# llewellin vs. english setter



## Flash01

Can anyone explain the difference between a Llwellin Setter and an English Setter?

Seems like a bunch of hoey to me.


----------



## midwestfisherman

Essentially, in simplified terms, it's an English setter from specific bloodlines. 

Short history: the English Setter existed as a trained bird dog in England by about 400 years ago, with origins in crosses of the Spanish Pointer, Large Water Spaniel, and English Springer Spaniel. The progenitors' characteristics combined to produce an excellent bird dog with a high degree of proficiency in finding and pointing game in open country. The modern English Setter owes its appearance to two men in 19th-century England who selectively bred their dogs based on field, not show, performance: Mr. Edward Laverack (1800&#8211;1877), and Mr. R. Purcell Llewellin (1840&#8211;1925). Llewellin's strain was based on Laverack's best dogs, which were then outcrossed with the bloodlines of his dogs Duke, Rhoebe and later Duke's littermate, Kate. It was Kate bred with Laverack's best hunting males that produced Llewellin's ideals Fd.Ch.Ch. Armstrong's Dash II and later Fd.Ch.Ch Dashing Bondhu. They were the foundation of Mr. Llewellin's personal strain known as "Dashing Bondhu". William Humphrey (1882&#8211;1963) inherited them from Mr. Llewellin in 1925 and continued them pure until his death in 1963 and produced 41 field champions in 38 years.

Despite its history and ability to breed to type, it is usually only considered a strain of English setter rather than a breed in its own right.


----------



## Blue Briar

Spelling?


----------



## gundogguy

midwestfisherman said:


> Essentially, in simplified terms, it's an English setter from specific bloodlines.
> 
> Short history: the English Setter existed as a trained bird dog in England by about 400 years ago, with origins in crosses of the Spanish Pointer, Large Water Spaniel, and English Springer Spaniel. The progenitors' characteristics combined to produce an excellent bird dog with a high degree of proficiency in finding and pointing game in open country. The modern English Setter owes its appearance to two men in 19th-century England who selectively bred their dogs based on field, not show, performance: Mr. Edward Laverack (18001877), and Mr. R. Purcell Llewellin (18401925). Llewellin's strain was based on Laverack's best dogs, which were then outcrossed with the bloodlines of his dogs Duke, Rhoebe and later Duke's littermate, Kate. It was Kate bred with Laverack's best hunting males that produced Llewellin's ideals Fd.Ch.Ch. Armstrong's Dash II and later Fd.Ch.Ch Dashing Bondhu. They were the foundation of Mr. Llewellin's personal strain known as "Dashing Bondhu". William Humphrey (18821963) inherited them from Mr. Llewellin in 1925 and continued them pure until his death in 1963 and produced 41 field champions in 38 years.
> 
> Despite its history and ability to breed to type, it is usually only considered a strain of English setter rather than a breed in its own right.



Thank-you! Very nice historical explanation. If you donot know where you come from hard to tell where you are going!


----------



## N M Mechanical

Owners act the same
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Xerxes Llewellins

midwestfisherman said:


> Essentially, in simplified terms, it's an English setter from specific bloodlines.
> 
> Short history: the English Setter existed as a trained bird dog in England by about 400 years ago, with origins in crosses of the Spanish Pointer, Large Water Spaniel, and English Springer Spaniel. The progenitors' characteristics combined to produce an excellent bird dog with a high degree of proficiency in finding and pointing game in open country. The modern English Setter owes its appearance to two men in 19th-century England who selectively bred their dogs based on field, not show, performance: Mr. Edward Laverack (1800&#8211;1877), and Mr. R. Purcell Llewellin (1840&#8211;1925). Llewellin's strain was based on Laverack's best dogs, which were then outcrossed with the bloodlines of his dogs Duke, Rhoebe and later Duke's littermate, Kate. It was Kate bred with Laverack's best hunting males that produced Llewellin's ideals Fd.Ch.Ch. Armstrong's Dash II and later Fd.Ch.Ch Dashing Bondhu. They were the foundation of Mr. Llewellin's personal strain known as "Dashing Bondhu". William Humphrey (1882&#8211;1963) inherited them from Mr. Llewellin in 1925 and continued them pure until his death in 1963 and produced 41 field champions in 38 years.
> 
> Despite its history and ability to breed to type, it is usually only considered a strain of English setter rather than a breed in its own right.


The above certainly gives you the history, but what does it mean in traits. I think for English Setter you can obviously have such a broad range of attributes from strictly "show" bench dogs - to - Rymans - to - cover dog (Grouse hunting) to full throttle AF horseback dogs. Generally when you're talking about a Llewellin, the dog has been consistently bred, from Llewellin himself to present day Llewellin breeders, to accommodate the foot hunting wild bird hunter. With very few notable exceptions trying to bring (push) it to AF horseback field trial prominence. The Llewellin was dominant in the early field trial history as different traits were more highly sought after during that era - Traits that walking foot hunters deemed the most highly sought after. As field trials went to horseback, the Llewellins' more "foot-hunter friendly" pattern was disregarded. So when you mention Llewellin to me, generally, you're talking about a dog that has been bred to be more mindful of hunting with you (range closer 50-400 yds), and to be a natural pointer, backer & retriever - Traits which foot hunting wild bird hunters still value most today.


Does that sound like hoey??


----------



## k9wernet

N M Mechanical said:


> Owners act the same
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Brushing and braiding and dressing their dogs up with little bows whilst they dream about a boy from homeroom?


----------



## Scott Berg

Xerxes Llewellins said:


> The above certainly gives you the history, but what does it mean in traits. I think for English Setter you can obviously have such a broad range of attributes from strictly "show" bench dogs - to - Rymans - to - cover dog (Grouse hunting) to full throttle AF horseback dogs. Generally when you're talking about a Llewellin, the dog has been consistently bred, from Llewellin himself to present day Llewellin breeders, to accommodate the foot hunting wild bird hunter. With very few notable exceptions trying to bring (push) it to AF horseback field trial prominence. The Llewellin was dominant in the early field trial history as different traits were more highly sought after during that era - Traits that walking foot hunters deemed the most highly sought after. As field trials went to horseback, the Llewellins' more "foot-hunter friendly" pattern was disregarded. So when you mention Llewellin to me, generally, you're talking about a dog that has been bred to be more mindful of hunting with you (range closer 50-400 yds), and to be a natural pointer, backer & retriever - Traits which foot hunting wild bird hunters still value most today.
> 
> 
> Does that sound like hoey??


I don't know about Hoey but I have seen a significant number of Llewellins and they have not been any more natural point/back/retrieve and the field lines. As a matter of fact, I would say some of the field lines have better attributes around game. 

I also have a hard time accepting the premise that they were great trial dogs but the game has changed. If that were the case llewellins would still excell in the walking venues or at least NSTRA and this is far from the case.

SRB


----------



## k9wernet

Can this be merged with the setter thread?


----------



## WestCoastHunter

Scott Berg said:


> I also have a hard time accepting the premise that they were great trial dogs but the game has changed. If that were the case llewellins would still excell in the walking venues or at least NSTRA and this is far from the case.
> 
> SRB


Is that really a fair statement? I tend to think that field trial dogs have evolved over time and one way or another that has changed what people expect from a dog in competition. I think most people will say that the field trial dog you see today is arguably better than what was around 20-30 years ago.

It's my understanding that Llewellins have stayed rather the same for all of this time and for what they are guys like them and hunt them successfully.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Scott Berg

WestCoastHunter said:


> Is that really a fair statement? I tend to think that field trial dogs have evolved over time and one way or another that has changed what people expect from a dog in competition. I think most people will say that the field trial dog you see today is arguably better than what was around 20-30 years ago.
> 
> It's my understanding that Llewellins have stayed rather the same for all of this time and for what they are guys like them and hunt them successfully.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Let me stress that I have absolutely zero problem with someone liking whatever floats their boat. On the other hand, dog people tend to twist the available evidence and tangible metrics to support whatever they want to beleive. I have a problem keeping my mouth shut when these theories are spun to cover up weaknesses. This is counterproductive to breed maintenance / improvement. 

Llewellins we once a dominate line in HB competion. The position that the game has changed is the equivalent to sticking your head in the sand. While it has changed, it has not changed so much that dogs that we dominant in horseback stakes back then could compete in a walking stake. At a an absolute minimum, if this theory was at all accurate they would be a breed/line of choice in NSTRA which they are not. 

The inability to go out eventually catches up to a line. Closing a line and calling it a breed is a failure of genetics 101 and that is why the breed has not been able to improve or perhaps even maintain. This line should be treated as a line and outcrossed, then bred back to the Llewellin line. This would allow for the maintainance of desired traits. The infusion of fresh blood would all for breed improvement, including health related issues.

I am sorry if this upsets some people but I think some debate would be good for the Llewellin line. It is not going to impact what I do at all. I have the other 95% of the English Setter line to draw upon for breeding. I should just shutup but this is stupid me trying to help. Does it really make sense to exclude 95% of the breed to maintain an artifical status as a breed? 

To me their is a reasonable compromise. The Llewellin club could amend the requirements to be designated as a breed to allow for one out cross every 4 generations.

SRB


----------



## Freestone

. 



Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## midwestfisherman

k9wernet said:


> Brushing and braiding and dressing their dogs up with little bows whilst they dream about a boy from homeroom?


No bows or homos allowed! Shows what you know!


----------



## midwestfisherman

WestCoastHunter said:


> Is that really a fair statement? I tend to think that field trial dogs have evolved over time and one way or another that has changed what people expect from a dog in competition. I think most people will say that the field trial dog you see today is arguably better than what was around 20-30 years ago.
> 
> It's my understanding that Llewellins have stayed rather the same for all of this time and for what they are guys like them and hunt them successfully.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Not sure what's changed so much. At the minimum the dog has to find birds and point them. In different venues the bird is shot and the dog is required to retrieve. What's so different about that?


----------



## WestCoastHunter

midwestfisherman said:


> Not sure what's changed so much. At the minimum the dog has to find birds and point them. In different venues the bird is shot and the dog is required to retrieve. What's so different about that?


Nothing, but a lot of guys like to claim we have better dogs today than we did 20+ years ago. I would think that opinion also correlates with the perception that the game has changed as some people claim. It makes sense to me, if more driven, heat tolerant, dogs that have a ton of natural ability is what's desired (I'm throwing stuff out there) it makes sense the Llewellen folks got "left behind" as standards and expectations for what an awesome setter is changed. The inverse could be true if the setter world spontaneously changed its mind and thought today's Llewellan was the perfect setter.

It also makes sense that some guys don't want, pardon the term, "balls to the walls setters" and kept coming back to Llewellans.

I take no issue with either side, I was just wondering if it's fair to say the game hasn't changed if today's setters are better than their predecessors. I'd argue the game most definitely changed.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TrekJeff

k9wernet said:


> Can this be merged with the setter thread?



It lacks chaps:lol:


----------



## Blue Briar

Scott Berg said:


> Let me stress that I have absolutely zero problem with someone liking whatever floats their boat. On the other hand, dog people tend to twist the available evidence and tangible metrics to support whatever they want to beleive. I have a problem keeping my mouth shut when these theories are spun to cover up weaknesses. This is counterproductive to breed maintenance / improvement.
> 
> Llewellins we once a dominate line in HB competion. The position that the game has changed is the equivalent to sticking your head in the sand. While it has changed, it has not changed so much that dogs that we dominant in horseback stakes back then could compete in a walking stake. At a an absolute minimum, if this theory was at all accurate they would be a breed/line of choice in NSTRA which they are not.
> 
> The inability to go out eventually catches up to a line. Closing a line and calling it a breed is a failure of genetics 101 and that is why the breed has not been able to improve or perhaps even maintain. This line should be treated as a line and outcrossed, then bred back to the Llewellin line. This would allow for the maintainance of desired traits. The infusion of fresh blood would all for breed improvement, including health related issues.
> 
> I am sorry if this upsets some people but I think some debate would be good for the Llewellin line. It is not going to impact what I do at all. I have the other 95% of the English Setter line to draw upon for breeding. I should just shutup but this is stupid me trying to help. Does it really make sense to exclude 95% of the breed to maintain an artifical status as a breed?
> 
> To me their is a reasonable compromise. The Llewellin club could amend the requirements to be designated as a breed to allow for one out cross every 4 generations.
> 
> SRB



Well said!


----------



## crosswind

Scott Berg. After running in NSTRA for I think 16 years I do agree they do not work for this venue. I have seen several guys try to make a go with them over the years and all have given up. 
Having run against or watching them from the side lines, it seemed to me they just lacked both hunt/desire and drive. Many looked ok on point but just didn't seem be the bird finders other field bred setters are.

I have never understood the whole idea of wanting/needing thier own seperate breed within a registry. Can you or anyone shed some light on the reasons behind that.
I equate that with someone like Bob Wehle or Ferral Miller wanting thier pointers registered as Elhew or Miller pointers. It just makes no sense ???? I don't get it.


----------



## WestCoastHunter

The question I have is has the Llewellan declined as a line or have setters outside that line simply gotten better for the venues they compete in? Or is it both?

Somehow I don't think I'll ever get a clear answer to that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kek25

k9wernet said:


> Can this be merged with the setter thread?


 
Absolutely not. I don't want that thread getting off track.


----------



## midwestfisherman

crosswind said:


> Scott Berg. After running in NSTRA for I think 16 years I do agree they do not work for this venue. I have seen several guys try to make a go with them over the years and all have given up.
> Having run against or watching them from the side lines, it seemed to me they just lacked both hunt/desire and drive. Many looked ok on point but just didn't seem be the bird finders other field bred setters are.
> 
> I have never understood the whole idea of wanting/needing thier own seperate breed within a registry. Can you or anyone shed some light on the reasons behind that.
> I equate that with someone like Bob Wehle or Ferral Miller wanting thier pointers registered as Elhew or Miller pointers. It just makes no sense ???? I don't get it.


+1...


----------



## midwestfisherman

WestCoastHunter said:


> The question I have is has the Llewellan declined as a line or have setters outside that line simply gotten better for the venues they compete in? Or is it both?
> 
> Somehow I don't think I'll ever get a clear answer to that.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Both.


----------



## Scott Berg

WestCoastHunter said:


> The question I have is has the Llewellan declined as a line or have setters outside that line simply gotten better for the venues they compete in? Or is it both?
> 
> Somehow I don't think I'll ever get a clear answer to that.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't think any of us can answer this question with absolute certainty given none of us were competing 75 years ago. However, IMO, this is not a question with an answer that provides meaningful direstion. The most important question is ... Is a closed registry facilitate the best breeding practices and genetic health of this line/breed? 

Also, I understand that many people want less dog but that can easily be done in standard field lines with the benefit of a MUCH larger gene pool to work with to maintain and improve all of the other traits. 

Any breed also needs some very discrimnately bred dogs a the "top" of the breed. These elite individuals provide the maintenance and/or improvement you are asking about here. Field trial competition provides that discrimnation or selection process where other fails. Does that mean Llewellins should be bred to AA Champions. No, not if the goal is a relatively modest pace dog. However, the son or grandsons of these AA Champions selected for a more moderate pace offer a wealth of other important attributes to maintain great hunting dogs. IMO, it is a very big mistake to close the breed from these dogs. And, it would help if the Llewellin had a venue to compete where this was the standard.

When I was on the USC and NBHA boards we had a couple discussions about the club members about adapting the USC or NBHA standard. That standard still would not have served the breed right now in open breed competition. However, at that time, I wrote a gundog standard that was approved by the American Field. Bernie Mathys was even supportive of us developing a points system to award a title (Gun Dog CH or something that distinguished it from a standard CH title). The Gun Dog stake and this title lost momentum when I quit trialing and participating on the various boards but there has been some renewed interest. IMO, the Llewellin club would be well served to host open breed trials set to this standard. It would provide a very realistic measuring stick that would result in more educated and discriminate breeding.

SRB


----------



## whiterock

A Llewellin Setter named White Rock Cordite was named Runner-Up in the 2012 ABHA National Invitational Championship. 12 dogs invited; 10 showed up for a two-day trial with one hour braces on Thursday, followed by a 4 dog call-back on Friday, again with 1 hour braces. 

Some of the Pointers and Setters invited (I'm working from memory here, so forgive me if I'm off on years & details, but you'll get the drift of the caliber of competition):

Pointto Straight Shot, "Boss," E Setter out of CH Cypress Creek Rock (who I think ran three times at Ames,) AKC/AFC/FC American Field CH and RU/CH in ABHA venues

Adrian Jackson's "Turbo" dog, (Epointer) CH & RU/CH in ABHA venues.

Mike Parnell's "Meesha" dog, (Esetter) Region 8 Amateur high point Shooting Dog in 2011 (and I think she has some Ch placements outside ABHA)

Keith Foreman's "Belle" dog (Epointer,) multiple CH in NBHA

Terry Tuley's Barshoe Topgun Ace ("Ace",) out of Tommy B, Region 7 Amateur Shooting of the Year for 2011, Ru/Ch at the Colorado Shooting Dog CH in 2010










Llewellins are perfectly capable of competing. It does indeed take a lot more time & effort than doing it with Esetters and Epointers, but it can be done.


----------



## whiterock

Rocky has some gift and grit on wild birds, too....


----------



## whiterock

WestCoastHunter said:


> The question I have is has the Llewellan declined as a line or have setters outside that line simply gotten better for the venues they compete in? Or is it both?
> 
> Somehow I don't think I'll ever get a clear answer to that.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


no question when you look at the "National Championship" at Ames being run today, literally, it is quite a bit different trial than what it was 100 years ago. In 1912, the Nat'l CH at Ames was a glorified NBHA trial, and unless you believe that 100 years of competitive breeding has had no effect on the gene pool, one would have to conclude that the dogs today are better than they were a hundred years ago.

to understand what comes next, you have to understand what makes trialing work. COMPETITION. Most everybody there just wants to win. Having laid that down, I will say this: if you just want to win a trial, go buy a good AA English Pointer. The odds are better. Period.

the guys who make their living dragging trailers full of dogs & horses around to field trials understand this. They invented the wheel, so to speak. They have to sell puppies and develop prospects they can sell to clients who will pay them to take those prospects around to the trials. if you are doing that, you will feed a lot fewer dogs and have a lot higher percentage of prospects turning into CH dogs if you run pointers rather than setters.

the same dynamic applies to English Setters and Llewellins. The Llewellin develops slower and has a lot more "faults" than the Field Trial Setter. 

Why?

The answer to that question is going to cause a lot of head scratching. Everybody thinks the Llewellin is a litty bitty strain of the English Setter breed. In fact, it is almost backward. The Llewellin was the FIRST English Setter worth taking into the field. It dominated field trialing in early days. To get an edge, trialers outcrossed Llewellins to Setters of other extraction. Once that is done, everything that follows is an English Setter. And most of that type of breeding for the last 100 yrs was done by trialers for the purpose of trialing. In other words, the Field Trial Setter is a refinement of the Llewellin. 

What this means is: the Llewellin might be small in numbers, but genetically it is the deep end of the pool. Most of the good traits that trialers like are there, but so are the bad ones. All you have to do is tie up 50 Llews on a chain next to 50 Esetters on a chain. The difference will be obvious. There will be a lot of Llewellins that look a lot like the Esetters. But about a quarter of the dogs on the Llewellin chain will be Chestnut; probably won't be even one like that on the Esetter chain. And from color to conformation to everything else, the Esetter chain will be shockingly uniform compared to the scraggly lot on the Llewellin chain, which would have what by AKC standards might be considered at least three different breeds on it.

The Field Trial Setter is FAR more uniform phenotypically and genotypically than the Llewellin. that's because the Field Trial English Setter is really the "line" off of the Llewellin, which is by comparison is a great big steaming pile of genetic unpredictability. Trust me. You never know what you are going to get with a Llewellin.

I went to Booneville, Mississippi to breed Rocky's mom, Abby, to Highway Dan, owned by Fred Gaines. Fred asked me if I wanted to meet Hoyle Eaton. They were childhood friends. So we drove over and I was at his kennel playing with Lancelot puppies when Hoyle drove up. He asked me if I'd found a pup I liked. I said, yes, but I wasn't there for a pup. I had driven over to breed a bitch to Fred's dog, Dan. Hoyle looked at me & said "That Dan is a nice dog. He coulda run All-Age. But I couldn't get Fred to let me do it." 

Biggest problem I have with puppies going home is people love them so much they don't want to hand them back to a trainer for training, much less for campaigning on the field trial circuit. If we had more Llewellins competing, we would see more Llewellins winning. We would have to look at about 10 times more puppies than the English Pointer guys do, and 2 or 3 times more puppies than the English Setter guys do, but to say it isn't possible is to deny the obvious.

Most of what's good about the English Setter came from the Llewellin. And if you work hard enough, long enough, it is possible to get a Llewellin of a caliber than the experts insist cannot possibly exist. I ran a young female for Joe McCarl about five years ago out in West Tx. He said "don't know if she'll run big enough for grouse trialing, but she'll be a dandy class gundog." As it turned out, he hit the nail on the head, but a few months later I ran her in a ABHA derby. She is so pleasing to watch the gallery usually quiets down. At the end of the brace one of the judges rode over to me and asked me "what's the breeding on your setter?" I said "100% Loo-ellen." He dropped his jaw and said "You're s--tting me!"

It's fulfilling when that happens. It's a lot harder to win with a Llewellin. Anybody can win a trial with an Epointer or Esetter. People do it all the time.


----------



## whiterock

man, this thread got quiet. did I say something wrong?


----------



## Xerxes Llewellins

whiterock said:


> man, this thread got quiet. did I say something wrong?


If someone sounds like they really know their @#$%, but they don't even realize that the standards have changed from the early 20th century field trials, where Llewellins DOMINATED **because trials were focused on the standard of what an IDEAL HUNTING DOG SHOULD BE!! (11 OF THE FIRST 19 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS, ONE A BACK TO BACK WINNER - SIOUX 1901 & 1902) & that they were not even guided on horse back, it wasn't even worth me wasting my time with this lot!


----------



## FindTheBird

whiterock said:


> Anybody can win a trial with an Epointer or Esetter. People do it all the time.


I'll agree that people win with those two breeds all the time, but I don't agree with cake-walk tone--the vast majority of those who start running puppy/derby never become successful shooting/AA dogs.


----------



## whiterock

FindTheBird said:


> I'll agree that people win with those two breeds all the time, but I don't agree with cake-walk tone--the vast majority of those who start running puppy/derby never become successful shooting/AA dogs.


True. I just jest like that to illustrate the point that the odds are pretty clear -- if you want to win a trial, go get twenty All-Age bred pointer pups. You will likely have a solid propect or two to go forward with after a year of evaluation, with a good chance if you selected right of competing at CH level.

If you want to win a CH with Esetters, double the number. 

If you want to win with Llewellins? Ha. Good luck. It's possible, but boy will you look at a lot of prospects. And along the way you will reinvent the wheel, learning pretty quickly why the vast majority of FT entries are Epointers rather than Esetters, and why there aren't many Llewellins even being entered. To go that route, the goal hasta be winning with a Llewellin rather than just winning a trial.

Which of course makes it kinda fun when you do actually win with a Llewellin. We've asked the AF and they claim not to be able to search the database for it, but Rocky appears to be the first Llewellin to place in an open breed CH trial since 1943.

It was a small regional CH walking trial, for sure. But you don't jump from dead tailed boot polishers to Ames in a single bound....

Rocky has also finished his FC in AKC.


----------



## Mike McDonald

whiterock said:


> man, this thread got quiet. did I say something wrong?


I don't know if it's right or wrong, but original post asked for the difference between a Llewellin setter and an english setter. It seemed to me that midwestfisherman did a nice job of answering the question. Now it seems to me that this thread has become another my breed/line is better than your breed/line. Been there, done that, not very interested in doing it again. macvet51


----------



## whiterock

That's a fair statement. 

It's also a fair statement that I only came here to respond to some negativity about what Llewellins couldn't do by people who don't run Llewellins.


----------



## Scott Berg

whiterock said:


> That's a fair statement.
> 
> It's also a fair statement that I only came here to respond to some negativity about what Llewellins couldn't do by people who don't run Llewellins.


Chuck,

Please feel free to make your case but you are well aware that the example of a single 10 dog trial means very little in the context of the relative competitiveness of this particular line of English Setters. This is unquestionably a macro discussion and any reasonable debate needs to be done in a macro context. In other words, all Llewellins and all forms of FDSB open breed stakes. Let's not talk about puppy or Derby wins because as you know that is not going to impress anyone who has been around trials much. 

SRB


----------



## whiterock

Scott Berg said:


> Chuck,
> 
> Please feel free to make your case but you are well aware that the example of a single 10 dog trial means very little in the context of the relative competitiveness of this particular line of English Setters. This is unquestionably a macro discussion and any reasonable debate needs to be done in a macro context. In other words, all Llewellins and all forms of FDSB open breed stakes. Let's not talk about puppy or Derby wins because as you know that is not going to impress anyone who has been around trials much.
> 
> SRB


First, you lead a strawman down a path I did not go. I did not say that Llewellins as a line were equal to Esetters. A careful reading would in fact suggest the opposite. I merely stated a fact. A Llewellin CAN win. It is possible. It has been done. 

Second, I did not inflate the nature of the win. I just stated what it was, and in fact offered up a caveat about it. Equally true, Rocky beat a fairly well-bred and accomplished English Setter (Ace) that day. Whether Rocky's win was against a more or less competitive field than the much larger field in Top of the World Classic won by a Llewellin a few years ago is highly subjective and quite a distraction from the central point -- the very top end of the Llewellins can compete. Horseback Shooting Dog is, I think, the furthest they can go, and they need a tight course where the bigger runners get cramped in and the Llew can outfind the field. When you analyze the wins, that's usually what happens.

Third, your notion that outcrossing is essential shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the English Setter universe and is disproven by the example provided (Rocky's win.) It is undisputable fact that English Setters are a distillation of the Llewellin, which is the larger gene pool. All those things the Esetters have bred out of Llewellins are still in the Llewellins. And the outcrossing notion is not just unnecessary, it's silly. A Llewellin outcrossed to an English Setter is.....an English Setter. 

Fourth, you need not condescend about trials. I've handled dogs with more trial legends than you might realize. I've seen dogs that have run at Ames, and had my product sobered by a lot lesser dogs than that. I know how much blue sky is above me. Getting altitude is hard. But it's not impossible. It has been done. 

Finally, and this is the central point well pertinent to the "macro"dodge - how many times and under what circumstances does a Llewellin have to win before it can no longer be dismissed as impossible? before the nonsense about a dead line can be put to rest? There is plenty to work with. Those who haven't seen it might want to get out a little more.


----------



## hogmansp

So is a Llewellin a line breed of an E-setter or in fact a seperate registered breed? Did not see anything listed under the UKC or te AKC?


----------



## mudbat2128

hogmansp said:


> So is a Llewellin a line breed of an E-setter or in fact a seperate registered breed? Did not see anything listed under the UKC or te AKC?


 A line. If you take and breed a English to a Llew. it is then classified as a English.


----------



## whiterock

hogmansp said:


> So is a Llewellin a line breed of an E-setter or in fact a seperate registered breed? Did not see anything listed under the UKC or te AKC?


This definition is not quite precise enough for the purists, but it conceptually captures the essence -- to be a Llewellin, a dog must demonstrate undiluted blood back to the kennels of Sir Purcell Llewellin. (which existed between ca 1880-1925)

AKC does not recognize the Llewellin Setter. Llewellins are simply registered as English Setters.

Technically, the American Field recognizes the Llewellin Setter as a specific line of English Setter. Under "breed" line of the registration certificate it will say "Llewellin." DNA of both parents must be on file to qualify. Llewellins are considered part of the AF English Setter registry and if both parents do not have DNA on file, the litter may simply be registered as English Setters. Similarly, if you breed an English Setter to a Llewellin, the AF will simply register the progeny as English Setters, and no matter how many times one breeds that progeny back to Llewellin, the progeny will be English Setter. 

Sir Llewellin's contribution to the English Setter universe was in taking the best hunting stock available and outcrossing them to other breeds to gain better hunting instincts. His dogs were by 1900 so far superior to any other strain of Esetter that the AF gave them the distinction of being separately recognized. When you hear the term "field setter" it's referring back to Sir Llewellin's dogs relative to the bench setter. 

Over the last 100 years, field trialers in pursuit of better athleticism and style outcrossed Llewellins to non-Llewellin stock and distilled that into what we see in trial stock today. FT stock tends to be a few pounds smaller on average, quite a bit more refined in the head & ear, quite a bit lighter in color (meaning less ticking and less body plating.) Llewellins biggest flaws, relative to the FT stocks, are in tail movement and movement pattern. Llewellins tend to run dead tailed and have all manner of problems with forward pattern. They loop, yo-yo, get wide, etc...... This to some degree can be trained around, but must really be fixed by better breeding.

Hunters tend to not care about what tails do while the dogs move and actually prefer the movement flaws that so debilitate trial competitiveness. The yo-yo'ing dog, to a hunter, is "checking back." The wide ranging dog is, to a hunter, "checking cover and staying close." The looping dog is, to a hunter, "staying with me." 

So the Llewellin today is the anti-trial dog in the sense that all but a very small handful of breeders give absolutely no selection pressure for athleticism, cracking tails, heat tolerance, forward pattern, range, tail set, etc...... As a result, you don't see a lot of those things when you look at Llewellins. 

What really drives the constant internet negativity one hears about the Llewellin is pretty simple. Llewellin Setter pups sell for, on average, a couple of hundred dollars more per pup than English Setter pups. This is a never-ending source of irritation to the field trial oriented English Setter guy, who is convinced he has the better product. Well, by his standards, he does. The problem is, the average hunter is a guy who isn't terribly experienced as a dog handler. His anxiety about "will my dog come back" rises geometrically with range and gets out of control when he cannot see his dog. There are just enough real world examples of run-off field trial dogs to feed the stereotype of the run-off field trial dog (ROFTD.) Well, what is one of the bigger flaws one sees when when breeding for dogs with half-mile range on the prairies? Dogs that don't handle well...self-hunting. It comes with the territory. And even if the ROFT dog really hasn't run off but is handling well but just out of sight, for most handlers...out of sight is lost. Hunters are willing to pay more to avoid that. They would rather have a 50-100 yd dog than the superior product. 

That's a bit of an oversimplification, but that's the nut of it. The Llewellin's existence irritates the English Setter guys; that the Llewellin commands a premium in the market drives them nuts.

In fact, the Llewellin was the first English Setter worth feeding. Early on, the available outcrosses within the Setter universe were quite limited. But there were a lot of 50% Llewellins. And when you breed a 50% Llewellin back to a Llewellin, you get (on paper) an English Setter. So in reality, hunting English Setters have a very, very high percentage of Llewellin blood. Herb Anderson insists it is 95% or more. He may be true. For if all that good in the English Setter didn't come from the Llewellin, where did it come from? (Answer, it either came from bench setters or some other breed of hunting dog. One answer is politically incorrect; the other is taboo.) If we apply Occam's Razor to it, the answer would be - most of what's good in the English Setter came from the Llewellin.

The Llewellin is the undistilled field dog. Very coarse in function and appearance. But the pieces are in there. Takes a few generations to put them together into a decent package, but it is very possible to make a dog that can win weekend trials. That has been done. It is possible to make a dog that can win/place in regional Classics. That has been done. And it is possible to make a Llewellin that win a small, open breed American Field Championship. That has been done.

This is, of course, heresy to some people. It upsets their own perspective on the Llewellin. I've got a bunch of Llewellins who can stay 200yds in front of a moving vehicle in the rocky cactus flats of West Texas. And I have witnesses for Llewellins being ranged by Tracker out to 750yds. Dogs which can do that are suitable stock to breed for field trial competition. That's why Terry Tuley, owner of CH Cypress Creek Rock (who ran thrice at Ames) and campaigns Barshoe Ace (Barshoe is the kennel name of a living FTHOF legend), is first on the list for a female Rocky puppy due today. Does he think he's going to return to Ames with a Llewellin female? no. He just think's Rocky's a nice enough dog to maybe produce a quality brood female to breed to All-Age CH males to try to make All-Age prospects. He danged fer sure knows what a good field trial dog looks like. He's seen Rocky run for years and recognizes quality when he sees it. 

But, of course, the critics of the Llewellin insist that none of this exists.


----------



## WestCoastHunter

But is buying field trial type dogs what Llewellan buyers want? Seems like that runs counter to what they are looking for. 

What would be the advantage, other than bragging rights, when buyers most likely stayed away from FT lines for a reason?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mike McDonald

So the Llewellin today is the anti-trial dog in the sense that all but a very small handful of breeders give absolutely no selection pressure for athleticism, cracking tails, heat tolerance, forward pattern, range, tail set, etc...... As a result, you don't see a lot of those things when you look at Llewellins

Now you've got my interest. My understanding of the above sentence is that only a very small handful of Llewellin breeders select for the criteria listed. I understand that a cracking tail and tail set would be a lower priority for most hunters. However athleticism as it realates to long term orthopedic health should be important to all hunters. Maybe not for all but at least for me heat tolerance is important. It's hot at least some of the time during Michigan Grouse season and I don't want to skip that opportunity because I own a dog that doesn't tolerate heat well. Lastly, it seems to me that range, be it close or distant is a trait for which most people would have a preference. If those traits don't matter what do Llewlin breeders select for. Thanks, macvet51


----------



## whiterock

WestCoastHunter said:


> But is buying field trial type dogs what Llewellan buyers want? Seems like that runs counter to what they are looking for.
> 
> What would be the advantage, other than bragging rights, when buyers most likely stayed away from FT lines for a reason?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


My perspective on breeding is that a gene pool has a random distribution. Every random distribution has a mean and a standard deviation, and that breeders serve no purpose unless they stay outside (or nearly so) the standard deviation. In other words, if my dogs aren't in the "top 10%" then I serve no purpose. I have no way to prove what is "top" and what isn't other than competition. There are a number of venues for that, to include the Llewellin Club which runs a breed restricted NSTRA type format. 

So even the breeders who eschew the FT thing still compete. it's the only way to get an objective gauge to where you are. I know where MY dogs are relative to Brittneys, GSPs, Estetters & EPointers, and point to placements (or lack thereof) to back it up. We don't talk about FT placements on the website, and don't mention them to customers unless they ask. 

I don't really have to worry about developing the dog to the point where they are more than the customer wants....for two reasons. One, most of what I make, even using more breeding stock that is more dog than most people want, will be somewhere closer to the mean than my dogs. Drag Of The Race 101. Two, a lot of what we've done is attributable to development. We send five prospects to camp in South Dakota every summer. It takes several summers of letting them go, lightest possible touch on handling, to allow them to grow their range. Most don't make it. But a few do. And we never whoa break before a year of age, and in both whoa & bird work we use years of repetition rather than a few weeks of pressure to break the dogs. We are trying not to shut the dog down, because it's easy to do. 

Epointers by comparison break quickly and completely with little or no loss of dog. Esetters take longer. Llewellins take longer still.

The reason you don't see more Llewellins competing is because it just takes so much more time and money to find & develop them. Most folks who are serious about winning trials are moderately indifferent about breed. They would rather take a shorter route with an English Setter, or even more expeditiously with an Epointer. 

This is a hobby. I enjoy the dogs. Never have to worry about finding a home for a puppy, or an older dog. I'm putting a little dog back in the breed. I enjoy the challenge of doing something the hard way. 

And I really am amused when Scott suggests I don't know what a real trial dog looks like, or how the better Llewellins stack up against them. Somewhere, I've got a picture of Rocky backing CH Jetsetter in South Dakota. I'll see if I can dig it up.


----------

