Conflict over COI

[Henk ten Klooster]

“A first step forward for future” is how the committee of the Dutch Irish setter club describes a proposal to forbid combinations for breeding with a higher coefficient of inbreeding (coi) than five. Reason is “a rise of inheritable defects” like epilepsy, showing a clear connection with COI above five. A group of mostly show breeders tries to prevent this new rule being accepted on the annual general meeting. They launch another proposal, maintaining freedom of breeders to breed above that maximum.
What is your opinion?

[Dee Rance]

Oh my you are lucky, no problems!!
Just because a dog is from show stock, doesn't mean that it has absolutely no working ability, most of the stock from aboard has to be tested in the field before it is aloud to be breed from, Its a shame that it isn't like that in this Country, that would sought the wheat from the chaff.............As I said in my last comment on this matter most of the top winning Irish go back to to two dogs, and I am sure that they had a few problems in their lines

[Margaret Sierakowski]

I didnt say I hadnt got any problems :)) Only that using a less related dog in our small gene pool could bring me worse problems .

[Dee Rance]

But surely using one that is related, if there is a problem say a recessive gene, this is going to cause more problems there is the chance that you are going to double up on it and that will only make matters worse, surly using something that is not related will help to get rid of any problems.

[Henk ten Klooster]

Margarets post suggests it is difficult to bring the coefficient of inbreeding for IRWS under a percentage considered to be dangerous healthwise.

You can search and use red and whites born from red parents (like Harry).

You can try to undo throwing specific working IRWS from the AKC registry in the USA. Like descendants of the Snowfire IRWS.

You can (again) start a program of matings with IRS. Time is on your side this time (changed politics of the UK Kennel Club) and already existing policies in some Scandinavian cultures.

You can try to undo the complete division of varieties on the basis of colors into two breeds.

And you can sit and wait until this more times vanishing variety will vanish again.

[Dee Rance]

Can't reply to your comment Henk, I think that you are saying, don't just sit there and moan about it, or, get back to work and start thinking about something you can do......It is so easy to just 'go with the flow' and get the breed 'blinkers' on, there is so much you can do these days 'the WORLD is your oyster' go out there and look for something to use, don't be 'Kennel Blind' and don't go for the 'popular dog syndrome', and hopefully the breed won't be lost. Probably completely wrong........

[Henk ten Klooster]

Yes you've understood the message.

But it takes more than only personal courage to do something. Here world dogpolitics are involved. Even in times with alarmingly high coi's, quite a lot of the small genepool of IRWS is excluded from official registries. Read the topic on Harry for a better understanding.

In IRS, likewise world dog politics are involved and prevend breeders from using eachothers material. That is in the USA: a conflict between working (Field Dog Stud Book) and mainly show (American Kennel Club). The IRS is the only breed FDSB registered not recognised by the AKC.

The FDSB registry has beneath descendants of a "cross" with an English setter (deriving from IRWS-lines!) in the fifties quite a few non or not so much related IRWS lines plus quite a few IRS descending from old American prairie hunters lines and Sulhamstead...d'Or descendants.

Due to world dog politics, they can not be used.... In my eyes a luxury not fitting in a period of alarmingly high coi's.

[Dee Rance]

I don't know if I have said before, in other animals you can take, say a goat. any old goat, and you breed it to a pedigree Billy goat (say a Alpine), the kid that is produced is a female, she grows, you put her to another Billy goat of the same breed (Alpine) and the kid is again female you would only have to do this for 5 generations and you have a pure Alpine goat that can be registered, this can be done in many different animals but NOT in dogs once a crossbreed always a cross, but why does it not work in dogs?? it has always been used in others to inject a new pool of genes when the breed is numerically small. Unfortunately the world of IRS is very large (numerically) but there is a problem COI wise, I will try and read about Harry.

[Margaret Sierakowski]

Henk, I'm not in principle against an outcross between an IRWS and a working Irish Setter. And I think it will probably happen again, and its the way to go to enlarge our gene pool.

But if we go down that road it should be with a working Irish Setter of Irish origin (no American field reds in the background) with an outstanding trial record, a good example of breed type, and all health checks done, excellent hips , CLAD clear and free of eye problems (PRA and PPC tested)

The red and white crossbreds in America are an indiscrininate mishmash of American field reds (non AKC) , UK show bred IRWS , and a dash of Harry. So far not one of them has had any known success in field trials

And why Harry? I have asked what his field trial record is, still waiting to hear. What is outstanding about him that we would want to have in IRWS? I think we could find some more outstanding field trial reds without having to look too far. There are good red dogs we could use in Ireland, maybe some good ones of Irish ancestry in France too

I'm also not interested in outcrosses done on private initiatives without IKC sanction. A lot of the politics about the crossbred dogs has been because the breedings were not IKC sanctioned, and the conniving and hype that has gone on around them. I dont want additions to the gene pool from underhand and unsanctioned matings , or dubious pedigrees. If we do outcrosses , I want it to be open, honest, planned and sanctioned from Ireland, and then we all know exactly what is in the pedigrees

[Dee Rance]

Have just read about Harry, It doesn't really matter what he has done, he has sired a dog to win its Field Trial championship, in Ireland, so he is passing on 'brains' that surely is what you are after. From the picture he doesn't look a bad dog either.

[Henk ten Klooster]

Harry sure is an example of how you could lower the coi in your working IRWS, Margaret. But you do not use him because he is not yet the fourth generation IRWS (his parents were red). You would consider using descendants after four generations (see Harry topic). That will take certainly around a decade. So you rather wait than tackle the biggest problem in IRWS: as you said a coi between 7-30?

Results in field trials is not within parameters of this topic, but he was a vice winner of the EC (2VG) held in Germany and showed in more EC's he was in his time the only IRWS able to compete in EC's under French rules, won in the USA + a few qualifications in international field trials. Could have been much more, provided he was trained by a professional like the ones you have bred now in Italy and succesfull (congratulations) last years.

Waiting for a new outcross programme IRS x IRWS would only work if you have time on your side. Lets say in a few years time from now, these "crosses" (I still adhere to the traditional and historical truth: its one breed with color variations) take place, you can have your 4 generations in ten to fifteen years from now. Will you stop breeding meanwhile?

I'd appreciate a definition of you of "American field reds" so that we can talk further on this subject - very related to lowering coi.

Why only considering genepools in Ireland and France? Not Scandinavian genepools? Why not - you miss here the biggest chance to bring a coi down. French winning working IRS are very close inbred to same lines UK working IRWS have (Moanruad).

[Margaret Sierakowski]

"Why only considering genepools in Ireland and France? Not Scandinavian genepools?"

Because the Scandinavian gene pools of working reds, particularly the Norwegian dogs, have been mixed with imported American field reds , notably Elin Witthusen's Zansett imports.
Great dogs but not part of IRWS ancestry, they look different and have a different working style. I'm a conservative breeder and dont want to change the type or the style of the breed. The IRWS is a rarity in that it has hardly changed since the late eighteenth century, and among the gundog breeds that is something quite unusual and worth preserving. Its the only one of the setter breeds that hasnt changed much and I value that historic authenticity. But I also want to breed healthy dogs, so if we need to do an outcross, I want to make sure that its not going to irrevocably turn the breed into something different.
The nearest thing we can turn to for an outcross are the working reds of Irish origin.
The advantage of using French dogs is that the French breed club and KC are open minded about crossing reds and IRWS and it could be done there openly and legitimately

[Henk ten Klooster]

So purity first, coi (health) later. Sounds like an old Dutch song: 'We drink until we sink'

You wrote as a reaction to bloodhounds present in main lines of descent of Irish (red and white) setters: "Geneticists will tell you that after an outcross it only takes four generations of breeding back to produce a dog who looks 100% indistinguishable from the real thing."

Which one of the two is your real opinion - the quote or your post above?