Expectations

[Pam Wolf]

Recently talking with some breeders and trainers, there seemed to be an attitude that working dogs don't make it past 4-5 years so why bother with health testing of dogs?

 

don't know about them, but I want my working dog to live a bit longer than 4-5 years. And I want to be sure that dog can hear, move without pain, see where it is going and live to a ripe old age.

 

Now, I would NEVER advocate selection for health over working ability, but if all the really good working dogs are not tested then where will the breed end up in 20-30 years from now?

Yes, testing will increase price on pups, BUT if that dog lives longer and is useful for 2-3 times the cheaper dog, then isn't it worth it? And it can take 3-4 years to get a dog trained up to a high level of usefulness, so I would not want to have to discard a working dog just as it hits it's peak, nor would I want the dog to die just as it is getting good.

 

Additionally it seems if people were more willing to pay more for a working pup then they might consider better care for the dog and it might make it to a ripe old age.

[toney]

You must not associate with the working breeders and trainers I do then. I'm glad I'm not in your area.

[Smalahundur]

Recently talking with some breeders and trainers, there seemed to be an attitude that working dogs don't make it past 4-5 years so why bother with health testing of dogs?

I think this is an absurd attitude, At four years I expect my working dog to have just come in gear, anyway not much earlier than that. I wonder what kind of handler thinks and works this way. The only one that comes to mind would be a very ambitious competitive trialer (nothing but speculation on my part)..

 

Selecting for health/stamina in my opinion is an integral part of selecting for work, without it the dog is useless.

 

Whether or not this kind of testing is the most important way to select for health, that is probably food for a whole other discussion.

[Debbie Meier]

I think it depends on the work the dog is expected to perform, while I doubt that anyone wants to write dogs off at 4-5 there is the reality that some work is harder then other work and comes with a higher risk of injury or death.

 

Would need more information as to the context of the discussions before judging as to if the breeders/trainers are actually accepting dogs that will only last a few years or if they are instead accepting that the work that their dogs will be doing is high risk.

 

A 12 year old dog that spent it's life with a small farm flock of sheep or goats is hardly likely to face the same adversity and risk of death as the 12 year old dog that spent his life at a feedlot or gathering and moving pairs. Really can't compare the longevity and health between the two at any point in their life due to the work and requirement being so different, be like comparing apples and oranges.

[Mark Billadeau]

Find different breeders and trainers

[Pippin's person]

I have never encountered that attitude among stockdog people I know. Most expect their dog to be in its prime at 4-5. Most, if not all, also do health testing prior to breeding. Many, probably most, also select health over working ability (not absolutely but everyone I know recognizes that a good working dog is a healthy dog)

[Sue R]

I wonder if it's a cultural thing associated with location? Or an attitude fostered by a multitude of dogs, maybe mediocre dogs, doing slap-dash work and getting injured/killed because of lack of ability and/or reasonable training? In other words, is it just as easy to consider them as "disposable" as to put the money into well-bred and/or well-trained animals?

 

My dogs have gotten better with age so it would not make sense for me to go to the effort/expense of raising them, just to expect to lose them quickly when they have finally got experience and real usefulness.

 

It sounds like a sad situation.

[Maralynn]

I'm not in herding circles but have contacted several breeders as I've looked for dogs. I've yet to talk to a breeder who was unconcerned with health and longevity. They haven't all done health testing but it was more because their dogs were healthy, sound workers for a long period of time and they didn't see the need. It was not because they expected the dog to break down at a relatively young age.

[gcv-border]

Recently talking with some breeders and trainers, there seemed to be an attitude that working dogs don't make it past 4-5 years so why bother with health testing of dogs?

Just from the genetic side, if one doesn't pay attention to the health side of the question, I would predict that if one was to continue on this course (i.e. breeding without caring about health or longevity), the dogs would begin to break down even sooner than 4-5 years (which sounds way too early).

[Gideon's girl]

The people I'm training with seem to think that a dog is just coming into its own at around 4 years old and two of them are still working 13 year old dogs. These dogs are given lighter tasks than the younger dogs, as far as the physical aspect, but are valued for the good head they have in difficult circumstances and are still "go to" dogs.

[alligande]

Not a sheepdog but I was visiting with my former neighbor last week and his 11 year old GSD still occasionally goes to work with him as an explosives search dog, she was working full time until this last winter. What it costs to train in money and time to train the dogs I am amazed by that attitude, I would have thought that you would want as many years of service as possible.

[juliepoudrier]

My 13 year old is still my best dog for working lambs. Unfortunately she's deaf and arthritic, but if there is a lamb issue (say, lamb that has gotten on the wrong side of the fence), she's still my go to dog. She doesn't really need commands.

 

My two main work dogs are 9 and nearly 9.

 

I've never heard of anyone saying that they wouldn't do any health testing because the dogs don't live long enough to make it worthwhile. I, too, wonder if those folks aren't setting dogs up for early bodily failure and/or death.

 

J.

[B Point]

Recently talking with some breeders and trainers, there seemed to be an attitude that working dogs don't make it past 4-5 years so why bother with health testing of dogs?

 

don't know about them, but I want my working dog to live a bit longer than 4-5 years. And I want to be sure that dog can hear, move without pain, see where it is going and live to a ripe old age.

 

Now, I would NEVER advocate selection for health over working ability, but if all the really good working dogs are not tested then where will the breed end up in 20-30 years from now?

 

Yes, testing will increase price on pups, BUT if that dog lives longer and is useful for 2-3 times the cheaper dog, then isn't it worth it? And it can take 3-4 years to get a dog trained up to a high level of usefulness, so I would not want to have to discard a working dog just as it hits it's peak, nor would I want the dog to die just as it is getting good.

 

Additionally it seems if people were more willing to pay more for a working pup then they might consider better care for the dog and it might make it to a ripe old age.

How do they define "don't make it"? Rainbow bridge...kind of Don't make it..??

[Pam Wolf]

don't make it = die

[Tea]

I have two old dogs that still work. Heck I have an ancient sled dog that still works. When they can no longer work, they get to watch rural TV.

 

Hum, I wonder If I will get to do that?

[Mark Billadeau]

Hopefully my Peg has passed her longevity genes onto all her pups, grand pups, etc. I can't believe she is 12; where has the time gone?

[Liz P]

The original comment came about when I mentioned trying to balance finding a stud who would produce good working dogs but not produce career ending genetic diseases (EOD, epilepsy, HD, etc).

 

The response was essentially "don't worry about health because working dogs don't last beyond 4 or 5 years old anyway" (are killed on the job). I believe this person primarily works cattle.

[Mark Billadeau]

The genetics of pups don't just come from the stud; the dam contributes equally (both in terms of health and other genetically controlled traits).

[Liz P]

Mark, of course. The conversation had to do with finding the right stud dog for a bitch and balancing out all considerations, including trying to not double up on risks on both sides of the pedigree. This person's feeling was that it didn't matter if your bitch had a risk of diseases X, Y and Z and the stud had he same risks. So what if the pups ended up with those diseases because they would be dead by 4 anyway.

[Maralynn]

*head desk*

[Laurae]

So, perhaps not actually a pervasive attitude at all. Maybe just one person's attitude.

[juliepoudrier]

So, perhaps not actually a pervasive attitude at all. Maybe just one person's attitude.

^^Yep. Or perhaps the attitude of people who don't see dogs as valuable enough to try to take care that they aren't killed while working. Personally if none of my dogs lived past 4 or 5, I'd wonder about my own training and management....

 

 

J.

[Liz P]

I've heard similar comments before from some cow dog people (dogs don't last very long so don't spend a lot to buy a pup).

[Smalahundur]

Seems to be a harsh world. I don´t think I would want to own and train a stock dog with such prospects.

Apart from the emotional aspect hardly worth it (puppy price is not such a big part of the money /time investment).

[Sue R]

I wonder how many of these people being described are of the attitude that, "Damn fool dog went and got itself killed." For some who have a ready supply of cheap pups (produced by themselves or by others of the same ilk), it might be cheaper and easier to get another, let it work largely on instinct (yelling when they don't get the right action from the dog), and letting it get killed because it's not been well-trained and the stock and situation lend themselves to easily killing or maiming dogs.

 

I've been to half a dozen or so cattledog clinics where there was usually a core of the same people, plus some folks you'd just see at one clinic and then maybe not again. The "maybe not again" folks may have been those who were expecting everything to be accomplished in one clinic and were dissatisfied. Or maybe they came and learned enough to deal with their obvious problems and were content with the results. The people who came again and again really wanted to learn. I'd say that just about everyone I met there (two different clinicians and two vastly different approaches in teaching/training) was concerned about their dogs and wanted to train well and keep their dogs in good shape. The dogs were not "disposable", at least not to most of the participants. But if these folks either didn't have issues they wanted resolved or weren't interested in doing a better job training and handling their dogs, they wouldn't have taken the time, money, and effort to go to a clinic, either.

 

I feel sorry for the dogs that just simply do the best they can under the circumstances, and earn nothing more than an early death giving their all for farmers or ranchers who don't really care about them. Shame.