where a bobtail appears in the pedigree, so if you can read a pedigree, you'll be right.

Better than the rest of us.

I don't want CM etc in my lines, so I have to work through lots of pedigrees without notations, to avoid those things

Shortstep, the pedigrees are notated so the RSPCA doesn't drag the owner off, and presumably so that when the exhibition of docked dogs is forbidden, the owner can prove the dog is a NBT. I understand the other reason is that people who do not like the bobtail gene can avoid it more easily.

I have no idea whether they are required to be DNA tested or not. I hadn't heard it was a requirement - but who knows?

Ok just called the lab.

Here's the story.

Dog has tail = no bob tail gene.

Dog has bob tail = dog has one bob tail gene.

Dogs has 2 bob tail genes = he would not be alive.

There is no such thing as a recessive gene for bob tail.

There is no reason what so ever to test your dog to know the DNA status of the dog for bob tial gene, you know by looking at his tail (no gene) or bob tail (one gene).

People test to prove they did not dock the tail, that is it the only reason.

And thinking more about this, just because the parent/s was from dog with pedigree that goes back to bob tail dogs or even if they have an inherited bob tail,

that alone would not prove that their pup's bob tail was inherited or docked. So I would think under the current tail docking ban,

all dogs with inherited docked tails would still need the DNA test to prove it.

Edited March 7, 2011 by shortstep

[KatrinaM]

They are Shortstep. For the life of me I dont know why, maybe because the breed and its health flies a lot lower on the radar than the more popular breeds. In a breed with a history of a tiny gene pool I think its a travesty.