Eileen Stein

I certainly wouldn't accept the stuff that PETA says at face value, either, and that op-ed is a good example of why.

1. A Chihuahua could certainly be running/attacking livestock, more likely along with other dogs.

2. Depends what you mean by "working with." If "working with" consisted of loaning him cat traps and giving him a dog house for his two tethered dogs, then they might well not be aware that Maya was his dog. If "working with" consisted of sitting around on his porch talking with him about Maya, as the first quote states, then yes, they would be aware that Maya was his dog. I have to ask myself, which is more likely? Bad as PETA may be, do their employees really go around befriending people one by one so they can steal and kill their dogs?

3. Apparently they were requested to do so by the neighboring farmer initially, which I agree gives them no legal right. If after that they were requested by the owners of the trailer park on which the dogs were running at large, they may well have had a legal right. That would depend on local law, and the prosecutor did not seem to think any law had been violated.

Etlai, I agree that it's always good to fact-check information posted by partisan sources. For example, here are two different versions of the Maya story recounted in your post:

The version taken from your reddit quote:

On October 18, 2014, in Parksley, VA, PETA stole Maya, a happy and healthy dog, from her porch while her family was out. They killed her that very day. According to a spokesman for Maya’s family, PETA came to the trailer park where the family lives, where most of the residents are Spanish speaking with few resources. The PETA representatives befriended the residents. They got to know who lived where and who had dogs. In fact, they sat with the family on the same porch from which they later took Maya. Waiting until the family was away from the home, PETA employees backed their van up to the porch and threw biscuits to Maya, in an attempt to coax her off her property and therefore give PETA the ability to claim she was a stray dog “at large.” But Maya refused to stay off the porch and ran back. Thinking that no one was around, one of the employees—who was later charged with larceny—went onto the property and took Maya.

When the family returned and found their beloved Maya missing, they searched around the neighborhood before checking the video on the surveillance camera. That is when they saw the PETA van on the film and recognized the woman who had come to their house on prior occasions to talk to them about Maya. They called PETA and asked for Maya’s return. According to a family spokesperson, PETA claimed it did not have the dog. When PETA was told that its employees had been filmed taking the dog, they hung up. Shortly afterward, a PETA attorney called and informed the family that Maya was dead. PETA had killed her. She may not be the only one. On the day they stole Maya, other animals went missing as well. Had a surveillance video not been available, the killing of Maya would have remained unknown, as are the fates of the other animals. Yet in its reporting of Maya to VDACS, she is listed as a “stray.”

The commonwealth attorney's version, in explaining why he did not bring charges against the two "PETA ladies":

 

The facts appear be that PETA was asked to help when an adjacent landowner reported that they should see how his cow with her udders ripped up from abandoned and stray dogs in the trailer park area amounted to a menace not to be tolerated. He complained to PETA that the abandoned and stray dogs attacked his livestock, injured his milking cow, killed his goat and terrorized his rabbits. Abandoned and/or stray dogs and cats have appeared to have been considerable in what is known as Dreamland 2. PETA responded and the trailer park management encouraged their efforts in an attempt to gather stray/abandoned cats and dogs. Additionally the leases provided that no dogs were allowed to run free in the trailer park.

Approximately three weeks before Mr. Cerate's dog was taken by the women associated with PETA, Mr. Cerate asked if they would put traps under his trailer to catch some of the wild cats that were in the trailer park, and traps were provided to him as requested. Additionally, parties associated with PETA provided Mr. Cerate with a dog house for two other dogs that were tethered outside of Mr. Cerate's home.

On or about October 18 a van that was operated by the ladies associated with PETA arrived the at the trailer park. The van was clearly marked PETA and in broad daylight arrived gathering up what abandoned stray dogs and cats could be gathered. Among the animals gathered was the Chihuahua of Mr. Cerate. Unfortunately the Chihuahua wore no collar, no license, no rabies tag, nothing whatsoever to indicate the dog was other than a stray or abandoned dog. It was not tethered nor was it contained. Other animals were also gathered. Individuals living in the trailer park were present and the entire episode was without confrontation. Mr. Cerate was not at home and the dog was loose, sometimes entering the shed/porch or other times outside in the trailer park before he was put in the van and carried from the park. The dogs owned by Mr. Cerate that were tethered were not taken.

Whether one favors or disfavors PETA has little to do with the decision of criminality. The issue is whether there is evidence that the two people when taking the dog believed they were taking the dog of another or whether they were taking an abandoned and/or stray animal. There have been no complaints on the other animals taken on that same day, and, like the Chihuahua, had no collar or tag. From the request of the neighboring livestock owner and the endorsement by the trailer park owner/manager the decision as to the existence of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt must be made by the prosecutor. More clearly stated, with the evidence that is available to the Commonwealth, it is just as likely that the two women believed they were gathering abandoned and/or stray animals rather than stealing the property of another. Indeed, it is more probable under this evidence that the two women associated with PETA that day believed they were gathering animals that posed health and/or livestock threat in the trailer park and adjacent community. Without evidence supporting the requisite criminal intent, no criminal prosecution can occur.

The animals were not euthanized in Accomack County, so this jurisdiction makes no determination on those issues.

I am far from a PETA supporter, but it bothers me when people feel they need to make their case by slanting or misstating the facts.

The spammer's account has been disabled. Thanks to all who reported the posts.

I was curious about whether a dog who has only one side of working dogs in her ancestry will be missing vital ingredients that make up a good sheep dog?

That very much depends. I am thinking of a well-known, highly-regarded dog who was so prepotent that it almost didn't matter who he was bred to, the offspring took after him so strongly. One of his sons, who was also a really fine, much-admired dog, had much less capacity to produce offspring that reflected his abilities. This ability to transmit more of a dog's quality to its offspring -- which is called prepotence -- is something that cannot be predicted in advance. It can only be observed later.

Can you already tell at this age that she's not from strong breeding? Would you expect different if you knew the parents were both open level trial dogs?

IMO, you cannot tell this -- or very much at all -- from observing a dog's first few exposures to sheep. You certainly cannot tell it about your dog from these videos. You can only observe the good bits and the not-so-good bits (and pretty much all beginner pups have both). You can't predict how the dog will develop as it goes along. The best trainers I know don't even try.

Beyond that, I would absolutely urge you -- beg you, really -- not to focus so much on your dog's breeding. It is what it is. If you had no knowledge of her ancestry, or if you knew that her sire and dam were both top open dogs, you would still have to wait and see how she turns out. Good dogs have come from poor breeding, and poor dogs have come from good breeding. We try to breed conscientiously and insightfully because it increases our odds of producing good dogs, not to guarantee that we will produce only good dogs. Nothing we can do will guarantee that.

Maxi, from what I understand (and my limited direct experience) IGS in humans nearly always manifests as pernicious anemia leading to neurological problems, while cobalamin malabsorption syndrome (or IGS, if you prefer) in dogs more typically presents as GI issues. Is that your understanding too?

I too tend to think B12 deficiency is looking less and less likely as the source of Trooper's problems.

I agree that the IGS and cobalamin malabsorption (I'm not sure all cobalamin malabsorption is IGS, since it didn't show up in my dog until she was around 10) is often missed.

As I understand it, cobalamin deficiency (vitamin B₁₂ deficiency) can result from a number of causes, one of which is cobalamin malabsorption syndrome, which is hereditary and always (AFAIK) shows up young (though it may not be diagnosed until later). IGS (Imerslund-Grasbeck Syndrome) is the name given to cobalamin malabsorption in humans, but it is coming to be used for the disorder in dogs as well. I'd prefer to keep the term IGS for humans (just as I wouldn't call BSE [mad cow disease] CJD or vCJD [Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, its human version]), but the tide seems to be going the other way.

Of the various companies I know of in the US who offer DNA tests for it, Animal Genetics ($45) calls it IGS, VGL ($50) calls it IGS, VetGen ($65) calls it Cobalamin (B12) malabsorption, and PawPrint Genetics ($80) calls it Intestinal cobalamin malabsorption (Border Collie type).

Very glad to hear that Trooper is doing so much better.

Digression to anyone in the US who has not tasted Icelandic lamb: If you have the opportunity to buy some during the short season in the fall when imported Icelandic lamb is available, DO IT! You'll be glad you did.

Return to topic: Congratulations, Smalahundur!

OMG

So sorry about the sarcoma. There's a lot of heartbreak in dogs. Hope the road ahead for her and you is as easy as possible.

I'm glad you've found help here -- you've given a lot of help here yourself over the years. The members are what make the Boards what they are, and we've been lucky to have a lot of good contributors. I'm grateful to all of them.

For me, it's not only been about learning how to talk properly and move appropriately so that my dogs understand me (maybe that should really be 'choose to listen to me').

 

I think my major breakthrough with stockwork came when I started to really listen to what my dogs and, just as importantly, the sheep were saying to me and to each other.

 

 

Along these lines, a major mind-shifting experience for me came from a session with Kent Kuykendall. (Kent has pretty much retired from giving lessons now, so some of you may only know of him from his excellent whistle tape.) We were working with a youngster I had recently put on whistles. Kent worked the dog for a while, using my whistles and several variations of them as he went along. He would occasionally comment something like, "For this dog, Whistle X means ____________." "You'll get better results with this dog if you use Whistle Y for what you're asking for here." I realized he was not just shaping the dog to the whistles, he was shaping the whistles to the dog, observing how the dog reacted to all these variations so he could understand what the dog's natural reaction was to each, how the dog understood each. Sort of negotiating the meaning of the whistles -- working them out together rather than just imposing them. Here was yet another thing that was there to be seen, but up til then I did not see it.

Etlai, sorry for the reverse hijack. I wish I knew someone in FL to suggest for you. There's no doubt that working regularly with a trainer is optimal, but that wasn't available to many when we were starting out. We did the best we could with one or two clinics a year and blundering along as best we could the rest of the time. We were the worse for it, but we eventually got there, more or less.

I don't think any of us knows enough about your working conditions and your co-workers to say whether bringing Jade to work yesterday was a mistake. It sounds like bringing her to work on this one day was necessary to let you take her to the vet for the sterile urine catch. Presumably your co-workers know about the biting incident. I agree that I would have advised them to ignore her rather than trying to reassure her, because even friendly overtures can put a lot of pressure on a dog, but it sounds as if things went well. I know you are very conscious of the risks involved and the need to protect both Jade and others from another biting incident. You know the dog, and none of us has ever seen her. You've taken responsibility (and then some!) for this dog, and as the person who has the responsibility and knows the situation best, you are the one who should be making decisions like this.

I'm glad to hear that she has been less reactive in the last week. I think there's reason to hope that cleaning up the UTIs (which can be very painful) will make a big difference in what up to now has looked like a behavioral problem.

Silly and perhaps obvious question but,, Solid blue and white is a dilution of black, but with blue eyes does it make the dog a merle? I would think, yes...right?

No, blue eyes are often found in dogs who are not merles, whether they have dilute coat color or not.

Which, again, begs the question why I hear far more negative comments about (i.e. prejudice against) merle dogs in this regard than I do about blue eyed or white headed dogs.

I don't think the risk of deafness in merles (Mm) has been overstated or that there is more prejudice against merle dogs in this regard than blue-eyed or white-headed dogs. I think the difference is that with merles, you know (with rare exceptions) whether the breeding pair you've chosen can produce merles or not. You generally don't know whether the breeding pair you've chosen will or will not produce blue eyes or white heads, because reproduction of those traits is not very predictable. So there is more scope for disapproval of the deliberate choice to produce merles.

NCA (National Cattledog Association) lists him as a member.

Totally different situation, Liz. I agree with you in that case.

Agree fully with Julie.

 

I lost trust in a breeder when I found out the pedigree of their ROM dog was known and purposefully omitted to circumvent an ABCA rule.

 

While those kennels did produce many health dogs, I've also known plenty with some serious health problems. You own your dogs, you love them. Stop worrying about what might happen and just do what you can to keep them healthy, like any other dog. Lesson learned. Buy from a better source next time, but by all means train these dogs on sheep. Nothing replaces hands on experience. If you do buy a dog worth breeding in the future, your time with these dogs will only help you make that decision more easily.

Whoa! What rule would she be circumventing if she did not copy the pedigree info from the papers she has (IBCA papers, I assume) into an ABCA registration certificate? I understood Julie to be saying that it would be unethical to include that information because you could not assume that it was accurate, and therefore the pedigree is NOT known. The OP could present the dog's papers to the ABCA and acknowledge that in the circumstances there might be reason to doubt their accuracy. I can't say what the ABCA would do in that case, but my guess is that they would not include the pedigree info. These dogs are not tainted forever because they have ancestors who were (or may have been) bred by Swafford or McCoy. If they turn out to be excellent working dogs, and if they pass the strenuous working and health tests required for ROM, there is no reason not to admit them to our gene pool, along with dogs of equal quality whose pedigree is not known.

Again, all this is way down the road, and there's really no point in thinking about it before the dogs' quality becomes known and demonstrated. I can see an ethical issue in breeding them before that, but I can't see an ethical issue in applying for ROM if they have met the standards.

ETA: Gentle Lake, at least one Swafford dog I know of WAS found as a stray, and falsely registered by him as an offspring of a mating between two of his dogs. Had she been ROMed by a subsequent owner, I'm sure the "pedigree" would have been omitted from the ABCA certificate.

Yes but if the dog is admitted through ROM, which I gather is the only possibility for ABCA registration in this case, then the pedigree can simply be omitted.

1. You should not be worrying about their health as much as you are doing now. :-) That's not to say there are no health risks, but (a) many healthy dogs have come from these kennels, ( b ) at their ages you are safely past a number of health risks (coccidia, parvo, gross temperament issues, etc.) that might have cropped up, and ( c ) worrying will not change the outcomes.

2. It might be worth getting ROM if they turn out to be superior working dogs and genetically sound, but that's a consideration for way down the road. As others have said, they can participate in USBCHA and NCA trials without being registered.

3. Well, without ABCA registration, you can't receive ABCA prize money at the national finals (that too is a long way down the road), and you can't register with the AKC (not a consideration, I hope). Can't think of anything else that you'd need registration for.

Good decision on not registering with IBCA.

The OP, Aria The Border Collie, has been removed from membership at her request. She herself deleted the content of her posts.

Very often I post reminding people that posts telling others what they should and should not post (by anyone other than moderators, that is) are not permitted. I am referring to posts that tell others that what they've said is rude, or hostile, or likely to offend, or tedious, or repetitive, or stupid, etc., and that they should mend their ways. The main reason for our policy against such posts is that they almost never convince the person to whom they are addressed, and they generally lead to defensiveness, self-justification and extended wrangling which has little to do with the subject people are here to talk about -- i.e., border collies. At their worst, they lead to people who contribute enormously to these Boards concluding that they'd be better off giving up posting, because their efforts are unappreciated and who needs this kind of aggravation. In this thread alone, at least three valuable contributors have questioned whether they should continue posting, although I sincerely hope that their manifest desire to help others -- both dogs and their owners -- will cause them to carry on.

So I'm going to ask once again that people please recognize that this is a forum made up of many diverse people with many diverse opinions and many diverse styles of expressing themselves. It's not surprising that others may not express themselves as you would, or as you would like them to. Unless they are intentionally insulting, they are entitled to speak in their own voice, as they judge best, so long as they follow the rules. If you think a post is objectionable, please notify me or Heather, and we will evaluate it and deal with it.

I understand -- I'm sure it is. Sometimes I think it's dogs like this that speak the most deeply to us. There's so much that's good in them. We want so much to fix them, so it's hard to let go of the hope that they can be fixed.

Teri, no one who has read this thread could fail to be impressed with how much you have done for Jade. You've made a huge difference in her life and have been willing to hang in there with her and do everything you could possibly do to help her become a normal dog. It's a slim possibility that there could be a medical answer for her, but of course I hope there will be.

But I have known dogs who have nervous system issues that are just not correctable. I read recently about a disorder in humans (misophonia, it might have been?) where certain sounds, like the sound of someone chewing, can cause them inexplicable pain and fill them with uncontrollable rage. They can describe this to people who would otherwise have no way of even guessing at what their problem might be, but a dog cannot. Yet there's every possibility a dog could be subject to the same type of disorder. I think the same is true of other human disorders where ordinary, normal sensory stimuli are excruciating for those who suffer from the disorder.

If the time comes when you have ruled out other possible explanations of Jade's behavior, euthanasia would be a last kindness you can do for her. In no way would it be a failure on your part. But again, I hope it will not come to that. And your advocacy for her, in making sure that she has a full medical workup including thyroid before any decision is made, is just another example of how much you've done for this dog. Bless you!

ETA: I wrote this before I saw your last post. What an appealing, engaging dog she is! Best of luck to you with the exam and the time leading up to it. Merry Christmas to you and Jade.

Had to remove a number of posts. I guess I wasn't clear enough. This topic is now closed.

HJTRAS, the fact that one (1) border collie was not interested in the laser point does not mean that using a laser to exercise a border collie is without risk. No one overstated the risk -- the risk is very real, and that point needed to be made.

It has been made. Please let's move on now from the subject of lasers. And in the future, if you think others' posts are inappropriate, or you think you are being "stalked," please bring it to my attention privately rather than posting about it on the public boards.