No amount of health testing could rectify this particular problem, as the frequency of the normal version of the gene is close to zero, so crossbreeding is the only answer. Health should come before perceived purity.

So is this the sign of things to come, generations of labradoodle types being KC registered?

I really hope not. But if a significant proportion of my breed were suffering from a condition and could be improved by one outcross 15 generations back, I'd be very pleased indeed.

Dallies and pointers have a common ancestor at some point in their history- not very long ago at all either, in evolutionary terms. A couple of thousand years at the very most, maybe. The fact that they can interbreed and are, in fact, the same species proves that they are already very, very similar to eachother genetically. Not much difference at all. So if the Lua dallies are 98% dally, and both pointers and dallies are both 100% dog... I'm sorry, but I fail to see how purity comes in to it.
Unless of course, the definition of purity in this case is simply an arbritary man-made construct. In that case to dismiss the idea of breeding lua dallies, who's already negligible Pointer genes will only be more and more diluted into the Dally gene pool as time goes by, but who could possibly be the key to eradicating or reducing the incidence of this disease without eliminating even more genetic diversity by excluding dogs that will produce affected puppies from the gene pool (which is the only other ethical option that I can see) is pretty ridiculous. If you ask me anyway

What's your definition of 'pure' in this context?

I think the 2 cases are totally different.

People seem to forget that most "breeds" didn't just happen.

A dalmatian that hasn't been crossed?

I don't forget that most breeds didn't just happen, I'm merely pointing out that the labradoodle is as much a pure breed as these 10 gen LUA dallies.

Just my personal opinion, but to be honest the picture shown on that website show to me a pointer with spots!

My thoughts exactly. But apparently, a dog either affected by or a carrier of, a defect that inflicts suffering on to either itself or its offspring, is preferable to a "spotty pointer".

It all boils down to the fact that people dont like change. If it is down to bettering the breed health wise then I think it is very reasonable.

To out-cross for cosmetic reasons I dont agree with - I still cringe when I think of Boxer crossed with a Corgi to produce a bobtail Boxer - just my view point and I would not go out to buy one.

It can be easy to sit back and say you wouldnt agree with it, however if you have the heart break of owning dogs that are ill because of a weakness that runs in the breed then you can have a much different outlook.

I dont have a Dalmatian, I think they are a magnificent noble breed and I have seen Dalmatians with very little spots and merged spots which are obviously not show dogs but the vast majority of dogs in homes are not show dogs, they are first and foremost pet \ companion dogs.

Would I buy one, yes I would as its for the health betterment of the breed. Would I buy a Bobtail Boxer, definitely not - that cross was done for a cosmetic reason.

I think that this is great, I mean what breeds are really 'pure'? They all came about from crossing other dogs, and this can really help the dogs, surely any way of helping these dogs is a good way? The Bobtail boxer is a great example of how adding another breed can work towards what somebody wants changing.

If I was really involved in a pure breed, and it suffered from health problems then I would be all for any way to improve the breed. Heres a link that I found that I think is good, with gorgeous dogs too

http://www.luadalmatians.com/index.html

And heres some stuff on the health of these dogs.

http://www.luadalmatians.com/Health.html

I wont pretend to understand all of this, but from what I see this is a good thing, and I hope that it works for the sake of the dogs.