Well when you produce numbers like this kennel appears to, it's not hard to rack up the number of 'happy clients' when your clients are none the wiser to what to look for in a breeding program. When you have people searching for 'just a pet' they aren't looking for conformation, coat quality, structural soundness- so of course they get a fluffy puppy they are going to be happy.

Right Lani, good point. As consumers we buy things with certain intentions and required features/quality.

The more detailed and focused and quality oriented you become you have less and less options as a consumer. The size of available possibilities decreases.

The standards and principles anyone holds is due to our intentions.

Pure bred dogs have a standard structure and purpose and functionality along with ways of regulating and validating these features. Most puppy purchasers are not going to care about these at all and just go for looks. Once again, so be it. Subsequently, most breeders don't need to care about these things either. This is not a forum generally that is going to subscribe to this level of acceptable standard in this very specific working breed.

So once again, when someone posts in this forum to these people "Should I buy a puppy from ___________?" there should be no reason to refrain from saying "no" given what is generally subscribed to and celebrated on this forum.

All along it never got more complicated or hostile than "no, and here's why."

I may have not been clear, I do not claim raising a puppy is easier than taking on an adult dog, but an adult dog is not always easy as some people think. Some are wonderful animals, but there is a different mindset needed when taking on an adult dog vs a puppy and people are often easier to forgive a puppy than they are an adult dog. Either is a a lot of work and takes a level of commitment to the animal and seeing things through.

A double undercoat is a fault according to the standard (and yes I understand why it is a fault and is especially important in a dog working in the snow). Regardless I don't mind it. You don't have to like it, agree with my view on it, and you may vehemently oppose it, but in my own dogs in my own lines it doesn't bother me. I will and do respect other breeder's preferences in regard to it if I am breeding to their dogs. I have some seen some very big coats on some very nice dogs (not mine). The least of my worries is the coat type and it was the least of the worries of my predecessor. I am breeding a northern breed in the south, to begin with, that alone is taking a fish out of water and change the direction of what one is breeding (to an extent). I and many of my clients live in a very different world from where this breed was developed. This is the one area I choose to deviate from on occasion (not all the time).

I do talk about the intelligence level on my site of my dogs, and I guess I did not stress it in my post. My huskies are excellent companions. They love being with their loved ones. Do the have the mental ability to be working dogs? Probably not on a competitive level, but that is not what I am breeding for. I do have people that work them in a harness. Most want them as running companions and they are great for that. I am breeding family members first and foremost that fit into a family that might not be looking to work their dog in a conventional manner, or show it in conformation (and only because of the coat, everything else I'm a stickler on). This does modify what one is breeding for when you do what I do, but it is what my line is known for and what I like. It will either turn you on or off to me, I am not out to please everyone. What is acceptable within a breed changes over time, and for the most part, other than the coat on only SOME of my huskies, they are to standard (and I don't need someone else to tell me if they are or are not, it is quite obvious if you look at pictures of them or see them in person). As I said I have one male that is NOT quite what I want, but I know from experience what his father's line produced with my dogs and so I will see how he does once or twice. 

As far as hips go, you are never going to eradicate HD from dogs. That being said, it is far from being strictly a genetic issue (research has show only about 25% of it is due to genetic factors). There is huge environmental component to it unless you are specifically breeding very wonky hips. Well how do I know if they are wonky if I don't x-ray them? My lines have been around for many years, I have generations of my dogs on site and I have many owners that have had my dogs for 11 to 14 years and that is simply not an issue in my lines and really, in this breed I don't see it as much of an issue. The husky is one of the healthiest breed of dogs I have ever dealt with. Minus a sensitive GI tract (and even that being minimal, more so with changes to diet than allergies I have found), sometimes issues with seizures (rare I have found), the breed as a whole is fantastic.

Let's first understand HD. What it is it? It is when the hip socket is put together badly and in serve cases can cripple a dog. I believe I read one time it is found in maybe 8% of tested huskies that are said have HD. Is that a true representation of the breed as a whole? No, it is a very small sample. Were x-rays done correctly? Was the dog in shape or out of it? Was the dog injured as a pup after it left the breeder, was it pushed too hard too young? The OFA's version of HD is a lot more subjective to interpretation than the penn hip method. I was much much more familiar with the rottweiler prior to my huskies and that is a breed that had a crisis of HD in American bred dogs for many years. There were many breeders that did not have a litter without it popping up despite testing. I have had this discussion with another breeder and that is a big reason she started importing her rots because it was much less of an issue with non-american bred lines. This was a critical issue in that breed that was much more genetic based it seemed than in other breeds of dogs. 

The husky breaking down? I don't see it happening, in my lines or in the breed in general, unless you are breeding dogs that are not well put together. Despite my coats, my dogs are very well put together structurally and their bodies do hold up to time. I see it right before my eyes, I see it in my older dogs I have here as well as the ones from my lines that I see in person (I have many people that come back and visit with their dogs) or hear from their owners about. There is something to be said for knowing your lines, knowing what they produce, keeping them and seeing how they turn out, how they age and if they have problems. Most people do not have the facilities to do what I do nor the energy level required. How do I socialize my pups? Just like everyone, I spend time playing with them. With as many dogs as I have I do not have litters all the time. I do not breed more than I can handle. I breed dogs for pups I want to keep - a lot of the time those breedings produce exactly what I think they should (they breed true). Other times not so much. Breeding in it's highest form is an art, not a science as so many of you would like to break it down to. You can check off all those things on a list you would like and still not know what your dogs are going to produce. Me on the other hand, I can not only tell you want a particular dog will most likely produce, but what dogs in that line it goes back to, what the personality is going to be like, where specific habits come from (I have a male that loves to be chased, and his pups do as well. I have a another one that is very predominant in what he throws no matter what female he is bred to. His son is the same way. This isn't something you are going to learn by breeding one litter every couple of years. I have forgotten more about breeding dogs than most of you know and I learn more every day, every year. You are not doing anymore here than parroting each other and a way of thinking I personally find very restrictive.

What am I trying to do when I send a pup home? I am trying to hand my people a family member that they can love for a long long time with MINIMAL to NO health issues. Health issues should be an exception, not a rule. It's common sense, not rocket science to figure much of the medical out side of things out. If your dogs have issues you WILL see it, hear about it and you sure as hell better stop breeding it. I am talking about true health issues that affect quality of life, not made up ones like a double undercoat.

I don't look to please anyone but those who love my dogs. I don't owe you all here or anyone else an explanation, but I did need to speak up on behalf of the animals I love and the people that love my animals. That's all. I have quite an unique experience, this life I have lived with these creatures I love. It has afforded me an education in life that you cannot buy nor that you can read in a book. I have no problem sharing my knowledge but I know I'm not among friends here, never was. I don't expect any of you to like me or even agree with me, but I do want a record of the way I treat people out there and that I stand up for myself and what I believe in (even if it goes against the grain), because it does matter to me as much as all these other things you all hold dear.

Thank you for your post and for defending your positions. I think it would be great to have more active breeders on here contributing.

Disagreements create healthy dialogue and more informed choices.

I love the interlude and thanks to all of you ! I have learned quite a but from it . A lot about where I stand on things. And I didn't think you were being harsh Angela . I agreed with everything you were saying . I'm jus glad I was able to read and take in both sides of the argument . I really am growing to love this community. I am so glad I found this forum ! I can't wait to have y'all help me on my journey when I do bring a little fur all home !
And Stark looks like a northern inuit dog.

The HD rate of tested and submitted siberian huskies is 2% and it does not reflect the breed as a whole, hence why testing is important.


I'd like to ask why you insist on breeding woollies, when it is completely out of standard?


"Plush coats. Some woolies though I normally do not breed for it on purpose. it is in my lines" and yet you state here that you breed it on purpose.

Also, if you CERF every dog, why are the numbers not posted and why are none of them available online. They aren't. iI checked. The only snohomish dogs in the database for the world to view are goldens.

Snohomish I respect you for your post. Everybody's not going to do things the same thing and you believe in something and you hold on to it. . I'm sorry you feel like you aren't among friends . I am new at things and still forming my own opinions . And thanks for broadening my learning experience

Is it just that the standard is not important to you?

Generally speaking, I tend to stay out of threads like this, especially when they start in bad-mouthing or bashing a particular breeder. I'm not (as most on here are probably aware) a particular fan of showing, nor do I believe that a breeder must show their dogs in order to be a reputable breeder. That said however, we are talking about Siberian huskies and this is a Siberian husky forum. Siberians are working dogs - period! As such, there is a standard that they should and need to conform to in order to remain true to the breed, and in order for them to be what they were breed to be. That standard was established many years ago by individuals who not only loved their dogs, but both showed and worked their dogs as the breed was intended to be worked.

For you to argue that you choose to deliberately breed outside of that standard because it is "what you personally like" and that "what is acceptable within a breed changes over time" does nothing in my opinion but show your complete ignorance for a breed that you claim to know and love better than anyone here. Breeding purebred animals of any type is not about breeding for what you personally like, it is about breeding to a standard. Arguing that you are breeding animals to be loving companions simply solidifies the position of yourself as what is typified as a backyard breeder. This is akin to a horse breeder stating that they breed Quarter horses that can't herd cattle because people just like to ride them for pleasure.

From your own comments it is very obvious that you are not about preserving or bettering this breed that we all know and love, but rather that you have taken it upon yourself to determine what the breed should be or become and have set out single-handedly to change it into your version of what it should be, rather than what the standard of the breed calls for. All of that may be well and fine in your own mind, and you are certainly welcome to your own opinions. However when those opinions take you outside of what the AKC, SHCA, UKC, or any other recognized registor accepts, than you have personally choosen to take yourself outside of the definitinion of a "reputable breeder." You can argue that you are reputable all you want too, but your arguments are not going to change the fact that you are deliberately breeding for faults, that you are breeding dogs that have no business being breed and therefore by definition of fact and your own admission, you are not a reputable breeder. You can argue you all you want to about your own high opinion of your knowledge, your reputation and your love for the breed, but in this case your actions and your own statements speak much louder than words. There is far more to being a reputable breeder of any animal than simply loving and having knowledge of your own animals. It is in my opinion simply sad that you with all your self-proclaimed knowledge and love of the breed are not able to see that for yourself.

Also I think if we are going to talk about HD- should probably know what it is. It is a malformation of the actual bone. Specifically the way the femur head (Ball) fits into the acetabulum (socket)- it has little to do with how 'in shape' or 'out of shape' the dog being tested is, what kind of work they do or not do, or any other 'environmental' factor. Sorry, but if breed functional work breaks down the dog's hips, that is the failure of how structurally sound the dog was to begin with. If the socket is shallow or wide the ball will not fit properly. If the ball is malformed same thing. THIS is what OFA looks at to determine if the dog is dysplastic-

Now my mind is wondering about how the issue of pure bred dogs pertains to breeding, or more specifically, if standards and conformations and functionality should be inherently linked to a pure breed (and I firmly feel it should), what role does adherence to these have in breeding? Are the standards for breeding mixes different? Should they be different?

It seems that to claim a right be being a pure bred breeder part of that right is actually respecting the standard and purpose and functionality (both mechanically and historically) of the breed and putting aside your aesthetic, personal preferences.

It's one thing to go to a breeder and request a masked puppy, but to keep insistently trying to breed masks as a breeder because they sell is questionable at best. Even more so if this masked puppy is a wooly whose likelihood of having HD are higher because you don't test them.

Highlighting personal preferences is what designer dogs are all about, or generally I guess, cross breeding mixes.

If there are going to be pure bred breeders who willfully ignore the breed standards, what is to be done about this other than selective consumer choices and educating folks about the differences between ethical and unethical?

Jeff where were you a couple weeks ago when we were having our philosophical discussion on breeding?

HuskyMom09 wrote:

Also I think if we are going to talk about HD- should probably know what it is. It is a malformation of the actual bone. Specifically the way the femur head (Ball) fits into the acetabulum (socket)- it has little to do with how 'in shape' or 'out of shape' the dog being tested is, what kind of work they do or not do, or any other 'environmental' factor. Sorry, but if breed functional work breaks down the dog's hips, that is the failure of how structurally sound the dog was to begin with. If the socket is shallow or wide the ball will not fit properly. If the ball is malformed same thing. THIS is what OFA looks at to determine if the dog is dysplastic-

Well actually.... there is an environmental influence. HD is a polygenic trait, which is why it is so difficult to irradicate. Like all polygenic traits, it is expressed in varying degrees because there is some environmental influence (especially with keeping a pup overweight and/or conditioning it too hard). With that said, if the genes for poor femur/acetabulum conformation are there, the dog is more likely to be negatively affected by the environment over one with good conformation. (I hope I'm making sense - been a looooong day). Anyway, back when I had labs, that's why I generally avoided dogs with too many OFA "fair" in their pedigree - because I personally feel it's too borderline genetically speaking.

It was sunny and warm in Seattle so I was hiking and swimming with Link and Rhia and Korra / (while occasionally popping in to snoop and absorb and process and deliberate).

The issue in this thread is so interesting and provocative and it has been active in my mind since I first joined.

Like so much in our society and in our minds, issues of standards and purpose come up all the time and then we assume that when people learn about them, they will be adopted and accepted.

Even just, for example, X = illegal, right? --> Educate the public about X, and then people won't do it. Yeah, right.

When applied here to breed standards and breeding, the question similarly becomes not what is the standard but why should I care about the standard? What motivation do I have to choose the standard??

Hence, this thread. I am personally absorbing a ton of info and it has been very provocative, while at the same time I have fallen firmly into the Pro-standard camp and the subsequent implications.

It seems that if you have the desire, and frankly audacity to breed pure bred dogs and sell them as such you should make them as "pure" as possible and adopt the given, accepted, historically and mechanically functional breed standard. Deviating from this and accepting faults and physical modifications gets you closer to a mixed breed/designer dog breeder than a pure bred breeder. Even just stressing that your litters will have masks is a deviation because the mask is not a requirement of the standard or the function/purpose of the breed. It's an aesthetic possibility that happens to be well loved and profitable.

If we can accept that pure bred dogs are valuable and worth keeping around (controversial in an of itself), then the standards are there for a reason, two main ones being integrity and appropriate conformity. Pure implies narrow and limited and specific. It's not a free for all.

khollon wrote:

I love the interlude and thanks to all of you ! I have learned quite a but from it . A lot about where I stand on things. And I didn't think you were being harsh Angela . I agreed with everything you were saying . I'm jus glad I was able to read and take in both sides of the argument . I really am growing to love this community. I am so glad I found this forum ! I can't wait to have y'all help me on my journey when I do bring a little fur all home !
And Stark looks like a northern inuit dog.

Perfect! My posts were not actually intended on bashing - just to share some of the things I've learned from the others on this forum!

And with Stark, I can only hope he's fully Siberian. I ended up getting him from a BYB before I found out about this forum. No checks or anything done =\ They were just breeding their pair since they were such loving dogs that looked pretty. That probably has something to do with why I'm so passionate about this. I made a mistake, but I've learned from it, and would want to let others know so they don't make the same mistakes I did.

Glad to see that I'm starting to help on this forum - LOL!

Jeff - confused a bit from your post. Like Stark, Meeka can from a BYB from CL. I too, was not that educated despite a ton of research I did by myself. Unfortunately here in Cali, the "reputable breeders" in my opinion were asking for an arm and a leg ($1,000).

Are you stating that Huskies with masks are non-standard huskies?

On another note, I think we have gone away from what the OP was asking for. I'm sure someone can provide her with info on a good breeder by her area.

Nope, this was mentioned earlier in the thread. Masks are an acceptable aesthetic feature that is not part of the structured breed standard, as in "must have mask."

So breeding for this specifically is an example of singling out an aesthetic feature because it can make you money as an unethical breeder. It'd be similar for blue eyes or bi-eyes. The problem is neglecting structural standard features for superficial aesthetic ones.

From what I gather it is often a red flag when a breeder singles out a non-essential aesthetic feature as a selling point.

Angela - I'm sure stark is a full sibe. Northern units are a wolf look a like and according to people on the street , so do huskies. I think it's his coloring or te way it looks the picture .
And Jeff your lucky ! I had to sit in a classroom all day . Doing a mini semester sucks ! And of course i lve in alabama so the weather is beautiful right now. Its not too hot yet . lol Reading this thread helped me survive my sleepiness today .

It's weird how some people commenting on this just joined today .. Huh.

I'm not here to stifle the discussion at all as I actually think (for the most part) it has been very respectful and productive. I just wanted to take a moment to point out for some that were skeptical... I hope many of you can see why we don't shut down threads because they get a little heated. This thread to me is a perfect example of how heated, but respectful discussion, with opposing viewpoints can really educate people who want to learn

Thanks to everyone for contributing their knowledge

I wanted to add something that was bugging me though. SnohomishHuskies, please don't take this as me bashing you, but as honestly and genuinely questioning what you said for some clarity. Something you said didn't quite add up to me.

SnohomishHuskies wrote:

As far as hips go, you are never going to eradicate HD from dogs. That being said, it is far from being strictly a genetic issue (research has show only about 25% of it is due to genetic factors). There is huge environmental component to it unless you are specifically breeding very wonky hips. Well how do I know if they are wonky if I don't x-ray them? My lines have been around for many years, I have generations of my dogs on site and I have many owners that have had my dogs for 11 to 14 years and that is simply not an issue in my lines and really, in this breed I don't see it as much of an issue.

SnohomishHuskies wrote:

Breeding in it's highest form is an art, not a science as so many of you would like to break it down to. You can check off all those things on a list you would like and still not know what your dogs are going to produce. Me on the other hand, I can not only tell you want a particular dog will most likely produce, but what dogs in that line it goes back to, what the personality is going to be like, where specific habits come from (I have a male that loves to be chased, and his pups do as well. I have a another one that is very predominant in what he throws no matter what female he is bred to. His son is the same way. This isn't something you are going to learn by breeding one litter every couple of years. I have forgotten more about breeding dogs than most of you know and I learn more every day, every year. You are not doing anymore here than parroting each other and a way of thinking I personally find very restrictive.

These two statements don't quite add up to me. On the one hand, you are saying that you don't need to do hip tests on your dogs because they have been around for so long and you know them and what they will produce. Then on the other hand, you are saying that breeding is an art and not scientific. You can get combinations you don't expect even when you do all the math, so to say (and I'm sorry, I just don't buy the "I know my dogs and can tell you exactly what they are going to produce" line. That's just plain egoism and not actually possible). Thus, according to your own logic on breeding, how can you justify NOT hip testing your dogs, if by your own admission, HD is, at least in part, genetic? How can you be sure that there is not some recessive trait in each of your "tried and true" dogs when as you say, "breeding is an art and not scientific"?

I totally understand how passionate you are, and in my opinion, there are absolutely varying levels of breeders out there. In my world, are you better than the random mom and pop who wants to breed their two dogs together to produce something of their animals that will live on? Yes. However, by your own admissions here on this forum (I never even looked at your site), if someone were asking my opinion on which breeder to go to, I would not be recommending you. And my reasons aren't "You're a terrible person, or breeder, who doesn't care about his dogs." My reasons are simply as others have said. There is a standard for a reason. There are just TOO many dogs out there dying in shelters for me to personally condone any breeder that is breeding for family pets. Period. End of story, for me.

I do want to compliment you though. We've had several other people who breed come on here because their name was pinged on a google alert and they read the thread. Instead of calmly, maturely and educationally debating and explaining their position (like you have), they were ornery, defensive, and OFFENSIVE. I truly thank you for approaching the topic as you have. Like you said, we aren't all going to agree and this is a passionate topic. But I am truly glad you have stated your side and allowed yourself to engage in our discussion. It only helps people to learn.

I have been following silently since the beginning of this thread and want to share why I would never support a breeder such as Snohomish Huskies (no offense SH, but I feel what I have to say is worth sharing for the general purpose of education).

All of my dogs are rescues as many on this forum know. But what some may not know is that 2 of my rescues are from a BYB that one could say has enough similarities to Snohomish Huskies for me to feel the need to say something. This "breeder" I rescued 2 of my dogs from is a very nice person, she has plenty of happy customers who will gladly stick up for her, she shares lots of information with prospective buyers about the breed and potential health concerns, knows a lot about the breed, breeds papered purebred dogs only, genuinely loves the breed, spends every second of her spare time with her dogs, all her dogs live in her house with her, offers a health guarantee, and actually thinks she is bettering the breed. But she also has way too many litters a year, sometimes 3-4 litters at a time, she breeds for aesthetics, she doesn't health test her breeding stock, she doesn't prove her breeding stock in any venue conformation or otherwise, she charges more for aesthetic properties in certain pups such as coat color and size, she ignores the commonly accepted practice of not breeding certain traits together to produce a certain look much to the detriment of the health of the resulting puppies, and she is genuinely very proud of the puppies that she produces. Sound at all familiar?

None of that is worth anything when you look at the problems she is passing off on unsuspecting buyers. My 2 rescues from her were both bitches she breed many times and neither of them should have ever been breed. She would have known that they were not breeding material if she bothered to do health tests and waited for them to reach an age more appropriate for breeding rather than judging them by aesthetics early on in life. Now my 2 rescues from her cost me a small fortune to maintain a comfortable life for the rest of their days all because this breeder refused to do health tests deeming them not necessary because she knows her dogs and none of the buyers have complained.

Anyway, my point is emphasizing the importance of health testing, the importance of not ignoring the practice of not breeding known faults, and I am sure that if the breeder my rescues came from actually bothered to prove her dogs in any venue that would make a significant impact on her breeding program. Without these things you really cannot know what you will end up with and I have more than enough health problems to deal with as a result of these breeding practices that I could never condone what she or Snohomish Huskies does.

Thank you for that Val - i think a lot of us get so involved in the topic of Siberian Huskies, we forget about the many other breeds who have been affected by these issues.

This thread is NOT respectful. Anything but. You guys have asked her to explain herself, she took her time and gave you explanations that she DID NOT owe anyone of you. But she did. And what do you guys do? Keep finger pointing and name calling and turning around everything she says and asking her to explain herself more. And yes, I did just join yesterday after I saw a GOOD breeder get bashed by those who have NEVER seen her dogs, I have lurked before but felt it was time to stand up. What is it to you? Really??? I guarantee you that her dogs would compare to any of yours any day of the week. I'm done with this BS and witch hunt.

What is it to me?

It's healthy and in standard Siberian Huskies. My female will never be structurally sound or healthy because of breeders that aren't doing it for the right reasons.

Once you have a dog who is a product of bad breeding and is in pain every day because of it, perhaps you will understand.