Anti merle prejudice

[Smalahundur]

Trouble is there are all kinds of views on what "farm work" is.

And I agree when you talk about such routine daily chores.

 

My worries are just that the high breeding standard of the trial sport could in tyhe future lead to specialized trialing dogs.

I do not think it would be a good thing that the connection between farm work and trialing would be lost.

Hence my earlier made remark about horse dressage.

 

This is one thing that in my humble opinion is a big advantage of living in Iceland; every trialer is a farmer, and the work we really need our dogs for is not daily farm work, it is seasonal, very demanding free range (as in open unfenced country, my sheep could theoretically cross this island) gathering of generally undogged sheep that hardly flock and are spread out over fast areas.

Capacity for that work would trump trial capacity (but of course it goes hand in hand here, and for now probably everywhere).

[Debbie Meier]

I believe where the pitfall is, is using any type of accomplishment as a selection criteria and then expected that the dog will be suited for more then the specific accomplishment that you selected for (maybe some don't realize how specifically they are selecting). If I was only using my dog here, what better selection criteria would there be but selecting based on the dogs that make this work easiest?

 

Going out and seeing how others do their work and variation of livestock really opens your eyes, also going out and trying to introduce dogs for the first time to livestock that has no dog experience with facilities that are not dog friendly. This also is eye opening and is the struggle that many who are new to dog face when they come home with their first border collie "what went wrong, it looked so easy, my dog must be dumb, I must be dumb, my livestock must be dumb"

 

Then you get some who use dogs whose livestock never gets real broke or accustom to the facility but the facility over time gets tweaked to make things work better and flow.

 

Anyway, there is no one ideal test to select dogs by, though the purpose of the breeding and what the pups sold are intended to do has a big factor as to what test would be best used. Our friend with the feedlot, he needs to select from dogs that can prove they can do the work he is expecting, he gets fresh cattle in regularly, some are used to people, some have never been brought in off western pastures until they get weaned. He also has momma cows that are summer pastured. Dogs have to be able to handle tight sorting work, open pasture gathers, have to know their way around savvy momma cows and also around undogged or even poorly dogged cattle since his gets in randomly sourced cattle to background, some go to his confinement barn, some get sold to other feeders to finish out.

 

IMO, his test is way higher then if a person only had a feedlot. Or if they only fed out the calves that they themselves raised of the same herd of momma cows that they calved out year after year.

 

So, depending on the job that is getting done, it can mean different levels of selection pressure.

[Mark Billadeau]

My worries are just that the high breeding standard of the trial sport could in tyhe future lead to specialized trialing dogs.

Since most, if not all, people who do well at the national level trialling also keep large flocks (because they know the value in having real work, chores, for their dogs) there shouldn't be much worry about loosing the connection to farm work.

[Smalahundur]

That´s good to know.

I somehow got the impression from reading these boards that in the US, a rather big part of trialing people have sheep only for the purpose of dog training, and who are primarily into dog training for trialing.

Good thing that was apparently a misconception.

[TEC]

I do not feel as comfortable as some that anything more than solely practice flocks are kept by a large portion of those who trial. They, IMO, could be called small farms. Not all.

 

The little unsanctioned ISDS-style SDT I just ran in was dominated by those who keep sheep for primarily business purposes, and rarely trial. The young lady who won had never trialed previously, and the veteran farmer who said his dogs were old and tired, and had lost their downs and precision doing farm work, was right up there. I was very happy for them, and felt that was as it should be. -- TEC

[Sue R]

That´s good to know.

I somehow got the impression from reading these boards that in the US, a rather big part of trialing people have sheep only for the purpose of dog training, and who are primarily into dog training for trialing.

Good thing that was apparently a misconception.

I'm not sure that isn't the case for many people but, as Mark pointed out and as someone in a situation like Debbie's, many do have larger flocks and herds. In addition, many of those with smaller flocks and farms will jump at any chance they get to work a friend or neighbor's flock and fields, sometimes travelling many miles in order to get the chance to do work under different circumstances.

 

I've known people who got the stock for the dog's training; got the dog because they had the stock (our case); or got the stock for the dog, and progressed to being genuine stockmen/women with viable, commercial flocks. What has struck me is just how many people have started with the dogs, gotten some sheep for "training", and now have good-sized flocks that are run in a business-like manner as commercial (even though small by some standards) farm enterprises.

 

I think everyone that I know who enjoys trialing, certainly uses their dogs in a meaningful way when managing their own flocks. In fact, they wouldn't be able to manage their flocks without the help of their *useful* dogs that also are trial competitors.

[Mark Billadeau]

Your impression is likely correct for many just getting started trialing and competing locally & regionally (as TEC fears); however, to perform well at the national level the dogs will need farm work/chores for the experience and trialing experience at many different venues and on different flocks (which TEC does appear to not accept).

[TEC]

Your impression is likely correct for many just getting started trialing and competing locally & regionally (as TEC fears); however, to perform well at the national level the dogs will need farm work/chores for the experience and trialing experience at many different venues and on different flocks (which TEC does appear to not accept).

I've got to run just now, so briefly, I understand/accept that dogs need widely varied experience to perform well at National level. Will clarify more later if needed, -- TEC

[Debbie Meier]

But, the sheep are still there for training and experience and not maintained strictly for livelihood as sheep or cattle producers.

 

It's amazing how many livestock producers are not interested in breeding dogs, I have a pup going to southern IA the first of the month, this will be the second going to this operation. They could breed their own but they don't want to. Itwas actually funny when the buyers wife asked about a female and her husband said, "what would I want with a bunch of pups?" They don't have time to mess with breeding, waiting on puppies, training. They would rather buy something from a litter that we have already weeded through with their needs in mind.

 

Think once, 1500 head of sheep, 300 momma cows, 600 head of feeders in a confinement barn and another 600 head in a open air feedlot. 2 dogs, raised one litter and have no interest in raising another. We see it a lot.

[mum24dog]

Dear Ms. Mum,

Givf is a citation?

 

Donald McCaig

 

Google is your friend.

[mum24dog]

My vet had a Merle BC that was deaf. She taught him sign language. She said that deafness is a common trait with Merle BC's.

 

Deafness is not uncommon amongst BCs of any colour.

 

Merle to Merle matings carry a significant risk of deafness but no one in their right mind would do than. Unfortunately not all breeders are sane and not all buyers are discriminating.

[Mark Billadeau]

But, the sheep are still there for training and experience and not maintained strictly for livelihood as sheep or cattle producers.

So whether or not someone makes a living off the the livestock determines if the work perfromed on that stock by the dog is a high enough standard for selecting breeding dogs?

 

The difficulty for dogs in dealing with the mama ewes and lambs changes whether or not the person makes living off the sheep?

 

The difficulty for the dogs of gathering 100 ewes and their lambs off a 50 acre field changes whether or not the person makes a living off the sheep?

 

The difficulty for the dogs of loading and unloading trailers for the sale barn changes whether or not the person makes a living off the sheep?

[GentleLake]

My vet had a Merle BC that was deaf. She taught him sign language. She said that deafness is a common trait with Merle BC's.

 

Your vet is misinformed.

 

There are, of course, problems with both vision and hearing in double merle, that is, one where both parents of merles.

 

There is some controversy about whether merles may have a slightly higher incidence of deafness, but I haven't seen enough to convince me that that's the case.

[GentleLake]

I recall the first we had a trial here and open handlers attended, I was shocked that the open dogs struggled with the work we requested that our dogs easily did. At first I was pretty proud of my dogs, but then I realized the unfair advantage our dogs had, they knew the sheep, they knew the draws, they knew the lay of the land. The sheep also set up a unfair advantage, they were cagey and knew when a dog was trying to handling them that they had the upper hand on.

 

Definitely one of those times that home court was a huge advantage.

 

This is why I've always thought that it's not quite fair for people who're hosing a trial in their own fields with their own sheep to run their dogs in those trials.

 

Since I've never trialed, it's the observation of a disinterested observer that, imo, trial hosts in that situation should politely bow out.

[juliepoudrier]

^^Regarding this, I have seen hosts do well, and other hosts not do well. Consider that the host has a myriad other things to do that go with hosting a trial--preparing for it, managing the help, managing the competitors and the judge, scribes, etc., so they are probably not nearly as focused as some of the other competitors. If the judge or course director (instead of the host) sets the course, then the host might lose any advantage gained by setting the course themselves. And really, as a sheep owner, I rarely (pretty much never) work my own flock in groups of 3 or 4--and small groups work differently than the whole flock, so hosts that work the same way will still encounter the ewe that wants to go back to her buddy who is still in the pen and similar, just as any other competitor will.

 

As a competitor, I really don't care of the host enters the trial. I just haven't seen it as a huge advantage in the grand scheme of things. And on top of that. if the host wins, no doubt at least some of the other competitors will attribute that to the "home field advantage," which sort of deflates the win anyway. But yeah, if the host recognizes that their dogs will have a distinct advantage given the conditions at the trial, then the courteous thing to do would be to bow out.

 

Just my two cents on the host running in a trial. I'm sure how people feel about it is all over the trial field, so to speak.

 

J.

[juliepoudrier]

Oh, and regarding what consitutes the perfect test, I guess my feeling is that the trial as we know it (USBCHA/ISDS style) is the one that was developed by the very folks who used these dogs daily (or were the owners of farms where the dogs were used daily). They apparently deemed it a good test of the dogs, given what they generally had to do on a regular basis on the farm. I don't know why that test, as devised originally, wouldn't still be good enough today. I know things evolve and all that, but the other venues and other tests I've seen, as well as suggestions made in this thread and other similar threads, don't seem to be any better--some are much worse (IMO) and some are just different. But I can't help thinking that the folks who came up with the original test knew what they were about when they did it. Also, since there are no requirments for, say, numbers or types of sheep/stock used, nor are there any prohibitions against adding obstacles should the host/course director want to, I don't really see where some different standard (or trial type or specific obstacles, if you will) needs to be implemented. My opinion.

 

J.

[Mark Billadeau]

There is some controversy about whether merles may have a slightly higher incidence of deafness, but I haven't seen enough to convince me that that's the case.

The only published data I know of is: Prevalence of Unilateral and Bilateral Deafness in Border Collies and Association with Phenotype

 

2.2% rate of congental deafness in non-merles (48 deaf out of 2,158 tested) and 11% rate of congental deafness in merles (16 deaf out of 145 tested)

 

This is not a large data set of merles but it can give us a sense that the rate of deafness in merles is likely higher than in the general population.

[Laurae]

Great post, Julie.

 

Oh, and regarding what consitutes the perfect test, I guess my feeling is that the trial as we know it (USBCHA/ISDS style) is the one that was developed by the very folks who used these dogs daily (or were the owners of farms where the dogs were used daily). They apparently deemed it a good test of the dogs, given what they generally had to do on a regular basis on the farm. I don't know why that test, as devised originally, wouldn't still be good enough today. I know things evolve and all that, but the other venues and other tests I've seen, as well as suggestions made in this thread and other similar threads, don't seem to be any better--some are much worse (IMO) and some are just different. But I can't help thinking that the folks who came up with the original test knew what they were about when they did it. Also, since there are no requirments for, say, numbers or types of sheep/stock used, nor are there any prohibitions against adding obstacles should the host/course director want to, I don't really see where some different standard (or trial type or specific obstacles, if you will) needs to be implemented. My opinion.

J.

[geonni banner]

The only published data I know of is: Prevalence of Unilateral and Bilateral Deafness in Border Collies and Association with Phenotype

 

2.2% rate of congental deafness in non-merles (48 deaf out of 2,158 tested) and 11% rate of congental deafness in merles (16 deaf out of 145 tested)

 

This is not a large data set of merles but it can give us a sense that the rate of deafness in merles is likely higher than in the general population.

Thought these might be of interest to some.

By way of personal observation, I did Collie rescue for a dozen years (Lassie Collies) and in that time I saw hundreds of Collies. I never saw a deaf Collie that wasn't merle. There were about half a dozen.

 

Prevalence of deafness in dogs heterozygous or homozygous for the merle allele.

Strain GM¹, Clark LA, Wahl JM, Turner AE, Murphy KE.

Author information http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19192156

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Deafness in dogs is frequently associated with the pigment genes piebald and merle. Little is known about the prevalence of deafness in dogs carrying the merle allele.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine the prevalence of deafness in dogs heterozygous and homozygous for the merle allele of the mouse Silver pigment locus homolog (SILV) gene.

ANIMALS:

One hundred and fifty-three privately owned merle dogs of different breeds and both sexes.

METHODS:

Hearing was tested by brainstem auditory-evoked response and classified as bilaterally hearing, unilaterally deaf, or bilaterally deaf. DNA from buccal cells was genotyped as either heterozygous or homozygous for the merle allele. Deafness association tests among merle genotype, eye color, and sex were performed by the chi(2) test.

RESULTS:

Deafness prevalence in merles overall was 4.6% unilaterally deaf and 4.6% bilaterally deaf. There was a significant association between hearing status and heterozygous versus homozygous merle genotype. For single merles (Mm), 2.7% were unilaterally deaf and 0.9% were bilaterally deaf. For double merles (MM), 10% were unilaterally deaf and 15% were bilaterally deaf. There was no significant association with eye color or sex.

CONCLUSIONS:

Deafness prevalence in merle dogs was greater than that in some dog breeds homozygous for the piebald gene, such as the English Cocker Spaniel, but comparable to, or lower than, that in the Dalmatian and white Bull Terrier. Dogs homozygous for the merle allele were significantly more likely to be deaf than heterozygotes.

 

 

Prevalence, heritability and genetic correlations of congenital sensorineural deafness and pigmentation phenotypes in the Border Collie

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090023310001620

• Luisa De Risio^{a, ,} ,
• Tom Lewis^b,
• Julia Freeman^a,
• Alberta de Stefani^a,
• Lara Matiasek^a,
• Sarah Blott^b

 

Purchase $35.95

 

 

doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.05.012

Get rights and content

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to estimate prevalence, heritability and genetic correlations of congenital sensorineural deafness (CSD) and pigmentation phenotypes in the Border Collie. Entire litters of Border Collies that presented to the Animal Health Trust (1994–2008) for assessment of hearing status by brain stem auditory evoked response (BAER) at 4–10 weeks of age were included. Heritability and genetic correlations were estimated using residual maximum likelihood (REML). Of 4143 puppies that met the inclusion criteria, 97.6% had normal hearing status, 2.0% were unilaterally deaf and 0.4% were bilaterally deaf. Heritability of deafness as a trichotomous trait (normal/unilaterally deaf/bilaterally deaf) was estimated at 0.42 using multivariate analysis. Genetic correlations of deafness with iris colour and merle coat colour were 0.58 and 0.26, respectively. These results indicate that there is a significant genetic effect on CSD in Border Collies and that some of the genes determining deafness also influence pigmentation phenotypes. (my bolding - GGB)

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1638 502540; fax: +44 1638 502541.

Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

[DeltaBluez Tess]

>>The little unsanctioned ISDS-style SDT I just ran in was dominated by those who keep sheep for primarily business purposes, and rarely trial. The young lady who won had never trialed previously, and the veteran farmer who said his dogs were old and tired, and had lost their downs and precision doing farm work, was right up there. I was very happy for them, and felt that was as it should be. -- TEC<<<

 

I assume you are talking about the Novice trial that Norm and Vicki Close just had? Glad you are going to them for lessons. Good people.

 

Diane~

[highway61]

I've seen many photos of trials (we have great photographers right here, thanks!) with black and whites that have one or two blue eyes. Does this mean they came from the same litter that had some blue merles?

[Maxi]

I've seen many photos of trials (we have great photographers right here, thanks!) with black and whites that have one or two blue eyes. Does this mean they came from the same litter that had some blue merles?

No

[Eileen Stein]

No. Blue eyes are somewhat more common in merles, but they are also found in dogs from non-merle litters.