AKC- The confusion

[Tea]

If I had any doubts about the confusion about AKC and ABCA reg and how it impacts farmers and working dogs I now have none.

 

My pups were sold to farmers, except the pups I am keeping, and under the contract that Eileen provides here.

 

One of my young farmers whom I have known since she was 14 is picking up her pup on Sat. She is raising cattle and now has a job as an advisor for the county ag. Anyway she was talking with a woman who told her that her dog, a Border collie, had been second in the nation a few years back and he was a great herding dog, registered with the AKC

My friend told her, "Hum, my pup is registered with the ABCA."

The lady asked why my friend's pup was not registered with the AKC.

 

It really confused my young Friend, Except....she had signed the contract and knew something was not right. And she knew I was againest the AKC. And she told her that.

 

Because it is confusing if you don't know anything about the AKC.

 

It is important to let farmers know. Especially with the growth of the slow and local food movement.

[jdarling]

Tea,

 

Good timing! I was just going to post something similar. I was browsing around yesterday and found THIS site. On first glance, looked like ... right on ... dude working cows ... needs a good cow dog ... then I started poking around his site, started seeing health testing for TNS ... checked the lines on the dogs, and the webmaster ... and the links on the site ... and closed it ... completely confused.

 

Jodi

[Tea]

Yes that is really confusing.

 

I think I am going to try to get our local USBCHA trainers to teach a class at the Snohomish winter school on working stockdogs.

 

spread the info further.

 

Maybe someone has a flyer that explains things in a way where I would not be sued?

 

I could put them out at our sheep shearing demos.

[Liz P]

The AKC has a huge PR budget. They have also been around a lot longer than the ABCA. Americans are brainwashed into thinking that AKC registered = quality dog. I believe the only way to fight this battle is one person at a time.

[Maja]

then I started poking around his site, started seeing health testing for TNS ... checked the lines on the dogs, and the webmaster ... and the links on the site ... and closed it ... completely confused.

Jodi

Now I am too. Whats wrong with TNS testing?

maja

[juliepoudrier]

Maja,

Nothing is wrong with TNS testing per se, except that it doesn't appear to (in general) affect the working population of border collies. It seems to be largely isolated in show border collies of Australian heritage. The argument the folks with such dogs make is that their stock originally came from working dogs out of the UK, ergo working dogs carry it, but they fail to consider that the breeding practices used to fix the traits desirable in a show dog are what allowed TNS to rear its ugly head (concentration of deleterious genes). So the dogs most at risk for TNS are show bred dogs of Australian heritage. Because TNS has not been exhibited in working bred dogs (dogs with no show lines crossed in), IMO it would be a waste of money to test for the disease in working dogs.

 

A similar example would be automatically testing for the mdr1-1delta mutation because it's a mutation carried by most (Lassie) collies. Because Lassie collies and border collies share the same progenitor stock, some could argue that border collies likely are affected by the muation as well(and many repeat the somewhat mistaken mantra that herding dogs are sensitive to ivermectin and so should not be given it--this sensitivity is due to the presence of the mutation). According to the folks at WSU who do the genetic testing, the mutation has been found in less than 5% of border collies tested, whereas something greater than 95% of Lassie collies are either heterozygous or homozygous for the mutation. Odds are against the average working bred border collie having the mutation, so is it a wise use of one's money to test for it? Or is the testing just a marketing ploy?

 

If you read AKC materials, you will get the impression that TNS is a real problem, and it is--for show bred dogs of Australian heritage. But it's not a big problem in the working population (those dogs free of show lines) and so testing working stock is extraneous. I did not go to the web site linked here, but I would guess that either the person doing the testing got information through the AKC and doesn't know any better, or he wants to market dogs to AKC folks who demand that the test result be available. If the fellow has ABCA-registered dogs with no conformation lines crossed in, then testing for TNS exhibits an ignorance of what health issues are of real concern in working bred border collies, and TNS is not one of those.

 

J.

[Liz P]

I did not go to the web site linked here, but I would guess that either the person doing the testing got information through the AKC and doesn't know any better, or he wants to market dogs to AKC folks who demand that the test result be available.

 

He is breeding Aussie/NZ show lines so is doing the testing.

[Maja]

Julie,

 

Thank yo for the informative post. I have my dog tested for MDR1 - simply because, I don't care how small the odds are, because the dog keels over and dies if she is sensitive. Of course one may simply not use the drugs, but there are some mean bugs that are not so easily taken care of without it.

 

Concerning the working border collie this is a real question I have: How is known that they do not have the TNS , that is, if they are not tested it is rather likely that the healthy carriers are there, but not visible, and that affected dogs die without being diagnosed as TNS (which was the case for many years where TNS was diagnosed as other diseases, as far as I know).

 

This is form Dr. Wilton:

 

"About 4000 Border Collies have been tested so far. The high incidence of carriers (>10%) in all lines suggests that the causative mutation goes right back to the beginning of the breed and may even be found in other collie breeds like CEA is. For this reason, it is recommended that all lineages be tested. Once the parents have been tested clear for TNS it is not necessary to test the pups, they can only inherit the genetic defect from a carrier parent. Both parents of any affected dog must be carriers. Many lines that have shown no sign of the disease may still have carriers, and this includes ISDS lines and Australian working dog lines."

 

http://www.bccnsw.com/tns.html

 

Concerning the post by jdarling

 

I had my dog tested for TNS, CEA, CL, MDR1 - all of these were of very low probability of appearing - and I knw that before I tested, but by golly there is a DNA test available that would rule out 100% certainty all these problems, and also allow to breed safely in respect to these diseases to any another dog tested or not, should she come clear with all these tests (which she did).

 

And (lo and behold) I read here - where the home of the true BC lovers is - about the DNA TNS testing as though it was a gage of how bad the breeder was. My friend has a pure working lines dog and of course he has zilch testing done, and he is going to have him DNA tested.

 

Making people think that there is something wrong with TNS testing is definitely going to make them confused, and give more credence to the AKC way of breeding. Just saying they are ALL bad and everything they do is bad, just isn't going to wash, because I can say that I guarantee in the sales contract that the puppy will not have any of these diseases, but can you?

 

Now, if you had sizable a database with tested BCs where there are no carriers in the working lines you'd really have something (1) guarantee on your sales contract if you tested (2) a database that actually could show that working BC are superior also in those diseases that the show BCs need so seriously to consider.

 

Maja

[juliepoudrier]

Julie,

 

Thank yo for the informative post. I have my dog tested for MDR1 - simply because, I don't care how small the odds are, because the dog keels over and dies if she is sensitive. Of course one may simply not use the drugs, but there are some mean bugs that are not so easily taken care of without it.

 

In fact, if your dog were to have the mdr1-1delta mutation it likely *wouldn't* keel over and die on simple exposure to any of the drugs to which such dogs are sensitive. Since the biggest concern is ivermectin and heartworm prevention, I'll simply note that at the prophylaxis dose ivermectin can be safely given to collies that are homozygous for the mutation. For an informative discussion of the mutation and what it means for collies, see the drug sensitivity page of the American Working Collie Association website.

 

I think it's a personal choice whether to test. I use ivermectin for heartworm prevention in all of my dogs--and have for years--and have had none of them tested. Last I looked, all were still alive and kicking, even the one I accidentally overdosed one time.

 

Any resistance you see to testing of any sort is in some ways grounded in practicality. I have never heard of a working bred dog with TNS, for example. And since the disease is fatal, it would be fairly easy to identify carriers who produce affected dogs. On the other hand, adult-onset deafness and epilepsy are problems that clearly concern the working border collie population. So, if/when a test becomes available for either of those, then to me it would make sense to do the genetic tests for those conditions in breeding stock. Even then, though, if I know that no dog in the lines has ever gone deaf before old age, then I probably wouldn't opt to test. I really see no point in spending time or money testing for something that doesn't really appear to exist. The working stockdog community is pretty small. I'm fairly certain that if someone produced pups with TNS, we'd hear about it. I just don't think it's a great enough concern in the population of dogs I'd buy pups from for me to worry about it, especially not to the extent of demanding that the adults or pups be tested for it.

 

And all of this brings up the larger philosophical question of whether to test just because a test is available. Let's say there's one gene that causes breast cancer. My family for generations on either side has no history of breast cancer. Does is make sense to test myself for the gene? The answer will vary by individual (personally I would not). It's how I approach genetic testing in animals too. If there's no real evidence that a particular disease is an issue within the breed, then I don't see the point in spending the money on testing, and I certainly don't see the point in doing the testing simply so I can use the results to market pups. It's like guaranteeing a health issue doesn't exist when in reality it doesn't really exist anyway.

 

Sort of like a seller offering proof that a house doesn't sit in a flood plain when that house is in fact located in the desert. What is the seller proving? To the unsophisticated buyer, it might be the one thing that seals the deal; but isn't that piece of paper stating that the house isn't on a flood plain essentially meaningless in the larger context?

 

How this relates to working dogs, though, is that people are using testing as a marketing mechanism and aren't even bothering to see if their product (pups) measure up in the ways that really count (i.e., that they maintain working ability to some standard).

 

For some of us, this is testing for the sake of testing or for the sake of marketing only, and that just rings false. And that's largely because the real reason for breeding the dogs--that they can perform the purpose for which they're bred--falls by the wayside. But by golly, you'll be guaranteed a healthy (useless) dog!

 

As for your link, which I haven't taken the time to read, except the part you quoted: just as with the Lassie collie and the mdr1 mutation, the type of (in)breeding used to fix traits of a particular type will concentrate both good and bad genes. It seems in this case that the gene for TNS, which certainly sprang up somewhere and could certainly have existed in the working stock from which the Oz/NZ show dog was developed, has been concentrated in show lines from Oz/NZ. If I had dogs with those lines in the pedigree, then I would certainly test. But it's a bit disingenous to claim that all dogs should be tested because the breeding practices that created one particular subtype concentrated the gene in that subtype (the same argument could then be made for testing for the mdr1 mutation all dogs that are in any way related to the Lassie collie, and yet the statistics provided by the folks doing the testing clearly show that not *all* herding breeds, and even those closely related--at one point--to the Lassie collie carry the mutation to any great extent). It smacks to me of trying to lay the blame for the modern existence of the problem on the historical progenitors of the breed rather than where the blame really lies, which is in the breeding practices that concentrated it in one particular subtype of the breed.

 

Okay, I went and looked at the link. I see statistics with no supporting data. The author doesn't define working dog vs. show dog (I'd be willing to bet that all dogs considered were KC dogs), nor does he state where he got the 10% figure for border collies in the US. Add to that the fact that the site you linked to is a kennel club site and no author credentials are given and I'm sorry to say that I don't find the information believable enough to make me think the working dogs here in the US are in danger from TNS.

 

And FWIW, if my dogs or the dogs I was planning to choose pups from had any Oz/NZ show lines in their pedigrees (which is highly unlikely), then obviously I would consider testing for TNS to be prudent.

 

Once again, I think our difference in opinion could very well stem from the different breeding/working cultures and paradigms that exist in the US vs. Poland.

 

J.

[jdarling]

Maja,

 

I'm sorry you read way more into my post than I ever dreamed of. I think Julie summed it up quite nicely.

 

And (lo and behold) I read here - where the home of the true BC lovers is - about the DNA TNS testing as though it was a gage of how bad the breeder was.

 

The front page showed cows. I normally think of working bred dogs when I see livestock. Working breeders here in the states don't test for TNS, hence my surprise. I said nothing about the breeder being "bad."

 

Making people think that there is something wrong with TNS testing is definitely going to make them confused, and give more credence to the AKC way of breeding.

 

Again, I said nothing about anything being wrong with TNS testing. If I owned a breed of dog where TNS was an issue, I'd probably test for it, too ... no matter what some yahoo said on a message board.

 

because I can say that I guarantee in the sales contract that the puppy will not have any of these diseases, but can you?

 

No, I guess I can't. My contract also fails to mention that I guarantee my puppies will never sprout wings and fly, either, though.

 

Jodi

[C Crocker]

I don't know if this example will confuse or make clearer the reason for not testing a working Border Collie for tns. I went to Jodi's web link for the breeder who posted the tns info. On his web site I saw a cutting horse photo, which most likely is a Quarter horse. Within the Quarter horse breed there is a strain of horses who through a dna screw-up many years ago, will often produce offspring with a condition known as hypp or "Impressive" disease( named after the stallion who gets the "credit" for passing it along to thousands of get, grand get, etc).

 

As no one I have ever known to seriously breed cowhorses has included this strain of Quarter horse into their breeding program (Impressives are halter horses, generally not top working horses) , then for that reason they are not tested for hypp.

 

When I renew my insurance policy yearly on my cowhorse , one of the questions is whether my horse has Impressive anywhere in it's pedigree. The company is concerned about the possiblity of my horse getting this condition, unless I mark No in that box. So like the differences in pedigrees within one breed of horse, so there are differences in one breed of dog. My dogs have no AUS bloodlines, therefore I do not have a need to test for tns anymore than I do for hypp in my horse.

 

Hope that has not confused the testing issue .

[Maralynn]

Yes that is really confusing.

 

I think I am going to try to get our local USBCHA trainers to teach a class at the Snohomish winter school on working stockdogs.

 

spread the info further.

 

Maybe someone has a flyer that explains things in a way where I would not be sued?

 

I could put them out at our sheep shearing demos.

 

Not sure if it's what you're looking for, but I just did a persuasive paper for a class on the dark side of the AKC. Nothing BC specific, but some perhaps you could get some good talking points on why the AKC is bad for dogs in general.

 

If you're interested, PM me and I'll email you a copy.

[Maja]

Julie,

I will reply to your post this evening this since I do not want to rush.

Maja

[Tea]

Maralyn, you can send it to me and I would be honored to read it.

 

huiha@centurytel.net

 

------------------------------------------------

 

But I think there must be something already out there put out by ABCA I will look.

I think the Tips and red flags thing will do nicely. Can I use it?

[Eileen Stein]

But I think there must be something already out there put out by ABCA I will look.

I think the Tips and red flags thing will do nicely. Can I use it?

 

Yes, you can certainly use it, Tea. Let me know if you have any suggestions for improvement.

[Eileen Stein]

Maja, here are a couple of things to consider:

 

1. All dogs -- and all people, for that matter -- carry deleterious gene mutations. With the amount of research into the genome that is going on now, we are soon going to have tests for scores, even hundreds, of such mutations. Would you then feel it made sense for you as a breeder to submit your dog to all of these tests? That wouldn't be very realistic, would it? What would make sense is to screen for diseases that are known to be a concern in the breed, and not screen for those which are not. Of the diseases for which a DNA test currently exists, CEA is the only condition sufficiently prevalent in the working border collie breed for routine DNA testing to make sense, at least here in the US. CL, TNS and MDR1-1Δ drug sensitivity are simply not a problem in our breed. (To the best of my knowledge, the only dogs labeled "border collie" who have been found to have the MDR1-1Δ mutation were dogs whose parentage was not accurately known.) Testing for these mutations would be like testing for the sickle cell gene in Scandinavians. Now, since currently there are only three DNA tests that test for conditions which are not an issue in the breed, I suppose one approach would be to give these tests whether or not they are necessary, and only drop them when more and more tests have come along and you have to draw the line somewhere. But if it wouldn't make sense for them to make the cut for usefulness when there are 20 possible tests, in my opinion it doesn't make sense for them to make the cut now.

 

2. From what I've seen, there is indeed a kennel club mindset that favors health testing for its own sake, without regard to whether it serves any real function. The more health tests you do, the more assured is your status as a good and responsible breeder. It sort of goes along with the titles mentality -- the more titles your dog has, the better he is. The more health tests he's "passed," the better he is. That mentality actually encourages testing for conditions that are unknown or virtually unknown in the breed -- you're almost certain to get another "clear" or "normal" result that you can flourish and append to your dog's list of attributes. Among those with this mindset, I'm sure you're correct in saying that our discounting the need for TNS testing "is definitely going to make them confused, and give more credence to the AKC way of breeding." This is just another way in which working dog people tend to be more focused on practicality and less focused on "show."

 

3. All that said, I would not consider it a negative that a breeder tested for TNS, in and of itself. If I were to comment on that, as Jodi did, it would only be (1) where the breeder relied on that to demonstrate the excellence of his dogs, instead of real meaningful measures of excellence -- that is indeed a type of breeder I have a negative reaction to, or (2) where the testing pointed up that the breeder was using Oz/NZ show stock.

[Maja]

Eileen,

 

I agree with you and Julie to a large extent. But (1) All the testing that was available I did only on my first bitch. Her daughter - Bonnie - will not be tested - she is clear by parentage in relation to these illnesses. But should new DNA tests come up, I will test her for it. Because this will cause these diseases NOT to become a problem in the first place. So the testing en masse is only done for the first generation, then it is only done on carrier-normal matings - a tiny percentage. The test itself is a blood test - nothing to write home about - three drops on a little cardboard do-thingy.

 

About the working BCs in the US and TNS - of course I don't know, if there are any, but there are TNS cases in the ISDS, so it is a problem for the working BC as well:

 

Our continued testing of the Border Collie population worldwide has shown that TNS does occur in pure ISDS lines. A sample of 22 purely ISDS dogs from an English working farm showed 3 different lines carrying the TNS mutation. This is a carrier rate of greater than 10%. It may not be indicative of the entire ISDS population but suggests that the mutation is present at an alarmingly high frequency in ISDS dogs. It is difficult to get an unbiased estimate of the rate of TNS in ISDS lines from the samples we receive, as they are not a random sample. One way to assess the TNS carrier rate in ISDS dogs would be to test a stock of samples collected for another purpose, such as those collected for CEA testing at AHT. Such a sample group would give a good indication of the frequency of TNS in ISDS lines and which lines carry the mutation. This possible avenue of research will be investigated.

 

http://www.bordercollieclub.com/pbhf_tnsreport_21may2007.htm

 

I truly support your way of thinking, but I am trying to point out a certain polarizing attitude which I think it detrimental to your good cause and actually gives arguments for the other side.

 

Maja

[Liz P]

Every single time someone has claimed to have found an ISDS "working bred" Border Collie that carries or has TNS, the pedigree has revealed the dog to in fact be a show dog registered with ISDS or descended from show dogs. If you ever do find a pedigree of a TNS carrier or affected that is of pure working lines please do share it.

 

I've seen show and sport lines trickle back into some working lines within the ISDS. Take the pedigree back far enough and you can find the kennel club dogs.

 

I am not in the camp that there is no chance at all that TNS is in the working lines, but I don't believe in testing for every single possible health problem just because there is a test available.

[Maja]

Every single time someone has claimed to have found an ISDS "working bred" Border Collie that carries or has TNS, the pedigree has revealed the dog to in fact be a show dog registered with ISDS or descended from show dogs. If you ever do find a pedigree of a TNS carrier or affected that is of pure working lines please do share it. I've seen show and sport lines trickle back into some working lines within the ISDS. Take the pedigree back far enough and you can find the kennel club dogs.

I am not in the camp that there is no chance at all that TNS is in the working lines, but I don't believe in testing for every single possible health problem just because there is a test available.

 

I showed you:

"A sample of 22 purely ISDS dogs from an English working farm showed 3 different lines carrying the TNS mutation."

 

You either take the above as answering your question or decide that Dr. Wilton is lying. He is the person doing the research. However, it is the owner of the tested dog that has to give permission to release the information about the dog. When I submitted the sample I gave the permission to release the information about the dog, but it has to be in writing.

 

Alsa, if all the breeders in the US of working BCs refuse to test them you will of, course, never have a proof. I checked the database and there were no ABCA dog tested.

 

Maja

[Pearse]

Eileen,

 

About the working BCs in the US and TNS - of course I don't know, if there are any, but there are TNS cases in the ISDS, so it is a problem for the working BC as well:

 

Our continued testing of the Border Collie population worldwide has shown that TNS does occur in pure ISDS lines. A sample of 22 purely ISDS dogs from an English working farm showed 3 different lines carrying the TNS mutation. This is a carrier rate of greater than 10%.

If this were true, one would expect to see cases of affected pups from these lines since a carrier rate of 10% is pretty high and yet we don't see any affected pups from purely ISDS lines. All of the affected dogs that are known have come from lines with AUS/NZ show dogs in them.

Now it is possible that the frequency is low enough, the ISDS gene pool large enough, and the incidence of affected pups low enough that some have been born and not recognized as TNS, their deaths put down to something else but for that to have happened, the carrier rate would have to be much lower.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but a complete lack of evidence is suggestive that this isn't a serious issue at this time.

http://www.bordercol...t_21may2007.htm

 

This link doesn't work and I can find nothing in the medical literature about that study or nothing on the ISDS site. Do you have another reference to this study, preferably one with actual pedigrees or actual data?

 

I truly support your way of thinking, but I am trying to point out a certain polarizing attitude which I think it detrimental to your good cause and actually gives arguments for the other side.

 

 

What polarizing attitude? The fact is that there hasn't been a documented case of TNS in dogs with no AUS/NZ dogs in their background. Until there is, it makes no sense to test for it. If and when it shows up in ISDS lines, people with dogs bred from those lines will no doubt begin to test for it.

 

 

 

 

 

[Laura L]

This link doesn't work and I can find nothing in the medical literature about that study or nothing on the ISDS site. Do you have another reference to this study, preferably one with actual pedigrees or actual data?

 

If you change the end of the link to html it will work.

Laura

[Liz P]

I showed you:

"A sample of 22 purely ISDS dogs from an English working farm showed 3 different lines carrying the TNS mutation."

 

As I said, I have seen show and sport lines trickle into the working lines. They are not at first glance obvious because they are ISDS registered. Many have classic working dog names. If the researcher is not intimately familiar with pedigrees and Border Collie kennels he could easily miss these dogs.

 

I also said that I am not ruling out the possibility of TNS being in purely working lines.

 

ETA: Some issues I have seen in purely working lines include glaucoma and PDA, but I don't advocate widespread screening for either because they seem to be extremely rare.

[juliepoudrier]

Maja,

What you seem to be overlooking with respect to TNS is that it is fatal in its homozygous form. So as I noted earlier, if it were present to any great extent in working lines, then folks would be losing puppies right and left to immune-deficiency issues. It's a fatal disease. When people breeding show dogs realized there was a syndrome, they sought answers and then got the research done to determine the mutation and develop the test. But they didn't just out of the blue decide to test. They had a reason: dying puppies.

 

TNS has been discussed extensively on this forum in the past. As Liz points out, all pedigrees that have been produced for carriers--so-called ISDS working dogs--have had Oz/NZ dogs somewhere in their pedigree. There is no clear evidence that it exists to any great extent in the general working border collie population. That's not us sticking our heads in the sand and refusing to see what's right before our eyes. What's right before our eyes is healthy litters of puppies--not lots of puppies dying young for explained and unexplained reasons....

 

No one is saying that Dr. Wilson is lying, but he also admits, in the material you quoted more extensively, that his results (and therefore his conclusions) may be skewed by his small sample size. He is also taking the word of the dogs' owner that all of the dogs are purely ISDS (and of course a pedigree goes back only so far, so isn't a perfect check). Also not taken into account is the farmer's breeding practices. By choosing to sample only one farm, Dr. Wilson may have deliberately or inadvertently chosen the one place where TNS might be found. I find it hard to believe that anyone could make any valid claims about the existence of a particular disease in an entire population on the basis of 22 non-random individual samples, all presumably from related stock.

 

That would be like claiming that genetic disorders that have arisen in Amish communities are a threat to the wider human community at large. (Search on Amish genetic disorders, like Cohen Syndrome.) No one would look at a closed population of humans, no matter what their heritage, and extrapolate statistics from that group to society at large, and yet that seems to be exactly what Dr. Wilson is doing in the case of TNS and border collies.

 

It would be more productive, IMO, for people whose dogs come from populations known to have a particular genetic disorder to test those dogs and work to reduce the incidence of the particular disease in that population as opposed to wasting time and energy trying to prove where the disease originated (which appears to be what is going on with these so-called studies). To do otherwise is simply testing for testing's sake. Some people feel better testing for every possibility if the test is available, but that doesn't mean doing so is the logical choice any more than choosing not to test for everything under the sun is illogical.

 

Eileen's point about testing for the sickle cell anemia gene in Scandinavian populations is a case in point. But let's make it a more realistic comparison to the border collie situation. I am white. My family is from the southern US and was here during the time of slavery and the Civil War. It's entirely possible that I could carry some African genetics. But those genetics would be in the distant past. Yes, that might mean I would have the slightest chance of carrying a sickle cell gene, but that likelihood is so small as to be of no concern. If I were to produce children with a person of African descent, I don't think I would be counseled to be tested for presence of the sickle cell gene before procreating. If my resulting mixed-race children then produce children with someone of African descent, perhaps at that point the sickle cell gene would become relevant. And this is the point I've been trying to make. A test for the sickle cell trait is out there. Should I get tested because there's a remote possibility I carry the gene when the apparent risk factor is so slight?

 

We all carry deleterious genes. They don't generally express themselves except on rare occasions, unless we help them along by inbreeding.

 

Personally, as I noted before, I think more important health issues than TNS can affect the working border collie population here in the US. Studies of those health issues are the ones I will promote, because I think it makes sense to puts one's research money and efforts (and testing money) toward those issues and not the ones that don't appear to be relevant.

 

If at some time in the future TNS rears its ugly head in the working border collie population then we know a test is available and I'm sure people will avail themselves of it.

 

But as both I and Eileen have pointed out, all the testing in the world doesn't guarantee a quality animal, and in fact often serves to obfuscate the fact that more important breeding issues/choices (being able to meet the breed purpose) are being overlooked. The breeding pair couldn't possibly produce anything less than perfect (in every way) pups because they have health clearances out the wazoo and maybe even a few (or many) titles to their names. That's not the paradigm I would choose when it comes to looking for a good, healthy working dog.

 

J.

[Pearse]

Thanks Laura!

 

Let's look at one of the three pedigrees listed as being "pure ISDS" lines in the article.

 

Gail Fan 'e Rispinge. Top side is all ISDS dogs. Bottom side is not. The grand sire is Mancunian Pepper whose sire is the unregistered dog "Blue" whose dam is "unknown"(discussed exhaustively here). The grand dam's parentage are two Fan 'e Rispinge dogs Scotty, and Roosje who are full siblings whose dam was Sally (no ISDS reg number, also discussed in the above linked thread). So, there are at least two non-ISDS lines in that pedigree and a full-sib mating to boot.

 

The other two dogs aren't identified except by Milton's lab accession numbers but the only dogs having at least one side all ISDS dogs are;

 

Meg Merrilees ISDS 238687 who apparently produced TNS-affected pups but has not been tested. Two pups from the litter died and were not tested. The sire and one pup were carriers (which could happen if the dam was not a carrier) so this case is listed as "unconfirmed" as it is possible the pups died of something else. T

 

That's it. There's supposedly one other pedigree on there that has all ISDS dogs in it but I couldn't find it.

 

So of the three listed, I found two. One contains dogs that were not ISDS registered. The other contains one dog whose pedigree is all ISDS dogs but who has not been confirmed as a TNS carrier.

 

Again, absence of evindence doesn't mean the mutation isn't in the working dog population. I guess we won't know until someone with verifiable working pedigrees produces TNS affected pups or gets a positive test result.

[brndlbc]

From strictly the standpoint of genetic testing to verify the potential of a condition being present in a specific "line", what is the point if there is no mandatory DNA testing verifying parentage? This could be very useful for multi dog/bitch kennels.

 

I am watching a situation where a dog's DNA was submitted for parentage verification and it came back that his DNA does not match his "alleged" sire. Unfortunately the dog who had his DNA submitted has already sired three litters of his own. Now those dogs from those three litters are in limbo until all the retesting is done. I realize that this scenario is not exactly what is being discussed here but if "we" are to go to the lengths of testing for potential genetic disorders, should the start not be that we prove that dog "C" was in fact sired by dog "A" out of bitch "B"?