Are showbred red setters ‘just red dogs, not setters’?

[Henk ten Klooster]

The showbred Irish setter is under fire. In his recently published book ‘The Irish Red Setter’, Raymond O’Dwyer states they “lack the conformation of a galloping dog that is clearly required of a setter”.

According to the author, chairman of the Irish Red Setter Club so motherclub of all FCI-countries, responsible for the standard in most of the world, differences in colour, size, conformation, energy and mental attitudes between showbred Irish setters in the English speaking world and workers/duals are “enormous”. He warns for the effect when this policy is continued.

What is your opinion? Is the showbred animal “just a red dog” and not an Irish setter anymore, like the book suggests?

More info on the book with reviews: http://www.corkuniversitypress.com

[Susan Stone]

ups, just read my spelling mistake... of course I meant couch potatoes not coach:-)

[ursula wilby]

I suppose the coach is to take the (non-galloping) setters from A to B...
:-)

[Catherine Carter]

The Irish Red Setter Standard was approved in 1886 ( no mention of size then). When the Standard was revised in Dublin (1930) again the inclusion of size was discussed but firmly rejected. In the 1980's the Kennel Club (U.K.) produced a revision but did not make any changes on the important points,only clarified some of the details. I believe it is only recently that at the demand of the FCI, the mention of size was introduced in the Irish Red Standard (Dublin). For here in the U.K. I will quote Brian Ross (chairman of the Irish Setter Breeders Club) :"Whilst actual measurements may be tabled in some of the standards, it is a matter of fact that there has never been a measured height specified in the Breed Standard for Irish Setters as approved by the Kennel Club for use within its jurisdiction i.e. the U.K. My own view is that our Standard is right to concentrate on construction and balance to produce a well proportioned Irish Setter capable of moving with a seemingly effortless grace which characterises the very best specimens of our breed."
Out of curiosity, I measured the two youngsters that I am regularly showing at the moment,and they are both within the recommended FCI sizes. This morning when I took my dogs for a run, I told them that a well-meaning gentleman had expressed the view that they should not be galloping and that they would get tired easily. They gave me a very 'old-fashioned' look and went on their business as usual(i.e. galloping round the fields!)
I hope you have as much pleasure with your dogs as I have with my Irish in the house, for a walk, in the show-ring, in the field....
That concludes my views.

[Diana van der Valk]

I´m not going to discuss this with Henk, because he will never stop or give up.
I just give my point of view for this moment.
I think the working Irish doesn´t LOOK like an Irish Setter. I agree, SOME show Setters have too much coat to be a working dog. But my dogs all run free and hunt for pheasant (and rabbits ;-)) but I don´t encourage it because I want to be able to walk with them off the leash without worrying they´re running on the motorway. Holland is a small country after all. I like the showtype, not only because of their personality...I don´t think we will ever get dualpurpose Setters again, and frankly I´m glad about it! Henk will certainly call me a bad breeder, but as long as I think I´m doing the right thing I just don´t care. The gap between showpeople and workingpeople will probably always excist, jus because of the fact we don´t speak the same "language". Let us all be happy and pleased with our own dogs and respect each other.

[Rob Clay]

Hi Henk,

I agree with Mr O'Dwyer.

My field dogs have little in common with the Irish Setters I've seen in the show ring.

I'm not going to argue with anybody about which form of Irish Setter (field or show) is best, it's simply a waste of time.However I will state that for me there is no doubt that field dogs are the "true" Irish. Like just about every other breed, the development of Irish Setters was driven by FUNCTIONALITY, the dogs had a job to do and those that did that job best were breed from and use to created the next generation. Generation after generation of breeding for functionality (superior hunting ability - which requires conformation, brains, nose, temperment etc) gave us the Irish Setter breed.

Once you loose that functionality, you loose the breed. The problem with Irish Setters today is that there are too many non-hunters breeding them for goals other than functionality. People will tell you that there show breed setters can hunt etc, but in my experience these people frequently know very little about hunting. They think their setter is hunting when it sight points a pigeon in the park for example. I alway offer to take show folk and their dogs into the field with me, a number have accepted the invitation, by the end of the day even they can see the difference between field and show dogs.

I know of show breed setters that have been given every opportunity to develop in the field, but they've failed to impress. They lack the desire/intelligence and conformation to do the job as well as field bred dogs. That has been my experience any how.

Cheers from Aussie,
Rob

[Rob Clay]

Hi Frances,

IMO there are few problems with the concept of a breed standard.
(1) The standard was originally used to DESCRIBE the ideal working dog, in other words breed enthusiasts had a group of working dogs (the breed was created long before the standard) and tried to write a standard capturing the physical attributes of those dogs that worked best. Today however the standard is being used in an attempt to CREATE the dogs. It's putting the cart before the horse.

(2) Terms in the standard are subjective. They are interpreted differently by different people around the world. Originally the majority of Irish Setter owners were hunters, because of their shared experiences in the field, they had a shared understanding of descriptive terms. Today that field experience is lost and with it those field based understanding.

(3) It's extremely difficult to describe something as complex as a dog's conformation in a way that everybody reading the standard gets the same mental picture of dog.

(4) It's impossible to judge a dog's galloping gait (the working gait of an Irish Setter) when it's trotting or standing still.

In addition, features like intelligence, nose, temperament, etc are just as important to a “typical” Irish as conformation, yet aren’t measured in The Standard. I’d very much like to see more people using the working standard in conjunction with the conformation standard when breeding dogs.


IMO it’s all a matter of breed focus, what’s the driving force (selective pressure) behind a dogs breeding. We have a deer farm down the road from us. These farmed deer are larger, more docile, and have a very different gait to their wild cousins. There hasn’t been any cross breeding etc of the domestic stock, rather the change in selective pressure has (in surprisingly few generations) has created very different animals. Where the wild deer are selected (by nature) to be the fittest and best able to survive in the wild, so the domestic deer are selected (by the farmer) to be docile animals of large body size (more meat). The change in selective pressure can in a short amount of time create a very different animal, no cross breeding is necessary. So it is with Setters, once you stop breeding for hunting ability, then you very quickly create something other than the original/typical Irish Setter.

[Rob Clay]

Hi Frances,
When I was refering to the working standard, I was refering to a document (attached below) describing the way and Irish setter should work, not a document describing the conformation of a working IS.

When you say there is only one standard, I believe that standard has been changed several times and that there are differences between the standard used in Europe and the standard used in the USA, for example. Then there's the matter of interpeting the standard, which is different in different parts of the world.

The fact that an Irish Setter could fit The Standard perfectly and at the same time be completely hopeless at finding birds, indicates to me the limitations of the The Standard and of this method of evaluating dogs.

Cheers,
Rob

WORKING STYLE OF THE IRISH RED SETTER

as developed by the Irish Red Setter Club and approved by the Irish Kennel Club and F.C.I. (Standard No. 120)
SIZE (Height)
Height at withers
Males 23ins (58 cm) to 26.5 ins (67 cm)
Female 21.5ins(55 cm) to 24.5 ins (62 cm)

As Irish Setters were originally bred as partridge and grouse dogs, their style of hunting these birds may be taken as the norm.

In their quest there must be an intensity that gives purpose to the hunt for game. The concentration on the job at hand should be evident in every stride and movement. The co-operation with the handler is part of that concentration and should not interfere with the quest for game.

In the gallop the head is carried above the line of the back, the line of the muzzle always parallel to the ground. The gallop is fast, flowing, free of obvious effort. The line of the
Irish Setter at gallop
back remains as close to horizontal as possible, due to the harmonious interaction of front and back legs. As the body of the Irish Setter is close to being square, the galloping dog appears relatively high over the ground. The tail is carried in the line of the back, tending downwards and should not be above the back line. Some tail action is acceptable, but the more serious hunters use their tails little, except for balance on their turns.

On finding game Irish Setters shorten, taking a few tight casts in the cone of the scent before drawing forward to set. From once they wind game to the set, some tail action is seen. The body lowers at the back and stays high at the shoulder and head as they sift the wind for the exact location of their birds. The ears are expressive, being well up and forward on the head as they approach game.

Irish Setter
Standing or crouched settings are normal attitudes. The set is intense and rigid, full of energy and concentration, crouched in bare ground or on a surprise point and as a fixed extension of its form in drawing game where the vegetation is relatively high, the placement of the feet controlling and balancing the tense and immobile body. The head is held well up, eyes fierce, ears high, forward and expressive, the tail rigid, bristling with the passion of the find, arched under the line of the back or in its line.

The attitude in roading must be very intense and concentrated. The head remains well up in the air to control the film of scent, muzzle parallel to the ground, the shoulder blades exposed over the line of the back and the tail carried rigidly, arched towards the earth. Any tendency towards stickiness is a grave fault.

Irish Setters are fast, wide rangers. They use the ground with intelligence and precision, breaking their casts as they check the wind for the faintest taint of game. Should it be unfounded they resume their cast with urgency. The depth between the casts should be moderately open depending on the conditions on the day.

[Catherine Carter]

yes Frances I see where you are coming from and I agree with you 100%!

[Melinda Auld]

I admit I'm a bit hesitant about throwing myself into this one, as I'm not really qualified to comment. But I have a few questions for both "sides"! I believe that in some European countries, before an Irish Setter can earn a show championship title, it must qualify in the field. While I understand that this doesn't necessarily make them "field" dogs, surely this is a step in the right direction when it comes to ensuring dual functionality - or at the very least maintaining the working ability of the Irish Setter, despite how the show type differs in appearance to the field type?

My preference is for the UK/European show type over both the field and American show type. No offence meant to anyone who loves those types best - everyone has a personal preference after all. While I do agree that not even the UK/European show type matches the "bred-for-functionality" smaller, more agile field type, I think you could still argue that this type is MOSTLY capable of a day's work in the field. (I say this with no field experience whatsoever mind you, so I'm sure you'll all correct me!!) Is this not evidenced by a number of these dogs who can and do work in the field as well as the show ring?

Is it not also true that not ALL field-bred dogs can adequately work a field? Obviously, in each litter of any type, there are going to be those with a stronger inclination to work, and those without. This is how the breed was created, after all. Those with the strongest inclination to work were the dogs who were selected for breeding programmes - thus the inclination to work was hopefully passed on with each subsequent generation. Those that failed to show this ability were culled from the breeding programme.

Yes, show type dogs are not selected for this purpose any more - and I do agree that this is a shame (personaly biases for appearance aside!). No breed that was created for a working purpose should ever have that purpose selected against. Nor should people who select against working ability have the audacity to claim that their dogs are "working Irish." Form follows functionality after all. Tall, upright, heavily-coated dogs are obviously at an immediately disadvantage in the working field. (It is at this point that the Americans will argue that there are some dual-champion Irish in the USA...but were they only worked to prove a point that they still could? Or were they bred for a dual-purpose?)

I have two Irish - both UK/European show types. One has field lines, the other certainly has dogs further back that have been worked. Both, as Rob says, "sight point pigeons in the park." Do I think this means either can work a field? I have no idea. I do intend to take them to field training to find out. Do I think they'll end up with field champion titles? Again, I have no idea. Probably not! My main interest is showing. But it doesn't mean I don't want my dogs to have the chance to do what they were bred for, many generations earlier.

Rob, your point about the domestic deer is a good one - and reminds me of Belyaev's foxes. Domesticity (or in the case of the Irish, "showringisticity") certainly has an impact on form. However, creation is absolute. Once a breed is "split" into types, you will immediately have those who love each type, and who wish to preserve the essence of each. Thus, we now see (and embrace) several types of Irish Setter.

Are they all Irish Setters? To those who believe their dog is an Irish Setter, yes.

[Rob Clay]

I believe that in some European countries, before an Irish Setter can earn a show championship title, it must qualify in the field. While I understand that this doesn't necessarily make them "field" dogs, surely this is a step in the right direction when it comes to ensuring dual functionality - or at the very least maintaining the working ability of the Irish Setter, despite how the show type differs in appearance to the field type?
That's correct, in Germany and the Scandinavian countries for example, dogs must complete a basic level of field work before they can become show champions. I agree that canine evaluation systems that include a measure of functionality are far better than those based on conformation and genetics alone (as is done in the USA, UK, Aust and NZ).

My preference is for the UK/European show type over both the field and American show type. No offence meant to anyone who loves those types best - everyone has a personal preference after all. While I do agree that not even the UK/European show type matches the "bred-for-functionality" smaller, more agile field type, I think you could still argue that this type is MOSTLY capable of a day's work in the field. (I say this with no field experience whatsoever mind you, so I'm sure you'll all correct me!!) Is this not evidenced by a number of these dogs who can and do work in the field as well as the show ring?

It's not a question of conformation - there is so much more to field work (nose, intelligence, desire, temperament, etc. Whether or not these dogs are "mostly capable of a days work in the field" depends on much else besides their conformation.

Is this not evidenced by a number of these dogs who can and do work in the field as well as the show ring?
The split between field and show Irish is large. There are very few Irish (that I'm aware of) winning in both the field and the ring. There have been a few breeders with deep pockets that have sent a "dual" type dog to a pro trainer and after a lot of work achieved some success, but as for the one dog winning in both the big shows and the big field trials - I'm not aware of it.

I guess it depends on how you define "working" in the show and the field, I could enter my dogs in the ring, I'd not win much but if I enter them enough I might have some success at a small country show, does that combined with field trial wins make them "dual dogs"?

Is it not also true that not ALL field-bred dogs can adequately work a field?
Again I guess it depends how you define "adequately". Certainly some will go on to become super-stars and some will not, but from what I've seen, a line breeding program based on good field dogs will produce dogs that hunt. Certainly I've never seen a field bred dog with anything like the lack of interest in the field that one regularly see in non-field bred pups.

It is at this point that the Americans will argue that there are some dual-champion Irish in the USA.
Which dogs are you referring to? AFAIK, there are no show/dual Irish Setters winning field trials in the USA. Heck, there are very few field Irish winning in the USA, Pointers and English Setters dominate the US scene. A show/dual might have qualified in a hunt test (non-competitive, evaluated against a written standard) or they may have won an event restricted to AKC registered Irish Setters (The field Irish Setters in the USA, and in fact most all of the field dogs of any breed in the USA are registered with the Field Dog Stud Book. The FDSB is the oldest, and possibly largest ?, purebreed dog registry in the USA).

Are they all Irish Setters?
According to most Kennel Clubs, any pup born of registered Irish Setter parents, is itself an Irish Setter. A view with which Mr O'Dwyer and I disagree.

[Rob Clay]

Hi Ginger - Many thanks for the update. Great to hear that there is a strong and growing interest in breeding Dual type Irish Setters. Congratulations to all who have achieved that goal and best wishes to those pursuing it.

Let us hope that efforts like these, along side those of the FDSB registered folk, can restore the field performance and reputation of what was formally one of the great hunting dogs breeds in the USA.

I too would like to see some conformation requirements for field dogs, after all the correct conformation gives a dog the best structure with which to find birds. I would however, like to see the conformation assessment altered some what to include an evaluation of the dogs galloping, since the galloping gait is the working gait of the Irish Setter.

[Rob Clay]

Hi Ginger,

I don't want to start a war either, but there are equally as many issues with AKC Irish Setters that don't hunt or set. These are gundogs after all and to have taken the breed so far from it's origins that the majority of the hunting public consider then worthless in the field, is tragedy IMO.

Also the issue of breed purity is an interesting one that I'll have to re-visit when I have more time, but suffice to say that all breeds began with a collection of dogs that were crossbreds.