Llewellin Setters Breeders Blog

One cannot become interested in the breeding of any species of animal very long before the question of “blood lines” comes up.

In pedigreed stock, the assumption is often made that those animals bearing the same ancestral names as part of the registered pedigree are in fact of the same blood lines.

What are meant by blood lines are presumably specimens sharing common ancestry and therefore having common genes. Popular ideas are that breeding animals sharing the same blood lines will be a positive thing and ensure that traits will be continued or strengthened.

Let us now consider some of this thinking relative to the Llewellin Setter breed of gun dog in particular. First off, in the U.S., and in the regulations of the registration body for the Llewellin Setters, which is the Field Dog Stud Book, there are no regulations at all as to what you can and cannot name a dog beyond the use of registered kennel names. This has resulted over time in names usually associated with specific “blood lines” being used randomly. I have before me for example the pedigree of a dog, registered by a prominent breeder of the Llewellin Setter which has been registered as so and so Wind’em. I use so and so to disguise the individual breeder. Looking at 6 generations of ancestors of this dog there is not one dog with the Wind’em name. In fact 90% of the dogs are named “Bondhu”. This type of thing has occurred with great frequency in the U.S. in the Llewellin, making line names questionable or invalid. The Europeans have much greater control in the use of names in dog pedigrees but since they do not recognize nor register the Llewellin Setter, seeing it only as a strain of the English Setter, that is a moot point.

Some breeders may have been in business long enough and with sufficient knowledge to keep lines separate and distinctive so that certain characteristics are visible and exhibited. However, even if this be the case, the desirability of such breeding programs is highly questionable because it involves to some degree or another inbreeding. The term inbreeding is used here to include what is also called line breeding. There is no technical separation of “in breeding” and “line breeding”. We are speaking of the accumulation in an individual of genes common to both parents.

Granted, “in breeding” as a technique has been used by breeders such as Robert Wehle, to produce some of the most outstanding English Pointers ever seen. This however involved a lifetime of devoted effort with many set-backs, as well as the culling of untold specimens not meeting the standard.

The best scientific way to measure and monitor the amount of common genes in any animal is by use of “Wright’s Inbreeding Coefficient” (Anyone interested in the mathematical detail and methodology can find numerous articles on-line). The coefficient obtained by Wright’s formulation is a percentage expression of the common or inbred genes which may be used as a guide in selection of breeding pairs to reduce the incidence of genetic traits.This can be done today by the click of a mouse if one is invested in a suitable software program and has built a data base of at least 5 to 10 generations (The more the better).

At the end of the day, here at Lynnhill Llewellin Setters, we depend very much as the distinguished founders of our breed did, on selecting breeding pairs based on field performance conformation, and disposition. We do run the Wright’s Inbreeding Coefficient on every animal and do not make breedings which will result in percentages exceeding 25% and also attempt to reduce percentages once they have reached that level.

The Llewellin Setter will be made much stronger as a strain or breed by the use of the widest possible gene pool and not by concentration on what the uninitiated see as “blood lines”. We have had a flying start for over 100 years by not having the Llewellin recognized by the American Kennel Club. We should be prepared for any action needed to keep it this way. The dogs have never been bred for the show ring and thereby retained diversity and tremendous strength of Field qualities beyond any other bird dog.

Keith H. Smith