AKC DALMATIAN BREEDER’S
PERSPECTIVE
by Sharon Boyd
TheDogPlace.org
03|04|11
As a long
time Dalmatian breeder, I applaud Fiona’s accomplishments and congratulate
her owners and breeders. However, the recent article in TheDogPress,
authored by Marion Mitchell, contains a few inaccuracies which I feel are
important to clarify.
For
instance, Ms. Mitchell states that “The AKC club (Dalmatian Club of
America) is opposing registration on the grounds that the Low Uric Acid
Dalmatians aren’t pure enough.” This statement is grossly inaccurate. In
2006, the DCA membership voted to continue the research and breeding of the
backcross dogs. A subsequent vote in 2008 resulted in the decision that it
was not yet time to consider registration. This later vote was based
primarily on the lack of any scientific evidence that incorporating the
backcross dogs into the general population gene pool would abolish stone
disease in Dalmatians.
The Harvard geneticists who
discovered the Dalmatian gene for high uric acid in 1938 made it a point to
illustrate their article showing that low uric acid Dalmatians bred by
backcross techniques displayed spotting patterns that did not approach that
which is called for in the AKC standard of the breed. We have seen strong
evidence of that finding in the majority of the Low Uric Acid Dalmatians of
today…. 73 years later. The question then becomes “what else, less visible
to the naked eye, came along with this mutated gene and what are the affects
of these other things, if any, on the Dalmatian for now and in the future?”
How can that serious concern be considered irresponsible? What is the hurry
in registering the dogs before we know the whole picture? Shouldn’t the DCA
membership be respected for wanting to protect and defend the breed rather
than being vilified?
Dr. Joseph Bartges, the
recognized expert on canine stone disease and author of text books on the
subject, has said that “the definitive mechanism(s) of urolith
(stone) formation in Dalmatians is unknown.” Dr. Bartges states in an
email exchange with the former DCA Foundation President and made public by
his specific permission that “there is more to urate stone formation in
Dalmatians than uric acid…. “. He adds that he worries…”that
eliminating uric acid as the ‘cause’ of stone formation in Dalmatians may
result in formation of other stone types in those Dalmatians that carry
whatever gene(s) predispose to stone formation – wouldn’t matter the mineral
type…”. His opinion is that “decreasing uric acid will likely help
with decreasing urate stone formation in Dalmatians but perhaps not stone
formation in general”.
In short, removing the high
uric acid in Dalmatians could cause them to be less likely to form URATE
stones but might do nothing to stop the formation of, for example, calcium
oxalate stones which, unlike urate stones, are not soluble and can only be
treated by surgery. This would mean that if a dog carries the as yet
unidentified predisposition to form stones, he WILL form stones of some
composition. So, what modifying factors play a role in stone formation? In a
textbook authored by Drs Bartges, Ling and Osborne, all of whom have spent
their careers studying this subject, 23 other known risk factors to canine
stone disease are listed. Do we really care what TYPE of stone blocks our
dogs? Wouldn’t it be better to KNOW rather than speculate?
DCA commissioned a
committee comprised of knowledgeable people interested in the backcross
experiment and asked them to report to the Board of Governors. In their
“Final Report” they acknowledge that the experiment is “not a formalized
project or study”. They go on to explicitly state that there “is no
scientific research protocol” and that “several breeders of
(backcross) Dalmatians conduct their own breeding programs using these
dogs, just as any other breeder… conducts and manages their own breeding
program.” Are we then to irreversibly alter the genetic makeup and the
phenotype of our breed based on this acknowledged total lack of scientific
research???
The AKC Health and Welfare
Committee, on which not one stone expert sits, reported that the Minnesota
Urolith Lab diagnosed 9,095 Dalmatians presenting with stones, or almost 500
Dals per year, over a 20 year span between 1981 and 2001. However, according
to AKC records, over 370,000 Dalmatians were registered with AKC during that
same time span to say nothing of the purebred Dals who were not AKC
registered for whatever reason. If we use the Minnesota numbers as a sample,
compared to ONLY the number of Dals registered in this 20 year span, we see
a prevalence rate of less than 1%. It is important to note that the
Minnesota Lab was considered the primary diagnostic facility used by vets
and vet hospitals for two reasons: 1.) their extreme expertise in the field;
and 2.) there was no charge for the assay.
The nationwide veterinary
practice of Banfield Pet Hospitals reported that 4,264 Dalmatians were seen
in their clinics during 2009. 19 of these (or .445%) were diagnosed with
stones and the majority of those diagnosed were reportedly 10 years of age
or older.
In an article published in
the Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) and dated
August 15, 2005, by Dr. Carl Osborne, a recognized stone disease expert and
author of Veterinary textbooks, he reminded members of the association ,
“…for as yet unidentified reasons, not all Dalmatians with abnormal uric
acid in their urine form urate stones.” (p. 565). In a paper appearing in
the JAVMA in 1993, World famous stone expert Dr. Gerald Ling of the
University of California – Davis says, “Although all Dalmatians excrete
relatively high quantities of uric acid in their urine apparently only a
small percentage form urate stones.” (p. 857)
DCA commissioned a
committee comprised of knowledgeable people interested in the backcross
experiment and asked them to report to the Board of Governors. In their
“Final Report” they acknowledge that the experiment is “not a formalized
project or study”. They go on to explicitly state that there “is no
scientific research protocol” and that “several breeders of (backcross)
Dalmatians conduct their own breeding programs using these dogs, just as any
other breeder… conducts and manages their own breeding program.” Are we then
to irreversibly alter the genetic makeup and the phenotype of our breed
based on this acknowledged total lack of scientific research???
Although all AKC Dalmatians
carry the gene for high uric acid, only a relatively small percentage of
them become urate stone formers according to all veterinarians specializing
in Dalmatian stone disease. (It should be noted that although we accept the
statement that all AKC Dals are high uric acid, there has never been a
report or study identified which scientifically confirms that this is true.)
Dr. Bartges has been granted funds by the DCA Foundation to research this
phenomenon but it is premature to expect even preliminary results on such a
complex and far reaching subject. It is hoped the answers will become
available this year. No scientific research into the theory has been
initiated by the backcross proponents. No medical data has been provided
about the backcross dogs being free of stone forming. No statistics are
known about the number of backcross progeny demonstrating typical backcross
frosting. Fiona, although she does seem to demonstrate smaller spots, might
be an exception to this typical frosting pattern. If so, what are the
contributing factors to this variation?
The DCA membership has
expressed a need to see the backcross theory proven by scientific methods
producing hard data before registration is considered. We want data which
supports the claims… not conjecture. Research has told us that the typical
age of onset (of stone disease) is 1 ½ to 6 years of age. We want records on
puppies from the project maturing into adults none of which are more than
approximately 5 years old now. We want to be sure that altering the genetic
makeup of our breed will provide the health benefit that has been nothing
more than suggested at this time. We want evidence that nothing else is
altered to change the essence of our breed or introduced to harm it.
“Purity” is not the issue by any means. More research is needed to confirm
that high uric acid is the single cause of stone forming.
Who among us could refuse to embrace a theory which could improve the health
of our breed, albeit on a small percentage of affected individuals, if it
was PROVEN to work? Any scientific theory must stand up to review. Why
should this one be any different?
Sharon Boyd, Cottondale Dalmatians, Since 1972
http://www.thedogplace.org/Genetics/Dalmatian-UricAcidStones-11031_Boyd.asp
