laurie etc Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Rebecca mentioned... "But I've noticed that about breeders who focus on their dogs as potential breeding machines. Instead of discussion of their dogs' abilities and potential, and what they get out of their partnership with their canine other half, you hear a lot of talk about "beauty and brains" and "structural soundness". As if the shepherds whose bread and butter depended on the ability of this breed to run for miles every day, weren't interested in soundness - and these modern breeders just invented soundness. Let me ask you. Did you make sure the parents of your pup could work all day in all weather, on hills and on rough terrain and in woods where a well-coupled body and sharp hearing and split-second accurate eyesight are crucial? At night? Have you seen them work pens/chutes/trailers and take the beating that goes on in there? Did you make sure they have the temperament to adapt to different types of stock unfamiliar to them, or working stock in a totally environment?" I've been lurking along reading this thread - just had to throw in my 2 cents worth...maybe to put it in perspective... I was in England a cope years ago on a vacation, and through some friends here was put in contact with Jim and Shirley Cropper. (Jim has been a shepherd his whole life, and he and his wife Shirley also trial their dogs at the highest levels of competition.) Went to visit them on "the hill" - which was a mountain by my standards (I live in West Virginia)- and they graciously took me out to show me their dogs and how they use them. In gale force winds and freezing rain, his world trial level dog was sent out to gather a couple hundred ewes from a "hill" that looked something like maybe 300 acres straight up. The dog speedily took a wide cast "away to me" up the mountain along a fence line and disapeared from sight - we could not see him at all after a few minutes - but finally we COULD see the sheep slowly moving toward us from all over the pasture - beginning to our right and then moving down from the left - still no sight of the dog. After about 10 minutes, the dog appeared at the top of the "hill" a small black speck. Systematically, he balanced the 2 hundred or so sheep in perfect precision to Jim. He them sent the dog around with his whistle and he moved the entire flock around the field in a "trial type" pattern - just no panels to move them through. This dog, at 7 or eight years old, was 2nd in the world the previous year, and wasn't even winded when Jim gave him a that'll do and called him back to the truck. Afterwards Jim also brought out his 2 nursery dogs and worked them in brace, with 2 sets of whistle commands, at 18 months old, these "pups" were like rocket scientists compared to my dogs. A very humbling and enlightening experience - it became very clear to me what the shepherds "across the pond" have been breeding for all these centuries. It would be crime to let "a laundry list of medical tests" become more important that the essence of what a Border Collie is. The dogs worked by those Shepherds are tested in ways that no laboratory tests or xray could ever define. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest windscorpion Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Hee Hee you guys got Samantha so frustrated that she posted as me. That is pretty good. I still look at the entertainment value. You guys need to get over yourself. The gene pool is very large. Last time I checked there was not a shortage of working dogs (and some very good ones at that). My opinion is BREED THE BEST TO THE BEST. (a carrier is not the best. Period.) You guys act like if one more genetic defect is found the whole beloved breed will go to pot. If you guys don't want to, so be it somebody else will set the bar and the standard. So what, who cares. Not me. I set my own standards and so does Samantha. If you don't do the best you can that is on you. I really do think that this is the end of the "conversation". Or if you want we can go around and around like a dog chasing its tail. Saying the same things over and over. That is fun. Isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurie etc Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 WINDSCORPION SAID..."My opinion is BREED THE BEST TO THE BEST. (a carrier is not the best. Period.) You guys act like if one more genetic defect is found the whole beloved breed will go to pot. If you guys don't want to, so be it somebody else will set the bar and the standard. So what, who cares. Not me. I set my own standards and so does Samantha. If you don't do the best you can that is on you. " As someone who has been reading, and not replying til now - I think I can say that "setting the bar" seems to be where you disagree. To Windscorpion and/or Samantha the bar is set based on medical testing, and to most of the other respondents, it is set by working ability, combined with medical health, soundness and longevity. I don't think anyone on this board would purposely or knowingly breed a dog that would produce puppies who display any of the "laundry list" of problems. But they are most concerned with the original purpose and abilities of the BC being preserved, not lost to a "priority of tests and procedures" being held as more important. Coming from a background in Golden Retrievers (breeding, rescue and competition) and hunting American Foxhounds, (as well as a couple of decades working at a University Veterinary Hospital)I can assure you that even the most tested, most carefully planned out matings sometimes produce physical and medical wrecks; that moving from a "working" criteria to a "Standard of physical looks and type", and yes, emphasis on "clearances", can lead to ruin of the working ability of a breed. I am certainly not saying I would not test for hip, eye and hearing soundness (I do), and I would test for vWD if I suspected a problem. I also know BC's who have epilepsy, IBS, Pancreatic enzyme insufficiency, allergies, undescended testicles, high cancer incidences, thyroid problems, and a myriad of other problems. Personally, I would not want to breed (or get a puppy from) any of those dogs, trial winner or not. Chances are, if those dogs were trained and tested under true working conditions, over time they would not hold up to a standard of working excellence and be culled from the gene pool anyways. So "breeding the best to the best" is a relative term. "The Best" 2 year old Nursery Winner with all his clearances could be a sickly, crippled or dead 6 year old - is he still "the best" just because he passed all the tests? Years ago at an Ian Dunbar seminar, he suggested that he would never breed a bitch to any dog under the age of 8 or 9 that wasn't ?proven" in soundness, health and ability, and that the bitch, if not old enough to be proven thoroughly, would have to be from a family of proven, long-lived parents. He suggested a breeding program based on survival of the fittest in all breeds? that if you let nature "cull" your breeding prospects, rather than coddling them, we would naturally have a much healthier dog of any breed and curtail a number of genetic and potentially even congential problems. Just food for thought... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoloRiver Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Methinks Samantha and "Windscorpion" need to take some basic courses in genetics. The fact of the matter is that every dog out there is a carrier of something bad -- there is no such thing as a dog that has no deleterious recessives. In addition, there's nothing particularly bad about carrying a deleterious recessive as long as you only have one copy and you don't breed to someone who can pass another one on to your kids. The CEA test allows us to plan matings so that carriers won't be bred to one another, thus guaranteeing 100% that a carrier won't produce any affected dogs. When matings are planned this way, there is no cost to retaining carriers in the population and a lot of benefits. We are lucky in that the gene pool for Border Collies is pretty big. I wonder why that is? Could it be because breeders have avoided wholesale blacklisting of entire lines of dogs for stupid reasons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest windscorpion Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 One last time for all those currently present with the recessive "anti-reading comprehension" gene present BOTH PARENTS. (gee I wonder what afflicted percentage that would be?) Mistakes can be made with carriers and they should be culled. Non-working dogs should be culled. If your dog is not the best it should be culled. (Culled=snip snip) There should be some extrodinary reason to breed it. THUS the best to the best only, EACH AND EVERY TIME. And yes! AKC and UKC screw up breeds by breeding for looks and not function. You are not saying something that every true breed lover hasn't noticed toot sweet. But geez did genentic testing do that???? I hope not or I am not going in for my next pap smear. I wonder what the heck could happen there! Where the heck did I ever say REPLACE testing with working? YOU GUYS, no matter what your education level is, need to apply more serious time to reading these posts because you are not comprehending what you are reading. I understand genetics. In the quest to teach Bio I have bumped into it a time or two. (I suppose I will have to prove that next.) I love the whole little cute pea pod examples you are giving me but it doesn't fly. A risk is a risk to me. The best to the best. I am not sure if I can cram my thoughts into shorter sentences. So I hope this gets through. DONE. :eek: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearse Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Uhm, minor point of information. A "Pap smear" is NOT a genetic test. It's a cytologic test. A pap test (from Dr. Papanicolaou) is a technique for obtaining cells from the cervix which are examined under a microscope for signs that they are "dysplastic" (ie: of abnormal appearance) which may mean they are precancerous (it may also just mean that they look abnormal). The most well known contributing factor to dysplastic or cancerous cells in the cervix is infection with human papilloma virus (HPV) and not a genetic cause. More information here or here . Not looking to contradict you. Just don't want to start a rumour that every woman getting a PAP test is being "genetically tested". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amc Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Windscorpion, your ignorance of the breed is staggering. Can you give me a list of the great historical dogs that are CEA carriers that you would have culled had you the right to do so? List your 8 week old pup's pedigree here and I will be happy to enlighten you. Many of the popular sires and dams from superb ISDS working lines are CEA carriers. If a witch hunt such as you advocate had culled them, our breed would in NO WAY be improved at this point. Come on; share your pup's stellar pedigree. Amy Coapman Member, ABCA H&G committee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoloRiver Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 These people (or should I say this person) have got to be trolls. I can't believe I didn't catch on before. I mean, I've spent enough time on Usenet; I should really know better how to spot one by now. All the classic symptoms: the ranting, the insistence that it/her/they just aren't understood, the two "different" people who happen to use the same computer and defend each other, the claims of advanced, relevant education or experience that don't at all jibe with what's been posted, the totally irrelevant and kind of icky reference to an unrelated medical test. Next thing you know someone will compare someone else to Hitler and we can put the entire thread to rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest windscorpion Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Goodness. I was comparing what should be common testing. I laughed when I typed it because Samantha had said "they are going to pick that apart too because that is not a genetic test". WELL DUH! She nailed it on the head. I thought you were capable of drawing comparison. I did not know that teachers and vet techs were highly educated. Thank you. I have attempted to end the arguement several times. Trolls. LOL. You guys can not stop until you force your OPINIONS down someone with a conflicting opinions throat. DONE. You guys should be less suspicious of people trying to do the right things and embrace them (god forbid even guide them); more suspicious of what is lurking in the breeding of your dogs and maybe happy that somebody else is keeping an eye on it. Just had to let you know you guys just lost for me the "testing comparison bet" (mentioned above). I am doing the dishes for a week. Now I am being told to leave you guys alone because you will twist and pick and worry about trolls. If you could just give me one good reason that Sam should not do the testing other than it is not in the breed. Because it very well could be. Or "Good Breeders don't test because they work". I would be happy to discuss why it is bad for someone to test the crap out of their dog and not excluding working aspect of it. I would be happy to entertain it. IN A CIVIL WAY. Not a demeaning way where you have a holier than others attitude. NOW THERE IS A RANT. (Why is it bad to mention a pap smear? I though we were all educated grown up people. Maybe I should have come up with a different test everyone hates to do and if they don't do it they could die.) RANT PART 2 Done and over. So if you want to go forward with a discussion as to why other genetic disease can not become a problem in the breed let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amc Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 A Pap smear is a great test because it is simple, cheap, easy and noninvasive AND it tests for a very COMMON problem and does so with good specificity and sensistivity..unlike the multitude of canine genetic tests you guys are advocating. Now then...where is the pedigree of your pup??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tildy Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 sheeesh....felt like I read novel..somebody give me a nice short answer here..my duchess is a family pet..live on 3 acres..surrounded by 60/70 acres.no intention of breeding or selling pups..do I need to test my dog for anything??????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeltaBluez Tess Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 I am interested in this pups lineage.....I am doing research on the history of sheepdog trialing in north america and like to hear of the great dogs that we have in north america...and i get the impression that your dog is from noted lines? diane carnation, wa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebecca, Irena Farm Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Terie: You are correct. brevity is the soul of wit. And typing one-handed while feeding a new bottle lemb is the soul of brevity. No, unless you suspect some problem nptice changes in health or hear of somthing in the parents, thete's no need to do genetic screening on a non-breeding animal. If I were in your situation and intended to go back to the same parents, and the breeder weren't all that big in things like eye testing, I might be tempted to spend the money on the DNA CEA test to see what I've got in my pup. We're just a bit hot under the collar because we got this breed as a remarkably sound, magnificently talented animal through no other method than breeding with a particular job in mind. It's aggravating to see people make light of the work it took to get our breed to this point, for the sake of personal vanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tildy Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 rebecca...thanks..have had my "girl" for 2 yrs..got her 8 weeks old..new to this board and not a farmer..just tryin to learn a thing or 2 about these beautiful intellegent animals... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest windscorpion Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 It's aggravating to see people make light of the work it took to get our breed to this point, for the sake of personal vanity.Brookcove,Now I know that comment wasn't direct at me or Samantha. Right? Because if it was I would like you personally outline via quotes where I made light of working ability OR illustrate please the "personal vanity" involved. If I misunderstood your snipe I will say "sorry" a head of time. But given the content and the players of this thread, I don't think that I did. And will only think of it as bait in attempt to sucker us back in to this tail chasing conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted February 7, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Surely you realize that those who think you and your alter ego have shown little appreciation of what's involved in breeding for working ability and have displayed a lot of personal vanity will consider Becca's comment apt, and those who didn't won't. And nothing you might say will change that. Your belief that folks are continually trying to lure you back into posting might seem like a sign of personal vanity in and of itself. Be that as it may, I doubt anyone wants you to resume saying the same things over and over again, and you don't seem to have understood much of what was said to you. So unless you're willing to post your pup's pedigree and answer the questions I asked -- which would be some indication of whether you took working ability seriously -- why don't you just let the subject drop? I'm sure everybody has drawn their own conclusions by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeltaBluez Tess Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 "The pup was chosen based on pedigree, testing (the most we could find which was sorry to say not what we will do but still well within YOUR standards) and working ability of ancestors." Let me ask this again in case you didn't get that Amy and I had asked earlier.. Who is in the pedigree (up close, parents, grandparents), what type of testing did you base your decision on, and what was the working ability of the ancestors who selected for? BTW in case you are interested (probably not) I have my dogs tested....the big pass/fail test is on the hill..... Diane Carnation, WA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Wall Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Before this thread grinds to a halt, I'd like to point out how ironic it is that a thread originated to discuss working breeders using the DNA test for CEA (the development of which was funded by working border collie people) has somehow morphed into a couple of people saying working breeders think testing is bad and don't test. I just want to make sure everyone is clear that what was being argued by the working people here was NOT against testing for breed specific problems but instead against unnecessary testing for "everything" just in case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tildy Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 waving white flag...not a breeder nor do I intend to breed,not a farmer..just clueless,someone mentioned what is in pedigree..what are you supposed to look for??? not being a smartass..seriously asking....hanging head..no idea..have had my duchess 2 yrs just learning about this breed...was so busy falling in love with her,,,just getting around to this...thanks.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeltaBluez Tess Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 "I just want to make sure everyone is clear that what was being argued by the working people here was NOT against testing for breed specific problems but instead against unnecessary testing for "everything" just in case. " I do test my dogs, working ability as well as CERF, hips, elbows, shoulders. If needed, other tests as deemed necessary. I do not do unnessaary tests for 'everything' just in case. I agree wiht you. If some test should come up that should prove valuable for the Breed then I will add it to my list. I also get my dogs from other handler/breeders sho do the same tests that I do. They also tell me about the flaws of the bloodlines...not genetic tests but, a bit of a wide outrunner, sticky eye and so forth. That is the hill test than can not be tested in the lab. Diane Pagel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted February 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 Tildy, if you're happy with your dog and you don't need her to work and you don't intend to breed her, you don't need to look for anything in her pedigree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tildy Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 ohhhh I am happy with lil miss pee pants...lol..was just curious.....have actually taken out her papers...have NO IDEA ON GOD"S GREEN EARTH what I am looking at.besides abunch of ABCA..AIBC..NASD.ISDS....lol.....only one I know is American Border Collie assc...lol.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeltaBluez Tess Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 "was so busy falling in love with her" that is what is really important....loving your dog. Diane Pagel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedream Farm Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 Having come to this thread very late and after a very long read, I have a couple general comments. 1. If you wanted advice on an electrical problem whose advice would you take, a plumber, someone studying to be an electrician, or an experienced working electrician current on local building codes? 2. Testing for everything has been used in the past as a diagnostic method in medicine. Human medicine went through this several years with doctors ordering up every test that might give them information. This over testing has help lead to dramatic increases in the cost of health care. So while it's tempting to test for everything, there is a down side and it does point to a lack of ability to diagnose (or at least narrow down) by observations made during a physical. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.