Early Takeoff Syndrome?

[Rave]

To those of you who seemed surprised by the breeding of BCs specifically for sports, I only have to ask, where have you been?

[Root Beer]

First off, there are very limited research time/people/facilities/resources available for canine studies. Do you really want to spend these on something that may impact the performance of dogs at a game as opposed to something that impacts the health of dogs? I don't; I see this effort as a waist of resources that could be better spent on health related studies that can improve the health of our breed.

 

I already have a VERY difficult time getting in touch with Mark Neff to discuss epilepsy early onset deafness, etc because he is so busy with his cancer study. I can accept that, but I will fight loosing any more of his resources for the above studies to studying something like ETS.

 

I have to go (more to come later).

 

I appreciate you taking the time to reply. That is a very different perspective and it makes a lot of sense.

 

I would certainly agree that cancer research, or epilepsy, is certainly of higher priority. I'd guess that even those who have ETS dogs would agree with that.

[Journey]

^^^what Julie said^^^

 

Just curious but has anyone else noticed in all the vids that this "syndrome" is highly inconsistent? It does not happen "all" the time nor at "all" the jumps.

[juliepoudrier]

Mark,

Yesterday when this discussion really got going I was thinking the same thing. I suppose if funding is made available to study this new syndrome or whatever it is, then the research will happen, but I, too, hope that it doesn't take away from actual health issues that are also being studied by these same researchers.

 

And before anyone says that running into jumps is a health issue, I'm sorry, but I don't equate that with a dog who has grand mal seizures (try witnessing that--you want to talk heartache and emotional involvement? not to mention medical expenses? Or the training time and effort put in before the first seizure manifests itself?) or with the dog and owner who are fighting cancer (that's certainly a quality of life issue, not to mention a medical expense, that goes way beyond participating in a game) or the dog who goes deaf. A dog doesn't have to jump a jump--and no, I'm not going to get into endless circular discussion about why to some a dog being able to jump a jump is equally as important as a dog living seizure- or cancer-free, so don't even start. I get that the syndrome is important to agility competitors, but I just don't think the problem is a health problem on the same scale as some of these other issues that are also crying out for limited research time and funding. And like Mark, I hope it doesn't prove a distraction that slows down research on these other issues.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

Just curious but has anyone else noticed in all the vids that this "syndrome" is highly inconsistent? It does not happen "all" the time nor at "all" the jumps.

 

I would expect that the people who are studying the issue are most likely aware of that.

[Mark Billadeau]

To those of you who seemed surprised by the breeding of BCs specifically for sports, I only have to ask, where have you been?

Not Border Collies, Agility Collies.

[Mark Billadeau]

Society does not have unlimited resources for everything and anything. Just because we can study something doesn't mean we should.

 

 

[Mark Billadeau]

OK, Sigh, in an attempt to keep my previous comment brief, I omitted a possible scenario where if, IF, this purported ETS was due to visual impairment on some level, then trying to determine its cause could possibly help understand why other dogs (BC or not, herding participants or not) may have related symptoms.

Jovi

IF and WHEN this "syndrome" has been demonstrated to impact the performance of working livestock I might modify my stance on studying it (only because it might be a useful breeding tool for selecting livestock working dogs which defines our breed). But I would not support the study until traumatic health issues have been studied such as those previously listed and a few others. The ONLY other way I might support the study of this syndrome is IF it has a human analog that dramatically impacts the health or well being of humans.

[Mark Billadeau]

Mark, would you please do me a favor and answer some of my questions directly?

Your turn....

 

In one post you say you’re against the breeding for agility but now you are for helping find tools to breed a better agility dog.

So are you for or against breeding for agility?

[Mark Billadeau]

And like Mark, I hope it doesn't prove a distraction that slows down research on these other issues.

It will. Anything new is exciting because it can yield discoveries quickly (few samples) and it will get attention before the tedious work of long term research projects like epilepsy and early onset deafness which are in the stages where many samples and data are needed to make new discoveries.

 

 

[Pippin's person]

It will. Anything new is exciting because it can yield discoveries quickly (few samples) and it will get attention before the tedious work of long term research projects like epilepsy and early onset deafness which are in the stages where many samples and data are needed to make new discoveries.

 

And back to the OP--the researchers asking for samples are studying adult onset deafness, noise phobia and epilepsy in addition to ETS (and ETS is listed last on the list). We can hope that they will privilege those in terms of their research efforts.

[Mark Billadeau]

We can hope that they will privilege those in terms of their research efforts.

It's good to have hope.

My 20+ years in scientific research alters my view on this.

[Rave]

Society does not have unlimited resources for everything and anything. Just because we can study something doesn't mean we should.

 

Well the sports people have the resources and they want to study, so be it. I'm pretty sure they're not concerned with what people on this Board or working BC advocates think, especially given the obvious attitudes toward dog sports as a whole from many on this Board (that have shone once again in this thread).

[Journey]

Well the sports people have the resources and they want to study, so be it. I'm pretty sure they're not concerned with what people on this Board or working BC advocates think, especially given the obvious attitudes toward dog sports as a whole from many on this Board (that have shone once again in this thread).

 

Well if that's the case then I really hope that whomever is doing the research is not involved with any of the current studies funded by ABCA. It's been said here ABCA is not funding ETS research so does anyone know "who" is and where the funding is coming from?

[jdarling]

Rave, are you for or against breeding for agility?

[Pearse]

Well if that's the case then I really hope that whomever is doing the research is not involved with any of the current studies funded by ABCA. It's been said here ABCA is not funding ETS research so does anyone know "who" is and where the funding is coming from?

 

The lab doing the research is well funded to perform research on human disease. If they think they can use ETS or any other canine disease as a model system for human disease, they will apply for funding from NIH, NCI, other human research foundations, or animal research foundations I would imagine.

 

The amounts available from anyone other than AKC Health Trust or Wellcome Animal Trust in the UK are piddling by comparison. That's why it takes so long to get research on animal diseases done.

 

They will be delighted if the results of their research benefits the health of dogs too but their primary focus is on human disease because that's where the funding is.

[Root Beer]

In one post you say you’re against the breeding for agility but now you are for helping find tools to breed a better agility dog.

So are you for or against breeding for agility?

 

In Border Collies I am not for breeding for Agility. I have not examined the issue in other breeds and so I do not have a set stance either way.

 

I do recognize, however, that some of my fellow Agility competitors do favor breeding Border Collies for Agility and I do understand their reasons for that, even though I would not obtain my Border Collies from the same breeders, thereby supporting the practice.

 

On the other hand, I have no problem with those who are seeking a Border Collie and hope to do Agility with that dog having certain criteria that they look for in their new addition, as well as certain criteria that would make it so they would not consider the dog. For instance, I would not adopt or purchase a Border Collie that was known to be noise phobic, or who was known to have a noise phobic parent, even if he or she could clear every jump in the world and was faster than lightning. Agility is loud. You can enjoy Agility with a noise phobic dog to some degree, and the dog can enjoy it to some degree, but the condition is extremely limiting. I wouldn't trade my noise phobic Border Collie for any dog in the world, but it is not something that I would choose in the future if it could be helped.

 

You might consider that to be a support for breeding for Agility, but I don't consider it to be at all. I consider it being human, having preferences, and trying to make things work.

[Alchemist]

First off, there are very limited research time/people/facilities/resources available for canine studies. Do you really want to spend these on something that may impact the performance of dogs at a game as opposed to something that impacts the health of dogs? I don't; I see this effort as a waist of resources that could be better spent on health related studies that can improve the health of our breed.

 

I already have a VERY difficult time getting in touch with Mark Neff to discuss epilepsy early onset deafness, etc because he is so busy with his cancer study. I can accept that, but I will fight loosing any more of his resources for the above studies to studying something like ETS.

 

I have to go (more to come later).

 

 

 

Mark makes some good points here. And I'm certainly not in favor of breeding Border collies for anything but working characteristics.

 

But allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. These studies are expensive. Someone needs to pay for them. This particular "Program for Canine Health and Performance" study is examining genetic links for the following (in Border collies): Epilepsy, Adult Onset Deafness, Noise Phobia, and Early Take Off Syndrome. I'm willing to bet that adding ETS to the list isn't increasing the cost of the study by an additional one-third relative to what it would run without ETS.

 

 

I've read where Eileen says that ABCA isn't contributing to any ETS studies; no quarrels there. But the first three syndromes *are* of interest to *all* owners of Border collies. (Even the third: noise phobia - if you had your choice of two equally well-bred pups and you knew one was likely to suffer from noise phobia and the other was not, wouldn't this give you some reason to at least pause?) I'm going to assume that some (non-ABCA) dog association is contributing substantially to the cost of this particular study. While some of us may retain a sense of skepticism about ETS, perhaps we should recognize that there may be some aspects of the study (as a whole) that would benefit everyone. Recognizing the validity of "opportunity costs" arguments, I still don't see Mark Neff as being included on the names of the "leaders" of this Van Andel Institute carrying out this study. Is anyone "losing" from the existence of this particular study?

 

I see that we may all gain if it does help in revealing the causes of epilepsy (uncovering a genetic cause could certainly prove useful in developing effective therapies, for example). A case could also be made for developing a genetic test for early onset deafness - surely as (if not more) debilitating for the working Border collie as CEA. So should we throw out the baby with the bathwater - refuse to participate in this test if we have reservations about the ETS part?

 

ETS? If a genetic link is discovered, would a test only be used by breeders of sporter collies? That wouldn't bother me. On the other hand (there's always "another hand") is the agility market also going to demand it if they're considering a working-bred dog? That would disturb me more - what if ETS were linked to desirable working attributes?

 

 

Time to go watch GATTACA again...

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Okay, as a practical matter today, I don't think you can be "for or against breeding Border Collies for agility." I don't really see this as a fair question. The question would be, "Do you support the standard of breeding Border Collies strictly with livestock work ability in mind?" the difference is subtle. You might be an agility breeder who has discovered the marvelous truth (being slightly facetious) that farm work keeps her bitches temperamentally and physically sound and balanced, and takes them to proven Open level studs.

 

To answer Rave's question, have we just discovered sport breeding (LOL!)? It goes to the above. Others on this thread have already pointed to this. A test for an issue that pertains only to agility (not even other dog sports!), ipso facto creates a distinct agility standard.

 

Now lets say my breeder above adds ETS to her culling standards on her bitches, so she only breeds good farm dogs who are also clear for ETS. She is then an "agility breeder" in spite of all the other work she might do to keep stock sense balanced in her lines.

 

This is a return to the old conformation question of a basketball team of {the best players who are also over 6'5}.

 

At that point, "Are you for or against breeding FOR agility?" becomes in my mind, a fair question, not something to be weighed on a case by case basis.

 

Edited to add: IS "agility" the sport supposed to be capitalized? I'm trying to find a reference by a long time participant such as Rave for comparison and can't. I don't want to be rude if it supposed to be a proper noun now, Root Beer. You don't capitalize "Stockwork" so it's not a personal preference to set off dog activities.

[Eileen Stein]

I've removed one post, and several others that quote/refer to it.

 

Please feel free to express your opinions, civilly, but please do not feel free to tell other people that they cannot express theirs, or that they should not post/discuss/ask about something because you don't think it's worth posting/discussing/asking about.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Alchemist, I believe there are already studies for the other three, which are at more mature stages if research.

 

This is one of my concerns. Why not get behind the ABCA studies of those? I think there is an AKC supported epilepsy study as well. Why spread out the attention even more? People are going to get confused. "No, we already did that."

[juliepoudrier]

ETS? If a genetic link is discovered, would a test only be used by breeders of sporter collies? That wouldn't bother me. On the other hand (there's always "another hand") is the agility market also going to demand it if they're considering a working-bred dog? That would disturb me more - what if ETS were linked to desirable working attributes?

I think this question is pretty much academic. I think already most serious agility people are going to agility breeders, not working breeders, for their dogs. I suspect that most working breeders won't bother to test for ETS, although some will, if they want to try to tap into the agility market.

 

I've tried (on sheep) quite a few dogs that were bred for things other than strictly working ability (sports, etc.) and I don't think breeding against ETS is going to make a huge difference for that population of dogs. Pretty much every single one I've seen has lacked something significant WRT working ability. In other words, for that population of dogs and their breeders, working ability has ceased to be an issue in breeding decisions--it's pretty much not there. So adding another criterion (lack of an ETS gene) isn't going to make things any worse (WRT working ability) than they already are.

 

I suppose if a large number of true working breeders started testing for and selecting against ETS carriers, then yes there could be a deleterious effect should ETS also be linked to certain necessary working characteristics. But I really don't think the demand from working breeders is there to make this of concern.

 

Personally, if I have limited testing dollars, ETS would not be one of the items on my list of genetic issues to check for (deafness and epilepsy sure would be).

 

J.

[Rave]

And Pearse had summed it up so nicely. Sport breeders breed for sport, conformation breeders for conformation, working breeders for working. The only difference is now someone has termed a supposed trait to remove from the sport dog gene pool. There's no agility "standard", nothing has changed. Sport breeders are still selecting for traits they desire that have nothing to do with working ability and against traits they don't desire that again have nothing to do with working ability. C'est la vie.

[Root Beer]

Edited to add: IS "agility" the sport supposed to be capitalized? I'm trying to find a reference by a long time participant such as Rave for comparison and can't. I don't want to be rude if it supposed to be a proper noun now, Root Beer. You don't capitalize "Stockwork" so it's not a personal preference to set off dog activities.

 

I don't know if Agility, Freestyle, Rally, Obedience, Flyball, Frisbee, Treibball (spelling?), Nose Work, Tracking, Lure Coursing, Dock Diving, etc. are intended to be capitalized or not. I do so to designate them specifically as names of dog sports vs. a casual and informal version of the same, or similar, skill sets. When working with a dog on a ladder or on pivots or something, I might say that I'm working on my dog's agility. But if I am training weave poles or tunnels or anything else that the dog will do as part of the sport of Agility, then I would say that I am working on Agility. I don't have any quibble with anyone who doesn't do so. I will continue to do so.

 

I don't consider stockwork to be a sport, but a type of work, so I don't make the same designation. For instance, when I say I teach for a living, I don't capitalize "teach" or "teacher" or "teaching". I would, however, capitalize Herding if I were referring to the sport of Herding. I don't use that word here because I know it bothers a lot of you, but on other forums, I would do so if I used the word.

 

On sport focused forums, some people capitalize these terms and others don't. Sorry if it bothers you, but it's not something I'm going to change. However, if you would like for me to designate Stockwork as an organized sport in the same way, I'd be happy to do that. Personally, I think that takes something away from what Stockwork actually is, but that's just how I see it.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

What Rave said, honestly. As long as "everyone does what is right in her own eyes," no real breed split overall, happens. We've seen this with obedience. And another, pets.

 

Those "standards" are far older than sports. It's still not uncommon for me to talk over a pedigree with an old timer, reach a bitch, and have them say, "Her? Nuthin' but someone's damn pet!" But everyone does their own thing in those respects, or they used to (obedience has gotten really mixed up with conformation now I think).

 

What we'd love not to see is another stupid genotypical (is that the right word?) split. Right now you COULD, I believe strongly, take genetic material from the agility world, a great deal of it, and shape it back into useful working dogs.

 

They've simply, from what I've seen, muddled back into the amorphous helter-skelter balls of chase/follow/bring that some of the early sheepdog lines came from.

 

Once a clear divide happens, ie ETS, with everyone agreeing on one point that is a breeding go/no go, there WILL be a shift and point of no return.