question about the DNA test for CEA

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

I don't understand your question, I'm afraid. You don't have a great herding dog that has proven itself over and over, do you? And you say you have NOT been mentored by some great people. So what does having a great herding dog and having been mentored by great people have to do with our conversation?

 

No, it's not true that the only way to get knowledge is by experience. You could get it from books, for example. But my point is that to be a good breeder you must have a lot of knowledge and experience regarding working border collies before you breed.

 

>

 

All I can do is to ask you to read what I wrote again:

 

One of the signs of a bad breeder, IMO, is that they pride themselves on doing unnecessary tests. A willingness to spend money unnecessarily is no substitute for knowledge and experience when it comes to breeding good working dogs, but breeders who lack that knowledge and experience often try to fool people into thinking it is.

 

A good breeder knows what hereditary diseases are a problem in the border collie breed, and those are the diseases s/he tests for (if useful tests for them exist). A good breeder doesn't have to try to impress people with a long list of unnecessary tests, because a good breeder would have knowledge, experience and accomplishments to impress them with instead. What would you think if you went to a physician for a checkup and he ordered a prostate cancer test for you? Would you think it showed he was thorough and diligent, or would you think it was a sign of a bad doctor?

 

You keep saying you would rather be safe than sorry, but that adage just doesn't apply. Doing all those bizarro tests will not make you any safer, and not doing them will not make you sorry. That's what we mean when we say they are unnecessary.

 

>

 

I didn't ask how you test a pup for hip dysplasia or OCD because I'm unfamiliar with tests for hip dysplasia or OCD. I asked because you said "this is what we are testing our new pup for," and you can't test a little pup for these things.

 

Would you mind if I asked how old you are?

[Bill Fosher]

Samantha,

 

I think you're mistaking tests for proof. Tests are sources of information. If you can obtain the same information without a lab test, what is the point of a lab test?

 

For instance, if you have a working sheepdog that can hear you blow a stop whistle at 800 yards, why does he need to have his hearing tested in a lab? What new information will it yield?

 

If a puppy's parents are both genotypically normal for CEA, what is the point of having the puppy's eyes tested at 12 weeks? What new information will it yield?

 

I go through this discussion with my vet pretty regularly. We don't use lab tests unless they are needed to verify or differentiate between possible diagnoses, and then only if we are going to take different actions based on the outcome of the test.

 

So if the decision that is being made is whether to breed the Border collie or not, we construct a hierarchy of questions.

 

First, is the dog an outstanding worker who has talent that is good enough that his genes ought to be perpetuated: will he improve the breed?

 

If no, there is no point whatsoever in doing all the other tests you mentioned. The dog should not be bred from.

 

If yes, then you start looking at what health tests might need to be run. To work as well as is needed to get past the first question, the dog must have acute hearing. No need for BAER.

 

There's no way you could have answered yes or no to the first question until the dog is about two years old, so there would be no need for preliminary CHD testing. A simple X-Ray will probably provide the answer you're looking for: are this dog's hips sound?

 

Similarly, OCD would have shown clinical signs before the dog reached breeding age, and if you have any suspicions, then perhaps it's worth checking to be on the safe side.

 

Since PRA is not considered a problem in the breed, why bother looking for it? Do you look for tigers in Saskatchewan? If you don't know the CEA genotypes of the dog's parents, or if one or both of the parents are carriers, you can always get your dog genotyped. You'll find out whether your dog has CEA or not, but more importantly, whether he can pass it along to his offspring.

 

I think the rest of these tests you list fall into the "tigers in Saskatchewan" category.

 

The fact that you conducted all these tests would prove only one thing to me, if you were trying to sell me a puppy: that you don't know enough about the breed to make wise decisions about health testing. And if you know that little about the breed, you don't really know enough to be breeding Border collies.

[Bill Fosher]

On another topic touched upon tangetially, I would like to see the ABCA adopt an affirmative policy stating that it *will* register CEA carriers, thereby removing any ambiguity about its position on the matter.

 

I believe now that we have the genetic test, we should start registering affecteds, but I realize that would mean bucking the ISDS.

[Denise Wall]

On another topic touched upon tangetially, I would like to see the ABCA adopt an affirmative policy stating that it *will* register CEA carriers, thereby removing any ambiguity about its position on the matter.

 

I didn't realize there was any ambiguity on registering CEA carriers. There's never been a policy against this or breeding recommendations against using them. Are you saying this needs to be specifically noted in the registration eligibility section??

 

 

I believe now that we have the genetic test, we should start registering Affecteds, but I realize that would mean bucking the ISDS.

 

I can't speak to whether this will be done in the future, but, ISDS aside, do you agree with me that people may need more time to learn how to use the test properly before any changes such as this are made?

[Guest hdk9s]

I think the main thing that bothers me is you're doing what people who overtest do -- making it sound as if what you're doing is better than what people who test reasonably do. And by that same standard, that your dogs are better because of having been tested for more things than somebody else's dog.

Well no my dogs are not any better than anyone else's here. I love them the same. Testing does not make a dog better than another one. The better dog will show himself in the herding trials. So no I do not think my dogs are better than anyone else's. One is a 5 year old rescue that is neutered and would not herd a thing, but we love him just the same. The other is nothing but a pup. We will see where he is in a few years.

 

I don't see you asking any questions about breeding except health testing questions. It looks as if that's where you're placing all your emphasis. That's not what it should be all about.

No those are the questions I have. I have a lot of other questions regarding herding and such. I will get to those. Sorry for asking the wrong questions. Do you have a list of right and wrong questions for us to ask?

 

You don't have a great herding dog that has proven itself over and over, do you? And you say you have NOT been mentored by some great people. So what does having a great herding dog and having been mentored by great people have to do with our conversation?

No I cant say that I have a great herding dog as he is too young to test out. Yes I do have a few mentors. Both of which have been in the breed a very long time. Both of which will help me learn as I go.

 

No, it's not true that the only way to get knowledge is by experience. You could get it from books, for example. But my point is that to be a good breeder you must have a lot of knowledge and experience regarding working border collies before you breed.

Well here it is WE HAVE NOT BREED ANYTHING YET! Maybe you guys missed that. We did not buy a dog to breed we bought a dog to have fun with and IF he turns out we will test him for health stuff and if all is well we will get input from the two lovely ladies we know and get a suitable excellent female. With a pedigree to match.

 

Would you mind if I asked how old you are?

27

 

The fact that you conducted all these tests would prove only one thing to me, if you were trying to sell me a puppy: that you don't know enough about the breed to make wise decisions about health testing. And if you know that little about the breed, you don't really know enough to be breeding Border collies.

Well then that just means shoul dwe breed you wont buy a pup that is fine by me. I would never do a breeding if I could not keep all of the pups anyway.

 

So what you are saying is if Joe has the number 1 herding dogs in the country (both male and female) and they have been for the last three years. He has been in the breed for 25 years, and knows all there is to know about the breed, and he bred them and did all the tests I mentioned above none of you would buy a pup? I find this hard to breed.

 

I guess we can all agree to disagree on this subject. I will do with my dogs what I think is "bettering the breed" and you all can do what you like. To each their own.

[Guest windscorpion]

Sorry to jump in here. But I know Samantha and after reading this I have just one question.

 

What does it hurt to do the testing? Why would that get everyone's Knickers in a bunch? I find this odd. If the dog turns out and she wants a pup out of it so be it. I would test the living bejeezes out of it too. Never know what you find. Look what happened with the dobies and other breeds with vWd. I would sure like to know for sure if my dog had that. Esp. if he was going to be a farm hand. Nothing worst that having that happen out in the middle of nowhere. Right? Weird crap creeps into breeds. Sometimes the "Ah heck let's test for that" attitude discovers it. And if it does you should thank the people with that attitude not ream them for thinking outside the box. And oh by the way I am 38 years old.

[Denise Wall]

I would test the living bejeezes out of it too. Never know what you find.

 

I think they're up to around 9,000 different genetic diseases discovered in humans. Dogs probably aren't too far behind. Knock yourselves out.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Witch hunts do no dog any good. But your vet will love you (see Denise's post - I bet you could easily test for oh, 1500 conditions, and not put a dent in the genetic possibilities - but you could list them ALL in your advertising - woo hoo!

 

I see the majority of clinical testing to be largely a subsitute for the "survival of the fittest" selection techniques that used to rule our breed. Some people have the work to still depend on that, but most of us don't. Hence, it's responsible to evaluate potential breeding stock for conditions that are hard to spot like CEA and (possibly) borderline hip disease. I have personal "things" about thyroid and unilateral deafness but I won't be using that as a "selling point". It's just something I'll screen for since the vast majority of my work is done "at hand" and I don't feel I work my dogs hard enough to catch slight metabolic problems.

 

I do feel that there is a minimum amount of work and training that most breeding dogs should be subjected to, to determine not only talent but overall soundness. There are "things" that NO clinical evaluation exists for, that show up with nothing but hard work and high levels of training. Exercise intolerance and something I've seen that I don't know the term for (if there IS a term) - dogs that get so overworked mentally that they get physically wobbly. There's zillions more things that you really can't identify in a lab - soft tissue weakness, pad problems, spinal misalignment, weak stifles and shoulders, cardiopulmonary inadequacies - we just go on and on. Not to mention temperamental stuff.

 

You could run so many tests the poor dog would start feeling like a pincushion and start hating the vet, and still not get a picture of the "whole dog" - the type of soundness that only hangs on a lifetime and generations of real work.

[colleydogge]

i am not a scientist, but having had a dog (bc/aussie) die in my arms from von willebrands disease, i would test ANY breed for this before breeding, no matter how much i knew about the breed.

 

i'm not taking any sides on this, but 10 or 20 years ago, would we have critisized someone as being inexperienced or unknowledgeable simply because they tested for CEA, had the test been available? would doing that test back then have given us an improved dog today?

 

if i was buying a puppy, i don't think i'd be put off with a breeder who did excessive testing on the parents, as much as i would with a breeder who didn't do enough testing. (cripes, i can't even find a border collie breeder out here that has an adoption contract!).

 

15 years ago, i had many breeders out here (top notch herding dogs) tell me "oh we don't need to test for hip dysp., border collies just don't have it".

 

obviously there's way more to breeding than genetic testing, and there's no replacement for extensive experience, but there's no reason you can't have both.

 

eileen on camano island

www.ravensgate.net

[Guest hdk9s]

I see the majority of clinical testing to be largely a subsitute for the "survival of the fittest" selection techniques that used to rule our breed

Sooo if you bought a puppy from me and I did not test and it dies of say VwD I can just say oh well its survival of the fittest? I dont think so. It would kill me to learn one of my pups died from something I could have tested and avoided.

 

 

colleydogge,

THank you I now know I am doing the right thing. I was basically trying to say the same thing but you put it so much better. So now I wonder how many people will now test for this. Proably not many. So hey call me a bad breeder, call me a freak. I will test for everything because like I said you just never know. I am sorry for your loss.

[Denise Wall]

i am not a scientist, but having had a dog (bc/aussie) die in my arms from von willebrands disease, i would test ANY breed for this before breeding, no matter how much i knew about the breed.

This is a personal issue, then. I'd probably feel the same way if that had happened to me. However, Von Willebrand's disease, although common in a number of dog breeds, is not common in border collies. This is not to say no border collie has ever had this disease. In fact, probably at least one border collie has been unlucky enough to have an unusual case of almost any of the canine genetic diseases out there.

 

We know Von Willebrand's disease is not common in working border collies because the clinical manifestations of it, hemorrhagic episodes, usually spontaneous bleeding in mucous membranes, are not often reported by border collie owners. Yes, these types of things will go under-reported to vets, but people generally know if their dogs are bleeding too much and talk about it to other border collie people. In addition, as Bill said above, hard work will ferret out many health problems that go un-noticed in inactive dogs. Tendencies to increased bleeding would fit into that category.

 

Another point I'd like to make is some of these disorders are uncovered during routine testing for medical procedures, such as spay surgery, etc. That's the reason for these surgical screening tests. Bleeding problems are one thing that is usually tested for before surgery, for obvious reasons. Expression in diseases such as Von Willebrand's can be variable, even within the same individual tested at different times. Just because a test is normal in a puppy, doesn't mean it will always be normal. It's best to have the test when you need it, or if you think there's a problem. That is with this test in this breed.

 

 

i'm not taking any sides on this, but 10 or 20 years ago, would we have critisized someone as being inexperienced or unknowledgeable simply because they tested for CEA, had the test been available? would doing that test back then have given us an improved dog today?

The reason border collies started being tested for eye diseases by eye exams is because people noticed some were having trouble seeing. Again, back to what Bill was saying about the work identifying problems.

 

Certainly knowing there's a problem and testing for it doesn't always give us an improved dog, even if you consider "improved" a decreased incidence in that disorder being tested for. Look at the rough collie. They knew those dogs had CEA yet they let the incidence rise up to nearly 90% because some of the best conformation dogs had CEA and were bred from extensively anyway.

 

These dogs are whole beings, not test results. As more and more DNA tests come out, people will be forced to take on a more realistic view of breed incidences of the different diseases and face the reality that all dogs are carrying harmful mutations, just as we are, whether we know it or not. Soon we will have the ability to know. Priorities of only testing for what is most likely to be a problem will have to be established, even by the most overzealous of the over-testers.

 

obviously there's way more to breeding than genetic testing, and there's no replacement for extensive experience, but there's no reason you can't have both.

No one here has suggested genetic testing shouldn't be done. This offshoot of this thread started because someone reeled off all or almost all the tests OFA certifies for all breeds, and added at the end, "And more if I can think of any." It seemed excessive and not based on specific research of problems in the breed. Then ended by saying, "I know this is not needed in this breed but I would rather be safe than sorry why would a breeder want to save money. Arnt they doing it for the breed not the money?" This implies people who don't want to do all these tests don't have the best of the breed at heart.

 

In the end, each individual needs to decide where to draw the line for themselves and their dogs, or the dogs they want to buy.

 

The breed recommendations made by ABCA are based on diseases thought to be common in the breed at this time. They were not compiled from a quick internet search or simply adapting the recommendations of a similar group. They were developed over time, after extensive research, and with council from some of the top scientists and population geneticists in the field. They are middle of the road guidelines for people who want some idea of where to start. But, as I said, everyone needs to educate themselves and make their own personal decisions about where they want to draw the line on testing.

 

The last point I'd like to make is that some of these tests can be stressful and painful to dogs. I'm not saying people shouldn't test their dogs because of this. But personally, I weigh my dog's possible discomfort in with the perceived benefits of any test procedure, be it genetic testing or general health testing.

 

C. Denise Wall, PhD, MT(ASCP)SH

ABCA Health and Genetics Committee Member

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

High Desert K9s:

 

My pup was sired by am eight year old dog that has worked ferals in brush and barbed-wire laced overgrown pastures. I've seen him work in yards and pens so packed that his face swelled from the bruising he was taking from the animals. He's worked with pad cuts and bad body bruises. I'm fairly sure that if Von Willebrand's was an issue, it would be hard to hide. The mother has not experienced quite that level of stress but has worked cows and in similiar conditions, and I've seen her blow a pad or two.

 

There's a REASON Border Collies have a low incidence of these stress-related diseases - it is indeed a survival of the fittest issue. And you don't evaluate PUPS for soundness, you evaluate their parents. So, yes, if one of your stock sliced its face open on a fencepost nail and bled to death, it would be very sad but it would be an example of what I'd call "almost natural selection" at work.

 

Another example: my Ben has mild CEA, almost the mildest possible. You couldn't tell if he didn't work. But he has issues with making contact in "at hand" work, and on the lift. He also, ahem, runs into things when doing something really tricky or stressful.

 

We had already realized he was not breeding quality and neutered him, when we took him to a clinic and found out what his problem was. He probably has trouble with peripheral vision.

 

It is just that tiny hair's difference in his ability to work that made us decide not to breed him. It would have been even more obvious to someone with a lot more work to do. No CEA test necessary, and a dog with nearly undetectable CEA was removed from the gene pool. In a situation where someone's livelihood depended on Ben's ability to work and his head were taxed whether he worked or not, he wouldn't have made it to his second birthday. Either that or he would have misjudged the distance to a dropoff and plunged over the side of a sea cliff, crevasse, or precipice.

[Guest hdk9s]

I will say this again. We will never agree on this sunject. We see preserving the breed differently. THere is not a problem with that is there?

 

It seems I am getting excuse after excuse and really I am tired of hear the excusses. IF you dont test so be it. We will all do what we think is right for our dogs and the breed.

 

But to call me a bad breeder and blame me for taking the shot gun approuch to selling puppies, when in fact I have not bredd nor sold any puppies. I think you all are in the wrong. To stoop to a level of calling names becuase I will do things different is not nice nor mature at all.

 

I wish you all the best of luck in everything you do. Maybe we will all meet in person then maybe you will see I am not a bad person at all. I have opened my home to a lot of dogs and saved a lot of lives, I am sad to be called such things.

[Denise Wall]

Samantha, what thread are you replying to? If it's this one, I think you need to go back and re-read it because you're misunderstanding a whole bunch of things that have been discussed.

[Guest windscorpion]

Lonnnnggg siiighhh.....

 

There is nothing wrong with testing. The more the better in my opinion. If you just go by working performance as the sole tool then how do you detect a dog that may be a carrier and pass that naughty gene on to his offspring. In my opinion it is a STUPID conversation. Any one that can afford the testing should. If you can't then just do the ones you can. You will know that your dog will be safe from the "common" problems. Let's hope that there are people that have the forsight and the money to head off the nasty ones that creep into the breeds. I really have to say outloud, and I am sorry if I have misunderstood any one post, is you are CRAZY if you think you have a geneticly healthy dog just because it can work. I find this attitude an injustice to the future of any breed.

 

Hey, just thought I would add that I like all those letters after your names. Does that make your opinion any more than just that, an opinion.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I guess those shepherds were "CRAZY" when they developed one of the world's healthiest and soundest breeds with just basically selecting for working ability. But we know much better nowadays, don't we? That's why the incidence of CHD, epilepsy, joint and vertebral problems, metabolic disorders, exercise tolerance issues, and temperamental problems are all decreasing dramatically in this breed overall. Hmmm, or are they?

 

I'm NOT against practicing due diligence where necessary, as I said. We have today, some wonderful new tools and will have some more in the future. That doesn't mean they all have to be used every time, any more than you'd expect the electrician to pull out every tool in his truck to install a ground-fault outlet.

 

I missed the part where people were calling names. I'm not surprised as I've gotten about three hours of sleep in the last 72 nursing a pair of puny bottle twins. Did that happen in this thread or another? :confused:

[Denise Wall]

Hey, just thought I would add that I like all those letters after your names. Does that make your opinion any more than just that, an opinion.

I only list credentials (those letters) when it has direct bearing on the type of information I've posted. I posted both scientific and clinical laboratory information so I listed my "letters" to show my education and training in those areas just in case that matters to anyone wondering by what authority I'm making those statements.

 

Anymore, it's like if you have expertise in an area, the public considers you some sort of enemy, rather than someone who might be trying to help them.

 

As I said before, feel free, knock yourselves out. Test for several thousand diseases.

[Julia Hunt]

Getting back to the original thread, I hang out on an email list where results of the DNA CEA test are being openly shared, and there have been some surprising results. The most surprising being a dog who was diagnosed affected, twice, via exam and has DNA tested clear. I am aware of a couple of breeding which have already been averted as it turned out they would have been carrierxcarrier. I'm just blown away by how much more we collectively know now than we did 2 months ago due to this test.

 

Julia

[Eileen Stein]

Windscorpion:

 

>

 

If by "geneticly healthy" you mean a dog that is not a carrier of genes for any genetic disease, then there is no such thing as a "geneticly healthy" dog. We ALL -- all dogs and all people -- carry such genes. If breeding were to be limited to dogs free of genes for genetic diseases, thirty years from now there would be no dogs in the world. I get the impression you don't understand this.

 

No one here said that testing is bad. But just as there is such a thing as too little testing, there is also such a thing as too much testing. The best breeders know enough to recognize the happy medium.

 

>

 

No, it makes her opinion more likely to be worth something, because it's based on education and experience. It's like when I need a medical opinion, my odds are better if I get it from someone with M.D. after their name. Doesn't mean I'll have the good sense to appreciate it -- I might think my own opinion, based on not much of anything, is worth just as much. That wouldn't mean that it was worth just as much, of course.

 

Samantha (I see you're posting with the same IP number as Windscorpion, but I'll assume you're a different person):

 

No one called you any names. I said that one of the signs of a bad breeder is that they pride themselves on doing unnecessary tests. That is a true statement, but it's not a statement about you, because -- as you point out -- you are not a breeder. And I suspect you have not yet done any unnecessary tests. There is no basis for you to claim hurt feelings that I can see. It's you and your close associate Windscorpion who have been tossing words like "insane" and "crazy" around.

 

>

 

If you can show me one person like that -- one person who regularly breeds outstanding working border collies and does all the tests you listed -- then I'll be glad to answer your question. But I predict you won't be able to do that. Because that kind of laundry list testing is something good breeders of border collies simply don't do.

[Guest hdk9s]

Eileen I enjoy this board. So say in 10 years when I have had a few littlers then Maybe I can show you that breeder. I hope that we can all see that we can all get along.

 

Windscorpion is my roommate we use the same computer.

[Guest windscorpion]

Ok. In one simple answer please. No excuses. The "historicly" one isn't applicable in current times. And the this breed doesn't have that. They could. Why not know. SO Why is a good working dog breeder and a breeder that tests for "everything" mutally exclusive? That makes absoultely no sense to me. And like I said. This conversation has to be the STUPIDEST conversation I have ever heard. Your persistance makes me think that you are afraid that the bar will get raised on you. And that is my honest opinion of your position. And that is a damn shame coming from somebody in your position. Damn shame. I should think you a proponant.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

It's not that I'm afraid the bar will be raised. I'm afraid of the bar being LOWERED. That's what shifting the focus of selection for soundness, from function to clinical testing, WILL do, until such time that every dysfunction, disease, and other source of unsoundness, is testable and pretty much free of charge.

 

OK, the doctor comes to you and says, "I think you might have a severe coronary blockage. Either we'll put you on the treadmill and it will cost (I'm making up a number) $300 or we can run you through the CAT for $10,000. Oh, and the CAT scan won't tell us the real extent that the blockage might be affecting you physically, and how much time you have before The Big One."

 

Which is more useful? Screening you for actual soundness or running multiple hit-or-miss tests that give a piecemeal picture of your ability to tolerate exercise?

 

What usually happens is you get a stress test, then the doctor will scan you if red flags arise. In the same way, a responsible working breeder will focus on the dog's ability to fulfil its working potential. Part of the package is soundness. Any wavering might be a red flag, and at that point tests are useful as evaluation tools. Hip problems? Stifle? Bad feet? Spinal issues? Elbows? Mental distress? Metabolic disorders?

 

In the old days, and still in more places than you might imagine, the dog would be literally culled if unable to meet a minimum standard of usefulness. Nowadays, people tend to see a problem, identify it clinically, cull the dog through sterilization, and then evaluate their breeding program critically with that information. That's the greatest contribution these advances have the potential to make. Not going on pointless genetic witch hunts.

[Denise Wall]

First, off, thank you, Julia. It's nice to hear something positive about the CEA test.

 

And for the people here who think I am of an anti-testing mentality, I was involved in this CEA DNA test since the beginning, nine years ago. I initiated the study the ABCA is doing though Dr Todhunter at Cornell on the new technique for evaluating hips, the Dorsolateral Subluxation (DLS) measurement. I've used my own money for trips to finals to help run the eye clinic and Cornell to talk with people about the DLS technique. I've spent at least some time nearly every day for the past nine years researching and working on things associated with the Health and Genetics Committee. I say these things not to toot my own horn but so people here like Samantha and Windscorpion will understand that I'm very dedicated to the genetic health of this breed.

 

Ok. In one simple answer please. No excuses. SO Why is a good working dog breeder and a breeder that tests for "everything" mutally exclusive?

Because a good working breeder would have more sense than that.

 

Your persistance makes me think that you are afraid that the bar will get raised on you. And that is my honest opinion of your position. And that is a damn shame coming from somebody in your position. Damn shame. I should think you a proponent.

I am a proponent. I'm a very strong proponent of testing, as long as it's appropriate. And I have a long track record of blood, sweat and tears to prove my dedication. I'm not persistent because I'm afraid of any bar getting raised, I'm trying to explain things using a view of the big picture. I've spent a lot of time and effort trying to figure out the big picture. Can you say the same? Or does "testing for everything" just seem like a good idea to you. Such a good idea that anybody who thinks differently couldn't possibly have the good of the breed at heart.

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

Okay, on what is your opinion based? What knowledge and experience with border collies? Or veterinary medicine? Or population genetics?

 

Denise has shared with you her credentials. What are yours?

[steve clendenin]

Well said Denise.

I know how hard Denise has work on making the WORKING BORDER COLLIE and with out her a few other people that cares for the breed we would still be breed dog with CEA and other problems.

If every dog that test as a carrier never got bred we would end up loseing some of our best lines of working Border Collies.

I bred a dog and bitch that tested clear but to make sure i HAD THE PUPS TESTED JUST TO MAKE SURE THE PUPS