Home for Irish Setter Lovers Around the World
In the effort to produce healthy dogs, we accept a regime of testing and selection on health issues and acknowledge that breeding closely related dogs concentrates their genes - the bad along with the good.
To get to the pitch where the COI indicates a high percentage of inbreeding and a threat to the future of the breed, outcrossing or crossbreeding with another breed or breeds is a remedy that is recommended.
How much will this alter 'Type' and does it matter anyway?
Okay Eva and Sue......
Lets call my comments "meaningless" and "so much rubbish" as you have both said.
I am sure you are both able to to visit the KC website and look for yourselves, if you haven't done so already!
I will not be drawn into naming individual breeders when all the information is already there for all to see.
Just type in a few well known stud dogs and do your sums its as easy as that and then you won't have to heckle me.
Torie. I request cordially that you do not post the details. If you wanted to you would have in your post. If others would like some names posted let them do it.
Ok Torie, in that case let me explain because anybody can go onto Mate Select, extract a bunch of data and publish it as you did. You have to put it into context. I take it the three stud dogs were not contemporaries of each other so their influence spanned over a number of decades not just years.
Take Night Fever as an example. We all know he was used on just over 100 bitches and produced more like 780 puppies. His career as a stud dog began before he ever won a cc (when he was a relatively young dog) and spanned 10 years. So you could argue 780 puppies over 10 years that is 78 per year or 10 litters. That is not even one mating per month. Put that against the number of IS registrations during that period, which were around 6 times more than they are now (remember entries of over 300 IS at champ shows) and you will see a more balanced picture. Can you understand how data can be manipulated to prove whatever you wanted to.
A dog comes to prominence by the progeny he produces. If everything he touches turns to gold then he becomes a 'Popular Sire' (that oft quoted phrase) then everyone jumps down his throat and blames him for everything. However there have always been dogs contemporary to all the Popular Sires who have been used extensively but were/are not show champions and who have dropped below the radar by virtue of not being great producers. Their influence with regard to health and COI can potentially be more devastating because it is a 'silent' influence. No one even considers these dogs.
I will not press you any more on this subject as you firmly believe in what you say and you have the support of other detractors of the Popular Sire who's opinion you value, and that is fine by me. I as a breeder will not let data like this prevent me from using such a dog. Once I have done my pedigree background, my health checks and looked at a reasonable COI then I would not hesitate. You breed to improve not just to produce. . .
Thank you Eva for such a detailed explanation.
As a reputable breeder and stud dog owner, I completely understand your point of view.
Thank you Torie for your kind words but even with all the best endeavours and the endeavours of many other concerned breeders shit still happens and that is what makes it so difficult to get it right.