Thursday, February 11, 2010

Its strange to think now, but I had thought the clubs would have wanted to be apart of this new breeding line, and I did publicly say so on several occasions, but I have to bear in mind that their statement is just that
*their* 'the committee's' statement, there as been no input by the membership at all. (& we thought it was our club).

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

On reflection of the clubs joint statement.
I am having a hard time taking in that our clubs
are just as good at misleading people on HUA
as some at the DCA. that statement was truly
full of misleading information.
I would have had more respect for them if they had just
said, 'sorry we don't agree with registering NUA Dals'
But to jump on the band waggon of using unrealistic statistics
and saying things that are just not true! is very sad for
the membership & even more sad for our breed.

It is summed up well in this..."Truth is the first casualty of war"

Friday, February 5, 2010


Our Response to the clubs inaccurate statement

To prevent any further misinformation from the clubs committee... Its a shame that the clubs have not paid attention to all the Facts First they say no photo's of the 3 (UU) have been made available, yet
Photo's of the only 3 (UU) are on at least 3 information websites, Sally, one of my girls is even from one of these NUA/NUA matings! I have carried around with me to EVERY dog event (including the joint clubs meeting) ALL the information including photo's of the said dogs! With full hearing results of ALL the NUA progeny since hearing testing became available. Unlike US AKC reg litters & even some UK litters, unilateral or blue eyes have NEVER been used in this breeding program! The last 4 NUA litters have ALL been bilateral hearing!

as these are supposed to be my words I give myself permission to print.

"The Breed Clubs are equally confused as to how, or whether or not, Mrs Evans will pursue the registration with the stated conditions, since as recently as 09 January 2010, she published the statement that ‘The KC offered me the 3 (sic) judge assessment to get my NUA’s registered! but I refused to do it that way. I wanted them recognised as NUA’s! with nothing to hide’. Does Mrs Evans’ position change, because only 2, not 3, judges are required first to assess the dogs? If so, what has really changed?"

I find this statement particularly Confusing! I stated at the clubs meeting for all to hear that
I was offered the option to have my NUA Dalmatian assessed by the 2 or 3, I find the number irrelevant, championship show judges, and if found to be exceptable as representative of the breed, could be registered as 'pedigree unknown' this of cause would mean that know one would have been aware that they were NUA or backcross Dalmatians ! However I wanted to be 'honest' about what I was doing, I wanted to register these Dalmatians as NUA with pedigrees & therefore EVERYONE to know their heritage
allowing breeders to make use of the healthy gene or to avoid using a dog with them in their pedigree, which of cause resulted in a formal application to the KC. The judging assessment is still a valid part of the KC's exceptance anyway. Is this so difficult to understand?
And as for "if Mrs Evans will still pursue registration"
do they not understand!!

This section is written by one of our team members (scientist)
I have just read the Dalmatian Clubs' submission to the general committee, and it is now quite clear to me why the Kennel Club ignored the Dalmatian Clubs. In terms of scientific content the article is a travesty - it is packed with contradictions, half truths and in some cases outright lies! The data has been manipulated so that it is biased towards their argument (and even then they got the numbers wrong!), and the overall argument that they are making is based on a double standard. It shocks me to see the complete lack of scientific understanding in this article, especially given that in the accompanying document they claim to have "spent considerable time in compiling factual data and analysis in respect of what they consider to be an extremely important subject". Right now I will focus on the abuse of hearing statistics in the article, which are used as the main argument against the registration of the NUA Dalmatians. The argument that Dalmatians from the Backcross Project have worse hearing stats than the average UK Dalmatian population is of course absurd. The statistics are (or at least should be) based on an average of the Dalmatian population, which is made up of many excellent lines with good hearing stats and many poor lines with bad hearing stats. The poor lines will of course contain the majority of the deaf Dalmatians and will increase the average deafness rate to well above that found in well bred lines of Dalmatians. The breeders in the Backcross Project have made it known publicly that all of the Dalmatians used were bilaterally hearing and that blue eyed Dalmatians have never been used. This has led to litters in recent generations where all of the offspring have bilateral hearing (as discussed above by Julie). The Dalmatians from the Backcross Project will have hearing stats equivalent to (if not better than) many of the best UK Dalmatian lines. The NUA Dalmatians really are the pick of the crop in terms of health, and it is simply not acceptable to claim that a small group of well bred Dalmatians have the same hearing stats as the national average - I am certain that many of the UK Dalmatian breeders would take great offence if one accused their lines of having a deafness rate as high as the national average! I will discuss some of the other erroneous comments made in the article at a later date (if they are not all covered in the mean time by other people).

From Dr S Morgans.. (another team member)
The Joint Dalmatian Clubs issued a statement to accompany the on-line publication of their Submission to the KC regarding the registration of NUA Dalmatians. In it they claim that they “spent considerable time in compiling factual data and analysis in respect of what they consider to be an extremely important subject.” Nonetheless, their submission needs correction.Their main objection is that the Dals of the Backcross Project will introduce American levels of deafness into Britain, where lower levels prevail. The AKC’s registration of blue-eyed Dalmatians and certain American breeders’ persistence in using unilaterally deaf Dalmatians in breeding has indeed resulted in a higher incidence of deafness in American Dals. But the Backcross Project has insisted that all Dals used have had bilateral hearing and fully pigmented (brown) eyes. In doing so, they have adhered to the same standards as those espoused by the Joint Dalmatian Clubs.
This objection is inconsistent in that the Joint Dalmatian Clubs do not object to the KC’s accepting AKC-registered Dals who really do have a higher incidence of deafness.
The Clubs’ assessment of the level of obstruction by urate stones and crystals in UK Dalmatians is based on an inappropriate use of the KC/BSAVA 2004 Health Survey. They have used the survey as an accurate representation of disease frequency in UK Dalmatians as a whole. In doing so, they have ignored the statement that appears in the breed survey results: “Warning: The results of this survey and particularly the breed-specific analyses should be interpreted with caution. The overall response rate was only 24% with breed-specific response rates from 4.5% to 64.7%.” The Dalmatian response rate was 30.6% of those who received a questionnaire.
You cannot extrapolate this to represent Dalmatians as a whole. In the first place, the survey was sent only to members of the British Dalmatian Club. People who join a breed club show a strong interest in learning more about their dogs. They are kept advised on health issues and how to deal with them. They are far more likely than the average pet owner to be knowledgeable about special diets, drinking schedules, etc., etc. that could help prevent obstruction from stones and crystals.
Then, out of this already select group, those who took the time and effort to complete the survey showed an active interest in the health issues that affect Dalmatians. This further differentiates them from the Dalmatian-owning population as a whole.
We know that, for anatomical reasons, obstructing Dals are almost all male. Yet bitches far outnumber dogs in this sample—289 to 154. That’s only 154 Dals from which the 8 cases of obstruction were likely to come. 154 Dals owned by people actively concerned with Dalmatian health issues and exposed to information regarding the prevention of urate stones and crystals. Even this select group could not prevent about 5% of their dogs from obstructing.
When you consider that the vast majority of Dalmatian owners have never heard of urate stones or purines and so cannot take preventive measures, you understand that the estimate of 2% made by the Joint Clubs is far too low. For the sake of our dogs, we have to recognise that the numbers who do obstruct are likely to be much higher than this.
Whatever the percentage, it is higher than it needs to be. Nor does the Dalmatian have to remain a breed whose health depends on special diets and other husbandry measures that most owners never hear about even from their vets.
The search goes on (and must continue) for other factors in the formation of urate stones and crystals, but the simple fact remains that they cannot form in the absence of hyperuricosuria. The NUA Dals carry the gene that can prevent that. Yes, it will take decades to spread through the Dalmatian population and its presence may never be universal, but that’s no reason not to start the project now.
As for there being no photos of the three clear Dalmatians publicly available, please go to . You’ll have to scroll down a good bit to get to them, but you’ll get to see many other NUA Dalmatians along the way. We want you to see these photos! That’s why they are on the internet, the most public place in the world

This is from a Dal Club member... (vet nurse)
Just to bring up another point in the submission to the kennel club it states 'This small number of occurrences of the condition are easily managed by diet, and medication if necessary. No deaths have been attributed to the condition' Sorry to disagree but working in veterinary practice I HAVE seen a dalmatian die from complications of surgery after having his penis amputated after total obstruction caused by urate stones, (by a different veterinary practice) and sent for after care and further surgery at my previous practice, just because it is not reported it doesn't mean it doesn't happen!! There is no protocol in veterinary practice for reporting of such matters!!! and then to whom??? would it would be reported???? I have seen this very painful and YES!!!! life threatening problem a number of times, and would advise any owner if they see their dogs or cats straining to pass urine to get it checked out as an emergency!!!!!! RVN.

Thursday, February 4, 2010