Talk:English Setter

'Portrait of an English Setter'? I beg to differ
The image on the left 'Portrait of an English Setter' does not look like a pedigree to me. Please could an admin remove this image and / or replace it with an appropriate one?

I have over thirty years experience as a breeder and owner of English Setters and it is confusing how such a misguiding and unreprsentative image could have ever made it through the net to the front page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.123.211 (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Moved from main page:

I have owned a English Setter and a Gordon Setter. In my experience both dogs has a similar nature, habitus and personality. My comments about the Gordon setter equally apply to the English setter.


 * I am hoping to get an English Setter when i go off to college, i am wondering though are they good in houses by themselves if i were to leave one there? Do they need strenous activity or just enough to work them alittle?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.209.94.92 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Er, given what you said, a setter is a very bad choice. They need at least an hour a day of running (not just walking) to even get them close to being exercised, and unless you give them a few hours of exercise each day they will be bouncing up and down all the rest of the time. Stick them on their own in a room for a few hours each day and expect your room to get quickly destroyed as the dog gets bored and so eats what it can find. AWoodland (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

field and show
how about a mention of field english setters versus the show setters? Novium 03:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How about doing that thing yourself? The Laverack and Llewellin strains are mentioned well.  Develop the article.  Fiddle Faddle 07:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a field english setter, but I've also had show/regualr english setter. I don't know much about them. Dappled Sage 02:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The differences are mostly cosmetic. The field versions of the English setter of course have a higher aptitude for hunting as well. fisher99 02:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Tagging
There are many unencyclopedic comments on the article with no sources. Most of these are just about acceptable, but the 'temperament' section is problematic. There is some duplicated information - Llewelyn settlers only need to be mentioned once. The stuff about DNA testing to tell the difference is interesting and could be expanded. The phrase "this is not a separate breed, they are however a completely separate and pure bloodline." is confusing and needs to be made clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBealeCocks (talk • contribs) 19:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge
I wonder if the Llewellin Setter article should be merged to the English Setter article? I do see the question was asked on the Llewellin talk page previously a few years ago.

There is already mention of the Llewellin within the English Setter article although that piece is lacking citations. It is also stated within the Llewellin article itself: "it is usually only considered a strain of English setter rather than a breed in its own right."

Also, within the only reference that is cited for Llewellin article (The Sporting Dog, Graham, 1904) it states: "They would as well go further and drop the 'pure' idea altogether, letting Llewellin blood stand for what it is - an influential but not separate element in English setter breeding."

Any thoughts on the suggestion of a merge? I have also posted this on the Llewellin setter talk page for comment/discussion.

Sagaciousphil (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support merge The two strains are separate, but the breed is a single breed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mostly on the basis of Count Noble. I also feel there is a significant ammount of history behind the breed but it is clearly not referenced well on the page, yet. Very interested in hearing others thoughts as I am not very familiar with setters. cReep talk 08:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment looking at the pedigree of this dog, pretty much everything behind it comes form Laverack. The creature is an English Setter. Laverack and Llwewllyn were simply major kennels of their day creating English Setters. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Further references which might be helpful. They all refer to Llewellin as a strain of English Setter rather than an independent breed
 * Horace Lytle's 1928 book "How to Train your Bird Dog" pages 38-40 - I've copied the extract here rather than unduly clutter this page;
 * The English Setter Association (UK national breed club) states it is a 'strain' here; so does The English Setter Assoc America here  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  10:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Merge per sources above referring to the breed as a strain.-- T K K  bark !  16:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Merge as above; they are both English setters; no point in duplicating or dividng Mr Llwewllyn; or varying the spelling of his name any further ;o)  Heenan73 (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Post merge
I would like to express my thanks to SagaciousPhil who proposed this merge, awaited consensus, and carried it out with diligence. I think any controversial areas have been handled and the initial issues noted by cReep have been handled. Onwards and upwards, now. We can always have a better article, even if it reaches Featured Article status. What we have now is one that demonstrates the different, perhaps divergent, strains and the same starting point. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The Llewellin Page should remain separate as the FDSB recognizes it as a distinguished strain of the English Setter & therefore Wikipedia will also with its separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerxes Llewellins (talk • contribs) 09:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It would have been more useful to contribute to the discussion while it was in progress. As it stands there exists a consensus that the two strains of English Setter, strains which are part of the same breed, should have their strain recorded in a single article. Over time that may change, but Wikipedia is not the place where one 'makes' a new breed. That is done by more than a single stud book. Until consensus changes the two strains will remain in the same article. Once consensus changes then that will change. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of the "types" of English Setters
I added links (references) to the three popular strains of English Setters. It is always a debatable conversation among new and old breed owners. I would like to have this page reflect all sides and to this wonderful breed.

Adding links to the various color identifications will be an enhancement too.Wsjacob (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And I have just reverted. Cites are not required in the lead and personal breeder websites are not reliable sources. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 17:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Are links to organizations and breed specific clubs allowed or considered not reliable for editing purposes? For Example: MayberrySetterZ (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt if rymansetters is reliable. The two strains that are already fully covered in the article, Laverack and Llewellin, are included because they had a great impact on the development of the breed. I know of no others which are sufficiently notable to merit inclusion. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 18:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your time and explanations. This is a class project and I am new to contributing to Wikipedia.

However, the Ryman setter is an older bloodline. It is sometime recognized as the Old Hemlock. They are larger in stature with longer hair than the Llewellin. What type of documentation would be required to possibly get this added? MayberrySetterZ (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As I've already tried to explain, the line is not sufficiently notable; the link you have just provided is a forum and definitely does not meet the reliable source criteria. Please do not alter your user name as it gives the impression two people are editing this talk page. Thanks. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 18:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

American Field Sporting Dog Association & Field Dog Stud Book
Shouldn't FDSB and its publishing company also be considered for Registration? AF has been in its existence since 1874 (https://americanfield.villagesoup.com/p/the-american-field-magazine/150538) four years before AKC was founded. The AF has been published and hosted field trials since its inception whereas, the AKC has been purposely concentrated on conformation until well into the 1960. In recent years, there has been cross registration between FDSB/AF and AKC due to the majority of field trials and field dog pedigree has been FDSB registration. American Field history is mentioned here: http://www.akc.org/events/field-trials/pointing-breeds/history/, second paragraph. FDSB has required DNA testing on all Llewellin litters for Llewellin registration. Without this the 'Llewellin' strain would be a vague label in history. Quneur (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , sorry, but I'm unsure exactly what you're asking here? There don't appear to be Wikipedia articles on the FDSB or its publication; are either of them sufficiently notable for one? SagaciousPhil  - Chat 09:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)