Also should have mentioned I have nothing against Karnovanda. From what I've seen I think their dogs are beautiful.

HuskyMom09 wrote:

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

So Lani that brings up an interesting point. In my understanding limited registration means that the dog can be AKC registered, but its offspring (if any, cannot be). I would presume that a breeder selling a pup on limited registration would also be selling as a pet - since I believe that limited registration doesn't allow you to show. On the other hand, a show potential could be sold as a pet, yet in that case shouldn't it be sold as limited registration? Or are you referring to cases like Jen's were she is getting a puppy as a pet, but has potential to show/breed if she desires? Which again brings up the whole question of ethical behaviors in breeders? Granted Jen has done some research and has/is developing a solid understanding of the breed, yet without proving that she intends to show, has a line been crossed by giving her that ability (Sorry Jen for using you as an example, its just that your situation is fairly well know - I could just as easily use myself as an example, since my dogs were also purchased with the ability to be breed).

ateam043 wrote:

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?

No, IMO it goes beyond the looks. It is physical bone structure (in some cases a longer back, longer leg, and in some cases a larger physical size), coat (most have a much thinner coat), and mental attitude (mushers prefer to emphasis the independent nature of the breed - for many of these dogs, the reward for running is entrinsic rather then extrinsically motivated - they could care less about petting, treats, etc., they just want to run).

wpskier222 wrote:

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.

As do I

wpskier222 wrote:

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

In many cases many of the differences are just that nuances. For example the breed standard calls for the following in the head/muzzle;

Skull: Of medium size and in proportion to the body; slightly rounded on top and tapering from the widest point to the eyes. Faults: Head clumsy or heavy; head too finely chiseled.

Stop: The stop is well-defined and the bridge of the nose is straight from the stop to the tip. Fault: Insufficient stop.

Muzzle: Of medium length; that is, the distance from the tip of the nose to the stop is equal to the distance from the stop to the occiput. The muzzle is of medium width, tapering gradually to the nose, with the tip neither pointed nor square. Faults: Muzzle either too snipy or too coarse; muzzle too short or too long.

If you look at my two dogs, both are in standard. However my male Tayga has a much heavier head than my female Myst. Her muzzle is more pointy or snipy. If you were to compare them side by side or compare head studies, the differences are fairly obvious, but without looking closely, they are not something you are going to notice. Leg length is another area. Some dogs will have noticably longer or short legs, yet are still considered to be within the standard of medium length of leg.

Watch it, my boy is Karnovanda

Just kidding anyway.

First of all, dogs sold as pets by reputable breeders are always sold on limited registration. This protects the breeders lines. If a breeder isn't worried about their lines, I'd think it is safe to say they aren't particularly worried about the breed either.

wpskier, Lani and I specifically have spent a lot of time working with other exhibitors and have many friends who are breeders. Even though many dogs have the same look, we can distinguish "type" by head piece, coat length, color choices, earsets and many other things.

For example, you can tell a Karnovanda dog by its head piece.

Ha ha! Your dog is gorgeous! Karnovanda was in my top 3 and the only reason I finally settled on the one I did, was because it was within driving distance. What exactly does head piece mean?

Also don't worry about using me as an example. I am looking forward to hearing the opinions of everyone on the matter. That's honestly why I was surprised she didn't want to enter into a co-ownership agreement.

Also, a note, I did tell her that if I chose not to show, I will neuter him.

wpskier222 wrote:

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 )?

Thanks And yes, Denali is available for stud- I don't openly advertize that since it is slightly unethical to do so. Though now that he does have all of his health clearances I'm far more comfortable if someone were to be interested in using him There are of course stipulations and a contract that would need to be agreed upon before I would allow him to be used on an outside female. As you could probably imagine it's not something I'd just walk blindly into

I just wanted to add Fritz's stuffed body for comparison....Though I don't think the mounts did the dogs justice- This dog is still very recognizable as a Siberian even by today's standards-

Correct me if I'm wrong or being ignorant, but I find it a bit weird that Seppalas are considered separate from Siberian Huskies by the AKC. It's not like we're comparing standard poodles versus toy poodles. Both Husky breeds are nearly identical besides slight differences in their build such as Seppala's having slightly taller and closer together ears, and a slightly longer body. They have the same ancestry and aren't separated by breed mixing, only genetic selection. It's like comparing two breeders with slightly different views on how to pick which of their Huskies they want to breed.

They aren't considered separate in the AKC. It's the Seppala people that WANT the "Seppala" (siberian husky) to be a separate breed (The Seppala Siberian Sled Dog) from the Siberian Husky.

There are to this day Seppala line Siberian Huskies registered with the AKC. My breeder that I got Mechta from has a couple AKC registered Seppalas.

Ah, ok. I read something wrong then. I would have to sit down and research it all to get my facts straight. Just googling and skimming is giving me what looks like biased articles that don't make much sense at a glance. The two breeds are bred with the same temperaments, were both bred to perform the same job in the same way, and share all the same ancestors besides Leonhard Seppala huskies, which the guy claimed were different for some reason I'm not finding. I'm just stumped how they could be considered separate.

mheath0429 wrote:

First of all, dogs sold as pets by reputable breeders are always sold on limited registration. This protects the breeders lines. If a breeder isn't worried about their lines, I'd think it is safe to say they aren't particularly worried about the breed either.

Megan that was my understanding and opinion as well, so thank you for the clarity.

mheath0429 wrote:

wpskier, Lani and I specifically have spent a lot of time working with other exhibitors and have many friends who are breeders. Even though many dogs have the same look, we can distinguish "type" by head piece, coat length, color choices, earsets and many other things.

For example, you can tell a Karnovanda dog by its head piece.

Indeed, as you can no doubt tell, I haven't spent any time working with exhibitors. Most of what I've seen has been pictures online and a few limited encounters with breeders/showers out west. Most of my direct experience is with the working line rather than the show line. I just love the "type" of the show dog much better than the working dog, but to me it seems an injustice to the breed to breed so much for a particular type that you begin to eliminate the functionality of the breed.

HuskyMom09 wrote:

I just wanted to add Fritz's stuffed body for comparison....Though I don't think the mounts did the dogs justice- This dog is still very recognizable as a Siberian even by today's standards-

Excellent, thanks Lani. Just for a fun comparison, here is a picture of Butter.



Butter is 99% Seppala, and I'm sure that most of us would agree that she is recognizable as a Siberian husky as well.

Kavik_the_Havoc wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong or being ignorant, but I find it a bit weird that Seppalas are considered separate from Siberian Huskies by the AKC. It's not like we're comparing standard poodles versus toy poodles. Both Husky breeds are nearly identical besides slight differences in their build such as Seppala's having slightly taller and closer together ears, and a slightly longer body. They have the same ancestry and aren't separated by breed mixing, only genetic selection. It's like comparing two breeders with slightly different views on how to pick which of their Huskies they want to breed.

As was stated, it isn't the AKC that made the distinction/break, it was the Seppala people themselves. It isn't even really genetic selection which seperates them, but rather almost a philosophy and a direct line of ancestory to a specific subset of dogs within the Siberian husky breed, as well as the fact that kennels that were considered Seppala kennels had to be working kennels, not show kennels. To be quite honest, its a very hard distinction to understand even when you talk to the Seppala people, but the working ethic of the dogs seems to be pretty different and there are some physical differences as mentioned. One of the most noticable is the tail set. Seppalas don't curl their tails.

This is maybe one of the more comprehensive explainations I've seen, but even the Seppala people themselves don't agree with each other completely, so that complicates things even more.

http://seppalanews.com/?id=100

I'm learning so much from this thread!!!

I guess when I think of reputable breeders, I think so someone who has not only tested the dogs but also works them/shows them. Someone who actually does something with their dogs (like Lani said.) The thing that aggravates me the most is someone who just wants to breed their dog because its cute or they "think" they'll make money (like my sister.) I got my dog with full AKC registration, but I spayed her because I know she didn't come from a reputable breeder and that her parents hadn't been tested beyond normal vet checks and that it wouldn't be fair to possibly pass something on to one of her puppies if I could stop it.

I will say I find it funny that the seppala people can't even agree with each other. How do they expect anyone to take them seriously if they can't agree on stuff? It will be interesting to see how huskies turn out in the next couple of generations and if we can get some of the functionality back into the show lines.

Took me awhile to find the particular article this was in, but this is a picture of Tanta of Alyeska, she was the foundation bitch for Chinook kennels. This is one of the dogs I always picture in my mind when comparing breed origins with where we are today. I think that images like this give a sense of how the type of the breed has changed over time.

I think that this article and the following one, while obviously written from a biased view point, provide some interesting insight into the origin of the Siberian husky as well. You have to get past the bias, but there is some interesting history here as well.

http://seppalakennels.com/articles/bayous_message.htm

In regards to my own opinions on what a breeder is or isn't, I like this particular article, although there is another similar one written in more of an informal letter format that I wish I could find as well.

http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/breeder.html

To me, it seems that a good or reputable breeder has a true love for the breed, but also understands the true nature of the breed and recognizes its faults as well as its desirable traits, has great respect for and knowledge of pedigrees and spends many hours pouring over them dreaming of the ideal dog that could result from various crosses. I personally don't believe that reputable breeder is defined by the number of dogs or even champions that he or she has, the number of puppies that he or she has produced, or even to some extent by what he or she does with their own dogs (although I do agree that a reputable breeder should engage in testing their dogs for genetic issues). I do think a true breeder is defined to a large degree by what he or she does with the puppies that he or she produces. I think that a reputable breeder should be true to the true nature of the breed and should strive for his or her dogs to be all that they can be within the breed. Should that individual show their dogs? Not necessarily, although I agree that showing provides us with a "standard" upon which we base the breed. Should that individual work their dogs? Absolutely, how else can we truly be true to the nature of the breed? By that do I mean that the individual must engage in the racing of their dogs? Again, not necessarily. The standards states that our breed is;

Quote :

The Siberian Husky is a medium-sized working dog, quick and light on his feet and free and graceful in action. His moderately compact and well furred body, erect ears and brush tail suggest his Northern heritage. His characteristic gait is smooth and seemingly effortless. He performs his original function in harness most capably, carrying a light load at a moderate speed over great distances. His body proportions and form reflect this basic balance of power, speed and endurance. The males of the Siberian Husky breed are masculine but never coarse; the bitches are feminine but without weakness of structure. In proper condition, with muscle firm and well developed, the Siberian Husky does not carry excess weight.

That standard certainly does not imply a racing dog, but rather a dog whose movement and gait is glorious to behold and a true pleasure to experience. The sheer pleasure and joy of riding a sled or cart behind a team of Siberians is extremely exhilarating to say the least.

Again, this is purely from a philosophical viewpoint, and I'm well aware that realities don't always reflect philosophies and vise-versa. Wouldn't it be nice if we all lived in an ideal world .

Wy Renegade wrote:

To me, it seems that a good or reputable breeder has a true love for the breed, but also understands the true nature of the breed and recognizes its faults as well as its desirable traits, has great respect for and knowledge of pedigrees and spends many hours pouring over them dreaming of the ideal dog that could result from various crosses. I personally don't believe that reputable breeder is defined by the number of dogs or even champions that he or she has, the number of puppies that he or she has produced, or even to some extent by what he or she does with their own dogs. I do think a true breeder is defined to a large degree by what he or she does with the puppies that he or she produces. I think that a reputable breeder should be true to the true nature of the breed and should strive for his or her dogs to be all that they can be within the breed. Should that individual show their dogs? Not necessarily, although I agree that showing provides us with a "standard" upon which we base the breed. Should that individual work their dogs? Absolutely, how else can we truly be true to the nature of the breed? By that do I mean that the individual must engage in the racing of their dogs? Again, not necessarily.
That standard certainly does not imply a racing dog, but rather a dog whose movement and gait is glorious to behold and a true pleasure to experience. The sheer pleasure and joy of riding a sled or cart behind a team of Siberians is extremely exhilarating to say the least.
Again, this is purely from a philosophical viewpoint, and I'm well aware that realities don't always reflect philosophies and vise-versa. Wouldn't it be nice if we all lived in an ideal world .

I could not agree with you more.

I get irritated every day by people insisting upon racing lines. I am not against working, I am against breeding a Siberian to be what you need for your racing team. A siberian shouldn't be so lean that I feel its fragile. I like the style of fritz. Just enough leg, nice angles and SOLID body.

I do prefer head pieces and ear sets on show dogs - because they seem more functional to me. The small ears are better for protecting from frostbite, the small oval eyes protect from snow - all of the little things have their function.

mheath0429 wrote:

I get irritated every day by people insisting upon racing lines. I am not against working, I am against breeding a Siberian to be what you need for your racing team. A siberian shouldn't be so lean that I feel its fragile. I like the style of fritz. Just enough leg, nice angles and SOLID body.

I do prefer head pieces and ear sets on show dogs - because they seem more functional to me. The small ears are better for protecting from frostbite, the small oval eyes protect from snow - all of the little things have their function.

Indeed Megan I totally agree. I think it is important to keep in mind that the original standard for the breed was written not only by those who where interested in showing their dogs, but also by those who worked their dogs. Leonard Seppala himself was part of the group that wrote the first standard, and the standard as written today has actually changed very little from the original. Although I think we have to some degree at least, modified how we interpret that standard. The little things are just as important as the things that are easily seen such as leg length, angles and body type.

I will post it tomorrow - I have an awesome book I got at our specialty this past March that has all of the standards over the years.

I think it was briefly mentioned in passing somewhere in this thread, but can anyone elaborate on the functionality of stubbornness and independence in the breed since we are discussing standards and purpose, albeit so far it's been mostly about physical and/or aesthetic standards and purpose.

I have a hunch as to how they play into the historical working nature of the breed but I think it could be helpful to have that card definitively flipped face up in this conversation.

What is the historical functionality of the breed's stubbornness and strong willed independence and what were the reasons for selecting for these and keeping them as such a salient feature in the breed?

Cheers.

I think the main thing is that Siberians of that time had to be self sufficient. A stubborn and intelligent dog makes for a very self-sufficient dog.

The example is always used; "If a musher tells the team to go left, but the lead dog knows there is ice there, the dog HAS to make the choice to go right." So, they had to be smart enough to listen to commands and keep themselves alive, BUT they had to be stubborn enough to make a decision that is different then what their musher is saying.

Right. Assuming of course that self-sufficiency and determination help to ensure that these dogs can work for extensive periods of time in not so great conditions, yeah?

Sheba&Kennedy wrote:

The example is always used; "If a musher tells the team to go left, but the lead dog knows there is ice there, the dog HAS to make the choice to go right." So, they had to be smart enough to listen to commands and keep themselves alive, BUT they had to be stubborn enough to make a decision that is different then what their musher is saying.

Exactly, so disobedience is sometimes wise and practical........at least when hooked up to a sled through snow and ice.

Jeff I don't know that stubbornness per say is historically functional, nor do I think that it has been specifically selected for. The stubbornness inherent in our Siberians is IMO more a result of their intelligence and general boredom that results from repeated tasks. Independence on the other hand is a trait that was highly desired in the original dogs, and I think that historically as well as within the breed it stems from the interdependence that man and dog shared in a very different time. The two were ultimately totally dependent upon each other for survival. In regards to keeping that as a salient feature in the breed, how do you remove it and retain the breed? That independence is so much a part of the Siberian nature that to remove it IMO would entirely change the breed.

As Megan said, intelligence makes for self-sufficiency. I think few people would be interested in being in a sled out in the wilderness, far from any possibility of aid, and having a dog that is willing to walk across a thin, unsafe ice sheet simply because you asked it to.

Personally, I think the following quote from Olaf Swensen really sums it up nicely;

Quote :

A working dog in Siberia has none of the insipid, fawning tricks of the pet house dog. He has a dignity which is frequently unapproachable . . . It is absolutely impossible to place a price on a good dog, especially if he is a leader. Buying one is almost like buying a human being who is going to undertake a joint venture with you. You know that before your trip is over the dog may have saved your life by his intelligence, instinct, and courage. . . . sometimes when you are traveling on ice and the sled breaks through, a good leader who minds instantly and accurately, will get you out without difficulty, whereas a poor one will surely increase your hazard and, likely as not, send you to your death. This is the kind of dependability on which it is impossible to place any market value. You try to find the animals you want, that you can believe in and depend upon, and once you have found them, you buy them (if you can) for whatever price you can arrange.

- from the Complete Siberian Husky by Demidoff and Jennings

It is hard for us today in our cushy climate controlled homes and cars to understand the true nature of that relationship or even to understand why it was necessary or why we desire it today, but it is beyond any doubt an integral part of this breed that we all love so much.

Right on Randy, but I guess in that sense we can see stubbornness and independence used synonymously; stubbornness would be the derogatory version of the more celebratory independence, yet really they are one and the same in a lot of ways.

This was in fact the hunch I had as it relates to survival and efficiency as working dogs in the designated climate and conditions underlying the design and structure of the breed.