Old-type Irish setters had shorter feathering and broader skulls than the modern dog. The white markings on the dog at the right were also very common. These white marks appear in golden retrievers, too, which they inherited from the setter.
Red Irish setters were once much more like retrievers than they are today. By the 1970’s, the narrow headed Irish setter with much longer legs was becoming common. You can see these traits in Richard Nixon’s dog, “King Timahoe.”
Keep in mind that there was a long period in which the majority goldens were more setter-like, and you can understand the confusion that many lay-people once had about golden retrievers. I’ve read many accounts of the first goldens being trialed in the United States, and it rather remarkable many people wondered how they had trained a setter into a retriever.
Of course, the confusion continues today with field bred golden, including this blog. Luckily, this reference has been corrected.
During the 1960’s and 1970’s, American Irish setters were bred for much longer coats than the originals. Their ears were lengthened (although the real ear length is exaggerated through breeding for more ear feather). The skull was made very narrow, and soon sportsmen who used index dogs stopped using them. A common refrain is that the show-breeders bred the head too small that there was no room for a brain.
There are a few working Irish setters around today, and these dogs are bred for a slightly different conformation than the show dogs, more skull, less feathering, and, usually, smaller size. There is also a separate registry for the working red setter in the United States, and these dogs have a lot of characteristics in common with the old-type Irish setter. Because these dogs are trialed as hard as the English and Llewellin setters, though, they are developing the body type of those dogs. (If you’ve ever seen Llewellin setter or a field bred English setter, they don’t look anything like the show dogs. At all.) Of course, some traits of the old setter can also be seen in the original Irish setter, the Irish red and white setter.
This Irish red and white setter has the broad retriever-like skull that was once common in all Irish setters of both colors.
One of the good things about the Irish setter getting a reputation for stupidity is that its popularity dropped. Only serious setter people wound up owning these dogs (well, by and large.) Even the show-setters began to develop a little differently. People worked on increasing trainability in the show-stock. And now a show Irish setter is pretty decent pet to have, if it is exercised. However, is not generally a good field dog, especially if it comes from American bloodlines. The breed’s reputation is still too bad in the United States for many people to seriously trial AKC Irish setters, although there are a few mavericks out there.
Different breed (GSD), but here’s an interesting pictorial of breed “development” over 30 generations: http://www.aniwa.com/en/chien/Grand_Public/document/101809/103053/auto=0/index.htm
The person who sent this link said that the later dogs are the working dogs, not the show dogs. Compared to the show dogs I’ve seen around here, the later dogs do, unfortunately, look pretty moderate and functional.
Wow!
And those are German working lines!
No wonder every police department I know that uses protection dogs uses Malinois, Dutch shepherds, and German Shepherds only from East German lines, the ones kept by the former Communist police. Interesting, I read somewhere where the Soviets actually maintained a working line of Irish setter that was independent of Western show and field lines. However, I’ve since heard that this dog went extinct as it was exposed to Western lines. Not defending communism, but it seems unusual that when dogs are bred independently of the caprices of fashion and marketability, quality is actually maintained.
Interesting site – Compare the toplines of F2, F15 & F30. I see the same drift toward roached back that I see in some dogs from US lines (for a definition & discussion of a roached back, see
http://www.shawlein.com/The_Standard/04_The_Back/The_Back.html)
I see a lot of structural differences and differences in “breed type” between F1 & F31. If the F1 dog was the son of the dog used to write the GSD standard, I wonder what the authors of that standard would say about the more recent dogs?
I could ask the same question of breeders of golden retrievers. Ch. Speedwell Pluto was the first AKC conformation champion golden, and he looked nothing like the show dogs we see today. http://www.grca.org/history_breed/gr_firsts_conf.html
I think what’s happened is that what were ones “finer points” (the things that really don’t have to do with working conformation) became institutionalized in the breed. I don’t know how this happens, but it may happen when more influential breeders start breeding something new as a lark. This lark becomes a novelty in the ring. It may not even exist in the actual standard, but it soon becomes part of the breed’s “finer points.” Then there’s a standard revision, and this once novelty becomes the actual standard. I think the excessive feathering in goldens is the result of this. The original standard said to have feathering, just make it a little moderate. But the hairy dogs, when really well groomed and conditioned, looked spectacular in the ring. Today, there is no language in the AKC standard about moderate feathering. If you try to swim a heavily feathered dog, it’s going to be a much slower dog in the water, something like the double-tailed goldfish that can’t swim fast enough to compete for food when housed with single-tailed fish.
I’ve had several people tell me that the original German shepherd is something like a Malinois, to which I reply that the original golden retriever was something more like a flat-coat.
The Kennel Club (United Kingdom) has issued new standards for many breeds. Here’s part of the standard for GSD’s:
Body Length measured from point of shoulder [delete: breast bone] to point of buttock [delete: rear edge of pelvis], slightly exceeding height at withers. Correct ratio 10 to 9 or 8 and a half. Undersized dogs, stunted growth, high-legged dogs, those too heavy or too light in build, over-loaded fronts, too short overall appearance, any feature detracting from reach or endurance of gait, undesirable. Chest deep (45-48 per cent) of height at shoulder, not too broad, brisket long, well developed. Ribs well formed and long; neither barrel-shaped nor too flat; allowing free movement of elbows when gaiting. Relatively short loin. Belly firm, only slightly drawn up. Back between withers and croup, straight, strongly developed, not too long. Overall length achieved by correct angle of well laid shoulders, correct length of croup and hindquarters. [Delete: Withers long, of good height and well defined, joining back in a smooth line without disrupting flowing topline, slightly sloping from front to back] The topline runs without any visible break from the set on of the neck, over the well defined withers, falling away slightly in a straight line to the gently sloping croup. The back is firm, strong and well muscled. Loin broad, strong, well muscled. Weak, soft and roach backs highly undesirable and should be [delete: rejected] heavily penalised. Croup [delete ‘long’] slightly sloping and without any break in the topline, merges imperceptibly with the set on of the tail. [Delete: curving downwards to tail without disrupting flowing topline]. Short, steep or flat croups highly undesirable.
The new changes to existing standards can be found at http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2223
(no changes to goldens or to flatcoats, but a significant change to labs.)
Well that’s good news!
I think they should trial a few of their “white” show goldens and check hip scores from working versus show lines. I think they would find a need for a revision. I think breeding for that heavy body leads to weak hips, although I’ve seen no data to back this up.
That will change the Lab significantly.
I hope they accept the standard revision.
The KC is accepting comments, but it’s sort of a done deal. As it stands, the judges at Crufts are directed to remove “unhealthy” dogs from the ring. They will then be evaluated by a vet. If they consider a heavy lab to be unhealthy, the lab entries may be decimated.