Exclusively Setters

Home for Irish Setter Lovers Around the World

Media highlight Irish setter as a sick animal

The image of the Irish setter got another big blow in Dutch media this week because a breeder was fined to pay 6000 euro for selling and subsequently denying primary epilepsy in a dog. Nearly all media, from national television to dailies and social media focused on this. Last year it was only television, now the impact is way broader. What do you think, is there a way to get out of this misery? And how?


Views: 11824

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Lucky you Suzanne my breeder would not even talk to me.Abbie had her first fit at 2 1/2 as I knew the breeder had kept one of the litter with a view to breeding from her I phoned to let her know. Her daughter ansered the phone the breeder was not home, so I asked her to give her mum the message, she said she would get her mum to ring me back ( she never did ) I tried many times to phone her to make sure she got my message, she was never there!! that is the last contact I had with Abbies breeder. Abbie is now nearly 9 .

Disgusting and shame on the breeder and I hope that everything she bought with the money she charged for Abbie, haunts her and likewise any other puppies she sold knowing there were health issues.

Well done you to protect Abbie and that she is now able to go into her dotage with you by her side.

read Angela's blog, it's exactly why there has to be sort of protection for our dogs from breeders who just want money.    Very sad and this dishonesty is exactly why I dropped out of showing IS because I couldn't stand this attitude and greed.

Keep her safe and wish you a happy new year.

Mel, after reading the verdict my advice is: tell all your buyers about that shit that can happen. If you don't, it may cost a fortune. 

Exactly right Henk, honesty and openess, the only way to go. 

Isn't it a bit naief to think that whe can solve this problem on exclusive setters?

As long as the setter club Holland and the Raad van beheer alow "shit" breeders  to do things that shoudn't.

There will be no end of this!


And Henk it is close by!! (you know what I mean??)

Some posts here (Sue & Mel) suggest you can’t do much against epilepsy and/or ask what can we do. For quality of debate here, a few points from a report of the Dutch expert dr Paul Mandigers in 2005.

These come from:


Quick translated here:

1) There is a family aspect . Mandigers highlights the breed of Keeshonds.   The pedigrees of fifteen litters with epileptics were compared to those of 34 other normal litters. The pedigrees of the sufferers of epilepsy could be traced back to one single combination.  According to Mandigers, results like this were described in Boxers, Labrador retrievers, Golden retrievers, Tervueren shepherds, Springer spaniels, Viszla and Bernese Mountain Dogs. He adds: this is meanwhile also documented for diverse other breeds, but not yet published.


2) Inbreeding results in a raised frequency of epilepsy.  A few breeds are mentioned: more epilepsy in inbred families in Labrador retriever, Golden retriever and Bernese Mountain Dogs.  There is an interesting example mentioned in the American population of Tervueren shepherds with a frequency of 17 %.  Researchers made a model to predict the chance of epilepsy and according to Mandigers the frequency could as a result be significantly lowered.


Your views?

Wim, we can give it a try.

The problem of pra rcd4 was battled with success and first publications were on ES. As well on this platform in 2007-2010 there were topics like: Conflict over Coi, Is the Irish setter a ruined breed etc. and a lot of healthtopics. Some contents are meanwhile on quite a few agenda's.

As for your You know what I mean , I guess this deals with the average health in working lines? This was indeed for me a reason to stick to those familygroups in the nineties and yes, the result was good. This does not mean that working means always healthy, that is documented in other (working) breeds.    


But has it?   We thought PRA had been addressed and then pra rcd4 arrived.  I don't think anyone breeding livestock per se should ever be complacent.  And it is why I think it is time that breeders (all species) should be made to be honest about health problems without fear of litigation (being sued by somebody who is overly protective about their own bloodlines).  We would then be able to see patterns and avoid repeating mistakes.

There will always be problems, that is the nature of living creatures, however, honesty and openess is the only way forward for the benefit of all.

Love the pictures of your dogs, the dogs are so stylish and yet not exaggerated and clearly lead the sort of life that only a lot of show dogs can dream about, lovely. 

I don't think Henk is trying to solve the problem on ES.  The more people who get to know what is going on and by whom the better.  The IS well being isn't located by Country or Nation, it is run by us, HUMAN BEINGS, who need to be honest and open.   He certainly isn't being naive, he is bringing to attention the true state of the breed NOW .  This  should have been done years ago when really large numbers of IS puppies were being bred and they were one of the most popular breeds universally.   That he has working IS is irrelevant.  He loves his dogs and I feel that there have been some unnecessary "snippy comments" directed at him.   You see it's why others in the past have kept quiet about problems because, unlike Henk, they were not prepared to have rude remarks and accusations pointed at them.   Instead he should be strongly admired and respected for his bravery to stand up and say it out loud.......................

I used Google to translate this:

LJN: BY7900, Subdistrict Court in Breda, 731,752 CV 12-4990 Print statement
Date of judgment: 12.12.2012
Date of publication: 01/07/2013
Jurisdiction: Civil Other
Type of procedure: First Instance - Single
Inhoudsindicatie: Plaintiff buys on 1 February 2010 by the defendant under 1 Irish Setter "Voltaire of the Hunter's Home", aka Sam, born November 29, 2009, for the price of € 850,00. By the defendant under 1 operated kennel is registered with the Board of Management. Defendant under 2, as a partner of the defendant under one directly involved in the kennel. On May 18, 2011 Sam gets 1/1 seizure. In the Animal Health Centre (DGC) in Rotterdam is at Sam epilepsy has been diagnosed and is epileptic medication prescribed. Defendants deny for a long time the diagnosis of epilepsy. They think Sam to "resettten". Plaintiff relies long time on the expertise of defendants. According defendants Sam suffered from panic attacks and not to epileptic seizures. On 27 October 2011, Sam returned to the DGC, where Sam directly by reference to the Veterinary Clinic Utrecht. On November 3 to 5, 2011 Sam stayed in the intensive care of that clinic. During treatments and examinations showed again that Sam existence of primary epilepsy. Plaintiff has cost much to make and is confronted with many animals. Eventually it was decided to Sam to sleep. Because defendant under 2 is not a contracting party, designate the magistrate against defendant under two off. In the opinion of the magistrate is within the Netherlands for several years a fact of common knowledge that among purebred dogs such as Irish setters, many hereditary disorders. The magistrate does not understand that defendant under 1 so long denied that Sam primary epileptic. The subdistrict suspect that this denial-against my better judgment-just may have to do with the fear / fear of negative publicity. By no word mention on its website the chance of epilepsy defendant under 1-also recognized as holding kennel breeder, potential buyers withhold relevant information. The magistrate further believes that Sam because the established epilepsy did not meet the expectations that plaintiff reasonably when purchasing these purebred dog may have. In summary, the magistrate held that defendant under 1 attributable has failed to fulfill its obligations to Plaintiff. A ruling on that point is assigned. The Subdistrict Court considers that the defendant under 1 ad purchase price paid € 850.00 to the plaintiff must repay. Defendant under 1 is also condemned by the plaintiff incurred medical expenses of € 1,570.98, and to pay the sum of € 293.40 for travel expenses. The subdistrict eight furthermore immaterial damages in place. On behalf of Plaintiff at this point claimed amount of € 4.000,00 to € 1.500,00 he moderates. Defendant under 1 is further ordered to pay to the plaintiff out of court costs and legal costs. A declaration that the defendant under 1 with her kennel would also have been guilty of unfair trade practices, the magistrate rejected.
Location (s): Rechtspraak.nl
Team Canton Bergen op Zoom

Case / rolnr.: 731752 EXPL CV 12-4990

judgment dated December 12, 2012


living in [],
Agent: Mr H. Baaij, employed by the Foundation Animal & Law in Amsterdam,


1. [Defendant 1], and
2. [Respondent 2],
both acting under the kennel name "[X]", residing at [address]
defendants, writing process leading to person.

1. The further course of the proceedings

The procedure shown in the following documents:
a the interlocutory judgment of 12 September 2012 and that the said documents;
b. the hearing of 16 October 2012 and in that context by the Registrar made note, and on behalf of the plaintiff instrument produced eisvermindering also document presentation production and the record of that date.

2. The dispute

2.1 Plaintiff seeks-after-reduction requirement by judgment, as much as possible and to:
I. to rule that defendants have committed an attributable failure in the fulfillment of the commitment by the plaintiff and therefore damages in respect of the purchase price and the damage;
II. to rule that the defendants were guilty of unfair trade practices and therefore pay compensation in respect of the damage;
III. defendants to pay the plaintiff to pay within two weeks after the decision to designate a principal amount of € 7,904.38, consisting of medical expenses (1570.98), travel expenses (€ 293.40), legal costs (€ 1.190, 00), refund purchase price (€ 850.00) and gratuities (€ 4,000.00), plus statutory interest;
IV. defendants to pay the costs of these proceedings and the subsequent costs.

2.2 Defendants' conduct in response to and during the oral defense.

3. The further assessment

3.1 During the aforementioned hearing, the parties reached an amicable settlement. The parties both persevere in their previous positions and hearing explained. When necessary, the magistrate below these positions back.

3.2 The magistrate assumes the following has been established facts.
3.2.1 On 1 February 2010, the Plaintiff the Irish setter, "Voltaire of the Hunter's Home" callsign Sam, born November 29, 2009, purchased from the already existing since 1973 Irish Setter Kennel "[X]" for the price of
€ 850,00. It is oral purchase agreement. It was the third time that an Irish setter plaintiff purchased from the latter kennel. There is a consumer within the meaning of Article 7:5 paragraph 1 of the Civil Code. A copy of the pedigree of the Board of Directors is as exhibit 1 to subpoena submitted.
3.2.2 The Kennel [X], is since 1973 registered with the Board of Management, is in the name of the defendant under 1.
3.2.3 Defendant sub 2 as a partner of the defendant under 1 are directly involved in the aforementioned kennel.
3.2.4 On 18 May 2011, Sam had a seizure. Sam at that time was approximately 18 months old. Plaintiff has Sam same day at the Animal Health Centre (DGC) in Rotterdam, where they after being diagnosed epilepsy epileptic medication has been given and also blood tests for a clinical trial. Because of the severity of the condition, an MRI scan is recommended.
3.2.5 Plaintiff has same day Defendants informed about this diagnosis. Defendant under 1, when informed that an MRI was not necessary, she said: "It is our dog, bring him here, we reset it." Since plaintiff confident defendants had, Sam then 10 days at defendants stayed.
3.2.6 After returning to the plaintiff has Sam on July 6, 2011 had another seizure. The DGC has when additional epileptic medication prescribed.
3.2.7 The same day plaintiff defendants again asked for advice.
Defendant under 1 then indicated that they did not believe in the diagnosis of epilepsy and that she thought she could Sam "reset". Relying on defendants, the Plaintiff on July 7, 2011 Sam again at the kennel delivered still relying on the expertise of defendants.
3.2.8 Defendants gave at least 16 weeks the dog to want to observe. However, after 17 days the plaintiff requested the defendant under 1 to Sam to come pick because of personal circumstances.
3.2.9 From the moment Sam for the second time when the plaintiff was returned, plaintiff and defendants continued to regularly discuss the state of Sam.
2.3.10 Starting in August 2011 plaintiff advised defendants to the medication of Sam in half. Relying on the expertise of defendants, the Plaintiff this advice.
2.3.11 Starting in October 2011 was Sam again seizures. Defendants deny the diagnosis of epilepsy still. The son of the plaintiff, Sam went to the vet where he was given injections to stop attacks.
03/02/12 On October 9, 2011, the Plaintiff Sam advised by defendant under two returned to defendants. Even when defendants denied the diagnosis of epilepsy. Plaintiff has then called the epilepsy medication to defendants issued. DGC had indicated that the prescribed medication should be stopped under any circumstances. Still trusting plaintiff on the experience and expertise of defendants.
On 9 September 2011, however, seven Sam attacks. According defendants Sam suffered from panic attacks and not to epileptic seizures. This theorem defendants relied in his own words on the advice of four veterinarians.
01/03/13 Defendants then Sam without consulting plaintiff passed to a knowledge which they are behavioral therapist. Defendants have no knowledge of this epilepsy medication given. When Sam after ten days more attacks received, this knowledge Sam returned to defendants.
3.1.14 On 26 October 2011, the Plaintiff Sam picked by defendants. On this day, Sam had seven seizures.
1.3.15 On 27 October 2011, the Plaintiff Sam to the DGC, where Sam had an IV and plaintiff by referring to the Veterinary Clinic Utrecht.
3.1.16 In the Veterinary Clinic Utrecht Sam got another infusion and became his epilepsy medication increased.
1.3.17 On 30 October 2011, the Plaintiff Sam picked up again in the latter clinic.
The next day, Sam dozens of attacks per day due to which Sam had paralyzed.
01/03/18 From 3 to 5 November 2011, Sam in the ICU of the same clinic located. In these days, an MRI and a lumbar puncture performed in conjunction with a blood test. These results showed again that Sam primary epileptic. A copy of the report of record as Exhibit 3 to subpoena submitted.
3.1.19 From the moment that the anti-convulsant medication at the correct quantity has been set, the number of seizures is reduced. Temporary reduction of the medication led to more attacks after the medication was increased again.
03/01/20 Plaintiff Defendants have repeatedly called and confronted with the animal, the stress and high veterinary costs that disease Sam brought with them. She asked them to meet her at the vet costs. Defendants believe, however, that they not be blamed because it constitutes an inherited abnormality and therefore they see no reason to contribute to the costs.
01/03/21 Plaintiff did this in November 2011 for legal assistance requested from the Foundation Animal & Law. Ms. A.M. van Dijk, Legal Adviser of this foundation, subsequently contacted defendants and asked them to do an allowance for the veterinary costs to consider, given the seriousness of the situation, given that it is a hereditary disease and the fact defendants, according to the foundation, knew or should have known that with epileptic dogs bred.
01/03/22 Defendant sub 2 has again responded by saying that they do not intend to respond to the plaintiff. Defendant wanted to point 2 think about taking back the dog but withdrew this some days later again. Said Ms. Van Dijk on this point defendant sub 2 reported that they did not consider it appropriate to return the dog, as this is not in the interest of the dog and she also feared that defendants would euthanize the dog. Furthermore, Plaintiff also very attached to Sam to make him defendants to return.
1.3.23 On 25 January 2012, the Foundation Animal & Law for plaintiff to defendants of liability stating their compensation for the purchase price and the veterinary costs. On this liability claim, defendants have not responded. Also on the memories of these indemnities on 8 February 2012 and 13 and 25 April 2012, defendants have not responded.
3.1.24 In connection with the death of Sam Plaintiff has reduced its demand because future medical costs have fallen.

3.2 Plaintiff bases its claims (partly) in the above established facts and she adds that she has suffered damage because defendants culpable shortcoming by providing a purebred dog that does not comply with what may be expected of a purebred dog. On the basis of this attributable failure (failure) Plaintiff seeks reduction of the purchase price to zero (Article 7:22 paragraph 1 sub b BW) and refund of the price already paid, or refund of the purchase price by way of damages. Plaintiff also requests compensation for the medical expenses incurred by it (Article 7:24 paragraph 1 CC) and an initial lump sum for future loss (article 6:105 BW).
After the death of Sam latter claim for payment of future damage drop. Defendants in her knowingly dogs bred with a (large) probability epilepsy and they have this in her hushed.
Even after discovery of the present epilepsy in Sam, defendants have denied the existence of epilepsy. Plaintiff notes that up to the time of writ no warning on the website [X] state that their Irish setters a high risk of epilepsy. According to the plaintiff in this way Unfair commercial practices (Article 6:139 BW jo. Article 6:162 BW) and also of the (deliberate) withholding of information, allowing them to buy has passed that it would not otherwise have closed. Defendants are also on this basis according to her liable for all damages suffered as a result of the deception (Article 6:139 paragraph 2 BW j) suffered, namely the purchase and it pays medical expenses. Plaintiff also seeks compensation for the many hours taking care of Sam and reparations for the harm that has been done by the wrongful conduct of Defendants. By summons plaintiff still carries it very difficult to give back to Sam defendants only because of the fact that she has become very attached to Sam. By the death of Sam's return item no longer.

3.3 Defendants' conduct in response and at the hearing, defense against the claims of the plaintiff. They emphasize that the Kennel [X] in the name of defendant under one condition. Defendant under 2 is as life partner is directly involved in the kennel.
The starting point is always to breed with considered combinations with priority health. They recognize the sale of Sam on behalf of Plaintiff listed price.
They also recognize that Plaintiff them in mid-May 2011, informed the first epileptic seizure at Sam. They also wore knowledge of medication which under epilepsy Sam was prescribed. According to defendants, they have Sam with the best intentions bred absolutely not knowing that this dog epilepsy should avoid.
The plaintiff submitted on behalf of many productions given according them a wrong impression of possible kinship with dogs which have in the past there was epilepsy. They further confirm that Sam after the first report of epilepsy by Plaintiff several times with them has stayed for observation here is according to them almost daily contact with the plaintiff before. Also, there was contact with veterinarians to discuss the situation with Sam. Plaintiff himself has never approached them according to defendants on negligence, liability or financial compensation. According to them from the agent of the plaintiff "a witch hunt" going against all recognized breeders of purebred dogs and want to delegate if necessary, set an example. This agent has under them deliberately sought publicity.

Part two:

Position defendant under two
3.4 Although defendant under 2 as life partner of defendant under 1 apparently be directly involved in the discussion about Sam, he is arguably not a party to the contract between the plaintiff and defendant under one purchase agreement relating to Sam. Defendant under 2 is not (co) owner of this kennel.
Only for that reason that the claims of the plaintiff to the extent directed against defendant under 2 should be rejected.

3.5 The magistrate considering this matter the following. In the opinion of the magistrate is within the Netherlands for several years a fact of common knowledge that among purebred dogs such as Irish setters, many hereditary disorders.
Literature and research shows that the current health status of purebred dogs great concern. Defendant under 1, which sets itself in recent years to have been involved in scientific research, should also have this knowledge.
In this context also, especially for her-a fact of common knowledge, that precisely in the Irish setter significantly increased risk of seizures or epilepsy. Given this knowledge by the defendant under one understands the magistrate not so long that defendants have denied that Sam to primary epileptic. The subdistrict suspect that this denial-against my better judgment-just may have to do with the fear / fear of negative publicity around the kennel. By so doing, it has certainly not in the interest of Sam acted. Epilepsy was foreseeable at Sam and unfortunately this foreseeable possibility to Sam also manifested.

3.6 Through its website with no word to mention the risk of epilepsy remembers defendant under 1-also recognized as holding kennel breeder, potential buyers relevant information. Again suspect the subdistrict only a commercial interest.
Why not open at this point? The potential buyer, including plaintiff, may itself consider whether-despite this science wishes to proceed with purchase. Because a dog is a living being, the seller can not guarantee 100% that a dog is healthy and continues to purchase. The seller must be able to prove that he has done everything to ensure that the dog is healthy. Defendant under 1 has at this point as a registered breeder extensive care.

3.7 The subdistrict court with Plaintiff believes that Sam because the established epilepsy did not meet the expectations that plaintiff reasonably when purchasing these purebred dog may have. This is particularly so now Sam apparently the third puppy, which the plaintiff apparently defendant under 1 purchased. Given the excessive amount of care, the medical costs and the phenomena observed in the dog, there is no "normal". A consumer, as plaintiff, may ensure a relatively expensive purebred dog with pedigree expect this is healthy and not within 15 months of purchase such a serious disorder, such as epilepsy exhibits. Sufficient is based on the submitted medical records revealed that Sam from his birth charged with an inherited form of epilepsy. Only the nature of the defect opposed it that this deviation has not been revealed. Primary epilepsy manifests itself, on average at the age of 1-3 years. The literature and research, to which the plaintiff on behalf documents referenced are clear about that. Storm Pronunciation is further secured by or on behalf of defendant under 1 expressly stated that plaintiff need not have to worry about the health of the puppy-buying-because the mother of Sam previously healthy litters had produced.
There is no evidence that the plaintiff on its part to its duty of investigation (article 7:17 paragraph 5 BW) as a buyer would have paid. Precisely defendant under 1 has provide its disclosure obligation breached by not notifying about this relatively common condition in Irish setters.
In summary, the magistrate held that defendant under 1 imputably has come to fulfill their obligations to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has within a reasonable time (Article 7:23 BW) after discovery of the defect reported to this defendant under 1. In view of above, the magistrate below privilege declare that defendant under 1 attributable have failed to fulfill the obligation to Plaintiff and therefore is liable as regards the purchase price and the damage suffered.

3.8 Plaintiff seeks the reduction of the purchase price of € 850.00 in proportion to the deviation. A dog that deviations shown as discussed here and then even died in the course of trade worthless. For this reason, in the opinion of the magistrate the full purchase price by the defendant under 1 to be repaid.

3.9 Plaintiff seeks further contact (damage) ex Article 7:24 paragraph 1 CC of its costs. Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated the production of documents, that they for a total amount of € 1,570.98 in medical costs and get an amount of € 293.40 in travel expenses. Also this part of the claims of the plaintiff against the defendant under 1 is then assigned.

3.10 Plaintiff is also entitled to compensation for immaterial damages of € 4,000.00.
The magistrate sees reason for this claim ex aequo bono ad mitigate to an amount of € 1,500.00. The fact that the defendant under 1-against all odds-long time denied the existence of this genetic disorder and breach of trust of this plaintiff, for the subdistrict one reason to hold that in this case an immaterial damages in place.

3.11 On behalf of Plaintiff also sought a declaratory judgment that defendant under 1 with her kennel guilty would have engaged in unfair trade practices.
The magistrate can not help feeling that this part of the claim above has been dreamed up by the agent of the plaintiff. Apparently, the Foundation Animal & Law (Agent of Plaintiff) like to see if this "example" is made at this point. The only shortcoming in this sale is for the magistrate insufficient for such a far-reaching decision. The remaining behalf of Plaintiff asked at this point is too much based on presumptions.

3.12 Plaintiff also claims reimbursement of the costs of legal assistance of € 1.190, 00 (including VAT). Having regard to the final amount to be allocated, the subdistrict these costs in accordance with the usual moderate rate to € 714.00 (inclusive). Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that such costs necessary to make.

3.13 Defendant sub 1 will continue as the largely unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings. The advanced subsequent costs will subdistrict as insufficiently informed and substantiated rejection.

4. The decision

The Subdistrict:

rejects all claims against defendant under two off;

declares that defendant under 1 attributable failed in the fulfillment of the present contract with the plaintiff and therefore is liable with regard to the purchase price and the damage suffered.

condemns defendant under 1 within two weeks of today to pay plaintiff the sum of € 4,117.98, plus statutory interest on this amount from 8 February 2012 until the date of full settlement;

condemns defendant under 1 in the costs of these proceedings, on the part of the plaintiff to date budgeted at € 931.62, it includes an amount of € 400.00 as salary for the agent of the plaintiff, to meet within two weeks of today ;

declares this judgment provisionally enforceable;

denied the claims of the plaintiff against the defendant under 1 for the remainder.

This judgment was delivered by Mr. W.E.M. Verjans, subdistrict, and the public on Wednesday, December 12, 2012.




© 2024   Created by Gene.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service