I don't believe it's one gene. I think it's most likely a convergence of several genes some recessive. I believe it has to be brought out in training.

I believe that there will in due time be an attempt by some Field Trialer to experiment with a clone of a NFC, and I am skepitcal that it will replicate EXCEPTIONAL marking ability

In saying this are you thinking outstanding, step on the long bird marking, is nuture rather than nature? The best trainers can't replicate it in all dogs. Some have had several good markers though.

 

I say no simply because marking isn't a singular thing. It takes superior eyesight, great memory, confidence, and the ability to naturally follow a straight line. All this plus the training to bring it out.

 

To me exceptional marking looks like a polygenic trait of low heritability, where "heritability" is a defined quantity expressing the resemblance of offspring to their parents, *not* a measure of whether the trait is inherited.

Hip joint conformation and many performance traits are thought to be in this category.


I find most of your "reasons" not to be reasons at all.

Does the GENE for EXCEPTIONAL marking exist?

I state NO!

Why - because by definition genetics is the science of statistical probability.

Actually, it's the science of genetics. It makes use of probability and statistics, but many of its facts and principles fall outside of those disciplines.

Why - because just short of cloning Lottie you will most often fall short.

This is a prediction. It presumes your conclusion.

Why - because I believe that there will in due time be an attempt by some Field Trialer to experiment with a clone of a NFC, and I am skepitcal that it will replicate EXCEPTIONAL marking ability.

Another prediction, invoking only your personal opinion.

Why - because we can more reliably produce a VERY stylish pointing Labrador than we can consistently produce FC or AFC dogs.

A different trait, and a vastly different standard. Relevance to the issue at hand is not apparent.

Why - because when we see a dog that has this ability it is often bred with or to and the results are seldom proven.

A bit unclear, but if I understand you correctly, lack of correlation between parent phenotype and offspring phenotype is a hallmark of a polygenic trait with low heritability.

Why - because the litter that produced ******, Gates, Dice (I do not remember the other littermates names) is a gift from God and therefore a blessing to behold which only happens rarely.

Opinion, not a reason, unless you've got documentation from God. A "nick" such as this famous litter is predictable when dealing with polygenic traits. So is the existence of prepotent sires and dams.

Why - because so many attempt to do so and so few accomplish the objective.

Maybe they're doing it wrong. Maybe you've defined the standards so as to rule out success. Maybe both.

Howard, what makes you think recessive genes are involved, in particular?

Amy Dahl

 

what makes you think recessive genes are involved, in particular?

Amy Dahl

Not Howard, but I think whatever it is that makes a great marker must be recessive and the genes for "common" must be dominant...Just so hard to get one.

Seriously, the great marker has to have it in them, whatever "it" is. Eyesight, depth perception, attentiveness, memory, things that can't be taught.

Then they need someone to hone those abilities and let them develop.

 

O-K I will now also contradict myself - here is a curve ball.

Perhaps you have seen the "natural marker". The dog that hauls butt, runs straight through obstacles, does not get sucked off his line and STEPS on the birds. I have and it is owned by an enthusiastic but less than proven trainer, a guy that could turn out HRCH but not MH level dogs. The dog duck hunts almost all year and picks up birds at continental style pheasant hunts. No real sense of technical training expertise.

But this dog did receive the marking gift from God. Maybe you have also seen one of these natural markers who will never run a FT? Has no inkling of FT training techniques.

The FT game is not the ONLY place that you may see a truly gifted marker. I have seen some great HT dogs too, BUT with out a doubt the FT event is where you will consistently see the VERY BEST of marking abilty tested. It is a REQUIREMENT for success that is rewarded each and every weekend.

 

The FT game is not the ONLY place that you may see a truly gifted marker. I have seen some great HT dogs too, BUT with out a doubt the FT event is where you will consistently see the VERY BEST of marking abilty tested. It is a REQUIREMENT for success that is rewarded each and every weekend.

THANK YOU for clarifying that I will now sit down and enjoy the conversation.

 

A single gene didn't make Ken Griffy and Ken Griffy Jr major league ball players but sharing the same set of genes had a lot to do with it.

Bert

 

I believe this this statement is 100% on the money, but who cares about opinions. Around 40% is genetic makeup and the rest is training, nutrition and the environment the dog was raised. Thus, instead of starting out with 25% or 30% on the genetic side. Your breeding program gives you a advantage in the beginning.

Everyone is always looking for the mutation causing heath problems. (TVD) Tricuspid Valve Disorder is the one which is being worked on currently. This may sound crazy and will likely get a number of responses. However, could we be breeding the brains out of the dogs by only breeding 100% clear dogs (EIC/CNM) on both sides.

 

It may be not be for argument sake but But this is my input as a VERY new competitive trainer sort of opinion. I believe this. There are pros and ametuers alike that have done a fantastic job in the last 100 years or so that have refine the ( genes of certain traits ) and passed them on to the next generation of the breed standard to make exceptional dogs in each breed recognized by the akc for the traits best suited for What we ask of each breed and will continue to refine our needs as people with dogs to seek what we desire in our companions.example- it seems like mutts are an all around great pet. Hounds smell there quarry and retrievers bring it back. I say this. thank you all for striving to have the best mans best friend .it just depends on the man on what takes to be a best friend

 

Howard, what makes you think recessive genes are involved, in particular?

Dang it Amy, you're tryin' to make me think. I'm not to good at that.

Intuitively, I feel Scott Furbeck is dead on. If it was a straight dominant or recessive model it would be a lot easier for us to understand and breed. As it is, I muddle through and breed the best I have to what I feel (hope) is the best and then pray.

I did have a father and son who were both very good marking dogs. I know (have the opinion anyway ) that good marking is passed on genetically.

 

I had not owned a competitive dog since I moved to this area. But in 2008 got the itch to get back in the game on some level. Asked around to find out where to go for a good puppy. The same breeders name came up over and over.

Look at a premium and peruse the dogs running Master and you'll see a healthy representation of her dogs. She's been doing it for several decades and has a great track record.

I say all that to say this. Good breeders have some sort of calculus when they plan a breeding. And they probably have not studied molecular genetics. It would be interesting to see what some of them have to say about this issue. I'm certain they would come down on the "nature" rather than "nurture" side of the argument.

 

I agree with Amy. Just because it has a low rate of inheritance doesn't mean that it isn't genetic.
Everything has it's foundation in genetics. Nurturing can only take advantage of what genetics in some way provided.
Unfortunately that's true for us as well as or dogs ;-)

I was asked today if a specific disorder had a genetic component. Well of course it does, all disorders have a genetic component. The question is did that component come from an outside source, or was caused by an outside source, (like a germ/virus/radiation/etc) or was it inharited.

 

There is no one gene that makes a great marking dog. It has to be more than one gene. When we run hunt tests or field trials in the marking series we say we are testing marking and memory. With this being the case this leads to believe there is more than one gene at work.
If I were looking for great marking dogs I would be looking at high point derby dogs. Great derby dogs are great markers, and as natural a marking dog as can be found. At less than two years of age the dogs haven't been trained to point and shoot. These young dog have to have natural abilitiy and are not man made for the most part.

 

I recently chimed in on a thread that trended away from it's initial premise into the ability to consistently breed for and produce all age capable marking skills.

So here we go......... for the sake of "conversation" let me define a threshold for what I consider constitutes EXCEPTIONAL marking ability in a retriever.

1 Any dog with a National field trial title, either American or Canadian
2 Any dog that has completed the final series of a National retriever stake
3 Any dog that during their top 3 prime years of competition completes on average more than 50% of the field trials entered.
DOES THE GENE FOR EXCEPTIONAL MARKING EXIST?

What say you? let's kick this one around the block a few times

Respectfully - Michael

I'm sure for the most part National winners and finalist are exceptional markers, but by that criteria you are excluding many exceptional markers who never made the grade on blinds. For example I used to train with a dog who was the best marking dog I ever saw. He litterally front footed every mark I ever saw thrown for him, but he was an awkward swimmer, swimming was painfull for him, so he rarely completed water blinds.

I do believe that having the ability to mark in an exceptional manner is genetic. If not, why do we even pay attention to pedigrees when we choose breeding partners. I have seen certain dogs throw consistantly good marking dogs with a variety of partners. There is certainly somthing in those genes other than lucky coincidences.

John

 

I'm a late arrival to this conversation but I think another intregral part of "does this dog have the gene" is what happens with the pup in the first 6-9 months of his or her life. Someone who has that special "training gene" has got to develop that marking ability and give the pup the right start. The question maybe should be "are great markers born or made".

 

I think it is a combination of genetics and training that play a role. Are great markers born or made? I'm a teacher so I will give you an analogy that I am familiar with. ......

If you were adopting a chlild and were able to choose which child you could get by looking at the parents, which child would you pick if you were looking for if intelligence was the trait you desired. Would you get the child that has a mother that is a doctor and father that is a lawyer? Or.....Would you get a child that had a high school dropout father and a mother that works at McDonalds? You would probably guess that the child that the child from the doctor/lawyer cross would be more intelligent. Maybe he or she would....Maybe not. You are playing a probability.

This is no different than buying a puppy out of the best breeding you can find. It does not guarantee a great dog, but your odds are better with this breeding, than would a puppy from a backyard breeding between two AKC registered lap dogs.

Now on the nurturing part...If that child from the doctor/lawyer was never taken to school, never socialized, and never had any parental interaction, it is very unlikely for him to become a doctor as well. It is the part of the parent to work with and push that child to be the best that he or she can be.

This is no different with a trainer his dog. How well he establishes a foundation early, works him through issues in training, and exposes his to the various scenarios to compete, will be a major part of that dogs success.

 

.."they don't realize what they are doing is difficult, because it isn't difficult to them, they don't even think about.."

............."great eyes"...

 

So far John Robinson is absolutely right on target!

He understands what I was attempting to describe as an EXCEPTIONAL marking dog. He also provides another distinction on how many of the "much better than average" marking dogs go about earning their FT blue ribbons, a high level of consistency in performance.

The EXCEPTIONAL marker CANNOT be trained to have photographic memory, nor can their visual acuity and precision in depth perception be trained.

Therefore, I lean towards nature as the source and towards nurture as the means of demonstrating a consistent and disciplined manner by which this exceptional marking ability can be challenged and presented for observation.

These EXCEPTIONAL marking dogs are SPECIAL and rare. When one truly sees this gift consistently demonstrated, it is something to behold. One of my goals with this thread was to see if those in this forum who are trained in genetics AND that have actually seen some of these dogs perform, could offer theories as to why it is such an elusive trait to reproduce?

I am thankful for having seen it demonstrated on multiple occassions.

Thanks for all who have taken their time to share their comments. Please continue with more postings.

Respectfully - Michael Watson

 

blue and minnie where both from the same litter, the two nobody wonted, as well as cash and sugar. howdy was the only one we picked. the others picked us because nobody wonted them

above is kip kemp's recent quote. all i can say is if i took the two nobody wanted out of the tiger x taduh litter, blue and minnie would have probably made hrch(and probably mh too, to joe's point). even if an exceptional dog is in a high end litter, is the rest of the world so bad at picking pups that one guy can train at least 4 fc afc's out of the left overs? is that just chance or are these dogs the "fair markers" john describes, and their training just that superior? all this science is tough to figure, i just want to buy an exceptional dog.

in the end it's all about the odds. you pick the best litter, turn your head, grab and go. about twelve to eighteen months and two thousand hours later you probably will have some idea what kind of dog you got on your hands.

1) this is it, this dog may be able to take us all the way! (one in ten million)
2) nice pup, we can probably get it on the derby list. (one in a million)
3) doing well, some are late bloomers, we will keep the long stickmen out a while. (even money to end up in category 4)
4) great hunt test dog, i will put a finished title on her, raise a litter for my hunting buddies, then call k2 or bay creek and start over. (almost certain out of a quality litter)

exceptionalism is elusive, 300 million americans and only one genetically qualified to be president. OK BAD EXAMPLE!

john mc

 

I give Kip a lot of credit for what he did with his dogs but I got one of the leftovers from the LM and Tayduh litter and the other male had a white spot on his chest so I don't think it was Cash. There were 12 in the litter and there are only 8 on OFA. I eventually bought another brother and he was never trained. Mine didn't have it and he was in pro training for a long time because of his bloodlines. It took him awhile to learn things and he was unsure of himself, but was an average marker. He is still healthy and here but went sterile at the age of 6 so I stopped running him in Master. He ran some quals. It is a crapshoot people. You can do all the puppy testing you want but at 7 weeks it is luck along with bringing them along the right way. He also could have been that diamond in the rough.

 

I understand that it can't be hard to tell most of the time which dogs at 7 weeks will be outstanding markers later in life.

But my question is that is it ever completely evident from that early age that a dog will be special?

 

It is absolutely genetic, but as has been stated, or at least touched upon, it's not just one skill. It's eyesight, memory, depth perception etc etc etc. Lots of those are surely genetic, but it's kind of hard to select for all of those traits.

The other thing is that I think the exceptional marker (no matter how you want to define it) is probably a combination of the right set of inherited ability traits, matched with the right trainer and circumstances for the dog. There's so much we don't know about learning, and mental development - who knows if the fact that the pup was 5 months old in December meant that he missed out on the 10 critical days that would have made him an exceptional marker with the right training otherwise.

As for the criteria of how you would quantify an exceptional marker, purely from a numbers game standpoint, considering that there are way more dogs with very good quality blood lines that never FT, and many of those from the very same litters that do FT, I think the assumption that FT Champions are the best markers is flawed. You just would never hear about the dogs that are "just" hunting dogs. Assuming the skillset that makes up marking is largely genetic, I'd be willing to bet that the best marker from a purely inborn talent standpoint was never entered in a single trial.

 

As for the criteria of how you would quantify an exceptional marker, purely from a numbers game standpoint, considering that there are way more dogs with very good quality blood lines that never FT, and many of those from the very same litters that do FT, I think the assumption that FT Champions are the best markers is flawed. You just would never hear about the dogs that are "just" hunting dogs. Assuming the skillset that makes up marking is largely genetic, I'd be willing to bet that the best marker from a purely inborn talent standpoint was never entered in a single trial.

Same as Miss America, she isn't the prettiest girl in America, but per the judges she is the prettiest girl that entered....