Early Takeoff Syndrome?

[Mark Billadeau]

The natural outcome for searching for and finding a genetic marker is to breed around what the genetic marker causes. In this case the genetic marker for ETS, if found, will be used for the breeding of dogs for agility. This means the genetic marker would be used to further the breeding for the standard of agility. Everyone here knows that this forum is against the breeding of Border Collies for anything other than working livestock.

 

Searching for (and possibly locating) the genetic marker of ETS is antithetical to everything for which this forum stands

 

No one should be surprised that there are many people here who would be opposed to genetic research on ETS in much the same way we would be opposed to genetic research on tail carriage.

 

 

[gcv-border]

 

She does say that the dogs tend to do better when the handler is out of their line of sight. It also seems to affect highly motivated, "frantic" dogs. This could mean it's a similar issue to EIC in Border Collies. It could also mean that it's a behavioural problem of highly motivated dogs focusing on the handler rather than the obstacle, and "spazzing out" as they get ramped up.

\

 

I have been reading this ETS discussion with interest. I am not convinced it exists, but neither am I convinced that something doesn't exist. Regardless, IMO if someone(s) have the funds, time and interest to investigate, more power to them. You never know, it may be a self-fulfilling prophecy (you look for something and you find it). On the other hand, when you look for something, sometimes you find something else of equal or greater importance.

 

With regard to Pearse's statement above: I see this happen in my own dog. The very few times that I actually get ahead of my dog on an agility course (most of the time I am driving him from the rear since he is fast and I am not so), I do see a correlation with dropped bars as he tends to extend his stride to catch up to me. He definitely will take off early. I don't think that means he has ETS, but one never knows.

 

Jovi

[Blackdawgs]

I think that the agility community will need to make some very hard decisions if it turns out that the ETS marker is carried by lines of uber fast, driven dogs.

 

I think that we need to accept that not every dog is capable of engaging in their human's favorite activity.

 

I have an almost 10 year old dog that has retired from competition and a 5 year old, who is doing very well in practice, but will unlikely be able to cope with the pressure of the competition environment. Last weekend, while many agility competitors were at a state tournament, my dogs went for a stroll around the botanical gardens. They happily pulled me around the paths and got to smell and roll in all sorts of nifty stuff. They by no means mourned the agility competition that they didn't attend.

 

I see many dogs at agility competions that are in bad physical and/or mental shape. These dogs should have been retired a long time ago, but their owners continue to run them because their dogs "love" agility (and the owner wants one last title).

 

I think that is is very unfair to both dog and human to think that a clicker and cookies will conquer all ills and enable dogs to compete that shouldn't. It is very unfair for instructors to give their students this false hope. I'm seeing this trend more and more.

 

When I was in the horse world, they told us that any reasonably sound horss could do dressage to a point. Now, I hear the same mantra in the agility world. This is simply not true.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

In this case the genetic marker for ETS, if found, will be used for the breeding of dogs for agility. This means the genetic marker would be used to further the breeding for the standard of agility. Everyone here knows that this forum is against the breeding of Border Collies for anything other than working livestock.

 

Searching for (and possibly locating) the genetic marker of ETS is antithetical to everything for which this forum stands

 

No one should be surprised that there are many people here who would be opposed to genetic research on ETS in much the same way we would be opposed to genetic research on tail carriage.

 

I've written and canceled probably half a dozen long boring posts trying to express this very concept. If we had a way to like posts and I could like this a million times, I totally would.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

In this case the genetic marker for ETS, if found, will be used for the breeding of dogs for agility. This means the genetic marker would be used to further the breeding for the standard of agility. Everyone here knows that this forum is against the breeding of Border Collies for anything other than working livestock.

 

Searching for (and possibly locating) the genetic marker of ETS is antithetical to everything for which this forum stands

 

No one should be surprised that there are many people here who would be opposed to genetic research on ETS in much the same way we would be opposed to genetic research on tail carriage.

 

I've written and canceled probably half a dozen long boring posts trying to express this very concept. If we had a way to like posts and I could like this a million times, I totally would.

[juliepoudrier]

I think that we need to accept that not every dog is capable of engaging in their human's favorite activity.

This. And it's what I don't understand in this whole discussion. I used as an example my own best competitive/work dog. She used to enjoy it; I still enjoy it. I wouldn't dream of assuming that she would still enjoy it if only. I can't help but wonder how much of "it's what the dog really wants to do" is really the dog and how much is the human, and I fear it's largely the latter. I've seen in my own dogs that they enjoy lots of things not related to stock work or competition, so I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the human-centric idea that the dog will somehow wither away from the deprivation of not competing and that it's the human's duty to do everything in his/her power to make sure the dog can continue to compete, despite everything, because it's what the dog wants....

 

J.

[Root Beer]

No one should be surprised that there are many people here who would be opposed to genetic research on ETS in much the same way we would be opposed to genetic research on tail carriage.

 

That isn't what surprises me.

[Root Beer]

This. And it's what I don't understand in this whole discussion. I used as an example my own best competitive/work dog. She used to enjoy it; I still enjoy it. I wouldn't dream of assuming that she would still enjoy it if only.

 

Now suppose someone who is not even involved in stockwork came along and told you that your judgement in this matter was wrong. That he or she knew more about your dog and your situation than you do, and that stockwork should not be important to you because you and your dog won't die if you don't do it.

 

How would you respond to that?

 

Who knows the dog better? Who is really in a better position to make the most prudent decision for the dog? And is it anyone else's place to tell you what should or should not be important to you?

 

I can't help but wonder how much of "it's what the dog really wants to do" is really the dog and how much is the human, and I fear it's largely the latter.

 

That's exactly the thing, though. It's easy to point to another dog and handler team from the outside and make these kinds of judgments. The fact is that unless you know a handler well, or you know the details about a team, you really don't know whether the dog wants to continue or if the handler is pushing.

 

One could go to an Agility trial and watch teams run and assume all kinds of things about the dog's attitude toward the sport, the dog's training, and the handler's motivation. And that person would probably be wrong about most of it, especially if that person is not even involved with the sport.

 

Yes, it does happen that handlers push dogs who are not suited to any and every discipline there is. But more often than not there is more to every story than meets the eye.

 

I've seen in my own dogs that they enjoy lots of things not related to stock work or competition, so I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the human-centric idea that the dog will somehow wither away from the deprivation of not competing and that it's the human's duty to do everything in his/her power to make sure the dog can continue to compete, despite everything, because it's what the dog wants....

 

I don't think any said anything about dogs withering away from lack of competition.

 

Those who are researching ETS and seeking to learn more about it are not doing so because they think dogs are going to wither away due to lack of competition.

[Journey]

Now suppose someone who is not even involved in stockwork came along and told you that your judgement in this matter was wrong. That he or she knew more about your dog and your situation than you do, and that stockwork should not be important to you because you and your dog won't die if you don't do it.

 

If my dog was eating stock, crashing into them and in general endangering himself I'd say they were right. However, its not outsiders saying these folks should quit, it's in the postings on the blog, career ending, retraining not working, take them out of the breeding stock etc....so why do you feel they should not quit when apparently bodily harm is eminent?

[Pearse]

Now suppose someone who is not even involved in stockwork came along and told you that your judgement in this matter was wrong. That he or she knew more about your dog and your situation than you do, and that stockwork should not be important to you because you and your dog won't die if you don't do it.

 

How would you respond to that?

 

Who knows the dog better? Who is really in a better position to make the most prudent decision for the dog? And is it anyone else's place to tell you what should or should not be important to you?

 

That's a completely valid point and I don't have any issue with Agility people wanting to pursue research into this performance trait, or performance disability, any more than I would object to Agility people wanting to pursue research into making dogs run faster or jump higher.

 

If I suddenly noticed a cohort of sheepdogs that were good working dogs and suddenly stopped working normally and started missing sheep and cutting in out outruns and taking wrong flanks at the prime of their working life, I'd want to know why (Early Onset Deafness in some, Lyme in others), but in the case of the deafness, the clinical condition was well defined before anyone started hunting for a genetic cause. Imagine if someone had noticed a bunch of dogs stopping short on outruns and diagnosed it as "Early Cut In Syndrome" and started hunting for a genetic cause when, in fact, those dogs were all chronically affected with Lyme disease.

 

 

Obviously, I'm opposed to breeding dogs for Agility but that's my position and you are entitled to yours.

 

What puzzles me in this case is the rush to label this as a genetic defect when there has been so little work done on characterizing what the actual deficiency is. Is it visual? Is it mental? Why does the presence of electronic eyes/timers before the jump seem to exacerbate the problem? Why does working the dog from behind through jumps alleviate the condition? If this is a visual problem, why don't these dogs have problems with other elements (misjudging contact zones, slamming into weave poles? There's a lot of work on the clinical side that needs to be done before spending tens of thousands of dollars searching for a genetic disease that may not exist.

 

I go back to what I said before: not all variation is a genetic defect. Furthermore, without fully understanding complex traits, one breeds away from them at one's peril. If you don't fully understand all of the elements that go into causing this condition, what will you lose by breeding away from it? Will you lose "drive"? These dogs appear to be among the "keenest".

 

 

 

 

[juliepoudrier]

Now suppose someone who is not even involved in stockwork came along and told you that your judgement in this matter was wrong. That he or she knew more about your dog and your situation than you do, and that stockwork should not be important to you because you and your dog won't die if you don't do it.

 

How would you respond to that?

 

Well, honestly, apples and oranges. I raise livestock, so stockwork is important. The competition (sheepdog trials), however, is not. Whether my dogs can win ribbons or money or whatever isn't important in the grand scheme of things, but of course whether they can help at home can be. But if we put that aside (the purpose part of what my dogs do, for which there isn't an equivalent in dog sports), if I am open-minded I would have to agree that my dogs indeed won't die if they don't get to go to trials. I haven't trialed all year and no one's dead yet.

 

And directing this question to me doesn't really make sense anyway, since I have already stated that for my own dogs I would choose NOT to compete if the dog has issues with competition (I even gave examples). So if someone watching my dog at a competition came up to me and said, "You know, maybe your dog deserves a break, or maybe you should try X and see if it makes a difference," then, given the fact that I, too, can see my dog is not performing up to par, I'd likely consider the person's comments and act on them or not depending on what I know of my dog and the situation. But I wouldn't be offended or tell the observer s/he has no right to say those things because s/he doesn't know me or my dog. It shouldn't be hard to believe that there are people like me who would do the same in a similar situation, and if I wouldn't be offended at someone for making a simple suggestion, why would I expect that the rest of the world would be upset if I offered such a suggestion myself? (And I enjoy competition and winning, but having done it in many venues with both horses and dogs, I also have a healthy dose of practicality and long since have decided that no competition is worth pushing an animal past what it wants to or can give. I realize that this is a personal choice and not everyone would make the same choice, but I also don't think it hurts to point out that not competing *is* a valid choice.)

 

FWIW, I don't think anyone is saying they know more about anyone's dog or situation than the actual person involved, but I'd wager that many of us have done many competitive things in our lifetimes and do recognize that there are times when it doesn't make sense to keep pushing when an animal is making it clear that something's not right.

 

Who knows the dog better? Who is really in a better position to make the most prudent decision for the dog? And is it anyone else's place to tell you what should or should not be important to you?

Ah, and here's the crux of the matter I think. The owner of a dog should know that dog better than anyone, of course. But owners can be blinded by their own desires (to compete, to win). It's easy enough to find everyday examples of the owner pushing an animal past its limits with seeming no regard for the animal (when in fact the owner probably loves the animal deeply) because the owner gets caught up in the competition and doesn't see the forest for the trees. In such cases, ISTM that an outsider looking in and saying, "But what if?" might be the thing that reminds the owner to look at the forest and not the trees.

 

J.

[juliepoudrier]

Regarding Pearse's comments, I think it's important to note that most scientific advances don't come about because someone draws a conclusion and no one else treats that conclusion with skepticism (i.e., scientific advances would be difficult to come by if no one ever challenged the conclusions drawn by others). In fact, quite the opposite. It's just these sorts of discussions that fuel research and make people think and rethink the conclusions they've come to. One can even be an expert in one's field, but that doesn't preclude other scientists from pointing out where the logic may be fuzzy or that perhaps expert didn't consider X, Y, or Z. It's how science and scientific discovery work.

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

Julie just spoke about her dog who mixes up her flanks under training/trialing pressure, and whom she generally doesn't trial as a result. Do you think she should be advocating a search for the genes that cause Left-Right Confusion Disorder, so no one else will ever have to endure the heartbreak of not being able to compete with a promising dog whose trialing career was cut short by LRCD?

To make this comparable, you would have to say that Julies dog worked her flanks perfectly for several years, and then suddenly couldn't make sense of them. Julie took videos and had her dogs movements and her handling analyzed in several different situations, at trials and while practicing and no one can see anything different. Her dog got a full health work up with nothing out of the ordinary happening. Then we find out that 2 other dogs who are related to Julie's dog but who live elsewhere have also suddenly dealt with this. Their handlers too have struggled and sought out help from experienced people and still can't figure out why the dog is incapable of not mixing up her flanks after several years of doing them well.

 

Why would these dogs suddenly develop this issue? There must be something else going on, and the standard things we look for don't seem to matter.

 

Would it then make sense to wonder if there is something additional going on?

 

Additional to what?

 

I thought my analogy was an a fortiori one in two different ways: It deals with subject matter related to the defining work of a border collie, and "LRCD" on the face of it is much more likely to have a genetic cause. Or at least it's not hard for me to see how lifelong difficulty in distinguishing left and right could be genetically determined. So I was saying that even in such a case I would not be removing all the dog's relatives from breeding and setting in motion a search for the genetic cause.

 

But okay, let's stick to "ETS," as you describe it here. Like Julie, it seems to me the obvious "something" is mental, not physical. Apprehension, stress, performance anxiety -- call it what you will. The dog has found himself missing his jumps or in trouble on his jumps, and tenses up about it: "I didn't jump cleanly that last time, I'll have to try harder this time." (If you think a border collie doesn't have that kind of mental capacity, or doesn't do things like that, stop reading right here.) That throws him off, and makes him more likely to blow it the next time, which fuels the apprehension, sending him into a downward spiral. Now I know the next thing I'm gonna hear is that Linda Mecklenburg would know if that was the problem, and she doesn't think it is, and her opinion is worth a lot more than the opinion of someone who DOESN'T EVEN PLAY AGILITY. Okay, fine. But I see it happen to sheepdogs -- "she never used to have a problem with gates, but now she seems to tense up whenever . . ." And it's a recognized phenomenon in human performance. Think of the great hitter in baseball with the perfect swing, who suddenly loses the smoothness of his swing, loses his timing, and the harder he tries to get it back, the worse it gets. Overthinking, trying too hard, lack of confidence, whatever.

 

That may not be what's going on here, but it seems much more likely than whatever the next-most-likely "something" is. I guess the next-most-likely is failure of depth perception? Well, if the dog isn't showing a lack of depth perception in any other phase of her life, and eye examination doesn't show any eye condition that would diminish depth perception, that just doesn't seem likely. Is loss of depth perception in midlife a known phenomenon in humans or other animals? I hear a lot of people complain that they can't see close-up very well anymore, but I don't think I've ever heard someone say that their depth perception is getting worse.

 

Anyway, I had only three points I wanted to make on this subject. (1) Excluding dogs who take off early on their agility jumps and all their relatives from breeding, and seeking a genetic test to use to eliminate dogs with this "syndrome" from breeding, are a good example of how dogs bred for agility will and do become a different breed from the traditional border collie, bred for work. (2) You do not have to do agility to understand disappointment in having to discontinue an activity your dog is not (or no longer) suited for. (3) Research into genetic causes of Early Takeoff Syndrome is not something the ABCA has funded or would be interested in funding.

 

And now I've had the opportunity to state these twice, which is enough.

[Root Beer]

Obviously, I'm opposed to breeding dogs for Agility but that's my position and you are entitled to yours.

 

Actually, I am not in favor of breeding dogs for Agility, either. All three of my own Agility dogs are rescues, one mutt, one working bred Border Collie, and one Border Collie of completely unknown origin, each with his or her own issues that make Agility a challenge. I'm not out there patronizing sport breeders trying to find the perfect Agility dog, nor advocating that others do so.

 

My interest in the issue lies more in research being done to help dogs who have the desire to play do so successfully in spite of the condition. And in handlers who have these dogs having practical and reasonable options available to them to continue to enjoy the sport in cases where the dog truly does enjoy it and Agility is a meaningful part of the life of both the dog and handler. I disagree strongly with the idea that handlers who have dogs with this issue should just quit and that ETS would automatically render a dog unsuitable for Agility.

 

What puzzles me in this case is the rush to label this as a genetic defect when there has been so little work done on characterizing what the actual deficiency is. Is it visual? Is it mental? Why does the presence of electronic eyes/timers before the jump seem to exacerbate the problem? Why does working the dog from behind through jumps alleviate the condition? If this is a visual problem, why don't these dogs have problems with other elements (misjudging contact zones, slamming into weave poles? There's a lot of work on the clinical side that needs to be done before spending tens of thousands of dollars searching for a genetic disease that may not exist.

 

I go back to what I said before: not all variation is a genetic defect. Furthermore, without fully understanding complex traits, one breeds away from them at one's peril. If you don't fully understand all of the elements that go into causing this condition, what will you lose by breeding away from it? Will you lose "drive"? These dogs appear to be among the "keenest".

 

Those are all excellent questions.

[Mark Billadeau]

My interest in the issue lies more in research being done to help dogs who have the desire to play do so successfully in spite of the condition.

How does looking for a possible genetic mutation as the cause of this condition help the individual dog continue to play?

[Root Beer]

Well, honestly, apples and oranges.

 

No, not really. Different situations. Same thing happening, though. Someone outside of the situation is making a judgment without knowing the whole situation. And judgement is being made on what should or should not be important to another individual.

 

I raise livestock, so stockwork is important.

 

I could still say the same thing, though. Livestock in itself is important. But you and your dogs don't have to raise livestock. You won't wither away and die if you do something else. Livestock doesn't have to be important to you personally.

 

Working with livestock is important to you, but it is not something that you have to do. I would say that it is really not anybody else's place to tell you whether or not stockwork, which you do not have to do in order to live, should be a priority in your life. I would say that the same goes for Agility or any other discipline that one choose to pursue with his or her dog.

 

It would be a poor world, indeed, if the only things that were important to people were things that pertained to basic survival and what is absolutely necessary.

 

Ah, and here's the crux of the matter I think. The owner of a dog should know that dog better than anyone, of course. But owners can be blinded by their own desires (to compete, to win).

 

I am sure you realize that there is much more to participating in Agility than competing. It can be very much a way of life, outside of one's regular profession. There are social and community aspects to it, in addition to what it brings to the life of the dog and handler in general.

 

It's not all about competition, and it's not all about "winning", unless you mean "winning" in the sense of what it brings to the life of the dog and handler as a team.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I have had two dogs, one I still have, with a similar problem to Julie's. With them, the problem did not emerge until training was more advanced. And the more advanced the training, the worse the problems got. There were other "symptoms" too.

 

These dogs were closely related. Their pedigrees were impeccable on paper. They were trained and retrained by some of the best trainers on this continent.

 

Hey ho, Julie, Flank Reversal Syndrome!

 

In reality, I've discovered a training bandaid for my dog's challenges. Because of what seems to cause it, I do wonder whether it's related to this ETS.

[Maralynn]

 

Is ETS something that a team should just cut their losses and quit over, or is it something that does not have to rob the dog of his or her enjoyment of the game if the dog enjoys the game? That is going to depend on the individual team. Every situation is going to be different.

 

So I'f I'm reading everything correctly, ETS affects jumps, right?

Do you have to do jumps with agility? I mean I know they're a big part normally, but why not modify the game so the dog can still train/run/compete? They do it for seniors, right? In this scenario the dog might not be able to compete in some levels, but they could still get out and do something they enjoyed.

[Root Beer]

How does looking for a possible genetic mutation as the cause of this condition help the individual dog continue to play?

 

Knowing the cause of the jumping issue makes it possible to make the correct decision on how to handle it.

 

If there is a genetic mutation that causes this condition, the handler would know not to spend the time and effort on remedial jumping training that won't help.

 

Instructors would know not to attribute the jumping problem to their students handling.

 

If the problem were to become widespread enough, venues might be created to accommodate these teams, just as there are venues that accommodate teams that are less competitive, or who cannot participate at live trials.

 

If there were a genetic mutation that could be detected in a test, handlers could have the dog tested before getting started, just as many get their dogs x-rayed, before making the investment in training and getting into Agility with the dog. Decisions on participation, training, goals, etc. could be made with the knowledge that this condition will likely develop at some point.

 

Realize, too, that I'm not saying that a genetic study is the only way to study this issue, nor necessarily even the best at this point. I think that other kinds of research should absolutely be done. Explore every angle possible. I'd say the more that is learned the better.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Now suppose someone who is not even involved in stockwork came along and told you that your judgement in this matter was wrong. your dog won't die if you don't do it.

 

How would you respond to that?

 

This sort of thing happens all the time. Not just training for stock dog trials, but even keeping sheep itself. Other sports and activities i've been involved in.

 

What outsiders dare to make these kinds of demands on me?

 

My vet. My pastor. My husband. My mom. My general practitioner. My trauma team. My psychiatric team.

 

Not all right now you understand, at different times of my life. And it's not intervention we're talking about, just the sort of casual, "How important is this really?" We're having here.

 

The point is that I believe you can have an insight into the health and genetic issue with regard to the breed as a whole, without necessarily being immersed in the Sport of Agility.

[Blackdawgs]

My guess is that people are quite happy with these very fast and driven dogs except for their little jumping problem. And in addition to the genetic counseling aspect, they are really looking for a medical intervention (I think that I read contact lenses somewhere) that would allow these dogs to reach their competive potential.

[rushdoggie]

If my dog was eating stock, crashing into them and in general endangering himself I'd say they were right. However, its not outsiders saying these folks should quit, it's in the postings on the blog, career ending, retraining not working, take them out of the breeding stock etc....so why do you feel they should not quit when apparently bodily harm is eminent?

 

 

II don't think the point of figuring out why this happens is as much because any given handler "won't quit" agility with a dog who has an issue, but so they can avoid the issue in dogs that one plans to do agility with.

 

The vast majority of people playing agility have 2 or maybe 3 dogs, as housepets. If their dog has to be retired due to an inability to jump safely, they just quit doing agility. If there were a way to determine which dogs might have this issue, then you wouldn't place those dogs in a home who plans to do agility.

 

I have just spent 5 years not playing my favorite dog sport because my dogs were either old or injured or not interested in playing, and I simply couldn't live with (or afford) more pets than I had.

[rushdoggie]

So I'f I'm reading everything correctly, ETS affects jumps, right?

Do you have to do jumps with agility? I mean I know they're a big part normally, but why not modify the game so the dog can still train/run/compete? They do it for seniors, right? In this scenario the dog might not be able to compete in some levels, but they could still get out and do something they enjoyed.

 

Theres a few venues that offer non jump classes but they are few and far between. Handlers of some dogs who have jumping issues can enter a performance or veterans class with much lower jump heights, won't help if they land on top of the jump but it would work if they just ticked bars.

[rushdoggie]

Additional to what?

So I was saying that even in such a case I would not be removing all the dog's relatives from breeding and setting in motion a search for the genetic cause.

 

And honestly? I Agree with that. Like most people on this board, I don't think breeding a dog solely for its potential as an agility dog is a good plan. I don't agree with LM's strong feelings on doing so. Thats not my point in this thread either.

 

But okay, let's stick to "ETS," as you describe it here. Like Julie, it seems to me the obvious "something" is mental, not physical.

 

This is where we diverge only because I am not going to take the small amount of information about this and assume that I know better than an expert in teh field who has spent several years looking at it. She may in fact be completely off, but it would be highly presumptuous of me to poo-poo all her work offhand without really understanding it or studying it, in the same way it would be presumptuos of me to look at you hypothetical flank issue and say that its all in Julie's head because I know very little about training stock work.

 

That throws him off, and makes him more likely to blow it the next time, which fuels the apprehension, sending him into a downward spiral. Now I know the next thing I'm gonna hear is that Linda Mecklenberg would know if that was the problem, and she doesn't think it is, and her opinion is worth a lot more than the opinion of someone who DOESN'T EVEN PLAY AGILITY.

 

Actually, she talks about how there is a huge mental component and that dogs who have this issue often have real confidence problems.

 

But I see it happen to sheepdogs -- "she never used to have a problem with gates, but now she seems to tense up whenever . . ." And it's a recognized phenomenon in human performance. Think of the great hitter in baseball with the perfect swing, who suddenly loses the smoothness of his swing, loses his timing, and the harder he tries to get it back, the worse it gets.

 

Indeed, and it happens in other aspects of agility as well and is a well known issue to most trainers and experienced handlers. This particular issue doesn't seem to be explained away by just that (according to those who have spent time studying it).

 

 

and eye examination doesn't show any eye condition that would diminish depth perception, that just doesn't seem likely.

 

My understanding is there is really no way to test dog depth perception at this time.

 

Anyway, I had only three points I wanted to make on this subject. (1) Excluding dogs who take off early on their agility jumps and all their relatives from breeding, and seeking a genetic test to use to eliminate dogs with this "syndrome" from breeding, are a good example of how dogs bred for agility will and do become a different breed from the traditional border collie, bred for work. (2) You do not have to do agility to understand disappointment in having to discontinue an activity your dog is not (or no longer) suited for. (3) Research into genetic causes of Early Takeoff Syndrome is not something the ABCA has funded or would be interested in funding.

[juliepoudrier]

I could still say the same thing, though. Livestock in itself is important. But you and your dogs don't have to raise livestock. You won't wither away and die if you do something else. Livestock doesn't have to be important to you personally.

 

Well someone has to raise livestock or the rest of us won't eat. You might not think that's an important distinction but I do. I don't raise them so they can look pretty out in the field, I raise them because it's part of my livelihood and it's a way of providing good meat to my customers (and for myself and my dogs, since I can raise it more affordably than I can buy it at the store). You refer to agility (and why the caps; is agility a proper noun?) as a game. Well raising food isn't a game, ergo they're different.

 

Working with livestock is important to you, but it is not something that you have to do. I would say that it is really not anybody else's place to tell you whether or not stockwork, which you do not have to do in order to live, should be a priority in your life. I would say that the same goes for Agility or any other discipline that one choose to pursue with his or her dog.

 

Wow, talk about assumptions. I raise stock to make money. It's part of my income, an even more important part since I became unemployed two years ago. So no, I don't *have* to raise livestock, but not doing so would certainly decrease the income on which I'm currently living. Raising livestock to sell for food isn't a game after all. And the working part? Generally the work involves whatever is needed to properly take care of the livestock. No matter how much you'd like that to be the same as playing a game, it's not. If this is the comparison you're trying to make then you need to compare my raising livestock with whatever you do for a living. It's not a game. Note that I have made a distinction between the actual raising of livestock and the competition of sheepdog trials. You keep trying to make it all the same thing. It doesn't work that way. Sorry.

 

It would be a poor world, indeed, if the only things that were important to people were things that pertained to basic survival and what is absolutely necessary.

 

Of course it would, and no one has said otherwise. Still, raising livestock does pertain to *my* basic survival, FWIW.

 

I am sure you realize that there is much more to participating in Agility than competing. It can be very much a way of life, outside of one's regular profession. There are social and community aspects to it, in addition to what it brings to the life of the dog and handler in general.

 

Oh yes, and farming is very much a way of life as well. The difference--again--is that one is still a game, and the other is a livelihood.

 

And I'm done with this part of the discussion because I can see that it's just going to go in the usual circular directions all such discussion go. Have the last word. Because this isn't supposed to be a competition either, and I don't need to win.

 

J.