Early Takeoff Syndrome?

[Pippin's person]

Actually, the mentality that I have run across in Agility is that the handler is to blame for anything and everything. At least anything and everything that is considered not to be good.

 

That's been my experience, too, at least for the most part.

 

(ETA: That's also been different in my experience with working stock. Handlers and trainers and other observers are more likely to critique the dog than in agility or flyball (curious what it's like in activities that are more tied to historical work like tracking, hunting, retrieving, going to ground, etc.). Makes sense when you understand that certain qualities just have to be there--specifically those Anna and Julie have talked about as missing in the non-working bred dogs they see. Saying they critique the dog, though is in no way meant to imply they go easy on the handler.... )

 

If ETS is caused by something genetic or an undetectable eye problem, then trying to determine whether or not that is the case is not "blame" of the dog. Nor is it removing "blame" from a handler who deserves to be "blamed" for something that he or she is not choosing or causing.

 

ETS may or may not be caused by something genetic or a currently undetectable eye problem, or something else. Or it might not. How is trying to determine the factual answer to that question an assessment of "blame"?

 

Thus far, I have not heard an explanation that makes sense.

 

I think the answers have been that 1) it competes for funding and research effort with other, more dire health issues and 2) finding a genetic basis for the syndrome might lead agility breeders to breed against it, with lasting effects on the breeding population.

 

Your point about knowing what causes the syndrome being a help to figuring out how to manage it is a very good one and perfectly reasonable.

 

I just think that the reasons given above trump that for many of the people who've commented on it.

 

Make sense?

[Shoofly]

Your point about knowing what causes the syndrome being a help to figuring out how to manage it is a very good one and perfectly reasonable.

 

So here's the disconnect i keep running up against in this thread, re Root Beer's statements referred to above.

 

1. ETS is a problem for agility people (no argument from me. if it's a problem to them, in their estimation, it's a problem to them, no matter what my opinion is of it.)

 

2. If this is approached as a GENETIC problem, the only use for that information is in making GENETIC choices in breeding. Knowing a dog carries a gene does absolutely nothing towards helping you deal with a problem in currently living animals, it is only useful for creating "improved" future generations.

 

3. If you're trying to manage a currently existing problem in currently existing (living) animals, GENETICS doesn't help you. Spend your time and research on figuring out the physical cause of the problem and learn how to manage it that way.You can't change the genes in a currently living animal and genetic markers don't tell you the specifics of how those genes are manifested in the real world.

[Root Beer]

I think the answers have been that 1) it competes for funding and research effort with other, more dire health issues and 2) finding a genetic basis for the syndrome might lead agility breeders to breed against it, with lasting effects on the breeding population.

 

I'm still not seeing the connection between that and ascribing "blame" to the dog through study of the issue.

 

I realize that you were not the one who brought that into the discussion, but that is the point on which I would appreciate more specific clarification.

 

Pulling a quote out of my quote that you qouted :lol: . . . .

 

How is trying to determine the factual answer to that question an assessment of "blame"?

 

That is the specific point which, to me, makes no sense.

 

While I would agree that cancer research is objectively more important than research into a performance issue, and that information about the syndrome could affect the decisions of breeders, I still fail to see how any of that would make research (which will be done, regardless of either objection) a means of "blaming" the dog for the problem.

 

If anything, I believe it removes "blame" since it approaches the problem as something that is beyond the dog's control, not within the dog's "responsibility".

[Pippin's person]

Honestly, Kristine, I interpret people to be using "cause" and "blame" more or less synonymously.

 

But, since I haven't used "blame", I'll leave it to those who have to explain whether my interpretation is correct.

[Root Beer]

2. If this is approached as a GENETIC problem, the only use for that information is in making GENETIC choices in breeding. Knowing a dog carries a gene does absolutely nothing towards helping you deal with a problem in currently living animals, it is only useful for creating "improved" future generations.

 

I can see why it would seem that this being approached as a GENETIC problem would only be useful in making breeding choices, but from a practical standpoint, that is not the case.

 

Those who own and train these dogs are expending time, training, and resources on the problem. They are changing their handling, they are changing their training, they are getting physical tests done, etc. I realize that there are those who think that's a lot of trouble to go through for a game and that they would be better off just quitting, but the fact is that there are people who are doing so, and will continue to do so, regardless.

 

If, in fact, this is a genetic problem, the entire overall approach to the issue will change - to the benefit of the dogs and handlers. To put it simply, the constant banging of heads against a brick wall will stop.

 

Knowing that the issue can't be "fixed" through training, that the issue can't be "fixed" through handling, that the issue can't be "fixed" through common medical or therapeutic means will actually open the door for other approaches to be discovered.

 

I know this firsthand because I do Agility with a dog who has a highly limiting issue that I personally believe to be genetic - Noise Phobia. I personally don't care if that fact has been scientifically proven or not. I approach Agility with him as if this is fact and it changes a lot about the way I train and handle him. That doesn't mean that I'm sitting around lamenting his limitations (OK, I'll indulge in that from time to time - I'm human!) but that I put an effort into finding new and "outside-the-box" ways of working with and around the issue.

 

And while I realize that might seem like a lot of effort to go to, it's worth it to me and to him. And I realize there are those who would say that it's not for him, it's for me - well, you don't know what you don't know. You don't know the dog (or me, really), so you don't know that assumption would be completely wrong.

 

I think the debate over whether or not that is worthwhile when cancer research needs to be done is separate from the question of could confirmation of a genetic cause be useful outside of breeding. I would say that yes - it is absolutely useful out of breeding.

 

3. If you're trying to manage a currently existing problem in currently existing (living) animals, GENETICS doesn't help you. Spend your time and research on figuring out the physical cause of the problem and learn how to manage it that way.

 

And research on figuring out a physical cause is still being done. In particular, the depth perception question is certainly still being explored, and I am sure that other possible currently undetectable physical causes are being explored as well.

 

Thus far an answer has not been found. That's what they are trying to find out. What are the facts about this issue?

[Shoofly]

What a strange thing to get hung up on - "blame". I"m not the person who brought the word into the thread but you (root beer) said:

"Suppose there is a genetic cause, or an undetectable physical cause (such as depth perception) that causes ETS.

How exactly is seeking to identify such a cause an assessment of "blame" on the dog?"

 

Umm, if the dog is missing jumps (or sucks at sheep work) because of a physical or mental or genetic problem, then yes, it is his/her fault and blame can be laid. Conversely, if he's a brilliant jumper or wins the USBCHA Finals, because of physical or mental or genetic prowess, then also, it's his/her fault and blame can be laid upon him/her.

[Shoofly]

I can see why it would seem that this being approached as a GENETIC problem would only be useful in making breeding choices, but from a practical standpoint, that is not the case.

 

I'm sorry then, you really don't understand genetics very well then. Not much anyone on here can do about that.

[juliepoudrier]

1. ETS is a problem for agility people (no argument from me. if it's a problem to them, in their estimation, it's a problem to them, no matter what my opinion is of it.)

 

2. If this is approached as a GENETIC problem, the only use for that information is in making GENETIC choices in breeding. Knowing a dog carries a gene does absolutely nothing towards helping you deal with a problem in currently living animals, it is only useful for creating "improved" future generations.

 

3. If you're trying to manage a currently existing problem in currently existing (living) animals, GENETICS doesn't help you. Spend your time and research on figuring out the physical cause of the problem and learn how to manage it that way.You can't change the genes in a currently living animal and genetic markers don't tell you the specifics of how those genes are manifested in the real world.

Well said, and quoted because I think it bears repeating. If you ignore all the words like "blame," "another breed," etc., THIS is the crux of the issue for many of us.

 

Point #2: Searching for and finding a genetic marker means folks will start breeding away from that gene(s) (a different standard), as has already been discussed here. That in and of itself might not be completely harmful, BUT

 

Point #3: When coupled with the fact that the marker won't tell you anything about how that particular gene or group of genes acts in concert with any other gene or group of genes (how they manifest in the real world), then there's the potential to do real harm to the breed as a whole, IMO, because while breeders are busy getting rid of ETS through genetics, what else might they affect?

 

J.

[Laurae]

Point #3: When coupled with the fact that the marker won't tell you anything about how that particular gene or group of genes acts in concert with any other gene or group of genes (how they manifest in the real world), then there's the potential to do real harm to the breed as a whole, IMO, because while breeders are busy getting rid of ETS through genetics, what else might they affect?

[Root Beer]

Honestly, Kristine, I interpret people to be using "cause" and "blame" more or less synonymously.

 

That makes sense.

 

I do use "blame" to indicate that someone was at fault for an action or choice, not simply that someone caused it (by accident, by no choice of his or her own, etc).

 

So, I would say that if the handler trained the dog to leap over the contact, he or she is to blame for the fact that the dog always leaps over the contact.

 

But if the dog is just learning and leaps the contact in the process of learning the behavior, I would say the handler is not to blame for the fact that the dog leaped the contact. That is part of the normal learning process, so there is no "fault", even though the handler caused the behavior by putting the dog on the board to begin with. I don't consider "blame" to be in play in this situation.

 

So, in saying that those who are looking to find a genetic or currently undetectable physical issue as the cause of ETS is blaming the dog, one is saying that because the problem is caused by the dog having a genetic or currently undetectable physical issue, the dog is to blame. Blame would not somehow imply the that dog was "at fault" for having the condition, but just that the dog having the issue is the cause.

 

If that's how people use the word, then I see why I was misunderstanding it's use, and why the word is bandied about so much.

 

But, since I haven't used "blame", I'll leave it to those who have to explain whether my interpretation is correct.

 

I'd be interesting in hearing more from them, as well. Is my understanding (above) correct?

[Root Beer]

What a strange thing to get hung up on - "blame". I"m not the person who brought the word into the thread but you (root beer) said:

"Suppose there is a genetic cause, or an undetectable physical cause (such as depth perception) that causes ETS.

How exactly is seeking to identify such a cause an assessment of "blame" on the dog?"

 

Not really so strange, if you know some of the possible ramifications of assessing "blame" to the dog or handler.

 

Umm, if the dog is missing jumps (or sucks at sheep work) because of a physical or mental or genetic problem, then yes, it is his/her fault and blame can be laid. Conversely, if he's a brilliant jumper or wins the USBCHA Finals, because of physical or mental or genetic prowess, then also, it's his/her fault and blame can be laid upon him/her.

 

So, you blame a dog, then, for having cancer, allergies, heart trouble, etc.?

 

Can't say that makes sense to me and I'll admit I find it surprising.

[Root Beer]

I'm sorry then, you really don't understand genetics very well then. Not much anyone on here can do about that.

 

And you don't really seem to understand that genetic problems have real life ramifications. Not much anyone can do about that.

[juliepoudrier]

In my world (and I don't expect anyone else to join me here), I might say something like "The weather is to blame for my grass dying and the fact that I now have to sell sheep because they have nothing to eat."

 

Surely no one thinks I'm blaming the weather in the sense that there's something that can be done about it? Blame here means cause, and it also implies that the cause is something that can't be helped.

 

I don't think it's a stretch to think that others would use the word in the same way, but like I said, I won't expext anyone to live in my world, where blame can have more than one meaning.

 

J.

[juliepoudrier]

Oh no, here we go with the turning comments back on the commenter. What point does it serve? Time for me to step away and do something useful with my time.

 

 

J.

[Mark Billadeau]

Those who own and train these dogs are expending time, training, and resources on the problem. They are changing their handling, they are changing their training, they are getting physical tests done, etc. I realize that there are those who think that's a lot of trouble to go through for a game and that they would be better off just quitting, but the fact is that there are people who are doing so, and will continue to do so, regardless.

 

If, in fact, this is a genetic problem, the entire overall approach to the issue will change - to the benefit of the dogs and handlers. To put it simply, the constant banging of heads against a brick wall will stop.

If a wide range of alternative training methods have been tested with limited success how will being able to assign ETS to a genetic condition help people with an ETS affected dog (other than retiring the dog from agility and finding another to train)?

 

 

[Root Beer]

Yes, we do say things like "the weather is to blame for my grass dying" or "my dog is to blame for the fact that I enjoy Agility".

 

But we can tell from context when the word is being used in that way or if deliberate fault is being attributed to a living being, in this case a dog or handler.

 

If I were to say, "I blame my dog for the fact that I can't do Agility with her because she has an injury", does that sound right to you? (BTW, I do NOT think that - it is just an example) Is that really the same as saying "the weather is to blame for my grass dying?"

 

Yes, the word can be used in different ways. But we can also derive the meaning of such words from context.

 

So no, I don't agree that because the word can be used in different ways, engaging in study to find out of ETS is a genetic or currently undetectable physical problem is not a way of "blaming the dog" for having ETS.

[Rave]

Point #3: When coupled with the fact that the marker won't tell you anything about how that particular gene or group of genes acts in concert with any other gene or group of genes (how they manifest in the real world), then there's the potential to do real harm to the breed as a whole, IMO, because while breeders are busy getting rid of ETS through genetics, what else might they affect?

 

I would love to hear from Melanie on this, especially with the dog genome project and the work being done trying to find the marker for sound sensitivity in BCs. If you can find and get rid of the sound sensitivity gene(s), will that do real harm to the breed as a whole? (yes I realize sound sensitivity can be a serious problem, unlike ETS, that's not why I'm wondering so don't waste your breath)

[Rave]

My dog is to blame for spending all my money and taking up all my time so the yard doesn't get mowed and the house doesn't get clean because we're off at agility trials almost every weekend.

[Root Beer]

If a wide range of alternative training methods have been tested with limited success how will being able to assign ETS to a genetic condition help people with an ETS affected dog (other than retiring the dog from agility and finding another to train)?

 

If I knew the answer to that, I'd probably be making a lot more money than I do now.

 

Obviously, I don't know those answers. Once more knowledge of this condition is found, those answers can be found.

[Root Beer]

I would love to hear from Melanie on this, especially with the dog genome project and the work being done trying to find the marker for sound sensitivity in BCs. If you can find and get rid of the sound sensitivity gene(s), will that do real harm to the breed as a whole? (yes I realize sound sensitivity can be a serious problem, unlike ETS, that's not why I'm wondering so don't waste your breath)

 

You know, I've been wondering where this hue and cry against genetic study has been regarding that.

 

Yes Noise Phobia is huge problem.

 

But breeding against it presents the exact same issues as breeding against ETS. Not to mention, Noise Phobia does affect working bred Border Collies, where ETS does not.

 

Don't get me wrong - I am 100% behind study of Noise Phobia. But where is all of the objection to studying it because breeders - working breeders in this case - will breed against it and that will hurt the breed? Breeding against Noise Phobia would limit the gene pool far more than breeding against ETS would. At least in the working Border Collie.

[Mark Billadeau]

I would love to hear from Melanie on this, especially with the dog genome project and the work being done trying to find the marker for sound sensitivity in BCs. If you can find and get rid of the sound sensitivity gene(s), will that do real harm to the breed as a whole?

That depends upon how complex the genetics (or even if it is purely genetic: think environmental trigger) are found to be for this condition and if one or more of these are associated with desired traits. If sound sensitivity is closely associated with hearing acuity or “bid ability” (listens very well to handler) breeding it out may be problematic without loosing desirable traits.

[Pippin's person]

My dog is to blame for spending all my money and taking up all my time so the yard doesn't get mowed and the house doesn't get clean because we're off at agility trials almost every weekend.

 

I have a similar problem, compounded by a cat who is to blame for other sundry challenges.

[Shoofly]

And you don't really seem to understand that genetic problems have real life ramifications. Not much anyone can do about that.

 

You make the most amazing leaps. Where exactly did i say that genetic problems have no real life ramifications? Seems to me that i specifically acknowledged that ETS is a real problem to those who think it's a problem, in their estimation.

 

Genetic markers only tell you if a dog carries a gene. Attributing a gene to a problem or syndrome (adult onset deafness, ETS, whatever) does nothing to help you TREAT a problem. How exactly are you planning to use that information?

[juliepoudrier]

Laura,

The short answer, speculation only (and my opinion only), is that sound sensitivity (meaning sensitive hearing, not necessarily being afraid of noises) was a trait that was selected for so that the dogs could hear over long distances, a necessary ability for work. It's possible that one side effect of selecting for that trait was a tendency toward oversensitivity. If I wanted to speculate further, I'd say that it's such a fine line that it can easily be crossed into oversensitivity. I would also guess that an overly sound sensitive working dog, at least in the past, would not necessarily have been bred from (for example, the dog that quits working at the sound of thunder or gun shots). And I'd further guess that as breeding in large part has moved away from the practicalities of work, then those traits that were selected for that also have a "dark side" could be exacerbated.

 

Whether any of that's true, I don't know. I had a private discussion with someone who had a guarding breed that had to pass a KC test to get a breeding certificate (European). The dog was supposed to show no reaction to a gun shot I believe. My comment to this person was that a better test of stability than no reaction at all would be the dog that startled and then turned to investigate what startled it vs., say, taking off in a blind panic. It makes no sense to me to have a guarding breed that isn't at least somewhat reactive to noise.

 

Anyway, the above is my theory on how the noise sensitivity issue could have arisen or gotten worse over time. Interestingly, Twist does not particularly like thunder or gunshots, but doesn't panic and will work through storms, etc., and yet AFAIK not one of her pups is sound sensitive.... So it may be a more complex issue than just a single or closely related set of genes.

 

ETA: I see that Mark said it much more succinctly.

 

J.

[Mark Billadeau]

If I knew the answer to that, I'd probably be making a lot more money than I do now.

 

Obviously, I don't know those answers. Once more knowledge of this condition is found, those answers can be found.

So what you're saying is trainers cannot be creative enough in finding new ways to teach without the results of a genetic test.

 

Canine Personalized Training DNA Test

Send us a swab and well tell you the best training method to use with your dog