blackacre

Hi Sue, I posted about my experience with the TPLO earlier, you may have seen it. THe TPLO I had done on Hobbes at the age of 4 lasted throughout his long working life--and believe me, he worked hard, as my main trial/chore dog for many years. As a pointed out in my earlier post, the orthopaedic specialist who did the surgery was highly experienced and very well regarded. My vet told me frankly that the outcome was likely to be far better if I went to him than if anyone in his clinic did the surgery. SO: I'd go with the more experienced vet too, especially one who has done many of these particular surgeries before. And indeed he may recommend an alternative procedure that the profession now feels is more successful--I may be out of date. However, to my mind anyway, the beauty of TPLO surgery is that they are not replacing anything: rather, they surgically adjust the angle at which the femur meets the tibia to optimum. (I think those are the two bones that meet at the knee!). So nothing to tear again. A

Glad to hear it was not the ACL. Just a quick note for anyone else reading this. Anectdotal evidence only of course, but I had the TPLO done on my then-4 year old working collie. He went on to have a long and successful working career. Now, at 14, he does favour that leg slightly, and has clearly developed some arthritis, but overall I'd say he had an excellent outcome. Arthritic changes will occur regardless of the procedure. Of course. the surgery was done by a highly qualified orthopaedic surgeon in a major urban centre, and no doubt that figured in the outcome. In fact, my dog was part of a study comparing this then relatively new surgery to other, more conventional types. I had been promised a look at the study once it was completed, but that never happened. I wonder whether it is now available somewhere? I'd be very interested to see it. In any case, the surgeon was very definitely not in favour of conservative management for a highly active working dog (which I had already tried in any case). But then, he would be, eh? A

OMG. Laughing and crying. Good on you Zippy! You were clearly a noble creature destined to bring joy and delight to the world. Salutations! And condolences to you Laura. Zippy will live on in your wonderful memories of him. Andrea

We are again offering lessons with Scott Glen on Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at Sheri Purcell's new farm near Blackstock, Ontario, about an hour and a quarter north east of Toronto. All levels welcome. 60' round pen, small training field, 30 + acre trial fields. Sheri also has one spot available in the *Mostly* Kelpie clinic October 3, 4 and 5, 2009. Any breed. For more information and/or a reservation form please contact me directly. Andrea de Kenedy

Sure does! Like when I named my young dog Spot Glen (well, really, Glen), Jenny Glen told me it was a damned good name and one she was using herself. And, since we're talking relatives, Spot Glen's older brother (same way bred), Spot, is being run by Kathy Knox for Tricia. A

Casey's Jill, and yes she won the Scottish Brace Championship. There are also at least two of Nell's get running at the Nursery Finals this year (Tricia's Cap and Alasdair's Lyn, both being run by Tricia). A

Sue, I just checked and it looks like Andy Carnegie and Lark may have posted the highest score of the day, a 206. Lark is a daughter of Nell, the dam of your Celt (and my Nap of course!). A ETA Oops no, there's a 207, S Gallagher and Glen.

*Duplicate of post in another thread I won't pursue my previous point here at the . . . er . . . suggestion of our esteemed moderator (we are communicating privately) but I would VERY MUCH like to read Denise's post on THIS topic. I did join the CanGen list at her suggestion (and believe me, it was as struggle to be accepted as a non-geneticist, given their current mix) and spent quite a while reading some very long, usually erudite and largely civilized posts from a wide variety of breeders and scientists in their archives, while trying to stay current on the list. A losing cause I think. In any case, I am particularly interested in the theory or opinion or ? (even that is under discussion!) that inbreeding for conformation characteristics is more harmful than inbreeding for working characteristics ie that by the very nature of the selection process in the latter case, a higher degree of inbreeding can be tolerated in the case of breeding for work. Or, to put it another way, that what would be a dangerous COI in a show breeding program would not be so in a working breeding program. I THINK I've expressed that correctly. This is Wendy's point I believe and perhaps others would agree or disagree. I'm interested to hear. Can we discuss this? Is it premature, Denise, given that the discussions rage on, on the other list? Andrea PS I've copied this to the start of another thread in Politics. PPS I'm off to work dogs for the day so will check in later.

I won't pursue my previous point here at the . . . er . . . suggestion of our esteemed moderator (we are communicating privately) but I would VERY MUCH like to read Denise's post on THIS topic. I did join the CanGen list at her suggestion (and believe me, it was as struggle to be accepted as a non-geneticist, given their current mix) and spent quite a while reading some very long, usually erudite and largely civilized posts from a wide variety of breeders and scientists in their archives, while trying to stay current on the list. A losing cause I think. In any case, I am particularly interested in the theory or opinion or ? (even that is under discussion!) that inbreeding for conformation characteristics is more harmful than inbreeding for working characteristics ie that by the very nature of the selection process in the latter case, a higher degree of inbreeding can be tolerated in the case of breeding for work. Or, to put it another way, that what would be a dangerous COI in a show breeding program would not be so in a working breeding program. I THINK I've expressed that correctly. This is Wendy's point I believe and perhaps others would agree or disagree. I'm interested to hear. Can we discuss this? Is it premature, Denise, given that the discussions rage on, on the other list? Andrea PS I've copied this to the start of another thread in Politics. PPS I'm off to work dogs for the day so will check in later.

Wow. I'm shocked. I go away for a couple of hours and come back to find that blastoff has been labelled a troll and forcibly ejected. Hey, I might not agree with everything or even anything she said (but then again I might), and for sure I came to this late and haven't read all 16 pages either. However, what I DID read from blastoff seemed cogent, reasoned and deserving of reply. If she's wrong and we can show that she's wrong, I don't see why she should not be heard. Hey, Melanie started the thread by wanting to hear from the other side, and blastoff seemed to be presenting a non-uncommon perpective from the non-working world. So where did hearing from the other side suddenly become anathema, just because a couple of people who have bred a litter or two (or more) felt they were being maligned? Or am I missing something? Surely some of her questions are no worse than what is directed at breeders whose names and websites are regularly, ummm, 'investigated' on these Boards? AM I missing something? A

Big, huge sigh as you will, Melanie, but this really is an absurd statement, and smacks of nothing more strongly than a regurgitation of the Boards ethos at the expense of logic and rationality. The intention of the breeder is surely a factor in the likely outcome of a particular breeding, but you're way out on limb saying that it is definitive. I could just as well say that therefore, my (former) Kelpie IS a border collie because he WAS the product of a breeding program meant to produce stock dogs. A

Right. In fact, I made the point here a few years ago that if I put my mind to it, I could probably get a Kelpie ROM'd into the ABCA and, logically, could then breed a border collie to him and produce "working border collies" as many on these Boards define them. No, they're not up to a quality border collie (although IMO they do have certain features more or less unique to the breed and valuable in and of themselves), but there's plenty enough there to beat the pants off your run of the mill ABCA registered border collie. Needless to say, I am not advocating sports breedings or any other type of non-working breedings, but I do see how this superior attitude can become quite irksome to many. A

For a different take, I like the advice our mutual friend gives (paraphrase): "You need a solid down, but once you have it, use it sparingly i.e. don't use it unless you really need it." That's worked pretty well for me, but then I wouldn't doubt that I don't follow it religiously--and may not even be aware of making exceptions. Qualified opinion from an ineffectual autocrat, A

Sam Furman and Fred. I think he was the Nursery Champion that year. A

The order of classes is Ranch, PN, NN, Open, Nursery on Saturday, NN, PN, Ranch, Nursery, Open on Sunday, so you may want to time it so that you can watch Open. A

Honestly, I think it all comes down to individual dogs rather than lines. Probably the closest you can come is to see what any *particular* cross has produced before. It might well be different in Australia, can't speak to that. Perhaps you are more likely to get a certain type of dog from certain studs, since line breeding seems a lot more prevalent there? It is true, however, that both of Aled and Derek, by all accounts, prefer to run a certain type of dog, which does give you some kind of indication of what you are likely to get. Other than that, I believe that Derek does very little trialing, so his dogs may be harder for a buyer to judge, unless you go out to his place to watch them work, whereas Aled of course can be seen running his current dogs frequently--with, er, decent success. So it will really all come down to what suits you and your circumstances. Just bear in mind that it takes years and multiple dogs for most of us to figure that out. A

Well, I'll save the direct quotes for the article, but interestingly, the "partnership" between the dog and handler was given top billing, a factor that also came up repeatedly here, especially in connection with the dogs that were named. Maybe we could have a separate category for them, even if they did not, perhaps, fulfill all the requirements for greatness: something like "that special dog" or "once-in-a-lifetime dog"? Another interesting point: breeding prowess was NOT mentioned. Also listed: success in big trials on different types of sheep. (And when they say 'big' trials, I think they really mean that.) Heart. Good listener. Consistent. Enough power. (Interesting qualifier, huh?) How about this (from me): is this a dog that will still be talked about 20 or 30 years from now? Finally, I won't try to justify my rudeness, for which I have apologized, but it really is notable how dispassionate the assessment of the dogs being nominated were, both publicly on the list and in private emails, a trait I have also observed in our top handlers over here. They are able to make a remarkably clear-eyed assessment of the worth of their own dogs, their competitors' dogs--and yours, if you make it clear that you really do want to know! Nor do they regard it as an insult to the individual owner to make that type of assessment. Question: are we too parochial? Does that affect our judgement of what to breed and thus the quality of the dogs we are producing? And, on a side note, once the difficulties of competing at the Worlds are ironed out, will our (Canadian and US) showing at that event be meaningful? Is there anything to be concluded from how we've done there so far? A

Yeah, you're right guys. Sorry. That was a mean-spirited comment and I regret it. <note to self: think before you post, think before you post!> Here's the UK nominees: Thomas' Don Dalziel's Wisp Van der Sweep's Roy Davidson's Star Aled Owen's Roy Henderson's Sweep Think we could take them on? ;-) A

Frankly Sue, I stopped paying much attention once people started nominating their own or their best friend's dogs. Hey, I love my own dogs too and not to be rude, but good grief! Guess it's inevitable, given the size of the country and the fact that we tend to see only a few dogs with any frequency. Anyway, I asked a similar question on a UK list and got a VERY short list of consistently successful world-class dogs, with some well reasoned comments on why those individual dogs were picked. Like a highly regarded competitor and friend told me before I began this thread, "the answer you'll get over here will be a lot different than over in the UK", and so it has proved. A

Here's one that always caught my eye for being cool-headed: Randy Mumford's Vic. I believe he went back to the Butcher's Mac. Dunno if he started that way, but damn, he was pretty impressive by the time I saw him with Randy. A

Good stuff so far. Thanks all! Denise, Marilyn, Wendy, Nancy O, Charlie, Laura H, Mark . . . how about some names? Julie P? Christine? I suspect the great breeder category might merit an article all to itself, so feel free to list in that category too. Andrea

Anna, Could you tell me more about Puzzel? Have you watched him run a few times? It'd be nice to bring some top-notch cattle dogs into the article, something I know nothing about. Would you say the same types of characteristics make for a great cattle dog? Can you think of some other great cattle dogs? Here's another question for everyone: are the great ones usually cool-headed? I've come to value this trait greatly, and wonder if it might be an important aspect that we haven't discussed yet. Carol: Karen Thomason's Lad went back to Thomas Longton's great bitch Bess, right? And Tweed? So, related to both Sally Lacy's Tru and Terry Sheaffer's Tux? Did you ever see Lad run? I have to say, I saw Tux run many times for Terry and he took care of her like I've never seen another dog do. As you might know, she's a little prone to mixing up her flanks. When she'd give a wrong one, Tux often would just stop and wait. If she insisted, he'd lean a tiny bit into the flank, thus making it obvious that it was the wrong one. So then Terry would quickly give him the right flank and he'd give a little nod, metaphorically speaking, and carry on. More than once, I also saw him stop and hold the sheep on line on the last leg of the drive, on his own initiative, to give her time to get to the pen, or ignore a flank that was too early and would mean the sheep would miss a panel. He was an amazing dog. A

Can you name some of your favourite candidates? Andrea

GREAT idea! However, I'd like to limit it to dogs of our own era, because, while Cap 3036 (aka "Wartime Cap"), for example, was undoubtedly a brilliant dog and a hard core contributor to the genetics of the breed, none of us ever saw him run. Sadly. Actually, not many saw him run even in his own era, because of the war. And, if you could add a few words on why you would choose the dogs you did, that would be fascinating too. So, here's my list: Alasdair's Nan. See above. Kent's Bill (some would say a great trial dog but not necessarily a great dog. Limited breeding, being a carrier in the days before DNA testing). I loved that dog. He had a way with sheep. Bobby Dalziel's Wisp. Great breeder. A lot of dog. Berhow's Nick (I already told a story about him that I think exemplifies what was great about him). I'll have to think some more, but that should be enough to go on with. A

Again, I find myself agreeing with Denise. Remember, we are talking about the difference between a good or even a very good dog and a great dog. In other words, are most of you setting the bar too low? A top-quality handler can make an indifferent dog look pretty good. That doesn't make the dog great, however. There's something about the dog that the top handler is able to showcase. Let me quote, roughly, something a National winner said to Alasdair MacRae after watching his winning run with Nan at the Nationals in Virginia. Essentially, he said something like, "I always knew Nan was a very good dog, but today, she just proved that she was a great one." Does a great dog have to be a great breeder? Not in my view, but still, it's a perfectly legitimate position to take. I agree with Marilyn, though, that some UK handlers put a lot more effort into their breeding decisions and that that will affect how many good breeding dogs you see over here. Nonetheless, a lot of the consistency in, say, Bobby Henderson's dogs can be ascribed to the fact that he is line breeding to some extent. Glyn Jones would be another breeder who produces consistent dogs for the same reason. Blwch Hemp, (really Ceri's) for example, produced himself to an startling extent. I saw one when I was in MO last year that was his spitting image in work style and looks. More than a coincidence, and really not something you see much of over here. Here's a name to conjure with: Bobby Dalziel's Wisp. A fiend to manage on the field by all accounts, but one that proved to be a quite tremendous breeder--in the second generation. (I'm speaking purely from hearsay here). A dog that was bred to fairly randomly over there, and here, that is, to all sorts of bitches, but one who fairly consistently produced pretty good dogs. A real contributor to the gene pool. What do we make of him? Do we put him in the "great" category? Not many could have handled him. He didn't show his greatness as a breeding dog until his sons and daughters began to produce. A