As we are preparing to update our pet and show guarantees/contracts, I was hoping to gain a little insight on what other folks presently include… What is the length?, What is covered?, etc. For example, our pet contract does not guarantee two ‘normally descended’ testicles for male puppies, as the expectation is that pet owners get them neutered. However, a few years ago, we had a disgruntled buyer who felt that it should’ve been covered under the guarantee, because the neuter procedure was more intrusive to retrieve one out of a monorchid. This can happen in any breed. I queried ‘showsibe’ online, and I didn’t get any responses suggesting that pets traditionally carried that guarantee. And having starting in our new breed from a showing perspective, “Shelties”, I was very surprised to find that most breeders are reluctant to give ‘show guarantees’ … seemingly because the likelihood of them maturing out to be competitive is pretty low. That was very interesting to me in comparison to the Siberians. Anyway – I’d love any feedback on what is included in your contracts.
April 14, 2010
Thoughts on Dog “Politics” & Health
Health Issues in Purebred Dogs –
When breeders encounter a health problem, why must it be kept so hush-hush? “Politics”
With any activity, it is good to reflect from time to time in an attempt to organize thoughts, evaluate outcomes, and examine possible future directions. When I look back at my experiences, both positive and negative, associated with purebred dogs, three main topics come to the forefront; politics, technology, and health. All three are related for the purpose of this ‘Health’ article in that we can use technology in a positive way to outline health concerns in the breed; however, politics will undoubtedly interfere with the process in the long run. It seems that when some breeders are informed of a potential health problem in their lines, they either ignore it or down-play it. More importantly, they may try to hide it. And why wouldn’t they? The politics are cruel and cut-throat. Even on some of the email lists, which are supposed to be ‘educational’ in nature, when some potentially worthwhile discussion begins on topics such as epilepsy or eye defects, it eventually turns into to finger-pointing.
One example of a situation I have experienced:
I purchased a puppy from a breeder/judge. Some months later, I received an email from a complete stranger, a pet-owner, telling me her story about purchasing a puppy from this breeder that was diagnosed with ectopic ureter. The pet-owner had been going online, and using search engines to find anyone with dogs from this breeder, and then informing them of her situation. My luck! It just so happened that her affected dog was a littermate to mine. The pet-owner claimed that when she picked the puppy up, the breeder’s facility was filthy and smelled horribly of urine, as well. This point also goes back to the information provided to me by a veteran in the previous article (on technology – see left column) regarding the importance of actually visiting the breeder first. I hadn’t done that, so I had no way of knowing if the pet-owner’s statements were true, or if this was just an exaggeration due to her anger surrounding the whole situation.
Needless to say, I contacted the breeder, and she was in the process of threatening the pet-owner with legal action, as the pet- owner had also created a web page (again, gotta love technology) outlining her complaints. The breeder said that she had offered to take the puppy back when it was first diagnosed, but the pet-owner refused, and now wanted the breeder to pay for an expensive surgical procedure required.
Why the breeder/judge had not informed me and the owners of the other four littermates that I knew had gone to show homes, I am not sure, but I would bet it had something to do with ‘politics’. And in her defense, I believe that many other people would’ve handled it the same way.
Another example:
A few years ago with one of my more anticipated breedings, I brought in a 6 year old male stud dog, and bred him to my finished female (yes, yes, hips and eyes were done). I got two puppies; one absolutely stunning male… everything I had hoped for, and one tiny, goofy-looking female, who was about half the size of the male. The sire had been bred quite a few times, and this was the dam’s second litter. The mother was continuously licking the bottom of the female puppy, and I surmised she may have had a urinary tract infection. However, when I took her to the vet, despite my insistence that something was not right, the vet reported that the puppy was completely healthy. So, I sold her to a nice pet home. The new owners did just as our contract suggested and took their new puppy to the vet within 3 days. Their vet immediately diagnosed the puppy with ectopic ureter. This puppy was unrelated to the puppy I’d purchased in the first example above.
Hoping to learn the source of this problem, I contacted the breeder of the stud dog, and the breeder of the dam. You guessed it – neither had that in their lines. However, each could site specific dogs that had been owned by the other breeder in question that had produced that same problem in the past. The first thing the owner of the dam said was, “Another __(sire’s name)____ kid”, but did not elaborate further. She was more concerned about why I didn’t just put the puppy down when I suspected a problem. I tried to explain that first, I didn’t even realize she had a serious health problem, and second, that I couldn’t have done that to the puppy even if I had known. As time went on, I was informed by the co-owner of the stud dog of approximately 4 cases of epilepsy showing up in his past litters, so we had him neutered and pet-homed him. I pet-homed that beautiful male puppy, as well.
I did not spay the dam, though. Now, maybe that makes me no better than any other breeder in the world who has down-played a potential issue. But, there is a spectrum of what people consider appropriate ranging from conservative to liberal, and ultimately, we are all also forced to make decisions based on the information available at any given time. Some breeders suggested to me that I shouldn’t ‘throw her out with the bath water’ when it was the sire of the litter known to be producing lots of other issues. Some breeders noted that it could have been just a ‘fluky’ kind of thing. The decision I made was be cognizant of that possibility, and to collect information.
So, I bred her two more times and she produced 14 puppies. In all of her future offspring, plus the one puppy she’d had in her first litter, there were no other cases of ectopic ureter. Now, unfortunately, the stud dog I had chosen for her final two litters eventually turned out to have a littermate with epilepsy. I did not opt to carry on with any of those offspring myself. But, one of them had been bred once already, and produced no ectopic. None of those went to breeding homes. I had also kept the offspring from dam’s very first litter, (unrelated to the male with the epileptic littermate). That daughter did not produce any cases of ectopic ureter either in 4 litters. Will it show up further down the line? Hopefully not, but if it does, I also hope to find out.
I have countless other examples, from low-thyroid to zinc to eye defects (and I’ll bet most readers do, as well). Oh, and I must thank those breeders that were honest, and informed those of us with offspring about the defects, despite much political-drama in the fancy as a result of their efforts to do the right thing in that respect. Nonetheless, their positive actions do not detract from the fact that there appears to be no line of purebred dogs completely free of health defects. It’s only a matter of when the problems will present themselves and to what degree of severity. Was my first decade so plagued with health issues because I was just that unlucky, or because I paid attention? I worked with dogs from some 25 different breeders – so it wasn’t that I had picked the wrong group to hang-out with. I don’t think they were all responsible for ruining the breed, as was once suggested to me. So, is it just the breed? Is the breed not as ‘clean’ with respect to health problems as I was originally lead to believe?
I’m certainly no expert, but there appear to be a number of contributing factors; all five of which appear intertwined:
Genetics, Statistics, Ethics, Politics, and Education (or mentoring)
Subcategories would include – research, seminars, technology, data collection and analysis, honesty, responsibility, inbreeding/outcrossing/linebreeding/, etc.
Each of the contributing factors above could be outlined at length; however, the bottom line is that we don’t have sufficient knowledge and research about the modes of inheritance of many of the health problems in the breed. Plus, due to a fear of the politics, many breeders do not do a sufficient job of alerting others about the health issues that surface. On the other hand, I have heard some breeders say that their lines are completely free of defects… and they’re maybe basing this claim on the fact that they’ve bred two litters for 10 puppies that didn’t exhibit any health problems, or that they inbred and did not find any health problems, or that their pet-owners never told them any bad news. But, based on what I’ve read and seen, that doesn’t always tell us much about what the dogs may carry, or what they may exhibit if bred to just the ‘right’ (or more appropriately termed, ‘wrong’) dog.
– I know of one breeder who found out about epilepsy behind her dog’s pedigree, and waited 7 years without breeding him in hopes that a genetic marker would be found before getting him neutered.
– I know of one breeder who inbred her lines, kept very good data, and felt that they were safe; however, upon out-crossing to three different (but not completely unrelated) males, produced epilepsy with varying rates of incidence for each male. Does that mean that her lines truly weren’t safe even though nothing showed up with the inbreeding? Or does that mean that the stud dogs were to blame in all 3 cases?
– I know of one breeder who claims to have gotten rid of half of her kennel in the 80’s due to problems with epilepsy.
– I know of one breeder who was told of two offspring produced in the same litter with epilepsy and claims that one was hit by a car and that the other one was forced by her owner to drink anti-freeze.
– I know of a breeder who informed folks about the health backgrounds on her dogs as health problems were brought to her attention, and as a result, it was publicly suggested that she was not reputable.
– I know of a stud dog that was used, literally, hundreds of times, and is in the pedigrees of many show lines you’ll find today, and I know of at least 2 cases of epilepsy that he produced having talked to the owners of the offspring personally. Were there more? I don’t know. When he was bred hundreds of times and possibly only produced it twice, is that a good statistic when you compare that to the total number of puppies produced? What if we had more data on the grandchildren?
Would people be willing to step out from behind their curtains, or out from under their rugs, and report any issues they encounter? Realizing that there would be about a million and one barriers to this including honesty and proper diagnosis, I still think it would be great if we could have a resource where honest breeders could go to post health backgrounds on dogs, both good and bad. Or maybe each breeder would be willing to maintain proper data and present it to prospective buyers, just the same as they would the dog’s pedigree?
Can a health information clearinghouse be created? I’ve toyed with creating a webpage to display my health records, and always been advised by others not to do it. I was told that I’d be creating political suicide… that nobody would follow suit… that novice people would not understand it… etc. But, I can’t help but wonder if just maybe one person does it, others WILL follow suit? Maybe novice folks could use it as an education tool or model for collecting their own data? In my case, I’ve already jumped off the highest story of the Political Agenda Building repeatedly, so the suicide part is less of a concern… but as a general rule, breeders do fear the ‘MOB’ that is the fancy, and simply won’t disclose information.
From what I understand, there are “Internet Police” that have get to sit in front of the computer and tally up the number of litters folks are breeding – seeking out potential puppy mills (see Technology Article, left column). This suggested practice of disclosing all litters and health reports would save them all that trouble! If people would be expected to present their information, preferably in a public format, then those self-proclaimed police could go get a real hobby ;). Oh, but wait! We still don’t have a clear, concise definition of what constitutes a puppy mill yet, so I guess those concerned citizens would not become completely obsolete!
So, we have before us ‘politics’, ‘technology’ and ‘health’ – the three issues with which I have struggled, (among others including the whereabouts of Elvis and life on Mars). ‘Politics’ can negatively affect any positive outcomes that could be generated from both of the other topics – technology and health. Rather than elaborate further, and have the reader be further subjected to my lame sense of humor, let’s cut to the chase and consider whether or not it is possible to fix this?
We’re talking about major over-haul here. “Politics” are threaded through every aspect of purebred dogs. I don’t think it’s a mere matter of disassociating with anyone who ‘talks about’ another breeder… or their crummy dogs… or their crummy breeding practices… or even their crummy new hair-dos.
Is it possible for the fancy to simply accept the concept that there are health problems in the breed, and be open about it? Can there be the expectation that all breeders list their breedings and subsequent health findings publicly and honestly? Or maybe even to just submit them to the parent-club for data collection at the very least? I had read that the SHHF is compiling health data from breed club members – and stresses the fact that individual submissions would not be shared with any other ‘siberian people’, which only further reinforces the notion of the ‘MOB’ and its power. But, submitting information to their research is optional. What if it was expected, just like getting an OFA done? I realize that some folks will not keep in contact with owners of their dogs’ offspring. I realize that there may be alternative veterinary opinions on some health concerns. I realize that not every breeder is going to ‘accurately’ represent what they may or may not be producing. But, shouldn’t that all be automatically occurring on a broader scale?…
Well, at least what they’re attempting is a start!
Okay – I’d love to hear your thoughts?
Thanks!
Thoughts on ‘Dog’ Politics & Technology
Written in 2007 –
How much has this advanced in the last 3 years :)??
Politics… The Root of All Evil
Throughout my experience in purebred dogs, I have been vexed by three issues –
Politics, Technology, and Health
By politics, I am referring not to our next presidential candidate, nor to the tendencies of some judges to let the person on the end of the lead influence their selections (rather than the dog). No, by ‘politics’, I mean the gossip, peer pressures, and less-than-congenial activities demonstrated by many folks in the fancy; in ANY fancy, from what I understand.
Some time ago, I had written “Politics – The Inhumane Treatment of Humans” (see site menu, left) to partially address the subject – or at least my view of it. I received a lot of responses from folks who happened to review it, most of which indicated that others were having the same experiences. Confirming… but sad, nonetheless.
In analyzing the two other concepts that have troubled me over the years (technology and health), I noticed a connection between them, and those ‘politics’, and decided it might be interesting to throw out the correlation and see if the response is, again, the same.
Technology
Before becoming frustrated and even a little bitter about the ‘politics’ associated with breeding and exhibiting dogs, I was eager, and probably a bit over-zealous, in my endeavor to learn and absorb every possible piece of information I could. The internet, and all it had to offer, was an incredible tool for allowing me to gain insight and familiarity with many aspects of breeding, exhibiting, and more. There were websites displaying top-winning dogs, club information, show entries, health and veterinary tips, and even online chat lists where people could communally address issues, provide show results, and discuss related topics. I thought, “What an excellent source of educational material for members of the fancy – both young and old!” How lucky I felt to be able to learn without the constraints of distance and time that must have plagued the more seasoned folks out there!
One thing that was particularly troubling to me, however, was that as I began to learn the differences between reputable breeding verses backyard breeders and puppy mills, I noticed that when I would perform a ‘search’ on every major search engine (Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc.), the results would come back displaying links to websites for breeders who did not indicate that they used all of those reputable breeding practices. The entire first page or two of results contained either ‘dog-for-sale’ sites that did not require advertisers to demonstrate reputability, or alternatively, websites for breeders who did not perform health background screenings, did not show or do anything with their dogs (other than just breed them), and often sold to potential homes on a first-come, first-served basis.
As I started researching how these ‘breeders’ were able to rank so highly in the search engine results, I found that getting the top spots was not necessarily an easy task. A website had to be optimized, utilize the correct ‘tags’, not to mention that each search engine had different criteria by which it ranked the results. I also learned that many people in the fancy were against the ‘doggie-for-sale’ sites. They did not want to support advertisers that did not require people to adhere to ethical guidelines, and in some cases, they felt that using such sites would be a bit beneath them, in an elitist sense.
As an educator, every day I see first-hand how the internet is the main tool used by today’s generation to do just about anything. It’s not going to go away. So, then why didn’t these model-breeders hold the top spots? I could understand the concept of boycotting something because a person thinks the related practices should be changed (hence why I’ve refused to join certain breed clubs when the members don’t all adhere to the ethical guidelines themselves); however, I couldn’t comprehend why people in the fancy did not feel it was important for seemingly more reputable breeders to hold those top spots on the search engine results.
If people in the public are searching for a ‘husky puppy’, and their results yield only breeders that do not adhere to reputable breeding practices, they probably won’t have anything better with which to compare. Rarely does anyone go beyond the first page or two of search results! Not to mention, as I talked with other breeders – (even those who did not have puppies on the ground at all times) – I found that they were having difficulty finding GOOD homes. At the same time, those breeders demonstrating none of the reputable breeding practices who held those top search engine listings were receiving more than 30-40 inquiries per week! So, I gave search engine listings a try, and did what I could to get our site listed. After time, I did manage to get some decent site-traffic results. I wasn’t able to attain those top spots, but through the use of some of the various internet marketing tools, I was able to get a better ranking for our site. It wasn’t cheap, but did allow me a great way of having homes to choose from when I would have litters.
When I didn’t have puppies myself, I would forward the inquiries to other folks that seemed to be reputable breeders in hopes that buyers would go there instead of the breeders that were rather obviously less-than-reputable. But, those lists would occasionally fall into what I was told were the ‘wrong hands’, so I decided to try a different approach. I queried one of the chat-lists, and offered to assist reputable folks with that same process. Needless to say, many of the veterans of the fancy were far from thrilled with this concept. They had some interesting arguments such as:
1. Even ‘reputable’ breeders are not always ‘reputable’.
2. Promoting a website is the same as promoting the breed itself.
3. This will only encourage even reputable breeders to produce more puppies in order to meet the supply and demand trends.
4. There are already breeder referral methods in place – people should just use those.
5. If there aren’t enough good homes available, people shouldn’t be breeding a litter in the first place.
It would take all day to consider each of those points independently, but suffice it to say, I thought that we could all just agree to disagree on some of those arguments, right? But, as with anything in the breed, this was when ‘politics’ came into play again. For anyone who is not already aware, often times, if someone doesn’t agree with someone else in the fancy, then it’s not just a matter of a difference opinion… no, it becomes personal. And anybody can ultimately be labeled a backyard breeder, puppy mill, (or worse), simply because their practices are different than someone else’s. This whole labeling practice was a very touchy subject for me for quite some time (if you couldn’t tell by the first ‘politics’ article), but I did get a good laugh after reading this article written by a breeder in Michigan “You Might Be a Puppy Mill If…”
http://tajasiberians.com/id30.html (scroll down).
Humorous, but then again, I enjoy sarcasm. Apparently, there were other readers out there who had taken offense to it, and did not appreciate its sentiment. Unfortunately, it definitely has an added component of truth to it, aside from the tongue-in-cheek presentation of the material.
At any rate, once the discussion on the issue of website promotion ensued, I started to receive phone calls and emails, some very lengthy, from breeders who felt compelled to ascend down from on-high (there’s that darn sarcasm again) and suggest that not only was I a misguided nut, but all of my dogs were garbage, too. Unbeknownst to me, the breeders of my dogs had more-or-less single-handedly ruined the entire breed! On the other hand, I also got emails from other folks saying that I was on the right-track, and that I was saying things that most others only thought, but dared not say (fear of the ‘Mob’). This correspondence was becoming very tedious, very frustrating, and honestly, a little nauseating. Finally, I decided I’d had enough, and figured I’d be more productive spending my time grooming a dog or two than debating on the computer, so I signed off of the lists.
But, I did go so far as to write a letter to some of the breed clubs expressing my concerns about the use of technology by backyard breeders and the need for more reputable breeders to have a presence on the web. After months, the gist of the response I did finally get was that I could get someone with another opinion to write an ‘opposing-viewpoints’ article and submit it for publication. I did not progress with that suggestion, figuring we’d already basically done all that publicly on the chat-lines, and I was growing tired of the repercussions of challenging the opinions of those with ‘political influence’.
However, in always trying to find the positives with any situation, I did come away with what I could definitely acknowledge as being a few good points from those ‘opposing’ veterans. Some noted that technology, despite all it had to offer from an educational context, also made it possible for newcomers to move forward in the development of their lines with little or no mentorship. And, it permitted newcomers and veterans alike to buy dogs from different sides of the country without ever visiting that breeder, nor gaining any true knowledge of ‘what’ they were incorporating into their breeding program. So, I did the best I could to apply that information. I took all that time I was saving by being off of the chat-lines, and toured more than 30 breeders in the U.S. and Canada. And it was, and continues to be, in my opinion, truly the BEST way of learning.
The veterans were right on many accounts. Technology can be deceptive. Pictures posted on a website may or may not do a particular dog justice – or may also give the perception that a dog is more than he is cracked up to be. I saw that most breeders do not actually include ALL of their dogs on their websites. A lot of the breeders I visited on my tours had five or more litters on the ground. Many breeders do not actually update their websites with every litter they have produced.
On that note, and in the vein of how most problems tend to relate back to ‘politics’, I had another good laugh last year when I was informed by a friend that she’d been told the ‘internet police’ had been watching my site. The ‘internet police’ were reportedly a group of folks with nothing better to do all day but to comb other’s websites in search of would-be puppy mills. Hey – I don’t mean to sound as though I’m condemning their research – more power to them. However, as a result of this ‘intelligence leak’, it was being suggesting to my friend that because we were ‘under surveillance’, we must be up to no good. Just as there is no perfect dog, I’m certainly not suggesting we’re perfect breeders that have never deviated from the guidelines in the slightest, but I’m not sure that using technology as a means of alluding to inappropriateness is necessarily appropriate either. That practice of stirring up the pot of contempt between breeders seems almost as deceptive as those breeders that don’t practice accurately or completely updating their site information.
It is very easy to point fingers, but far less simple to enact change, especially in the midst of such a ‘political’ mess. Shame on me. Likewise, for as much as technology can be considered deceptive or misused, it is still ultimately the ‘politics’ that influence what people do and do not disclose, as well as what is and is not considered reputable. And as has been said before, there are ALWAYS two sides to every story. So, with all of that technology has to offer, the obvious ‘politically’ driven method of warning someone about a negative experience with another breeder would be to create a webpage about it. If we can all agree to disagree on this particular topic, web-based slander, I don’t agree with this practice. I’ve bounced back and forth on the sites of breeders outlining their disputes between each other. I’ve seen it happen to strangers, as well as folks I know personally. And now, after having been the subject of one such page myself, all I can say is that if everyone in dogs who ever had a disagreement with someone else felt compelled to create a website telling the public how awful that other breeder is and why everyone should save themselves the trouble by simply blacklisting that other nasty person, we’d have nobody left to have to contend with. My guess is that we’d have enough material to rival even the best daytime drama on television. That being said, as the world turns… during these days of our lives, let’s flip over to ‘General Hospital’, and take a look at the third aspect that has consumed my thoughts over the years – “Health”.
Inhumane Treatment of Humans – “Politics”
Written in 2005 –
My parents and grandparents had bred dogs and shown horses long before I was even a glimmer. So, by the time I had gotten my first Siberian in 1996, along with a more formal introduction to the dog show ‘world’, I had already been exposed to many of the particulars. Subsequently, I wasn’t overly concerned by the warnings from many members of the Siberian Community saying, “You’d better have thick skin if you want to get involved!”… Well, that was an understatement! A more accurate warning would’ve been “You’d better have at least a 10 inch thick layer of callous if you want to get involved!”
‘Politics’ are inherent to many aspects of life beyond that of government.
Politics
The often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society.
Play Politics
Act for personal or political gain rather than principle, as in I don’t think this judge is fair…he’s playing politics.
With that information in mind, some ‘behind the scenes’ activity was to be expected. What I was not prepared for, however, was just how down-right MEAN some people in the Siberian Community can be!
I selected the titled above, the Inhumane Treatment of Humans, because, to this day, it still amazes me how folks who so determinedly advocate for proper treatment of four-leggeds can, at the same time, be as equally determined to undermine the same efforts of anyone who does not subscribe to their politics. I had to laugh when I looked up the definition of ‘inhumane’, as the example in the definition briefly addressed some of my amazement and ultimate discontent:
inhumane
adj : lacking and reflecting lack of pity or compassion; “humans are innately inhumane; this explains much of the misery and suffering in the world”.
If that example is indeed true -humans are innately inhumane- then, I suppose simply accepting the malicious, vindictive tendencies of many people in the fancy would suffice. However, when so often we read and hear statements from our more experienced predecessors in the breed about how the ‘newbies’, ‘novice’, and ‘newcomers’ lack respect, think they know-it-all, and are systematically dismantling the breed; while at the same time reading and hearing statements from new folks about how the veterans are too controlling, provide poor, if any, mentorship, and have unrealistic expectations,… I cannot help but wonder if some of the conflict isn’t more so related to a lack of common courtesy and basic ‘people’ skills (not dog skills). That would be a pretty simplistic theory, but it seems to include some possible contributing factors, nonetheless.
Other factors could include competition and money. Since there are varying degrees of competition associated with showing and breeding dogs, it’s understandable (though not professional) that some people would be ‘out to get’ one another. And along with showing and breeding, and ultimately selling dogs, there is a money component. No matter how much people would like to romanticize the whole process, there’s business involved. Is that reason enough for people to, in turn, being to act comparably to a pack of wolves- growling, hair-raising, posturing, asserting, all trying to be ‘top-dog’?
Maybe.
So, what becomes the ‘fuel’ for all of the cruel and cutthroat exchanges that occur in the Siberian Community? People would never admit that it is because they want to win, be the best vicariously through their dogs, or make money, (assuming that is truly part of the problem), but they use other tools such as slander, lying, speculating, and bashing other people and their dogs, irregardless.
My nickname for the Siberian Community is ‘The Mob’. Not the organized crime outfit ‘mob’, but ‘a large disorderly crowd’. Many mob judgments of other breeders are based on the gossip that circulates, and ultimately the crowd becomes an ‘angry mob’. I believe that Siberian Community (Mob) is disorderly because although there are guidelines for ethical breeding standards, they are not clearly defined, and they are not monitored in a concise manner.
The Siberian Husky Club of America outlines their breeding standards and Code of Ethics here:
http://www.shca.org/shcahp4b.htm
http://www.shca.org/shcahp4a.htm
With all that technology has to offer, we can check for hip screenings and eye screenings online. However, there are many other aspects of what the fancy seems to consider to be reputable breeding practices that are not fully addressed there in the SHCA guidelines, and it is within those vague areas, and even some of the more apparent areas, that members find additional ‘fuel’ for the fires created.
For example, the SHCA does not outline how many dogs a person can own to be considered reputable or not reputable. There is no specific criteria on what constitutes having too many litters in any given year, or any given time span, for that matter. At the same time, Breeder Awards are given for those who produce the most champions. Although that may not necessarily require that a person has to produce more puppies in order to increase the odds of producing more champions, statistically speaking, it sure helps. Many people will argue that if a person has been involved in the breed for less than 10 years, then they have no business actually having a litter. But, there are no time frames delineated that outline when someone is ‘worthy’ of producing puppies, nor what steps they must have gone through in order to learn how to do so correctly and safely.
As a result, the Mob (and its batch of rumors and gossip) become the ‘police force’ for determining whether or not someone’s actions are acceptable. A sense of fear is generated by this system, and causes people to be unwilling to discuss the important issues in the breed, such as the health and backgrounds of their dogs! How many breeders, in addition to posting their wins, also provide information on dogs that don’t pass their eye or thyroid exams? Very few! Because the moment you do, someone will generalize that and turn it into ‘all of so-n-so’s dogs are affected’!
I can go on… but the point is that although some of these issues would be difficult to define based on the large number of variables that come into play, without a more specific guideline, the door is open for a wide range of interpretations, and ultimately an avenue for people to point fingers, and a double standard.
By a double standard, I mean that, many people will accept certain behaviors from some breeders and not others, based upon their length of time in the breed, or number of champions bred. For example, in some people’s eyes, it’s okay for a breeder to personally maintain 50-100 adults, have 5 litters on the ground at all times, and sell dogs to people with little or no screening because they’ve been doing it for 20-30 years, and have produced 100’s of champions. On the other hand, in some people’s eyes, it’s not okay for a breeder to maintain, for example, 18 adults, and have 5 litters on the ground one time, in an effort to pay for good quality dog food, health screenings and veterinary care, etc. but they would still buy a dog from the first breeder – for the name maybe, or maybe for the 100’s of champions produced – who knows. The point is, you can have someone criticize one breeder, but overlook it with another.
Other people are far more conservative and believe that no breeder should have more than 1-2 litters per year; whereas other breeders may think it’s okay to test breed a dog at a young age to see if they can produce well before spending a lot of money to finish him/her. And, I know but one or two breeders who claim to have never had an accidental breeding.
The bottom line is that there are many different breeders who have very different practices. Either the ‘Mob’ needs to understand these differences, or the overseeing bodies need to more clearly define the acceptability of the differences. There isn’t much consistency with respect to what the ‘police force’ will and will not tolerate, and from whom, but one thing is certain, and that is that the Mob loves to find a ‘flavor of the week’ – someone that they can all target.
I have personally been chastised and called a ‘puppy mill’ by a breeder who, during my last visit to his/her kennel, was busy selling a dog for $14,000, had 5-6 litters in their puppy room in crates with the mothers, and 3 litters in the indoor/outdoor runs outside. Granted, the 50 some adults they had were well maintained compared to many of the other breeders I had visited. And that works for that person. But, I guess that’s where the different interpretations of what constitutes a reputable breeder vs. a puppy mill become more influential. So, it happens… And, it is really tiring to follow the Mob, and whatever ‘bandwagon of the month’ it is on. It is even more disheartening when people will pass judgement on another without researching the facts, and looking at the humane side of what happens in the lives of people from time to time.
If I ever get the opportunity, I’d like to research other breeds to see if they have as much going on with the politics. I’d also like to research books on dog buying and see if any outline a scoring rubric that can be adapted for Siberians. For example, 0 points if no OFA is done, 3 points if an OFA is done, and 5 points if an OFA is completed on a permanently identified dog (microchip or tattoo). If anyone reading this can direct me to such resources, I would be obliged!
At one point, some years ago, I had tried to shed some light on the differences, and developed an educational website called www.SiberianHuskyPups.com… But it didn’t delve into the topic as thoroughly as I would’ve liked, simply because people don’t want to read lengthy, verbose text.
With that in mind, I will close with both warnings and hopes for any ‘newcomer’ to the breed:
Be prepared to encounter people who will …
– Tell you that their dogs are the only ‘good’ dogs (kennel blindness)
– Stand next to you ringside and make negative comments about your most prized puppy
– Tell you not to talk to someone else if you expect to be on good terms with them
– Expect you to be independently wealthy and campaign/show dogs not ready to win
– Judge you before they know you
My hope is that after reading this, …
– You will personally visit someone’s home and their kennel before passing a judgment.
– Then, visit at least 5 other breeders, and see if your judgment changes.
– If you must speak about another breeder, make your statements objective, not subjective.
– Just because you hear something from 5 other breeders, do not automatically assume it is true.
– You will become a positive influence to the Siberian Community and not just another member of the Mob.
Housebreaking
| We’d love to hear additional tips people have found successful for house-training…The most common requests for information that we get from people who have recently purchased puppies are those concerning housebreaking. Originally, we were going to include a list of related links; however, upon further scrutiny, we decided that it might be best to simply include the techniques or recommendations that have worked best for us.
Preliminary: Breeder: Obtain a puppy from a reputable breeder in an effort to ensure that you are purchasing a healthy puppy from someone who is in a position to provide background information on the puppy’s parents, grandparents, etc. Or if you get a puppy from rescue, try to learn as much information as you can about his upbringing and background. Diet: Provide a proper diet using a high quality food and avoid sudden changes in diet. Large amounts of ‘treats’ can be considered a sudden change in diet, as well. Vet: Ensure adequate veterinary care for your puppy. Sometimes, difficulty in house training can be as a result of an underlying condition such as kidney problems, blood sugar, urinary tract infection, cystitis, parasites, etc. Control: Keep your puppy within reach. You should keep the puppy in your sight at all times. The bottom line is that there is no such thing as your puppy having an ‘accident.’ If you aren’t watching your puppy – it is your fault. Whenever possible, have the leash and collar on your puppy, even in the house, and keep him with you. If he starts to ‘go’ in the house, apply a correction to the leash and tell him ‘STOP!’ Take him outside right away – even if he finishes in the house. By keeping him within your reach on a leash, you can apply the correction instantly. You won’t need to chase him around the house! Use the crate. If you can’t have the puppy right under your feet, then he should be in his crate. Make sure that he isn’t hungry, thirsty, or in need of a restroom break before putting him in. The crate is not a punishment. Take the collars and leashes off while he is inside the crate. If he relieves himself inside of the crate, use the odor neutralizers and clean him up, but don’t punish him. They will learn to look at the crate like a den if properly trained. See the crate training link above. Training: Consistency is the key. When you take him outside, always use the same door. Try to use the same procedures for getting his leash and collar, etc. Be prepared to stay outside, even if the weather is inclement. Select a specific area to be used for that purpose and stand in one place. Your puppy will be distracted by moving around to different places and may forget why he is outside. Wait until he is completely done relieving himself (wait a few minutes afterwards to be sure) and praise him! Allow 10 -15 minutes for him to go. If he doesn’t, then go back inside and closely watch for signs that he may need to go outside again (after eating, napping, before exercise time). Set a kitchen timer or alarm clock to remind yourself to take him outside on a regular schedule – and no more than three hours from his last time out. After he has gone, allow him to play and exercise. Only after he has gone at least 3-4 months without any messes will he be trained. |
|
|
|
|
Handling
Suzanne asks:
I am entering in a friendly, fund-raiser dog show in May. Last year, my puppy took two seconds and a first, but this year as she is now an adult, what can I do to show her best? How do I get her to hold her head? (down, up, level topline, etc) The judges are AKC judges, volunteering for the cause, so they will know what to look for, but I don’t know what they look for in the working breed class. Most entrants are off the street, but I know there will be a few nice dogs that are shown whose owners like to enter their dogs for the practice. (I am just too competitive for my own good, and love to win.)
Show Tips
From Suzanne
What the best way to show my dog in the ring? Head up, down, level top line, etc. This is a benefit dog show, so not a “real” show, but there will be some good dogs there, as it’s a good place to get your dog prepared if you do real showing. I don’t show her but she is quite a picture to see, so I want to show her at her best. (Plus I’m way too competitive for my own good 
! Any other tips on coat, leashes, chokers, etc. would be helpful.
April 12, 2010
November 12, 2009
Welcome to Jalerran Siberians!
Welcome to our new discussion site! We hope that you will find your visit educational and insightful. Open and respectful dialogue about our furry friends is strongly encouraged. Thank you in advance for your thoughts and questions.
Jess from Jalerran