Hi all. I am getting a new husky later this afternoon. She is AKC registered and I was wondering if anyone might be able to tell me a little bit about her background based on her pedigree. I'll post a link to her pedigree for you all to see.

http://pawvillage.com/pedigree/pedigree.asp?ID=EN6M0AGSX0

http://www.antiochsiberians.com/kayobi.htm This is her page on the breeder's personal website.

Feel free to tell me any info that you can dig up about her ancestors and what you think.

Looks like a BYB.

I wouldn't get a puppy from that breeder. From there website it appears they don't check the hips or eyes of the adults (two biggest concerns in huskies). They don't show or work their huskies which makes me believe they mainly just breed to make money and not to better the breed. Their dogs aren't really up to the breed standard. It's really sad when a lot of the pictures of the females are of when they are pregant, like they poor things never aren't! Which makes me believe they breed at too young of age (under 2yrs) and on back to back heats (you usually want to wait at least a year between breeding). Also looks like all their dogs are kept outside, which I have trouble with breeders doing. If you have too many dogs just because you want to breed them and can't give them all the love and care they deserve, then don't breed dogs! Anyway, just my thoughts.

Oh and I can't tell anything from that pedigree other than none of the dogs have any titles on them (champion CH, sled dog SD, etc.) which makes me think this is not a reputable breeder. Just because a breeder can give you AKC papers does not mean their dogs are of quality unfortunately. You want to look for puppies who's parents are champions or at least pointed or have their sled dog or working dog titles. It's probably too late now, but if you do decide to find a different breeder, I can recommend some by going to the Siberian Husky Club of America's website. They have a page that list reputable breeders by state and even if those breeders don't have any puppies at the time they can usually point you to another reputable breeder who does.

I am jusr curious, meanthis in no way ugly, but why s it so bad to buy from a breeder that just breeds fir pets? Kya's parents are bred every other year, depending on people who want them, and are bred just for pets. I understand if you want a show dog, ir a working dog, and i understand rescues and adoptions, but i dont understand why it is so bad to buy fom a good breeder who only breeds for pets..

Again, ipad sucks..sorry for the typos. Its hard to correct them without redoing the entire post.

Breeding these dogs for any reason other than to expand your own family or to give to family and close friends that you trust with them is stupid in my opinion. Making money on selling dogs is no different than breeding human babies and selling them for cash. And breeding for "competition" or show is also stupid as it just further harms the breed's genetic fortitude and diversity. These are living animals with feelings. Treating them like a commodity is beyond sick in my opinion.

Well most people who show and work their dogs do the health tests on their adults to make sure their puppies will be health, while most other breeders do not either because they just don't know or they don't want to shell out the money for the tests.

So Chris, any person who has a nice dog (and everyone thinks their dog is the best, cause let's face it dogs are pretty amazing animals) and wants to give their friends who always claim they'd love to have a dog "just like that one" should breed, but people who know all the in's and out's about the dog's line, health, and how to successfully raise healthy puppies for show/work and pet homes shouldn't? I think I'd trust I'm getting a better chance at getting a better quality (health/structure/temperment) from a breeder who carefully monitors the dogs they breed over those who happen to have a male and female and just really want to breed them to make cute little puppies for everyone.

Tiffany- If you have a breeder who doesn't show or work their dogs, but does all the health tests, keeps to the standard and actually knows a thing or two about the breed standard and the breed, keeps the adults in good conditions and not just outside in crappy overgrown runs, who screens the potential new homes really well, and will take the dogs back if ever need be, then I don't really have a problem with them. But finding a breeder like that who doesn't show or work their dog is pretty darn rare from what I've seen. I've only seen one breeder who could fit that bill and they used to show their dogs! They got out of showing for their own issues, but still keep up their breeding program like they were still showing.

I just can't agree with breeders who don't do the proper health tests or screening of new homes, because I've seen the product many times with young dogs with eye problems, hip problems, and so many dogs in shelters. I've never once seen a really nice looking sibe (one that was probably bred from a show breeder) in a shelter, but I've seen countless ones who hardly fit the standard at all, because those come from crappy breeders who breed a ton of bitches very often just to make money and don't care what happens to the puppies after that or from families who bred their dogs and sold or gave away the puppies and just didn't know better to actually check on where they were going.

And as for breeding to the breed standard, that depends on your view of breeds. I personally think that if there wasn't a standard and everyone could just breed for what they liked, then there wouldn't be breeds! Every dog would just look a bit different and act a bit different and my problem with that is you'd never know what you're going to get with a puppy. I like sibes not only for their looks, but their dispositions too. I know a dog with a herding drive would drive me crazy! So I like the fact that I can stay away from those qualities by just getting a different breed.

Sara,
I'm talking about breeders who do it to make money for any reason, whether through sales or competition. The reason that is immoral in my opinion, is because of how many dogs there are without homes. The sad truth is that many people want a husky because they're "cool" or "wolf-like". They get one from a breeder, then up to a year later realize they can't take care of it , and drop it off somewhere. The breeder knows this, but continues to breed anyway. Why? For money.

And like I said, I would only condone giving pups to close friends who you trust implicitly to not give them up and to take care of them. I'd prefer they didn't breed them at all.

The question you have to ask yourself is: what's more important? The future of "the breed", or the welfare of the dogs that are out there right now who need homes? I care more about the individual, not the future of some group.

Sara- thatbI understnd. Our breeder, kya's parents owners, only own the two huskies, used to show as well, keep their dogs healthy, etc. ive been very pleased with them, and they only breed for pets. Which iswhy I wondered why it was bad to use them again for our next husky. But i totally understand where you are coming from

"Breeds for pets" sounds so much better than "breeds for cash". Good marketing on the part of whoever came up with that.

Chris_C wrote:

"Breeds for pets" sounds so much better than "breeds for cash". Good marketing on the part of whoever came up with that.

Be careful when saying that. The example that Sara and Tiffany cite sounds a reputable breeder carefully adding to the Siberian Husky population in a safe and controlled way. Just because they charge money doesn't mean that they are MAKING money off of selling the puppies. A good reputable breeder (which is who we are talking about in this hypothetical scenario) is going to charge only enough money to recoup the costs of proper health tests, veterinary care, and vaccinations. You'd be surprised how much that can cost PER puppy. Depending on the locale, it could range between $250-800. And that's WITHOUT making a profit.

Chris_C wrote:

And like I said, I would only condone giving pups to close friends who you trust implicitly to not give them up and to take care of them.

I get where you're coming from there. It's hard for me to let the kittens I foster go to their new homes! But keep in mind, if every breeder only sold to close friends, then most all of us wouldn't have our huskies! I didn't know either of the breeders I got my girls from before I got them. I believe in doing your research on anyone looking to buy a puppy. Ask them a ton of questions, have them give you some of their friends or co-workers to call and see what they are really like, call their vet to make sure they take care of the pets they already have, and if you can do a home visit. I think if all breeders did this, there would hardly be any dogs in shelters.

I don't think I'm going to win this argument here. I'm basically making the case that I don't believe in breeders in general. I love the breed, don't get me wrong. But I'd rather people focus on getting homes for the ones already born, rather than birthing more. Yes, even if that means the breed goes away. Breeds don't have feelings, individual animals do. And that goes for all breeds btw. And this is coming from someone whose first dog was a very expensive springer spaniel of championship parents from a reputable breeder. I was young and stupid and wanted a beautiful "perfect" dog without thinking of the implications.

I also hadn't studied genetics yet. There is absolutely nothing good about taking two purebred dogs and breeding them. We're just taking a breed that's fairly resilient to begin with, and turning them into Labrador Retrievers, which are famous for their number of genetic ailments. The irony is that the only thing that can "save" a breed, is diversity, not conformity.

Maybe someday when we aren't putting these dogs down by the thousands and it's hard to even find a dog, I'll change my tune. Until then, I just don't see the justification.

Also, I understand what you guys are saying about responsible breeders screening for known medical conditions etc. And that's good obviously, but that's not nearly thorough enough. We'd have to do full genetic workups on both dogs first. And even then, we'd only be talking about percentages of likelihood.

Either way, we're still breeding only certain dogs with other certain dogs, which will be their undoing when generations from now we realize that in doing that, we also inadvertently bred some deficiency to cope with future changes in our environment.

Chris_C wrote:

I don't think I'm going to win this argument here. I'm basically making the case that I don't believe in breeders in general. I love the breed, don't get me wrong. But I'd rather people focus on getting homes for the ones already born, rather than birthing more. Yes, even if that means the breed goes away. Breeds don't have feelings, individual animals do. And that goes for all breeds btw. And this is coming from someone whose first dog was a very expensive springer spaniel of championship parents from a reputable breeder. I was young and stupid and wanted a beautiful "perfect" dog without thinking of the implications.

I definitely agree with you Chris, we should be adopting. You haven't been here too long, so I know you haven't seen the conversations. One of the reasons I use my breeder is because the shelters here are outrageously priced. I GOOD pup from a breeder in the area ( mind you, puppies in texas are relatively inexpensive) run about 250 to 600$$. A 3 year old rescue at our shelters runs about 700 to 1000$.
Also, maybe some one can't handle a dog that has issues, or they want to raise one from a puppy. There are a LOT of reasons people use breeders and not all are bad. While I would love to have every abandoned animal in a home, logically, it wont happen.

Instead of hating all breeders, you just need to make sure you aren't helping BYB and are directing people to GOOD shelters or good breeders.

Sara, or anyone who knows about showing....I have a question for you. Dakota's breeder told me she showed her dogs and even told me of a book that Dakota's great grandfather was published in. Once I was educated by this wonderful forum, I realized that she was a backyard breeder. Can you show a dog with out the hips and eye tests? I don't know why she would lie about showing her dogs, but I still have the paper work from getting Dakota and there is no mention of the hips and eye tests and as you know, Dakota ended up having HD.

Yes, you can show and not have any health tests done. You can show and STILL be a BYB sadly. Like there is one lady who was on a different forum who was a big BYB (had lots and lots of litters) and after getting "yelled" at by the people on the forum decided to get into showing. So she ended up selling all of her "beloved" huskies who she used to breed and swore up and down they were her babies just to get two show quality puppies and start anew. From what I've last seen on her FB page she still hasn't done any health tests and gave up on AKC shows and started doing UKC shows (which are much easier to get championships in). So even though she and another lady who friended me on FB show their dogs, I would still call them BYB's because they really don't seem to actually care about their dogs (the second lady quickly sold her "baby boy" once someone told her he probably wouldn't do well in the show ring), don't do the proper health tests, and seem dead set on breeding the females they own even if they aren't really that great of quality.

26nikita wrote:

I don't know why she would lie about showing her dogs

Makes the sale seem all the more professional.

Here4thePics wrote:

26nikita wrote:

I don't know why she would lie about showing her dogs

Makes the sale seem all the more professional.

I didn't know the difference back then so she coulda said nothing at all! LOL!