Is the Irish setter a ruined breed?

[Henk ten Klooster]

Breeders say they are active to improve the breed. Statistics on health, scientists and independent setter-experts claim exactly the opposite. Topics on health here inspired this topic. Did breeders make a mess of the Irish setter (called a "ruined breed" by expert Florence Nagle) or not and why, when & how yes or no in your eyes?

[Alenka Pokorn]

Well Loma in most European countries there are rules one must stick to if one wants papers for the litter. We discussed it in another topic. The breed clubs are setting the rules in most countries. The question is weather they are setting the right kind of rules and if not why?

Alenka

[Henk ten Klooster]

Appreciate comments on Loma's statement "Irish Setters are a healthier breed than it was 30 years ago".

As for statistics on this I've scanned the 2003 Irish Setter Club of America National Health Survey. Average age of dying is given as 11,1.

According to the same health survey the red setter is at relative high risk for some problems like gastric dilatation-volvulus (GDV) or bloat. One in every five Irish Setters is expected to develop GDV over its lifetime.

The introduction of the survey mentions "Further evidence for the effect of selective breeding is that mixed breed dogs generally live longer and have a lower incidence of many diseases than do purebred dogs of the same size".

You can check it on ISCA's website www.irishsetterclub.org

[ursula wilby]

To me 11.1 years seems low. On the other hand I assume that this will include accidents like getting run over by cars, tick-borne desease, etc. None of those have anything to do with the dogs health. Any dog used activly for hunting stands a greater chance of being killed due to accidents than a non-hunting dog.
So looking at it that way, perhaps 11.1 is a fair age.
It actually only means something if it is compared to other breeds.
And yes, according to the information I have been given, THE FIRST GENERATION of mixed breeds is healthier due to total outcrosses.
Thereafter its a downhill slide to reach other breeds.

[Henk ten Klooster]

Two intresting statements: "Any dog used actively for hunting stands a greater chance of being killed due to accidents than a non-hunting dog". Plus "And yes, according to the information I have been given, THE FIRST GENERATION of mixed breeds is healthier due to total outcrosses. Thereafter its a downhill slide to reach other breeds."

On what exactly are these analyses based, Ursula?

Didn't read statistics on accidents with dogs, but logic and memory tell that it will be accidents in densely populated centres with traffic = probably number one.

In my eyes its relevant to quote the 2003 Irish Setter Club of America National Health Survey on healthier products of outcrosses. Because buyers could await more quality buying a purebred... Theres a pedigree, so the breeder knows what she/he is doing... Or: not?

The topic was that OUR OWN EXPERTS like Rasbridge and Nagle PLUS statistics are saying theres no improvement of the breed but the opposite. Both inside (health) and outside (conformation). Most statistics I've read underline these statements. Geneticists seek the reason in prolonged linebreeding (=inbreeding). Most breeders here say its not true.

Who to believe and why?

[ursula wilby]

The fact that activ hunting dogs have more fatal accidents comes from the statistics of (swedish) insurancecompanies. It applies to ALL breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. And yes, there are lots of traffic-acidents but also dogs that just go missing. Dogs that are accidently shot, attacked by other animals etc. etc. But I am certain that the type of countryside plays a huge part as well. And the type of dog and WHAT you are hunting.

As for the statement of first generation crosses, I asked specifically about this when I was writing a general dogbook. I realy wanted to disprove the "mixed-breeds-are-healthier"-theory but ended up having to write/and believe the oposite. I spoke to vets specifically dealing with genetics.

[Henk ten Klooster]

The chance that Irish setters are shot while out hunting for what they were bred for (birds) is very low. Birds are shot when on the wings. So unless an Irish setter has wings himself... So in my eyes you statement is misleading, just like concluding only the working Irish setters fart.....

For the second part it shows how you work stating "I realy wanted to disprove the "mixed-breeds-are-healthier"-theory". Anyway it is quality confessing that you ended up having to write and believe the opposite of what you believed.

So question is still: did breeders improve the breed or not? What is the logic behind prolongate linebreeding (=inbreeding) when you know this? What do your skills have to offer the breed for improvement?

Or is it mainly filling your wallets selling great looking daydreams becoming nightmares for owners?

[ursula wilby]

If you read what I have written, you will note that I say ALL dogs hunting. I do not say that specifically setters get shot...

As for the working setters farting....I wrote that that was a JOKE...YOU know like SMILE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stating how I work? Well I think I state clearly how I work and how everyone writing works! You have a thought/idea and you want to write about this...you check the fact and then you may find out your thought was correct or perhaps not.
Had I not checked the fact...That would have been a fault!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Barbara Simpson]

Before I first started showing Irish Setters in the late 1960's, I was first involved in AKC Field Trials, training and trialing my own setters. I was fortunate in that I lived close to a worldclass trainer, Jake Huizinga and his wife Sally. He had Shorthaired Pointers and Irish Setters. Jake not only trained and trialed Irish Setters, he also showed those same field trial dogs to their dual Championship titles. He trained for several famous kennels in the U.S. for many years. I have only owned 1 field bred Irish Setter, have owned many show bred Irish, Gordon and English setters that I have also run in the field. Breeders in the U.S. and Canada have been working diligently on improving the health of our breeds. We believe that a healthy animal, correctly structured, can do any kind of work their owners have an interest in. Not everyone in the U.S. has access to fields where they can train their dogs to hunt, most of us do not own guns either, we are discouraged from owning and carrying firearms for a good reason. Just because not every setter is trained or run in the field does not mean that the breeds are "ruined", just not utilized to their full potential.

[Henk ten Klooster]

Yes that name Jake Huizinga sounds a few bells....Did you know more of those "all aspect setterlovers" like Emily Schweitzer?

Barbara now you are here - both UK experts mentioned (Nagle and Rasbridge) are especially critical on the movement of Irish setters, last one stating it was "degenerated" from its original standard. In the eyes of Rasbridge because many breeders and showjudges did not have anymore knowledge of how a working Irish should move.

In the USA I've seen angulation in two groups going in the opposite direction. Can you provide an expert view on advantages and disadvantages of both? And your opnion on the opinion of both UK-experts whereas changes on both ends of the breeds were concerned? Thanks in advance -Henk.

[ursula wilby]

I do agree with Ginger (Note!!!!! :-))))))))))
I have several times in this thread written that I do not think that the setter is ruined healthwise. My own dogs have had an average age of 13.3 years and you agreed with me Henk that this was afair age. The statistics of 11.1 years I think is pretty good as well as this will include all dogs run over or having other accidents etc (non health-related). So is it the 11.1 years you think prove that the setter is less healthy?
Its very easy not having problems in any breed if you dont test for them.
We started X-raying hips in setters (mainly based on english bloodlines) fairly early and found there were some problems.
These problems did not exist in England at the time!
Well...not until they started x-raying, then they found they too had their share.
So please let us know about the problems in the breed that has actually turned the setter into a "ruined" breed.
Ursula

[Henk ten Klooster]

So you want MY opinion.

Heres the topic again: Breeders say they are active to improve the breed. Statistics on health, scientists and independent setter-experts claim exactly the opposite. Topics on health here inspired this topic. Did breeders make a mess of the Irish setter (called a "ruined breed" by expert Florence Nagle) or not and why, when & how yes or no in your eyes?

There is NO opinion in this.

YOU all provided opinions. In a nutshell YOU say the breed is NOT ruined. So YOU do not agree with the opinions of under more OUR OWN experts.

Now MY opinion. That is made by reading scientists, health-statistics, our best experts, scanning best sources over a century AND reading YOUR opinions and where you provide them, facts.

More times I said "who to believe?".

Now again - MY opinion.

This is made by sources read before launching the topic AND your reactions. AFTER that listing under headings 1) conformation, 2) health, 3) working qualities, 4) character, 5) genepools, 6) average qualities of breeders 7) environmental factors: what has improved, stabilized or became worser.

A quick scan of say 1970-now provides this opinion:

1) there is more division in type, probably due to different standards AKC/FCI, interpretation of standards lead to trends, "degeneration" of movement, the wheels, is probably correct;
2) health: what you can test improved (hd-results, PRA, Clad and MO), what you can not (yet) test is on the rise;
3) probably dived down in show-only circles;
4) not in the standard but much written about. risk of "too dull" characters.
5) loss of founding families is a threat - rise of polygenetical diseases expected
6) everyone can breed after just a few simple tests- no education needed.
7) dived down for a sporting breed.

On that basis is my opinion: the breed is at high risk of being ruined...

[ursula wilby]

OK Henk this is MY (personal) opinion....

1. I agree to the division of type...but have no opinion when it comes to movement.

2. I agree on the testable health and disagree on the other...what are these and how can you be certain that they did not excist before? I have written this before: most of these statistics are (normally) based on insurance-companies. Very few (if any) dogs were insured in the 70`s. Therefore, NO relieable data.

3. I am not certain what you mean by this one...

4. Could be, yes I think there is a certain truth in this. Although it may not be all bad. Times
change, and so do the livingconditions of setterowners. How many need a dog that can dash through a field in two seconds flat? Unless you want to push the issue and only allow active hunters with say a minimum of 500 huntable acres to own a setter.

5. I have no view on the matter.

6. Quite right Henk! And in the good old days, you could breed without education and WITHOUT tests as well!!!!!!

7. Correct (note we agree Henk!) if you are talking about ALL setters. With division of type, the showtype is no longer (in many countrys) required to have any huntingability. The selection goes for type, coat, teeth, etc. But then, we go back to my reply No: 4.
Should only active hunters be allowed a setter?
Or should all be allowed a setter?
If you are breeding a litter, I doubt if you would for instance want to use an american stud (unprooven in the field). You would shy away from all that coat, the type etc.
Personally I would stay way clear of the true huntingtype if I am looking for a studdog. So you have differant types of setters....and there is room for them all!

So, no, I personally dont think the breed is being ruined or even stands a high risk of being so.

Ursula
(non-hunter but very active with my setters...)