Early Takeoff Syndrome?

[Blackdawgs]

Here is an interesting blog from another agility guru on the issue with some interesting quotes from Chris Zink, a well known sports vet:

 

http://speedoggie.blogspot.com/2011/10/another-way-of-looking-at-early-take.html

 

As for LM, if she were testing her hypothesis in any sort of systematic controlled way, she should have published her work in a peer reviewed journal or presented it at a veterinary meeting.

[PSmitty]

Seriously? I was coming to post that link, Blackdawgs! I totally agree with what she's saying, and her comments in the comment section are great, too.

[juliepoudrier]

I just read the article, and it seems she's saying some of the same stuff some of the rest of us have been saying. It was a good read and a well-reasoned article.

 

I still don't see anyone suggesting or even considering the idea that the dogs might just have reached the limits of their capabilities (as a breed or species). As the author of the Speedoggie blog points out, agility is a made up activity and so what it asks of dogs is not what they have been bred for over generations. Leaving aside the idea of breeding strictly for agility (or any other sport), I still think it's possible that there is a limit beyond which a dog just won't perform well. We recognize this in other species and other sports, so why not even consider it in the sport of agility?

 

Kristine,

In the world of scientific research it's possible for someone to consider something and then dismiss it as impossible only for someone else to come along and show that it's not impossible. So even if some top competitors in agility *have* considered all these things that others have suggested (in this thread and eslewhere) and somehow determined that they don't believe those things to be the cause, that doesn't mean they're right in their belief. Considering and dismissing is not the same as finding scientific proof (or lack thereof).

 

J.

[Kelliwic Border Collies]

people do have reasons and motivations, other than ego or breeding, to participate in competitions

 

Kristine, you've mentioned this basic idea several times. But if people (some people) are competing for reasons other than ego, then slower times, dropped bars and NQs wouldn't matter, would they?

[Root Beer]

Kristine, here is a way to sway me and maybe other working breeders. Research the pedigrees of the dogs that suffer from ETS and determine whether or not the dogs are the result of bonefide working dog matings where the selection criteria was actually for work.

 

If I ever hear of anyone interested in doing such research, I will send them your way.

[Root Beer]

Kristine,

 

. . . that doesn't mean they're right in their belief. Considering and dismissing is not the same as finding scientific proof (or lack thereof).

 

 

I'm not really interested in considering or dismissing, etc., nor getting into this beyond the point that I am, which isn't all that much, actually.

 

My interest, such that it is - this is not really a hot button topic for me, as I don't have a dog affected by it, nor do I even know a dog affected by it - is in the fact that the possibility has been identified and there are folks actively working on finding answers.

 

Furthermore, I hope that those answers - whatever they may be - are of some benefit to dog and handler teams who are dealing with this issue, both now and in the future.

 

If you don't believe in it, you don't believe in it. I tend to lend quite a lot more credibility to those who have actually worked, hands on, with dogs who are affected by the issue than to those who have not done so, but that is what makes most sense to me. Obviously you base your decision on the matter on different criteria. So be it.

[Eileen Stein]

Strictly out of curiosity, what is "video competition"? I don't do agility or freestyle so I honestly have no idea and am curious.

 

I am not the ideal person to answer this, Pearse, but since no one else has replied, I will.

 

Evidently there are organizations which award titles in agility or other dogsports (rally, freestyle) to be earned by setting up a course at home (or at your instructor's facility, etc.), video-ing your dog while it performs, and submitting the video to the organization, whereupon a judge will evaluate the performance and decide whether it qualifies for legs, points, titles, rosettes, etc.

[Eileen Stein]

Does anybody know if there is any kind of research study actually going on regarding the ETS phenomenon at the present time? And if so, what's the nature of the study and where is it being done?

[Root Beer]

Kristine, you've mentioned this basic idea several times. But if people (some people) are competing for reasons other than ego, then slower times, dropped bars and NQs wouldn't matter, would they?

 

Yes, there are reasons that go beyond ego to work with one's dog toward the goal of keeping bars up. Just as there were reasons that went beyond ego for me for working for 6 years to help Dean be able to successfully execute the teeter, complete with bang. He won't get many titles, and he rarely Q's. But overcoming the obstacles that we faced, working through the setbacks, and hanging in there together bore fruit for us that cannot be measured by Q's. There won't be placements, MACH's, or any of the accolades that those whose motivation is ego require. What we have done is faced a seemingly impossible challenge and overcome it together. And I've learned things from him and that long process that will benefit every dog I ever train and handle.

 

If his issue had been a jumping issue, then we may well be striving to run a course with all bars up, just as easily.

 

Can you really not see any reason to work toward such goals beyond ego? If not, then you may not see them, but those other motivations do exist for a good many of us.

 

I will say, and this is a general statement, not one directed particularly at you, that I am surprised that so many here really cannot conceive of the idea that people may choose to engage in a single activity (Agility competition is a great example) for a vast multitude of different reasons and motivations, rather than just one or two. And, even more, that people might actually have reasons and motivations that he or she might not personally share. It's very interesting.

[Kelliwic Border Collies]

Can you really not see any reason to work toward such goals beyond ego?

 

Sure--working towards goals may not have anything to do with ego, and can be a enjoyable journey for both dog and handler. But competition is about ego. It may be to a greater or lesser degree depending on the individual, but if the experience of a trial (agility or sheepdog or whatever) is not about competition, one might as well save the money and stay home. The experiences of socializing with friends and enjoying watching others' dogs run can be had at training clinics, "fun days" or matches, or at gatherings even less formally organized. [ETA: Or at trials without entering your own dog.]

 

Anyway, that's how I see it, which I'm sure is not how you see it ...carry on with your regularly-scheduled programming.

[Root Beer]

And, there's still no hard evidence that it is anything other than a training issue.

 

So, aside from study, how is one to determine whether or not there is something else going on?

 

Is there any reason other than the fact that this is about Agility that you feel Mecklenburg and her colleagues should just throw up their hands and say, "we don't know and we never can!"?

 

That's an acceptable hypothesis as far as it goes. So far, there have been no studies published where experiments have been performed with normal controls and affected dogs to test the hypothesis. Therefore, there are no data to support, or refute, the hypothesis.

 

And, again - what are those who are interested in seeking further answers to the issue to supposed to do (in your opinion) other than to study it?

 

It's NOT the same as saying: "We've observed this trait. We've been unable to correct it in some dogs using available training techniques. Therefore, it MUST be due to some physical/physiological/psychological defect".

 

No, it is not the same as saying that. Nobody, to my knowledge, has said that it MUST be. What I have heard, from what I have read from Mecklenburg, et al is this: "We are seeking to determine whether or not this is the case".

 

In other words, they are in the process of studying the issue. Why is that a problem?

 

It's light years away from a point where you can say: "this is due to a heritable defect. You should breed away from it".

 

Again, that is part of the reason why the issue is being studied.

 

[edited to add] and "published" in Clear Run magazine is not the same as published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association (i.e. not peer reviewed, and more editorial than scholarship)

 

No, it is not the same. Had Mecklenburg published her article in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association, the Agility community - the audience to whom the article was directly addressed - would not have been made aware of the information that she had published.

 

The point of the article was to inform those who had heard about the issue via the very active grapevine that pretty much exists in every group of people who share a common interest of:

 

What she meant and did not mean by the term "Early Takeoff Syndrome"

Why she considered this a matter worthy of further study

What dogs are not considered to be in this category (very important since some people whose dogs were having jumping issues due to training were starting to use the label to characterize every jumping problem around)

A summary of what had been done so far and what was planned for the future.

 

Pearse - is that really the sort of article that belongs in the AVMAA? I would say no. It was where it belonged - in a magazine geared toward providing information about Agility matters to Agility enthusiasts. The purpose - to inform those interested parties of what is happening with this, and why.

[Root Beer]

But competition is about ego.

 

There we go again!

 

This is where we differ, as Mark and I did on the same subject.

 

but if the experience of a trial (agility or sheepdog or whatever) is not about competition, one might as well save the money and stay home.

 

Yet, a good many people do not save the money and stay home. There are those who go to the competition, on a regular basis even, although they know full well that they will most likely not place, most likely not qualify, and will most likely not have a title certificate coming in the mail anytime soon. Yet they go and they enjoy the heck out of the experience and the time in the ring with their dog - because they have motivations that make it worth the team's while.

 

The experiences of socializing with friends and enjoying watching others' dogs run can be had at training clinics, "fun days" or matches, or at gatherings even less formally organized. [ETA: Or at trials without entering your own dog.]

 

And yet, there are still those who choose, in spite of the fact that they know full well that they will most likely not place, most likely not qualify, and will most likely not have a title certificate coming in the mail anytime soon. Yet they go to competition. They may well do all of those other things that you describe, but they still go regularly to competitions.

 

Anyway, that's how I see it, which I'm sure is not how you see it

 

Yes, we definitely differ on this.

[Blackdawgs]

Nothing precludes LM from publishing in a veterinary journal AND Clean Run.

[Root Beer]

Nothing precludes LM from publishing in a veterinary journal AND Clean Run.

 

I would suggest that you contact her about that directly.

[Debbie Meier]

I ran into an interesting thing with a friend that has Aussies, she felt that she has to do something with her dogs and that if she couldn't atleast Q that she was a failure. It was different then the competitive people that want to win, this was more of a deal where she felt like she was going to be a bad dog owner by just having pet dogs and allowing them to be house pets.

 

In her case she is competing in Agility, her one dog while decent at the obstacles is not very good out in public. He is happy as a clam to be a house dog, be loose in the back yard and hang out in the house, but she felt like she had to continue to at least take him to classes so as not to fail him, where as I feel like continuing to drag him to competitions and lessons that sent him into anxiety attacks was more failing him.

 

It's kinda a weird deal and nothing to do with ego, it's more of a peer pressure deal or the fear of being considered a bad dog owner, the ribbons and certificates are proof that she is a good dog owner and does not neglect her dogs by not giving them the proper amount of attention.

[stockdogranch]

overcoming the obstacles that we faced, working through the setbacks, and hanging in there together bore fruit for us that cannot be measured by Q's.

 

I've tried really hard to stay out of this one, but...Ok, so *I* see this as ego--not the "overblown, egotistical" connotation of the word, but still, I see in this statement a sense of pride of accomplishment, or a sense of having struggled but having attained a measure of success, that would fit, in the broad sense of the word, "ego." The human in this case is the one who recognizes and appreciates the "bearing of fruit" after working through the setbacks, etc. Clearly the human here recognizes the "journey" (obstacles, setbacks), and has a sense of accomplishment after having attained some success after all of these "struggles." But the dog does not. This, to me, is ego. These are human attributes. So this is what I keep coming back to while reading this incredibly long and tedious thread.

 

I am with Mark on this one. I really enjoy starting young dogs on stock and training them up, seeing them learn and grow in their abilities to do what they were bred for. I really enjoy trialling when I can afford to do so, and I love to win, but I recognize that trialling is for *me*--certainly my dogs are thrilled to go see different stock in different locations, and I think that they feel "good" about themselves when they control the stock well (particularly if they are difficult stock). But the competition is for me, and I am very clear about that. It is a way to validate my breeding program as well as my training, and bringing home a check is a great thing. Interestingly, in recent years, trialling is not nearly as important to me as it was at one time. The reason? After trialling for some years and seeing how my dogs "stack up" against the competition, I no longer feel the need to "prove" myself or my dogs; I am very confident in my breeding as well as my training, and so trialling to prove that is no longer necessary.

 

Back to occasionally lurking,

A

[OurBoys]

It's kinda a weird deal and nothing to do with ego, it's more of a peer pressure deal or the fear of being considered a bad dog owner, the ribbons and certificates are proof that she is a good dog owner and does not neglect her dogs by not giving them the proper amount of attention.

I find that sad. FWIW (which is probably nothing), my Josie is ½ Aussie (dam) and ½ ABCA Border Collie (sire) and she’s a homebody. She loves the outdoors and pesters the heck out of me every day to let her go outside. She usually just lies about in the side yard or on the deck overlooking her property. Nothing gives her greater pleasure. But, if I take her somewhere/anywhere, she totally stresses out. And when we come home it’s like “OMG!! I don’t believe it! I made it back!!” She’ll run through the house, check out JJ & Jake and make a beeline to the back door “demanding” I let her out. I truly believe it’s the Aussie in her. I have no idea if the Aussie part of her is from working lines but because I feel she has more herding instinct in her than my Jake does, it makes me wonder. If you don't mind me asking, do you know if your friend’s Aussies are from working lines?

[Debbie Meier]

the dog has been on stock and really is not interested. I've been told that there are workings dogs in the pedigree but I was also told that the breeder really was not selecting for anything specific, making the assumption that a Aussie is an Aussie is an Aussie. So, basically the dog is just an Aussie.

[Tea]

Boy, I think I wrote this once before either I am getting old or deja vu has come with a vengence.

 

In a former life I jumped three day horses for a living. At the top.

 

A horse that takes off early and jumps flat does so because of the way it is built. The conformation.

It uses speed rather than bascule.

Sometimes a horse knocks fences because the shoulder is put on in such a way that he can't jerk his knees up high enough. This can cause wrecks. A horse like that we would not use for upper levels. It is said you can fix the hind end but not the front.

 

Sometimes a horse cannot put together the 'spot' where he must take off correctly because the rider can't ride or he can't see very well. Or he is not too bright. Old Pop said, 'Sister don't jump the dim ones.'

 

Also an upright show jump fence is jumped differently that a fast spread fence, like a steeplechase jump.

 

I was out today with a student fixing her 5 yr old over grids who was getting in tight....and dropping his front end. We have to use correct grid work to retrain this horse. Lucky for him he is built so he can jump correctly, but the reason he wasn't was the type of fences the rider was using to train and the fact she was hanging on his face.

 

 

\

[juliepoudrier]

I've tried really hard to stay out of this one, but...Ok, so *I* see this as ego--not the "overblown, egotistical" connotation of the word, but still, I see in this statement a sense of pride of accomplishment, or a sense of having struggled but having attained a measure of success, that would fit, in the broad sense of the word, "ego." The human in this case is the one who recognizes and appreciates the "bearing of fruit" after working through the setbacks, etc. Clearly the human here recognizes the "journey" (obstacles, setbacks), and has a sense of accomplishment after having attained some success after all of these "struggles." But the dog does not. This, to me, is ego. These are human attributes. So this is what I keep coming back to while reading this incredibly long and tedious thread.

A

I agree with you Anna, and I think we've covered this before. I imagine there are some (maybe many) dogs who enjoy the atmosphere of a competition, but I just don't get the idea that going to a competition has nothing to do with ego.

 

Kristine,

You have repeatedly given examples of your own dogs throughout this thread--their problems/issues, the work (sometimes years) you've put into helping them overcome those issues, and how it is a great sense of accomplishment you feel when you have succeeded, even if you don't trial or don't concern yourself with the external trappings of success (Qs, ribbons, titles, whatever). What is that if not ego? It may not be ego on the scale of [insert sports superstar here], but it's ego all the same. If there were no ego involved, you wouldn't feel it necessary to explain all the problems *you've* managed to overcome with your dogs and to acknowledge how that's important to you and makes you feel successful.

 

I think the real issue here is that you have a much narrower definition of ego than other people do, or you just can't see the evidence of your own ego at work.

 

If I come along and talk about my youngster who has given me difficulty in training and who has finally turned a corner and become quite the useful dog, how is that anything but ego on my part? I am talking about what *I* did to turn the dog around and make it a success, no matter whether that success was simply at home or through wins on a trial field. It's still about *me* and what *I've* managed to accomplish with my dog.

 

Does my dog care that I've succeeded in reforming it in some way? Only in the sense that it knows that *I* am happy. So for the dog, success is making the human happy. But for the human, success is directly related to ego, no matter how much the human might deny it. If not, none of us would feel a need to describe the problems we've overcome and the successes we've had, in any walk of life, related to animals or not.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

If there were no ego involved, you wouldn't feel it necessary to explain all the problems *you've* managed to overcome with your dogs and to acknowledge how that's important to you and makes you feel successful.

 

That is an excellent example of attributing motives to someone whose motives you really can only guess at.

 

In this very statement, you presume my motives based on your own point of view, not on a true knowledge of why I have chosen to include examples of those experiences in this discussion.

 

Mark has stated, very succinctly, that the only motivations for which people compete is for breeding and ego. I have explained, numerous times now, why I disagree with his viewpoint on the matter.

 

My disagreement is based, not on one definition of ego or another, but on a different perspective of the variation of motives that drive individuals to make particular choices.

 

If you, or anyone else, would like to discuss my motives for citing the examples that I have used in my posts on this subject further (referring back to your quote above), I am going to request now that we take that to PM, so that this thread can get back to the original topic of ETS.

[Root Beer]

A horse that takes off early and jumps flat does so because of the way it is built. The conformation.

 

As a point of comparison, do these particular horses start off jumping well, do so for a time - several years even, and then develop the jumping problems later on in life?

 

It seems to me that if structure is the issue, then jumping would be an issue all along.

 

Why, with horses, would such a structure allow for the horse to jump well for several years, and then become an early take off problem later on?

 

I am definitely very interested to know how this would work.

[juliepoudrier]

That is an excellent example of attributing motives to someone whose motives you really can only guess at.

 

In this very statement, you presume my motives based on your own point of view, not on a true knowledge of why I have chosen to include examples of those experiences in this discussion.

At this point, I imagine you wouldn't admit to ego having any role in anything you do, and certainly it's easier to accuse the rest of us of presumption. No need to take it to PM--I think I've made my point.

 

FWIW, it's also ego that keeps all of us posting here, including you.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

At this point, I imagine you wouldn't admit to ego having any role in anything you do, and certainly it's easier to accuse the rest of us of presumption. No need to take it to PM--I think I've made my point.

 

At this point I am not going to entertain nitpicking over every possible use of "ego". I've spoken plainly, and I concluded that particular discussion with Mark quite some time ago. I see no point in beating this horse any further.

 

I am glad you feel that your point has been made. Must satisfy that ego that keeps you posting quite nicely.

[Blackdawgs]

It seems to me that if structure is the issue, then jumping would be an issue all along.

 

Why, with horses, would such a structure allow for the horse to jump well for several years, and then become an early take off problem later on?

 

I am definitely very interested to know how this would work.

 

Not Tea, but I'll take a stab at this. As I am sure we can all atest to, as we mature and then age, body balance changes. Fat and muscle are redistributed. Scar tissue forms. Reflexes slow, anxiety may creep in, and courage may be lost. And yes, vision changes.

 

There is no reason to believe that dogs and horses are any different. Of course horses have to contend with the weight of the rider. The handler also affects the dog, but differently.