A couple of different threads generated the idea for this thread. Based on those threads, I thought it might be good just to have a open discussion about breeders and what it means to better the breed.

Perhaps to start a little back history would be useful? Siberian huskies are actually one of the relative late comers to the world of registered dog breeds. To truly understand the origion of the breed, you also have to go beyond just looking in the popular books on Siberian huskies. If you look back to Lenard Seppala and some of the early pictures of his dogs that are now online and do the same with Harry Wheeler, you begin to understand just how much this "breed" has changed from the original Churchi dogs that were brought over, and yet how similar it also remains. In some ways, while it is just as biased as it claims the other side is, if you look into the history of the Seppala sled dog, you get a better sense of the breeds origin than you will if you look in the popular books. Since its foundation as a "breed" the Siberian has really gone in three different directions; Today's popular idealized show/sled dog (which is what the breed standard is based on), the working sled dogs which are often considered to be outside the breed standard, and the Seppala sled dogs. While true Seppala enthusiasts will argue that their breed is a seperate breed from the Siberian, the two have the exact same origins - the dogs originally brought over from Russia/Siberia and given into the care/training of Lenard Seppala. Seppala later transfered ownership of his remaining stock into the care of Harry Wheeler, who continued to use the kennel name "of Seppala". The big schism/split occurred as a result of the separation between the show Siberian (around which the standard was based) and the working sled dog, whose owners were focused far more on the working class traits and speed then they were on a show standard. Seppala enthusiasts broke off quite far back in the origins claiming that AKC and certain breeders today recognized as founding kennels ruined the breed. They even developed their own registry to track pedigrees of their Seppala dogs.

This thread has some great content on what traits to look for in a reputable breeder; https://www.itsahuskything.com/t1042-how-to-find-a-reputable-breeder

However within the forum I often see the terms backyard breeder, reputable breeder, and even ethical breeder being thrown about, and I thought it might be worthwhile to have a philosophical discussion in regards to these terms. Keep in mind that within this thread, no one persons opinion (including mine) is entirely right or wrong. This is simply intended to be a place for a philosophical discussion of what it means to be a breeder and breed to improve the breed. It has been stated that no perfect dog has ever been breed, by the same standard, I would also propose that no perfect breeder exists.

Ah crap! I just did one lol, I'll message a mod to delete mine.

Sorry about that - I don't see yours Jen, where did you place it?

Its okay, I literally did it right after you. I deleted it. Yours has much better information to kick off the topic.

Seppala dogs: do you know if anyone has done any genetic comparisons between the modern siberian, and the modern seppala? That would be interesting to see if the gene profiles are similar enough to consider them the same breed, or if it would show distinct differences.

In terms of the terms, to me a backyard breeder is kind of murky. To me personally a backyard breeder is someone who has one or two dogs and breeds them for the heck of it. My first husky came from a family with a breeding pair, but they were family pets and not involved in the show/working world. I realize to some people this term can also include a larger operation, but to me, I think well meaning, but uneducated family/person with one or two dogs, that doesn't research pedigree, lineage, or health. Nor do they require anything other than money to purchase a puppy and all puppies are sold with full registration. Also, I think that the dogs are generally well cared for.

Reputable breeder is someone that health screens, shows or works their dogs, screens potential buyers, and takes care, consideration and pride in their lines and what they produce. I don't consider the number of litters produced as a consideration here, as long as it isn't excessive, and as long as they are able to place the puppies. A reputable breeder's dogs are well cared for, their needs are met, but they aren't necessarily family pets, although they could be. Also, if a health problem is discovered in their line, they will contact everyone who has purchased a dog from that line and inform them. They want to be kept updated on issues like that and the general health and well being of the dog. I'm not really sure if I see a difference between reputable and ethical. I think the terms are interchangeable.

One thing I want to consider though, is what right does anyone really have to determine weather or not a dog should be allowed to breed, or if a person should be allowed to breed their dogs? On one hand I strongly believe that breeding should be limited and reserved for people that really have the time, resources, and knowledge to do so, especially since there are so many animals being put to sleep daily. But on the other hand why does showing suddenly make someone 'reputable?' I understand the concept that shows evaluate breeding stock, and therefore are used to determine which dogs should be bred to each other, or bred period. But, why should the opinion of a handful of judges comparing one dog to a few others in the ring have the determination over which dogs are good enough to breed and which aren't? Provided the dogs are healthy and tested, of course.

I don't think showing automatically makes a dog breeder reputable--especially if they are inbreeding and breeding solely for the current show trend. IMO Siberians should be bred for performance in a harness. Show Siberians are too short legged and short back in comparison to a Seppala dog (seppalakennels.com/standard.htm), which says to me that they are not truly being bred to preform their job but rather to look pretty in the show ring.

wpskier222 wrote:

Seppala dogs: do you know if anyone has done any genetic comparisons between the modern siberian, and the modern seppala? That would be interesting to see if the gene profiles are similar enough to consider them the same breed, or if it would show distinct differences.

No I don't, but it would be an interesting study wouldn't it? I do know that some Seppala owners are now going back and petitioning to have their Seppala's registered by AKC as Siberian huskies so they can be shown, and in fact last year at one of the western shows, a Seppala won Best of Breed.

wpskier222 wrote:

In terms of the terms, to me a backyard breeder is kind of murky. To me personally a backyard breeder is someone who has one or two dogs and breeds them for the heck of it. My first husky came from a family with a breeding pair, but they were family pets and not involved in the show/working world. I realize to some people this term can also include a larger operation, but to me, I think well meaning, but uneducated family/person with one or two dogs, that doesn't research pedigree, lineage, or health. Nor do they require anything other than money to purchase a puppy and all puppies are sold with full registration. Also, I think that the dogs are generally well cared for.

Reputable breeder is someone that health screens, shows or works their dogs, screens potential buyers, and takes care, consideration and pride in their lines and what they produce. I don't consider the number of litters produced as a consideration here, as long as it isn't excessive, and as long as they are able to place the puppies. A reputable breeder's dogs are well cared for, their needs are met, but they aren't necessarily family pets, although they could be. Also, if a health problem is discovered in their line, they will contact everyone who has purchased a dog from that line and inform them. They want to be kept updated on issues like that and the general health and well being of the dog. I'm not really sure if I see a difference between reputable and ethical. I think the terms are interchangeable.

I think that is a pretty good place for the discussion to start, it will be interesting to see if we can get some of the others involved and see their definitions as well. I do like/agree with your thoughts on the backyard breeder. I probably should have thrown in puppy mills as well.

wpskier222 wrote:

One thing I want to consider though, is what right does anyone really have to determine weather or not a dog should be allowed to breed, or if a person should be allowed to breed their dogs? On one hand I strongly believe that breeding should be limited and reserved for people that really have the time, resources, and knowledge to do so, especially since there are so many animals being put to sleep daily. But on the other hand why does showing suddenly make someone 'reputable?' I understand the concept that shows evaluate breeding stock, and therefore are used to determine which dogs should be bred to each other, or bred period. But, why should the opinion of a handful of judges comparing one dog to a few others in the ring have the determination over which dogs are good enough to breed and which aren't? Provided the dogs are healthy and tested, of course.

That is indeed a interest question, and well worth looking into in my opinion, especially if one takes into consideration how political the show ring is said to be. Often I have to wonder if having points or being a champion really means all that much in terms of quality. From what I've heard/seen it often has far more to do with influence of the owner or handler than quality of the dog. One of the dogs currently winning Best of Breed back east has a obvious sloping topline, but he is still winning consistently.

eddycaaa wrote:

I don't think showing automatically makes a dog breeder reputable--especially if they are inbreeding and breeding solely for the current show trend. IMO Siberians should be bred for performance in a harness. Show Siberians are too short legged and short back in comparison to a Seppala dog (seppalakennels.com/standard.htm), which says to me that they are not truly being bred to preform their job but rather to look pretty in the show ring.

Erica I think that is a good point. Inbreeding is kind of an interesting topic in and of itself, given that the Siberian gene pool is so small to begin with.

Ethical/Responsible vs BYB breeders- For me I think some it comes down to the 'why' behind the breeder is breeding what they are breeding. What attributes from both dog and bitch are they hoping to enhance or keep, what traits are they trying to improve, and care to how these dogs pedigrees will mesh. I don't want to hear about how unique the dog is, or how rare the blue eyes are, or reasons that have nothing to do with the breed itself. I want to know you are doing something, anything, with your dog that isn't just breeding or lounging on the couch! I like to see show titles, working titles, even sledding titles. It shows me not only do you appreciate this breed, as we all do, but has some sort of 'bench mark' to their program and an understanding to the purpose of the breed (in regards to working titles). Not saying any of these singular items are a measure of 'ideal' for the breed, I am well aware that there are extremes on both ends of the show/working spectrum. However, if your program shows both working and showing success that is impressive to me. Next I want to see you are doing the right things in your breeding program, such as health testing of all breeding candidates. I want to see OFA results, CERF/SHOR certs at bare minimum (I also verify by online registry sources). But if you aren't screening for hereditary disease you don't know what you are passing on in your lines, and that's not fair to your puppy clients, that puppy, or the future of the breed.

My personal philosophy for my future breeding program is this, I want to maintain my idea of the ideal dual purpose Siberian while maintaining the health and quality of the breed. What good is it to have a stunning dog in the ring if it can't perform in harness, same goes for the opposite. I appreciate an outstanding working dog, but it makes me sad to see these extreme sledding Siberians that have lost so much breed type you don't recognize them as Siberians any more. So for me it is important to show a well rounded list of breed specific function as well as conformation success with my dogs- By no means am I saying my dogs are the 'ideal' for the breed, but proving function as well as keeping breed type in mind is what I hope to keep.

I have heard that about the show ring being very political. I am interested in showing, but mostly the politics is what is making me hesitate. I've heard that from many people and am not sure how a newbie like me would do. I'm dying of curiosity to know which dog out east is winning with the sloping topline. But, due to the political nature of things I understand if you don't want to mention it.

Erica, I agree that working dogs should be able to perform their jobs, but didn't the standard evolve with that in mind? Do you think their chests should be less deep and their legs longer, or should the standard allow for more height? I have absolutely zero experience in sledding so forgive my ignorance.

Also, what about breeding rights/showing rights of puppy buyers? From my research, it seems like many breeders require co-ownership if a puppy buyer wants to show the dog, and those contracts also dictate weather or not the puppy will be bred, and who has the ultimate final say if there is a disagreement. I mentioned co-ownership to my breeder in the discussion about showing, and she said, 'co-ownership is messy. The dog is yours, if you want to show him show him. If you want me to show him, I will. But, I believe, you're buying the dog, you should ultimately make the decision about what you want to do with him.' Keep in mind, this is after developing a relationship with her, not right out of the box. Right out of the box, she said all puppies are sold with limited registration. Should the breeder be able to dictate that much to a puppy buyer, provided the person has passed the screening a breeder has, and therefore proven their ability to care for a puppy?

eddycaaa wrote:

I don't think showing automatically makes a dog breeder reputable--especially if they are inbreeding and breeding solely for the current show trend. IMO Siberians should be bred for performance in a harness. Show Siberians are too short legged and short back in comparison to a Seppala dog (seppalakennels.com/standard.htm), which says to me that they are not truly being bred to preform their job but rather to look pretty in the show ring.

Not necessarily - you need to remember that breed type and preferences greatly affect what we perceive as correct in siberians. I know many dogs who are GRCH and run in harness.

Not to mention, many of the "original dogs" like Fritz and Togo, don't look scrawny and over-leggy like a lot of extreme racing lines...because they weren't bred for racing. They were bred for pulling moderate weight at moderate speed over moderate distance.

Too many people put emphasis on "racing" in the Siberians. SIberians were not created for that.

Here is a picture of 3 "original" Seppala dogs, togo included, for www.sherakan.com:



These dogs resemble "show lines" more than "racing lines"

But, that is just my two cents.

I could not have written a better post than Lani's. (HuskyMom09).

Interesting thread. No, showing does not necessarily make a person an ethical breeder, but in general people who show and breed are doing so in an ethical manner.

I am not sure if anyone has the "right" to say who can breed, but those that do show/breed have the responsibility (is that the word I want?) or duty to educate those considering it that they should/should not an why. That is out of basic care and passion for the breed!

Mishka's Mom what is your first name? I would prefer to refer to you by your name (not your registered name )

I agree - it should be the responsibility of those who believe in ethical breeding practices to help others seek out quality breeders.

The show ring can be very political and 'clique' and it has been a bit of a put off for me as well. I continue to do it more for my dogs than for the ego stroking that goes on in the show world. Even if I don't get put up (because I am not a professional handler nor a big name) I can evaluate my dog against what other area breeders are producing.

Today's Seppala is much different than the Seppala of yesteryear....Togo and Fritz are much like the show Siberians many lines have today. As Megan points out- Today's Seppala is over sized, almost too long, and I'd question how structurally sound they are. Also not every show dog is lacking in leg nor are they short of loin. Though I'd have to agree we are losing chest and lay-back of the shoulder in some of the show lines, which does affect functionality in harness. Recognizing that now, and breeding those attributes back into the lines is essential- Thankfully these are not the 'majority' of the show dog representatives. There are still plenty of finished CH/GCH and 'show' kennels that have functional competitive sled teams.

If we are also getting into the puppy sales, breeding rights, and limited registrations- I would not be inclined to send my lines home with just anyone without some sort of contractual obligation to spay/neuter if this puppy is not suited for or owners are not interested in showing. And if they choose not to honor the spay/neuter contract they were on limited registration so the pups if any produced would not be registrable. I have seen far too many people on forums that purchased a puppy and years later decide the dog is too 'unique' not to breed and since they had a full registration they are able to pass on not only all the 'unique' attributes but the flaws as well. Even CH/GCH lines will throw pet quality puppies. Any breeder that will tell you they've never ever produced a pet quality pup is lying to you.

Well Togo had a poop Taxidermist because he does not look closer to a show SIberian mounted in his case.



And I didn't mean to come off as having the opinion that todays "Seppala" mongrels are truer to the original job of the Siberian Husky.

EDIT: typo

Ha ga. First name Jamie.

HuskyMom09 wrote:

My personal philosophy for my future breeding program is this, I want to maintain my idea of the ideal dual purpose Siberian while maintaining the health and quality of the breed. What good is it to have a stunning dog in the ring if it can't perform in harness, same goes for the opposite. I appreciate an outstanding working dog, but it makes me sad to see these extreme sledding Siberians that have lost so much breed type you don't recognize them as Siberians any more. So for me it is important to show a well rounded list of breed specific function as well as conformation success with my dogs- By no means am I saying my dogs are the 'ideal' for the breed, but proving function as well as keeping breed type in mind is what I hope to keep.

Lani I like this philosophy a lot, and I would guess it is pretty similar to the mindset of those who originally put the standard for the breed down on paper.

wpskier222 wrote:

Also, what about breeding rights/showing rights of puppy buyers? From my research, it seems like many breeders require co-ownership if a puppy buyer wants to show the dog, and those contracts also dictate weather or not the puppy will be bred, and who has the ultimate final say if there is a disagreement. I mentioned co-ownership to my breeder in the discussion about showing, and she said, 'co-ownership is messy. The dog is yours, if you want to show him show him. If you want me to show him, I will. But, I believe, you're buying the dog, you should ultimately make the decision about what you want to do with him.' Keep in mind, this is after developing a relationship with her, not right out of the box. Right out of the box, she said all puppies are sold with limited registration. Should the breeder be able to dictate that much to a puppy buyer, provided the person has passed the screening a breeder has, and therefore proven their ability to care for a puppy?

Jen I think this conversation can go a lot of different ways depending on the breeder, how you present yourself, and ultimately the relationship you develop with your breeder.

mheath0429 wrote:

Not necessarily - you need to remember that breed type and preferences greatly affect what we perceive as correct in siberians. I know many dogs who are GRCH and run in harness.

Not to mention, many of the "original dogs" like Fritz and Togo, don't look scrawny and over-leggy like a lot of extreme racing lines...because they weren't bred for racing. They were bred for pulling moderate weight at moderate speed over moderate distance.

Too many people put emphasis on "racing" in the Siberians. SIberians were not created for that.

Here is a picture of 3 "original" Seppala dogs, togo included, for www.sherakan.com:



These dogs resemble "show lines" more than "racing lines"

But, that is just my two cents.

Megan, I agree that many of the original dogs far more resemble the show lines than the racing lines and the modern Seppala, although I have seen Seppala's that would do very well in the show ring next to a Siberian husky. By the same token, I have seen Siberians that have earned their championships that would never perform well in harness. In addition there are several of the original dogs, especially in some of the later imports that do not resemble todays show lines at all, in fact they almost look like leggy hounds. If I'm not mistaken though, weren't the Churki dogs breed to pull moderate loads, at moderate speeds over long distances. If you look at some of the early racing history, the Siberians did far better in the longer races over time than they did at the start of those races.

Mishka'sMom wrote:

I could not have written a better post than Lani's. (HuskyMom09).

Interesting thread. No, showing does not necessarily make a person an ethical breeder, but in general people who show and breed are doing so in an ethical manner.

I am not sure if anyone has the "right" to say who can breed, but those that do show/breed have the responsibility (is that the word I want?) or duty to educate those considering it that they should/should not an why. That is out of basic care and passion for the breed!

I'll agree with that, in general . But I think that most of us who know a number of breeders/show kennels would also agree that there are those who both show and breed, whom may even have a reputation as reputable, who might not fall into our personal definition of "reputable."

HuskyMom09 wrote:

Today's Seppala is much different than the Seppala of yesteryear....Togo and Fritz are much like the show Siberians many lines have today. As Megan points out- Today's Seppala is over sized, almost too long, and I'd question how structurally sound they are. Also not every show dog is lacking in leg nor are they short of loin. Though I'd have to agree we are losing chest and lay-back of the shoulder in some of the show lines, which does affect functionality in harness. Recognizing that now, and breeding those attributes back into the lines is essential- Thankfully these are not the 'majority' of the show dog representatives. There are still plenty of finished CH/GCH and 'show' kennels that have functional competitive sled teams.

If we are also getting into the puppy sales, breeding rights, and limited registrations- I would not be inclined to send my lines home with just anyone without some sort of contractual obligation to spay/neuter if this puppy is not suited for or owners are not interested in showing. And if they choose not to honor the spay/neuter contract they were on limited registration so the pups if any produced would not be registrable. I have seen far too many people on forums that purchased a puppy and years later decide the dog is too 'unique' not to breed and since they had a full registration they are able to pass on not only all the 'unique' attributes but the flaws as well. Even CH/GCH lines will throw pet quality puppies. Any breeder that will tell you they've never ever produced a pet quality pup is lying to you.

Excellent points Lani. I too think it is important to start recognizing some of what we are losing and what needs to be brought back. One of my personal concerns as a biologist is the line-breeding. While I understand the idea of breeding for type, the simple fact of the matter is that the Siberian's gene pool was never very big in the first place and evidence of other breeds and other species can show us clearly what happens when we start allowing our breed to become too inbred. I do like some of the philosophies I'm starting to see in which breeders are beginning to work more towards bring the working line/show dog lines back together to improve the overall gene pool. Unfortunately in the process, at least from a number of the results that I have seen, we do seem to lose some of the type in the process. I do think genetically however that they are probably a better dog.

I believe there is some 'validity' to an occasional line breeding. Especially if it's to 'stamp' the genetic health of the line (plus it's one of the fastest ways to prove eye health) as long as you don't do it more than every 5-6 generations.

What I would like to do, for my lines, is to take my show male (who isn't so much show that he lacks functionality in harness- as he his one of my main leaders on my team) and breed him to a racing type female, though those pups would likely lose some breed type, but perhaps gain some as well, then take one of those pups and breed again to a show type to 'fix' the loss of breed type. I believe that we could re-incorporate racing lines, widening our genetic pool some, and bring them back to breed type in two generations. That is a short enough timeline to 'fix' the loss and add genetic diversity it would be worth it to my thought. The hard part will be to find a working line female that has her clearances....many strictly working line breeders do not OFA nor CERF.

HuskyMom09 wrote:

I believe there is some 'validity' to an occasional line breeding. Especially if it's to 'stamp' the genetic health of the line (plus it's one of the fastest ways to prove eye health) as long as you don't do it more than every 5-6 generations.

What I would like to do, for my lines, is to take my show male (who isn't so much show that he lacks functionality in harness- as he his one of my main leaders on my team) and breed him to a racing type female, though those pups would likely lose some breed type, but perhaps gain some as well, then take one of those pups and breed again to a show type to 'fix' the loss of breed type. I believe that we could re-incorporate racing lines, widening our genetic pool some, and bring them back to breed type in two generations. That is a short enough timeline to 'fix' the loss and add genetic diversity it would be worth it to my thought. The hard part will be to find a working line female that has her clearances....many strictly working line breeders do not OFA nor CERF.

By all means, let me be clear in that I agree that line-breeding certainly has its place. If you look back through a number of foundation kennels they did a good bit of it. Thats part of why certain dogs occur so often in almost any pedigree.

I think that a lot of the success with that type of thing would in part be determined by the particular racing type female. Certainly not all are as far out of type as some are. Individual clearances aren't too difficult, but I agree that getting generational clearances would be much more difficult.

I love this discussion, I am learning so much from all of you! Lani, would you consider on breeding your new male, Mason with one of your female show dogs (eventually of course, I know they are still puppies)? It's an interesting concept, and one that would incorporate some genetic diversity for sure. Would you ever think about showing Mason? By the way, I think I'm guessing the right dog, I mean your new team dog. Sorry if I mixed them up.

Is there a reason (other than he's awesome) that you would breed Denali with a racing female, vs. breeding a racing male with one of your show females? I'm guessing its because your females aren't mature yet, and you are waiting to see how they develop, but just curious.

I understand feeling responsible, or being upset if you found out a dog you sold as a pet was bred without your consent. Especially since you are working toward a specific goal in your breeding program. I was actually quite shocked when my breeder said that to me, but I'm not someone who would breed my dog willy nilly. And, if it was something I was even remotely considering, she would be the first one I would call for advice.

Edit - deleted misquote of another poster.

Mason is unfortunately neutered or I would have certainly considered pairing him with Kenna. He was from an oopsie litter and so everything from that litter was spayed/neutered. Beyond the neutered part, Mason is not very typie to the breed IMO, though he is an excellent working dog he would never be a show dog. There are things I like about Mason, there are things I don't like about Mason like any dog, there would be more I'd want to fix than keep in considering a breeding to him.

The main reason I'd say I'd like to breed Denali out to a racing female is exactly what you suspect. He is mature, proven in harness and in the show ring, as well as having all of his health clearances. There is more 'known' about him as a dog that I'm still evaluating the girls for. I'm not to a point to think about breeding my girls, though some day absolutely! (pending health clearances of course!) They in my mind are still just babies, only a year this month so I guess I'm not projecting my mind that far out quite yet. The only thing I have planned that far out is a potential Denali x Kenna pairing. But I'll ponder your question, and put some serious thought behind it. With the right racing type male bred to Enya (who has a more plush coat) I could potentially correct her coat and add some very nice working attributes to what she's already showing me she has potential to have.

My last thought on the more for show vs. pet- I don't believe that it should be a drastic difference if any. As much went into producing them as it did to the show potential. Both parents were screened, shown, worked, etc....the proving of the parents has already happened, it just so happened a pet was born in the same litter as the show potential. Now I could see there being a price difference for a limited vs. full registered pup absolutely. Again some of the things I am only starting to ponder in my mind as the time before I have my own breeding on the ground

Find that post as I dont have a problem with a breeder charging more for a show pup

Must have misunderstood me

No biggie!

Curious question...

What is the difference between show line and working line? Is it only in the looks? I imagine that a working line is more muscular due to the activies they perform, but what else?

Oops sorry, I think I might have mixed you up with someone else. Sorry about the misquote Jamie.

Lani, I really look forward to seeing how your kennel develops over time, especially your concept of crossing working lines with your Enya, who I think is gorgeous by the way. Would you consider making Denali available for stud for the right bitch (just a philosophical question, don't worry, not asking for any other reason )?

In terms of type, it seems like a lot of kennels that I encountered in my search are breeding dogs that look very similar to me. Although, as a novice, I'm sure I'm missing many nuances, but for lack of a better way to verbalize it, they look very Karrnovanda-ish, including the kennel I actually purchased from. What are your thoughts on type? When I look at pictures of siberian shows, i'd be hard pressed to identify differences among each dog, although I do realize that is probably just my inexperience.

This link was shared on another thread and I found it very interesting. http://www.dogchannel.com/dogsinreview/success-show-dogs-type-style.aspx