Siber Paws Breeders....what do you think?

[raindog]

No problem!

Mick

[Sonic_Sibe]

Of course a dog should be KC registered in this country, if it is being bred from I should say, otherwise lots of unscrupulous people would be breeding for money (of which there are many already) and the breed standard would decline.

All dogs bred should only be bred to help the breed standard, otherwise just go get a mongrel, of which the world has many, and indeed many of which are lovely dogs.

I personally only want to see good huskies, not 10, 20, 50 years down the line have so called huskies that look nothing like the good huskies of today, quite a few excellent examples are owned by Mick.

What is your primary purpose of breeding from a non KC registered Sibe, and what is your end goal? Where will these non KC pups end up?

[Ice and Cripton]

i have kind of answered your q is the past 2 pages really >> i dont see why they couldn't go to good homes? not everyone who gets a dog is crufts mad, most people want, loving, healthy pets for life, plus a unregistered dog can still be shown >> just not at crufts, and these unscrupulous people still breed for money with the KC, and yet some do not.

Are you saying it is impossible to produce a healthy sibe that fits the standard because it does not have a peice of paper with it's name on it? I argue that one can achieve an improvement in the breed and still not have papers, of course it's possible, kc papaers do not make the breed.

Im sure Mick's dog's are supherb sibes and this is not down to the KC, it's down to Mick as a breeder, who has chosen to breed only Kc dogs, however many Kc dogs are still not fit to breed from.

[Sonic_Sibe]

What I am saying is that the KC is the only real body in the UK that is an authority on breed standards, not that they are necessarily right about everything. They need to get there act together too. All i'm saying is that we should have one authority on breed standards and breeders should abide by those rules. People breeding ouside of sets of guidelines isn't good for the breed because defects will get through and eventually the breed will be inundated with Huskies that do not resemble what they are today. Just look at some of the matings that take place and the quality of the litters produced, some just look like heinz 57's.

I know that KC doesn't mean everything, but I'm a firm believer we need to regulate the breeding of dog breeds to stop dodgy looking dogs being produced, I also agree that two non KC dogs could potentially produce perfect pups, but unfortunately many pups aren't perfect and they go unwanted.

Sorry not trying to create an argument, but I really feel we need to keep the look of the husky as most are today.

[Guest Gemma Riley]

You only have your opinion that your bitch is a good example of the breed. Have you asked other people in the breed?

KC documents are not just a bit of paper to go to Crufts with!! This is a common misconception by a pet buyer. KC documents with a dog are giving you a history of your dog that goes back generations. Health tests are clearly visable and now accessible via the KC website for each dog. How are you going to research the bloodline of your unregistered dog for health tests that have been done? How do you know that the bloodline of your bitch does not carry epilepsy or eye diseases?

How are you going to take her into a show ring under breed specialists so they can assess her confirmation? How are you going to assess her working ability (as she is unregistered) What if one of your puppy buyers thinks that KC docs are for going to Crufts with, brings up the puppy and then wants to start working their Sibe but cannot because it is no KC registered?

Im sorry but the excuse of I want a puppy out of my bitch is not good enough and you really need to reconsider and take on board some of the very good advice you have been given already.

There are already enough people out there breeding unregistered dogs without adding to them!!

[Bec]

Wow thanks for that Mick << learnt a lot!

May i aska question,

I am still deciding whether to breed Alaska or not >>> say when she's 2 years old she fits the breed standard height and weight, and even characteristics, she has passed her intermediate obdeiance class, she has won a few shows for all non kc and kc dogs, her hip and eye scores are perfect or very low, she is in top health and all heritory tests that can be done have been done, She is of course a 110% pure sibe >> she fits all the standards and she obviously looks like one >>> we test her working attitude and she has a good drive and makes a good sibe in harness >>> what in your opinion would be your reason not to breed from her?

Do you think the KC should do tests to deterime whether she is a full sibe or not and register her>> like a blood test? To stop a sibe in potential to add if not improve sibe stocks?

Why should she not be able to have puppies if she is of the standard of kc bitches who are also of the standard to breed?

I think the problem with your line of thinking (an unpapered dog should be able to breed if you think it is a good example of the breed) is that you're looking at a pedigree as 'just' a piece of paper.

Without pedigree papers you have no idea on the lines behind your dog. Any good breeder will tell you that breeding involves a LOT of research on the lines and the genetics in your dog, to ensure you know what dog will be the best match for your bitch before you mate them. A pedigree paper is like a map, or a recipe, it is like a 'guide' to breeding. Without a pedigree, you have no idea what is behind your dog, what the best match would be, what the dog's direct ancestors were like. One of my breeders has been breeding for 30 years and she not only knows all the dogs in my bitch's pedigree but she bred most of them! I would never buy an unpapered dog nor would I ever advocate breeding from one because it shows the breeder has not given any thought to what came before their dog. It's like breeding with your eyes shut.

The definition of a backyard breeder is pretty clear, a backyard breeder is one who breeds unregistered dogs - plain and simple. To do so lacks ethics, and understanding, of why breeding purebred pedigree dogs is so important. Papers are what proves your dog is what you said it is, it is a way to help build your breeding program and means that you are actually contributing something to the breed. Breeding unregistered dogs adds nothing to the breed in the grand scheme of things - no one in 10, 20, 30 years times can look back into the pedigree databases and see YOUR contribution to the breed. The last thing we need is more unpapered backyard bred dogs out there.

If you want to breed then approach an ethical and reputable breeder like Mick and get them to mentor you. Buy a pedigree papered puppy and learn how to show, race them, and look at the pup with a critical eye. Learn about the lines behind your dog and what mating, if the dog ticks all the boxes breeding wise, would produce the best results. Breed with the intention of contributing something positive to the breed

[Bec]

You only have your opinion that your bitch is a good example of the breed. Have you asked other people in the breed?

KC documents are not just a bit of paper to go to Crufts with!! This is a common misconception by a pet buyer. KC documents with a dog are giving you a history of your dog that goes back generations. Health tests are clearly visable and now accessible via the KC website for each dog. How are you going to research the bloodline of your unregistered dog for health tests that have been done? How do you know that the bloodline of your bitch does not carry epilepsy or eye diseases?

How are you going to take her into a show ring under breed specialists so they can assess her confirmation? How are you going to assess her working ability (as she is unregistered) What if one of your puppy buyers thinks that KC docs are for going to Crufts with, brings up the puppy and then wants to start working their Sibe but cannot because it is no KC registered?

Im sorry but the excuse of I want a puppy out of my bitch is not good enough and you really need to reconsider and take on board some of the very good advice you have been given already.

There are already enough people out there breeding unregistered dogs without adding to them!!

GREAT post GemmaRiley, I completely agree

[Ice and Cripton]

What I am saying is that the KC is the only real body in the UK that is an authority on breed standards, not that they are necessarily right about everything. They need to get there act together too. All i'm saying is that we should have one authority on breed standards and breeders should abide by those rules. People breeding ouside of sets of guidelines isn't good for the breed because defects will get through and eventually the breed will be inundated with Huskies that do not resemble what they are today. Just look at some of the matings that take place and the quality of the litters produced, some just look like heinz 57's.

I know that KC doesn't mean everything, but I'm a firm believer we need to regulate the breeding of dog breeds to stop dodgy looking dogs being produced, I also agree that two non KC dogs could potentially produce perfect pups, but unfortunately many pups aren't perfect and they go unwanted.

Sorry not trying to create an argument, but I really feel we need to keep the look of the husky as most are today.

No it's not argument but people's opinions more so:rolleyes: I agree we should stick to the standard, but this can also be done without papers

You only have your opinion that your bitch is a good example of the breed. Have you asked other people in the breed?

KC documents are not just a bit of paper to go to Crufts with!! This is a common misconception by a pet buyer. KC documents with a dog are giving you a history of your dog that goes back generations. Health tests are clearly visable and now accessible via the KC website for each dog. How are you going to research the bloodline of your unregistered dog for health tests that have been done? How do you know that the bloodline of your bitch does not carry epilepsy or eye diseases?

How are you going to take her into a show ring under breed specialists so they can assess her confirmation? How are you going to assess her working ability (as she is unregistered) What if one of your puppy buyers thinks that KC docs are for going to Crufts with, brings up the puppy and then wants to start working their Sibe but cannot because it is no KC registered?

Im sorry but the excuse of I want a puppy out of my bitch is not good enough and you really need to reconsider and take on board some of the very good advice you have been given already.

There are already enough people out there breeding unregistered dogs without adding to them!!

You can do blood tests at vet specialists and check for these problems ..again without papers, i'm not saying i will deff breed from her, i am merely exploring the notion that if she did meet the breed standard, what is stopping her >>> papers? So shouldn't the kc do something about unregistered dogs..blood tests to prove she's a full sibe? Or they could be missing out on some of the best showing and racing sibes.

But like i said before there are many things i would assure before breeding her, and i wouldn't sell to serious racers, but any sibe can run in harness, and to be honest i really fail to see why unregistered sibes cant run!! maybe if enough people argue this they may change the rules. And i didn't say that would be the only reason for breeding her at all.

[Sarah]

Ice, I don't think anyone's complimented you on arguing your point, so thank you, you've raised a lot of valid questions and also thank you all for all the replies, this i'm sure will be an ongoing discussion for years to come, it's plainly obvious that everyone here wants what's best for the breed and has slight variations of opinion, bottom line though, we're all arguing for the good of the breed which is great to see!!

[Ice and Cripton]

I think the problem with your line of thinking (an unpapered dog should be able to breed if you think it is a good example of the breed) is that you're looking at a pedigree as 'just' a piece of paper.

Without pedigree papers you have no idea on the lines behind your dog. Any good breeder will tell you that breeding involves a LOT of research on the lines and the genetics in your dog, to ensure you know what dog will be the best match for your bitch before you mate them. A pedigree paper is like a map, or a recipe, it is like a 'guide' to breeding. Without a pedigree, you have no idea what is behind your dog, what the best match would be, what the dog's direct ancestors were like. One of my breeders has been breeding for 30 years and she not only knows all the dogs in my bitch's pedigree but she bred most of them! I would never buy an unpapered dog nor would I ever advocate breeding from one because it shows the breeder has not given any thought to what came before their dog. It's like breeding with your eyes shut.

The definition of a backyard breeder is pretty clear, a backyard breeder is one who breeds unregistered dogs - plain and simple. To do so lacks ethics, and understanding, of why breeding purebred pedigree dogs is so important. Papers are what proves your dog is what you said it is, it is a way to help build your breeding program and means that you are actually contributing something to the breed. Breeding unregistered dogs adds nothing to the breed in the grand scheme of things - no one in 10, 20, 30 years times can look back into the pedigree databases and see YOUR contribution to the breed. The last thing we need is more unpapered backyard bred dogs out there.

If you want to breed then approach an ethical and reputable breeder like Mick and get them to mentor you. Buy a pedigree papered puppy and learn how to show, race them, and look at the pup with a critical eye. Learn about the lines behind your dog and what mating, if the dog ticks all the boxes breeding wise, would produce the best results. Breed with the intention of contributing something positive to the breed

Great post thanks, but i think your thinking very black and white, my very argument >> unregistered dogs are not 'worthy' nor good enough. One can test all of these things without papers, ive got a friend who bout an Airdale for 800, KC parents- are champs and between have 30 champs in their pedigree, they trained and tought her to stack and so on >>> but she's hopeless, shown her in a junoir show and it was a disaster...a fun one but still was un-successful, sometimes these papers of the pups history are just that - history >>> in many cases it does not deterime how the pup will turn out.

However one can still do blood tests, check working ability, temperament and showing without papers.

BYB's are in it for the money, they don't care about the bitch or pups, they dont run health tests, it's very simple for them $$$$

[Bec]

Great post thanks, but i think your thinking very black and white, my very argument >> unregistered dogs are not 'worthy' nor good enough. One can test all of these things without papers, ive got a friend who bout an Airdale for 800, KC parents- are champs and between have 30 champs in their pedigree, they trained and tought her to stack and so on >>> but she's hopeless, shown her in a junoir show and it was a disaster...a fun one but still was un-successful, sometimes these papers of the pups history are just that - history >>> in many cases it does not deterime how the pup will turn out.

However one can still do blood tests, check working ability, temperament and showing without papers.

BYB's are in it for the money, they don't care about the bitch or pups, they dont run health tests, it's very simple for them $$$$

I don't think it's a black and white opinion at all.

You can't test your pup's heritage, how do you know what dogs have gone into her without papers? You don't. It was the crucial point of my argument, without papers you are essentially breeding blind as you have no idea where you dog has come from.

No one including me has ever said that KC papers alone make a dog, I have two dogs here who have pedigree papers (one on main and one on limited) and neither are what I deem as perfect show quality, papers alone will never guarantee this But the fact remains that having a pedigree is *crucial* for breeding quality dogs.

I don't think unpapered dogs make bad pets but I do think they are not worth breeding from and I don't think it is good enough to breed from unpapered dogs. It is a practice I find quite abhorrent and despicable, you cannot breed the best dogs you can do nor can you add anything positive to the breed by breeding from an unpapered dog. We wouldn't have the purebreds we do today without pedigrees. And we have more than enough Sibes in rescue to be adding more just for the hell of it ESPECIALLY when those dogs are unpapered.

ETA: And I second Gemma Riley's question, what other people in the breed have you had look over her with a critical eye? She doesn't have papers so she can't be shown and have a judge look over her, so what breed experts have you consulted with to see if she is worth breeding from?

[ISDW]

Very interesting thread. Now to add my two pennorth.

I have 5 sibes, 1 is KC registered, 2 are IKC registered, the other 2 are unregistered. I got Sky from a pet shop in North London, she came with a 5 generation pedigree, but isn't registered. Her sire had endorsements on him, which apparently his owner didn't realise until the papers came back in her name. Sky is a great example of the breed, carries her tail perfectly, and is a really lovely looking dog I think, but because she's not registered, she can never be shown etc. Diesel came from an accidental mating, from a guy who has had one litter, he is KC registered, and is a great working dog, but wouldn't do anything in the ring because he's fairly big, and his tail curls over and touches his back. His grandfather is Sky's great-grandfather, so they share the same lines on one side. I had both of them hip scored, Sky was absolutely fine, Diesel was horrendous, both of them are neutered. So, my point is that papers don't necessarily mean anything, I don't think, in respect of breeding, as out of all of my sibes, Sky is the one nearest to the breed standard.

I would have considered breeding from Diesel, as he's such a good worker (we've never raced, as there aren't any races here in Ireland - so far, but he would run all day for me) but because of his hip score, obviously I won't.

What is my point? I don't really know:p except that I would really think long and hard about breeding. As Mick as said, things can go horrendously wrong, how would you feel if you lost your bitch - which can happen unfortunately. Also, just because you love your dog and think she's great, that doesn't mean that her pups will be the same as her, appearance or temperament wise. I really thought about breeding from Sky and Diesel until they were hipscored, but now that I'm involved in rescue and have had to hand rear a litter, and lost an entire litter of malamutes, I wouldn't ever put myself or any of my dogs though that willingly. Also, finding good homes isn't as easy as it may seem, friends and relatives may well say that the've love one of your puppies - until the time came for them to actually take one. Out of the 3 sibe pups that survived in our litter, we kept one and one went to a local vet nurse who helped to deliver them, and one has gone over to Scotland to a fantastic home. But, it was sooooooo hard to let them go, they had to be perfect homes.

Anyway, just my opinion on the whole thing.

[Ice and Cripton]

Ice, I don't think anyone's complimented you on arguing your point, so thank you, you've raised a lot of valid questions and also thank you all for all the replies, this i'm sure will be an ongoing discussion for years to come, it's plainly obvious that everyone here wants what's best for the breed and has slight variations of opinion, bottom line though, we're all arguing for the good of the breed which is great to see!!

Thanks Sara, im not arguing fot the sake of it, i just want people to undertsand my point of view:rolleyes: lol but your right, i think we all love the breed to bits and only want the best future for them:) And i have actually learnt a lot from Mick's post!

[Ice and Cripton]

ISDW - I actually agree with you >>> papers do not make the dog whole, and in some cases unregistered dogs are fit to breed from, compared to kc dogs. I also agree that no one should go into breeding without knowing the risks and so on >> and as a responsable person you should be able to take back the whole litter if needed, hense why im for conracts between breeder and owners. Under no circumstances do i want to contribute to the number of dogs in shelters >> it's just my opinion too and im not planning on doing anything for sure yet >>> thanks for your input

p.s Alaska's tail is also to standard, doesn't touch her back and at 11months she fits the breed standard >>to what i have read in several sibe books.

[Ice and Cripton]

I don't think it's a black and white opinion at all.

You can't test your pup's heritage, how do you know what dogs have gone into her without papers? You don't. It was the crucial point of my argument, without papers you are essentially breeding blind as you have no idea where you dog has come from.

No one including me has ever said that KC papers alone make a dog, I have two dogs here who have pedigree papers (one on main and one on limited) and neither are what I deem as perfect show quality, papers alone will never guarantee this But the fact remains that having a pedigree is *crucial* for breeding quality dogs.

I don't think unpapered dogs make bad pets but I do think they are not worth breeding from and I don't think it is good enough to breed from unpapered dogs. It is a practice I find quite abhorrent and despicable, you cannot breed the best dogs you can do nor can you add anything positive to the breed by breeding from an unpapered dog. We wouldn't have the purebreds we do today without pedigrees. And we have more than enough Sibes in rescue to be adding more just for the hell of it ESPECIALLY when those dogs are unpapered.

ETA: And I second Gemma Riley's question, what other people in the breed have you had look over her with a critical eye? She doesn't have papers so she can't be shown and have a judge look over her, so what breed experts have you consulted with to see if she is worth breeding from?

Well i completely disagree with you, and we may just have to agree to disagree on this one:rolleyes:

But i had quized my vet when we got Alaska and they said certain blood tests can be done to show strains of problems to come, regular blood tests between the age of 6 months and 2 years would deterime any problems. I say it's black and white because what your saying is an unregistered dog is unfit to breed from >> even if it's the best sibe there ever was (not saying Alaska is the best sibe in the world lol)

I just think there are many other ways to determine medical problems >>> and working abilities. Getiing in touch with good sibe breeders >> im sure they would be honest and say whether a bitch was to standard or not.

[raindog]

Getiing in touch with good sibe breeders >> im sure they would be honest and say whether a bitch was to standard or not.

I'm sure they would be honest and tell you how closely a bitch/dog was to the standard. The point is, NO good breeder would ever consider breeding from/with an unregistered dog no matter how "good" it was. It would be more sensible to ask an experienced judge of Siberians to go over her as they are unlikely to have any vested interest.

In terms of the breed standard, of course there are some appalling KC registered dogs out there at the same time as there are some lovely unregistered dogs. We have had some gorgeous unregistered dogs through rescue, but that is not the point. There are hundreds of poor quality KC registered dogs out there which should never have been bred. As I said somewhere above, KC registration is not a guarantee of quality, it is just one box to be ticked in a whole list of boxes which all need ticking before you ascertain whether a breeder is a good one or not.

One way of looking at it is that a dog is like an iceberg. The dog you see is like the visible part of the iceberg, but that is only 20% of the whole. Underneath the water is the dog's history which makes up 80% of what the dog is. Now with KC registered dogs, we can, if we wish, investigate the whole of that history and trace our dogs back to the original imports from Siberia. We can go back generation after generation and trace exactly why the dog is the way it is. With an unregistered dog, what you see is what you get. Full stop! There is no way of tracing the dog's history, understanding its origin. No way of doing the kind of research that serious breeders do.

Yes there are some tests which vets can do, but (a) they only cover some conditions, and ( they tend to be very expensive. They also will not identify conditions which only become apparent as the dog ages.

We are relative newcomers to the breed - only 15/16 years experience - but there are some very respected breeders around in the UK who have been showing, working and breeding Siberian Huskies for 20+ years. Ask any of those people whether they approve of breeding unregistered Siberians and I can 100% guarantee that every single one of them will tell you that it is a complete no-no and something that they would never do and never encourage.

Mick

[terrysibe]

I have read this subject back and forth and cannot for the life of me understand why anyone with an ounce of common sense would want to breed from a unregistered dog and why they would consider anyone who would allow a stud be considered a good breeder,

Can I ask if anything anyone has said would really change your mind or are you going to breed any way

By the way has anyone seen the video of a bitch giving birth on the siberpaws website, for me it looks totally wrong and the bitch looks really distressed and no soft bedding for her to have her pups on, just a tiled floor,

Terry

[siberianandy]

i have been following this thread for some time now.

we have suka who is unregistered and he is a lovely pet and that is all he is to us a pet. we would never consider breeding of him and in the next couple of months will be having him neutered.

this is the very reason we even considered a unregistered sibe is cus we just wanted him as a family pet. we have also considered breeding as it would be great to bring more sibes down to our area, but we would do it properly and get a kc reg female and have all the tests done.

we are going to be running suka but on a fun level not a compettitive level we are also hopeing to do agillity with him.

i have to agree with mick on this one as i for one would never breed from a unregistered dog, and don't believe any reputable breeder would either.

[Ice and Cripton]

I'm sure they would be honest and tell you how closely a bitch/dog was to the standard. The point is, NO good breeder would ever consider breeding from/with an unregistered dog no matter how "good" it was. It would be more sensible to ask an experienced judge of Siberians to go over her as they are unlikely to have any vested interest.

In terms of the breed standard, of course there are some appalling KC registered dogs out there at the same time as there are some lovely unregistered dogs. We have had some gorgeous unregistered dogs through rescue, but that is not the point. There are hundreds of poor quality KC registered dogs out there which should never have been bred. As I said somewhere above, KC registration is not a guarantee of quality, it is just one box to be ticked in a whole list of boxes which all need ticking before you ascertain whether a breeder is a good one or not.

One way of looking at it is that a dog is like an iceberg. The dog you see is like the visible part of the iceberg, but that is only 20% of the whole. Underneath the water is the dog's history which makes up 80% of what the dog is. Now with KC registered dogs, we can, if we wish, investigate the whole of that history and trace our dogs back to the original imports from Siberia. We can go back generation after generation and trace exactly why the dog is the way it is. With an unregistered dog, what you see is what you get. Full stop! There is no way of tracing the dog's history, understanding its origin. No way of doing the kind of research that serious breeders do.

Yes there are some tests which vets can do, but (a) they only cover some conditions, and ( they tend to be very expensive. They also will not identify conditions which only become apparent as the dog ages.

We are relative newcomers to the breed - only 15/16 years experience - but there are some very respected breeders around in the UK who have been showing, working and breeding Siberian Huskies for 20+ years. Ask any of those people whether they approve of breeding unregistered Siberians and I can 100% guarantee that every single one of them will tell you that it is a complete no-no and something that they would never do and never encourage.

Mick

well argued, i think youve argued your point best >> i deff have things to think about lol I can honestly say i dont know what to do now:confused: After hearing some of your points something doesn't sit right morally..............

[Ice and Cripton]

i have been following this thread for some time now.

we have suka who is unregistered and he is a lovely pet and that is all he is to us a pet. we would never consider breeding of him and in the next couple of months will be having him neutered.

this is the very reason we even considered a unregistered sibe is cus we just wanted him as a family pet. we have also considered breeding as it would be great to bring more sibes down to our area, but we would do it properly and get a kc reg female and have all the tests done.

we are going to be running suka but on a fun level not a compettitive level we are also hopeing to do agillity with him.

i have to agree with mick on this one as i for one would never breed from a unregistered dog, and don't believe any reputable breeder would either.

Alrighty, thankd for your input:) i still think unregistered dogs make great pets and shouldn't be excluded from things like racing or heavy showing.

[Bec]

Well i completely disagree with you, and we may just have to agree to disagree on this one:rolleyes:

But i had quized my vet when we got Alaska and they said certain blood tests can be done to show strains of problems to come, regular blood tests between the age of 6 months and 2 years would deterime any problems. I say it's black and white because what your saying is an unregistered dog is unfit to breed from >> even if it's the best sibe there ever was (not saying Alaska is the best sibe in the world lol)

I just think there are many other ways to determine medical problems >>> and working abilities. Getiing in touch with good sibe breeders >> im sure they would be honest and say whether a bitch was to standard or not.

I think Mick put it best, Ice. It's not just about determining medical problems or working abilities, pedigrees are like the blue print to your dog - to breed you need to have an understanding of what came before your dog, what lines are behind your bitch. You can't do that without a pedigree which is why it is more than just a piece of paper Respectable and ethical breeders do a lot of research into the dog's lines and history to understand where their dog has come from, to determine which line would be best to breed it to. It's not as simple as whether or not we think two dogs meet the breed standard and deciding to mate them. There *should* be a lot of research that goes on beforehand to know the ins and outs of the lines your dog (and the other dog) has come from.

We can read the standard as many times as we like but it takes a lot of experience and guiding from those experienced in the breed to *really* understand it and to be able to look at our dogs with a critical eye.

Anyway I agree with Sarah who said this is a great thread and a great opportunity for everyone to learn and take something away from it

ETA: I agree that unpapered dogs shouldn't be excluded from dog sports like sledding, they aren't in my country - even in obedience and agility competitions unregistered dogs go on an 'associate register' so they can compete. I don't see the point in showing unpapered dogs though, but that's getting off topic

[siberianandy]

the kennel club here has something called a activity register which allows dogs into certain compotitions read here for further info http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/415

[Ice and Cripton]

I think Mick put it best, Ice. It's not just about determining medical problems or working abilities, pedigrees are like the blue print to your dog - to breed you need to have an understanding of what came before your dog, what lines are behind your bitch. You can't do that without a pedigree which is why it is more than just a piece of paper Respectable and ethical breeders do a lot of research into the dog's lines and history to understand where their dog has come from, to determine which line would be best to breed it to. It's not as simple as whether or not we think two dogs meet the breed standard and deciding to mate them. There *should* be a lot of research that goes on beforehand to know the ins and outs of the lines your dog (and the other dog) has come from.

We can read the standard as many times as we like but it takes a lot of experience and guiding from those experienced in the breed to *really* understand it and to be able to look at our dogs with a critical eye.

Anyway I agree with Sarah who said this is a great thread and a great opportunity for everyone to learn and take something away from it

ETA: I agree that unpapered dogs shouldn't be excluded from dog sports like sledding, they aren't in my country - even in obedience and agility competitions unregistered dogs go on an 'associate register' so they can compete. I don't see the point in showing unpapered dogs though, but that's getting off topic

Well i think it's something you cant argue with on the whole, one can disagree with a few of the kennel clubs practices but the whole point of keeping a breed true is a good thing. I think thats the point of byb's - their ignorant and dont listen to reason, and yes it was a very interesting thread with a lot of experience and knowledge;)

[Ice and Cripton]

the kennel club here has something called a activity register which allows dogs into certain compotitions read here for further info http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/415

thanks, good link, added to rep, and mick, smeagle:D

[Sarah16]

Oh dear, I have read this topic through and have found it very sad. I really can't see why someone would want to put their bitch through pregnancy just to keep one puppy. I too thought about breeding when I first got into the breed but after researching it and listening and taking in what others said I decided completly against it!

These were the main reasons I came up with for not doing it:

If anything happened to Willow my female I would be devasted and totally blame myself!

Vetting and finding good potential homes for the pups including home checks etc with a possibilty of having a big litter

Sleepless nights (i love my sleep far too much for that!)

High vets bills as insurance will not cover pregnancy issues

Lifetime commitment for taking the pups back, even after 10 years

All my dogs are KC reg but have not proven themselves as a good example in the showring as I don't show

There are many more reasons as well, a big one would be the amount of huskies needing new homes all the time coming into welfare.

Have you thought of a potential stud for this litter???

Just my thoughts x

ETA you can race huskies with certain organisations - not SHCGB