UKC or AKC>>> Which Siberian Husky?

[Ice and Cripton]

Soz i meant: UKC or AKC << not ACK...duuhhhh lol

Huskies are soo different all over, i was wondering to get a little background history, and why sibes are so different.

Today i saw a Husky that was red and white, has yellow/almond eyes and on his back he had darker streaks of red and he actually looked very much like Sara's Kimba (very cute) >> This sibe was called Mocha and he was lovely, he was rather stocky, not too long in body, but not fat and his tail touched his back.

Is this to standard? Are sibes tail's now allowed to touch their backs? Im guessing it is acceptable as he was KC.

But...

The breed standard for America is different, their sibes tend to be shorter by an inch or half an inch and their thicker in bone and muscle, and seem to have a lot more fur.....

Our sibes seem to vary from sibes like my two:

-Tails dont touch backs

-medium but thick coat

-lean and muscly

And then you have one's like Mocha

-Tail touches back

-has a lot of fur, but it's softer and less thick

-thicker in bone and doesn't seem to dip in at the tummy

Here's a sibe breeder from the US:

http://www.snowygrove.hu/eng/doug.htm

And a UK one:

http://www.azgard.co.uk/Girls/girls.htm

Our sibes seem to be leaner and more wolf-like ...? which one represents the sibe more..? ... if that can be said at all?

Here are some pics, the first one looks like a normal sibe to me, the tail is questionable?

The second sibe looks pregnant but apparently not...juts an American sibe, and the last one looks unreal >> there's no way that sibe would have the stamina, body heat, coat for -150 (or whatever it is out there lol) I fail to believe the Cuckchi's breed dogs that looked as skinny as the last one >> this sibe looks like a racing sibe .. but then again it doesn't really like a sibe at all to me:confused:

[ATTACH]1808.IPB[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]1809.IPB[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]1810.IPB[/ATTACH]

So any sibe experts on here? lol would love to know with what gives .. so many sibes that look so different in body, form and structure...?

[Bec]

I think the biggest difference you'll see is in working vs show lines.

I am obviously more familiar with the ANKC breed standard, but I don't see a huge difference between the American standard and the UK one. You can read them both here:

http://www.akc.org/breeds/siberian_husky/index.cfm

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/62

Within the breed different lines will have differences in appearance. Working line huskies can look very different to show line huskies. Every breed is the same in this regard - there is a HUGE difference between American "field" beagles and the lovely English type. I don't agree with the differences you see between the UK and the US in that the US sibes have tails that touch their backs etc - acceptable tail set is as far as I know the same no matter the country you are in. I bet you could find the shorter 'solider' sibes in the UK too. We have various types here in Australia as well.

The US produces some good looking Sibes IMO... The most successful Siberian Husky in the country, and the greatest BIS winner of all time is an American imported Champion named Freddie. He is one stunning dog.

http://www.dogzonline.com.au/breeds/profile.asp?dog=9408

[Ice and Cripton]

Your right, on paper their isn't much difference >>> it must be the showing vs working lines then! And yes he is a stunning dog lol

Yup, in the park their is a sibe that is really stocky and his tail never seems to relax which is weird >>> what lines are these then..working or showing?

[rose]

I actually prefer the 1st & last sibe, i don't like the heavy built looking ones, out of the 3 though i prefer the 1st pic sibe.

[Bec]

IMO part of the issue with the second pic in the OP is that the dog isn't stacked and is standing a bit funny. I bet it would look a bit different if it was stacked properly. The sibe in the first bit looks a little cow hocked to me. The sibe in the last pic looks underweight IMO.

Of all three pics I prefer the second one

[Sonic_Sibe]

Sorry to say, but this is again one of those threads that sort of elaborates on the thread started last week about breeding from registered dogs.

Although dogs can be KC registered and have all the relevant paperwork, it does not necessarily mean that the dog is 'perfect' to the breed standard.

All it means is that the dog has followed along a line of registered parentage.

I still believe that this is one area that is overlooked by the kennel club, because even though a dog is KC registered, it does not mean that it is of breed 'standard'.

I do not have an answer for what needs to be done either, I suppose it's for all Husky owners to decide where they want the breed to go.

Do we let the breeders decide what will strengthen the breed (this would need regulating so that only reputable savvy breeders breed dogs) or do we just let anyone breed like it is now? If registered 'savvy' breeders took on the role of creating the perfect husky, what happens to all the non perfect ones?

I know I've wandered off topic, but what I'm trying to say is this. Huskies can be registered and all look totally different in shape and size, the only dogs that supposedly look like the perfect 'standard' and are acknowledged as such are the ones that have been judged by breed experts.

We probably have thousands of dogs in the UK (registered and unregistered) that meet the optimum breed standard that will never be bred from or be recognised as such.

So what I am trying to say is, should we be 'god' and determine what is the right or wrong Husky?

[Ice and Cripton]

I actually prefer the 1st & last sibe, i don't like the heavy built looking ones, out of the 3 though i prefer the 1st pic sibe.

i agree:)

IMO part of the issue with the second pic in the OP is that the dog isn't stacked and is standing a bit funny. I bet it would look a bit different if it was stacked properly. The sibe in the first bit looks a little cow hocked to me. The sibe in the last pic looks underweight IMO.

what does "cow hocked" mean?

Of all three pics I prefer the second one

Sorry to say, but this is again one of those threads that sort of elaborates on the thread started last week about breeding from registered dogs.

Although dogs can be KC registered and have all the relevant paperwork, it does not necessarily mean that the dog is 'perfect' to the breed standard.

All it means is that the dog has followed along a line of registered parentage.

I still believe that this is one area that is overlooked by the kennel club, because even though a dog is KC registered, it does not mean that it is of breed 'standard'.

I do not have an answer for what needs to be done either, I suppose it's for all Husky owners to decide where they want the breed to go.

Do we let the breeders decide what will strengthen the breed (this would need regulating so that only reputable savvy breeders breed dogs) or do we just let anyone breed like it is now? If registered 'savvy' breeders took on the role of creating the perfect husky, what happens to all the non perfect ones?

I know I've wandered off topic, but what I'm trying to say is this. Huskies can be registered and all look totally different in shape and size, the only dogs that supposedly look like the perfect 'standard' and are acknowledged as such are the ones that have been judged by breed experts.

We probably have thousands of dogs in the UK (registered and unregistered) that meet the optimum breed standard that will never be bred from or be recognised as such.

So what I am trying to say is, should we be 'god' and determine what is the right or wrong Husky?

lol yeah i get what your saying, there are soo many deviations!!

[Bec]

Cow hocked is when the dog's back feet point outwards

[Sarah]

I prefer the leaner "variation" of those pics,

IMO I think that if everything was so strictly regimented when it came to breeding then the breed would be dull, like humans, we all look different some are bigger / taller than others, why can't this be the same with any breed of dog - obviously health reasons etc yes i accept that but do we really want to breed one type and one type only?

Sorry, slightly going off track there lol, Ice, i think that it's good that we have different variations of the breed......makes for good conversation on here lol

[Bec]

I think there will always be a variation in type in any breed, because some people interpret the breed standard differently and different lines can have different type.

Micha is from a bigger, more solid line, but his grand father was the same build and a Grand Champion. Different 'types' will be popular at different times too.

[Guest Gemma Riley]

In America the breed is split into two disctinct types 'working' and 'showing' which can be clearly seen in the horrendous 2nd picture

In Great Britian we have one type sometimes referred to as 'dual purpose' Pic 3 is a lovely example of this

The pics you have put up

1. Dog looks overweight but you cant really asess a dog from a photo like this.

2. This pic is awful, the dog is far to overweight and too short in the leg and is very heavy boned! It also doesnt appear that the dog has a tuck up!

3. This is how a Sibe should be! It doesnt look underweight but looks just right! as a working dog is should NOT be carrying any excess weight, the tuck up is clearly visable. It has lovely 'moderate' bone (as stated in the standard) a lovely earset. I wouldnt mind owning this dog myself.

I am sometimes shocked at how fat some Sibes are, you should be able to feel the ribs when you run your hands over them but not dip in between each individual rib. They are working dogs!!

Tails are not to touch the back of the dog but should be carried in a sickle curve when moving. When the dog is still it should be carried down.

Also I do hope you noticed in your link to the Azgard site that the first picture is that of an American imported bitch

Just because a dog is KC registered it does not make it a perfect example of its breed. That is why people show their dogs, to prove that it is the best example of their breed and acceptable to breed from.

Gemma

x

[Ice and Cripton]

I prefer the leaner "variation" of those pics,

IMO I think that if everything was so strictly regimented when it came to breeding then the breed would be dull, like humans, we all look different some are bigger / taller than others, why can't this be the same with any breed of dog - obviously health reasons etc yes i accept that but do we really want to breed one type and one type only?

Sorry, slightly going off track there lol, Ice, i think that it's good that we have different variations of the breed......makes for good conversation on here lol

i agree to some extent that there should be variations, coat, colour, i do agree but i think the a standard frame is good >> which it pretty much is!

In America the breed is split into two disctinct types 'working' and 'showing' which can be clearly seen in the horrendous 2nd picture

In Great Britian we have one type sometimes referred to as 'dual purpose' Pic 3 is a lovely example of this

The pics you have put up

1. Dog looks overweight but you cant really asess a dog from a photo like this.

2. This pic is awful, the dog is far to overweight and too short in the leg and is very heavy boned! It also doesnt appear that the dog has a tuck up!

3. This is how a Sibe should be! It doesnt look underweight but looks just right! as a working dog is should NOT be carrying any excess weight, the tuck up is clearly visable. It has lovely 'moderate' bone (as stated in the standard) a lovely earset. I wouldnt mind owning this dog myself.

I am sometimes shocked at how fat some Sibes are, you should be able to feel the ribs when you run your hands over them but not dip in between each individual rib. They are working dogs!!

Tails are not to touch the back of the dog but should be carried in a sickle curve when moving. When the dog is still it should be carried down.

Also I do hope you noticed in your link to the Azgard site that the first picture is that of an American imported bitch

Just because a dog is KC registered it does not make it a perfect example of its breed. That is why people show their dogs, to prove that it is the best example of their breed and acceptable to breed from.

Gemma

x

Yeah i also prefer the leaner sibes, if we are going on the working sibe, which some may argue is the right sibe, then yes i do favour the leaner, medium coated, sibe >> in the pic it looks like i couldn't stroke it without feeling loads of bone though >> orginal pics of the chuckchi's dogs dont look like this >> i think they would have died!! But the sibe along these lines i prefer:)

[Guest Gemma Riley]

Yeah i also prefer the leaner sibes, if we are going on the working sibe, which some may argue is the right sibe, then yes i do favour the leaner, medium coated, sibe >> in the pic it looks like i couldn't stroke it without feeling loads of bone though >> orginal pics of the chuckchi's dogs dont look like this >> i think they would have died!! But the sibe along these lines i prefer:)

Hi

This is not a leaner Sibe this is a 'KC Standard' fitting sibe. The 3rd pic you mention the dog looks just right, I would say that you think it is too thin because it does appear to be out of coat.

The Chuckchis dogs didnt look like this becasue the first breed standard was not written until 1930 (I think off the top of my head) but the basis of their dogs was used to create the Siberian Husky.

Here is a pic of my girl from this weekend

Please ignore Ambers lazy stand in this pic

Shes not a bag of bones, but just the right weight for a Sibe

Gemma

x

[Chewbacca_&_me]

I heard recently that now some breeders are begining to try and breed hybrids...husky/malamutes...siberian/alaskan...so what do you guys and gals think will happen? Will it ruin the lines do you think? And...if someone was to get an amazing example of both breeds in one dog...the true meaning of hybrid...do you think it would be rediculus for AKC or UKC to allow the owner/breeder to register the dog as a true hybrid?

The 3 top reasons that I chose Chewbacca had to do first with the fact that both parents were papered and very healthy, the pups had already been to the vet, and that the breeders were not selling soley to make $ as the breeding was accidental.

Not to say that I would but...if I wanted to...what kind of objections do you think people might have about registering Chewbacca or dogs like him as hybrids?

[Chewbacca_&_me]

To be honest I really prefer for sibes to be sibes, alaskans to be alaskans, and malamutes to be malamutes...I never ever plan to breed or become a show-woman...my questions are based purely on curiosity...

[Guest Gemma Riley]

To be honest I really prefer for sibes to be sibes, alaskans to be alaskans, and malamutes to be malamutes...I never ever plan to breed or become a show-woman...my questions are based purely on curiosity...

I agree, there is no reason to create crosses of the northern breeds! We have a northern breed for every job.

Crossing them is just for and no other reason whatever they say!!!

[Ice and Cripton]

Yeah i know what you mean >> Balto has more fur than Alaska but when we wash him he looks like a sack of bones and in fact he only weighs 2kg more than her!!!

I know when the breed standard was, but there are some pics of the chukchi's and seppla with the sibes and they look diff >> i know since then certain breeding has undergone by which selected sibes have contributed to the breed today, however i think it is important to look back ... why did we continue with the breed if not to work them, if not to need their stamina in cold climates >> not that you need to live in Alaska or run seriously to own the breed, however it's valid to test these attributes whilst considering if your sibe would in fact cut it as a chukchi dog >> they need enough body fat to keep them warm and a thick coat >> not long, but thick >> thick enough not see loads of bones:) lol But of course they must be lean, and not carry any extra weight, they are a medium sledding breed after all.

[ATTACH]1849.IPB[/ATTACH]

[Guest Gemma Riley]

Yeah i know what you mean >> Balto has more fur than Alaska but when we wash him he looks like a sack of bones and in fact he only weighs 2kg more than her!!!

I know when the breed standard was, but there are some pics of the chukchi's and seppla with the sibes and they look diff >> i know since then certain breeding has undergone by which selected sibes have contributed to the breed today, however i think it is important to look back ... why did we continue with the breed if not to work them, if not to need their stamina in cold climates >> not that you need to live in Alaska or run seriously to own the breed, however it's valid to test these attributes whilst considering if your sibe would in fact cut it as a chukchi dog >> they need enough body fat to keep them warm and a thick coat >> not long, but thick >> thick enough not see loads of bones:) lol But of course they must be lean, and not carry any extra weight, they are a medium sledding breed after all.

[ATTACH]1992[/ATTACH]

They will look differant as this is before the time that the breed standard was set to preserve a standard of Sibe. They were the founding dogs and the type varied through all of them.

In the UK we try and test the attributes as best we can, obviously we cannot test as though we live in Alaska as we do not have the distance or the weather to do this. Good breeders try and preserve the qualities that make a Sibe a Sibe unfortunatley Mr Disney did not do the breed any favours and the general population tend to have a very skewed view of what a sibe should be.

You may be interested in viewing this website http://www.shaytaanhuskies.com/ This kennel have british dogs that they took with them when they moved to Nova Scotia, Canada. Their dogs are shown and worked over there and are doing well in both respects.

Amber my dog above is double coated but has just finished blowing her coat and the new one is just starting to make a come back, do you see how differant it makes a dog look?

[Ice and Cripton]

To be honest I really prefer for sibes to be sibes, alaskans to be alaskans, and malamutes to be malamutes...I never ever plan to breed or become a show-woman...my questions are based purely on curiosity...

Well it's a tough one for me, i dont think people should go around mixing breeds and say they have found the best of both breeds, because although they say the common mutt is healthier than KC breeds, very often the breed wil inherit the 'worst' of both breeds. Sibes amd mals are very healthy, so i don't think it's as bad as it could have been >> i agree sibes should be sibes .... full stop!

However why cant a mixed breed be a mixed breed, i dont see anything wrong with the KC or AKC registering a mixed breed IF they thought it would be a new valued addition to the KC >>> i mean why not? That would be ignorant on their behalf if a mixed breed created a "super breed" >>> lol whilst very unlikey to happen anytime soon >>> it must be open for possibilities.

I know a few people with Inuit breeds such as:

males/sibe/G.shep/ >>>and another northern breed im not sure of?

My dog walker has 2 and one G.shep >>> beautiful dogs, stunning, fine temperaments and a true plessure to own >>>> makes you think though....

[Ice and Cripton]

Thanks for that site >> what beautiful sibes, added to rep:)

These two are my fav __not for their looks but for how i have always seen sibes to be:

http://www.shaytaanhuskies.com/Kermit/Kermit.htm

http://www.shaytaanhuskies.com/Moley/Moley.htm

Not all of these sibes look the same and that is the beauty of them, however i think all these sibes fit their purpose, nice thick coats, not too long, lean .... lovely dogs!

Amber is a real looker! >> I know exactly what you mean >> Balto has just finished shedding and has accquired his summer coat >> it's finer and softer..makes him look a lot more lean.

ahhh Disney...Snow Dogs, Snow buddies, Eight below >> Dont get me wrong >> i love em, but jeeeze you wouldn't believe how many sibe experts there are out there! :

(two bin men getting our rubbish looking at Alaska at the top window)

man 1 "Look at that, looks like a wolf"

man 2 "yeah thats a husky mix"

man 1 "really? looks like a shepherd to me"

man 2 "no,no trust me, thats definitly a mix!"

Why thankyou, ive always wondered what my two where

I always get asked:

"are they mixes?"

"why are their coats so short?"

"why does their tail never curl over like the snow dogs?"

"why are they so skinny?"

I even got quized by a boy who has owned his sibe for 5 years, his dog has a long fluffy, corse coat, a short tail that always touches his back. The boy told me my two have deff got Labrador in them because:

A - Sibes dont have spots (Balto is a pie-bald)

B - They always have long, fluffy coats

I was informed by one expert that Alaska was a 'proper' sibe because she was black and white ....? wtf lol

People now are obsessed with these fluffy, adorable 'snow dogs' ....hmmmm

[Guest Gemma Riley]

Glad you enjoyed the website, a couple of their dogs are also champions in this country! They have some lovely doggies

I very rarely walk mine in the local neighbourhood as I have slowly gained a complete lack of patience with every 'expert' we meet. I have red ones with blue eyes! now that cant possibly be a Sibe and oooooh aint they small for huskies are they real huskies because they dont look big enough!! It drives me insane LOL

[Ice and Cripton]

Here are my two >> let me know what you think...Labrador or Fish perhaps:p

Balto as im sure you can tell is a lot bigger than Alaska >> Same litter however Balto came first and was the largest of them all!! He has a clear tuck, a medium coat

Balto eating and he was only 5 months, in the garden he was 7 months and in the park with his pink lead he was 6 months

Alaska is lean and athletic, she has a medium to short coat and also has a clear tuck at the tummy:)

The one of Alaska sniffing a tree was when she was 6 months, and when she was in the garden she was 7 months, she is now 11 months and has filled out but is still lean

And both of their tails never touch their back, even when their soo excited it just hangs in a sickle shape >> i dont know why becasue their tails can physically touch their backs...

[ATTACH]1851.IPB[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]1852.IPB[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]1853.IPB[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]1854.IPB[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]1855.IPB[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]1856.IPB[/ATTACH]

When i went to see the litter i saw both parents, the mum was small as most bitches, she was no more than 22inches, she looked like Alaska, The dad to me was huge, he was a big black and white sibe with these really sweet brown eyes >> i think that's where Balto gets his 'large-ness' from, the dad was not super tall, i suppose looking back he looked big because of his thick coat and he had sunstantial bone too >> He had papers ... mum didn't, Although to me she looked more sibe than him, she looked of the racing lines.

[Bec]

I heard recently that now some breeders are begining to try and breed hybrids...husky/malamutes...siberian/alaskan...so what do you guys and gals think will happen? Will it ruin the lines do you think? And...if someone was to get an amazing example of both breeds in one dog...the true meaning of hybrid...do you think it would be rediculus for AKC or UKC to allow the owner/breeder to register the dog as a true hybrid?

The 3 top reasons that I chose Chewbacca had to do first with the fact that both parents were papered and very healthy, the pups had already been to the vet, and that the breeders were not selling soley to make $ as the breeding was accidental.

Not to say that I would but...if I wanted to...what kind of objections do you think people might have about registering Chewbacca or dogs like him as hybrids?

They aren't hybrids - they are crossbreeds, plain and simple, and the AKC/UKC and any other kennel club is a registery for recognised purebred dogs.

Even if you had a 'nice' crossbreed that was the "best of both breeds" (I hate that term as it is so misleading) it is really just a one off - it takes 5 generations of dogs all breeding to the same type, and 500 entire dogs that adhere to the same breed standard (all with a multi gen pedigree from the 'breed' registry), for a new breed to even begin the recognition process.

However why cant a mixed breed be a mixed breed, i dont see anything wrong with the KC or AKC registering a mixed breed IF they thought it would be a new valued addition to the KC >>> i mean why not? That would be ignorant on their behalf if a mixed breed created a "super breed" >>> lol whilst very unlikey to happen anytime soon >>> it must be open for possibilities.

I know a few people with Inuit breeds such as:

males/sibe/G.shep/ >>>and another northern breed im not sure of?

My dog walker has 2 and one G.shep >>> beautiful dogs, stunning, fine temperaments and a true plessure to own >>>> makes you think though....

There are lots of nice crossbreeds out there but that doesn't mean they are a breed, or that we should breed more just because of a few nice individuals.

I guess I don't really understand why anyone would want the KC to register a crossbreed - what would it achieve? What would the point be? If a group of people genuinely want to develop a new breed than they can follow the same protocol for breed recognition as every other breed has gone through.

[Bec]

In America the breed is split into two disctinct types 'working' and 'showing' which can be clearly seen in the horrendous 2nd picture

In Great Britian we have one type sometimes referred to as 'dual purpose' Pic 3 is a lovely example of this

The pics you have put up

1. Dog looks overweight but you cant really asess a dog from a photo like this.

2. This pic is awful, the dog is far to overweight and too short in the leg and is very heavy boned! It also doesnt appear that the dog has a tuck up!

3. This is how a Sibe should be! It doesnt look underweight but looks just right! as a working dog is should NOT be carrying any excess weight, the tuck up is clearly visable. It has lovely 'moderate' bone (as stated in the standard) a lovely earset. I wouldnt mind owning this dog myself.

I am sometimes shocked at how fat some Sibes are, you should be able to feel the ribs when you run your hands over them but not dip in between each individual rib. They are working dogs!!

Tails are not to touch the back of the dog but should be carried in a sickle curve when moving. When the dog is still it should be carried down.

x

It's funny how each country has their differences. I wouldn't call the dog in the second pic hideous, it looks a bit heavier boned but then again the dog in the third pic to me looks 'hideously' under weight. I don't want to see bone sticking out of my Siberian, thanks If you put that dog in the show ring here it would be considered inappropriately underweight (not that you'd put a dog in the show ring that was that was out of coat to start with anyway).

I see dogs that are a cross between the second and third pic (more like the pic of Freddie I posted on the first page) that work in harness during racing season all the time. It's amazing the differences you can see between countries.

[raindog]

As Smeagle said, the US and UK breed standards are actually almost indistinguishable from one another. The differences we see in US and UK show dogs are due to interpretation of the standard by judges, not the standard itself. Partly this is because the standard is a little vague in places and leans heavily on terms like "moderate." As we all know, one person's "moderate" can be another's "extreme."

Also, some diversity within the breed is to be expected. After all, the original imports from Siberia to the US were a very mixed bunch indeed. Within Seppala's teams, for example, you can find dogs that look like the US show "type", dogs that look like the UK Sprint racing "type", dogs that look as if they meet the breed standard perfectly, and some really ugly mutts as well. This is one of Seppala's dogs and to me, (again as far as you can tell from a photo) he looks perfect:

As others have said, just because a sibe is KC or AKC registered, it doesn't mean that it is a good sibe. Some puppy farmers and backyard breeders breed poor quality KC registered dogs.

On the three photos that Ice & Krypton put up, I would say that none of them are examples of very good siberians (in as far as you can tell from a photograph - apologies if anyone owns them). The first looks like it is cow-hocked and has too wide an ear set. The second does look very overweight, but would look better if stood properly. The third is OK but I would prefer some more weight on it and a smoother, more level topline. I hate to see the pin bones on the hips showing. It might also be a bit long in the leg (difficult to see clearly as it is standing in longish grass).

One of the problems in "judging" sibes from photos is that without putting your hands on the dog, you can't really assess it properly. In particular, coat can make a huge difference to the way a sibe looks. If you look at our Trader, he looks really chunky. If you actually go over him, you will realise quickly that he is the thinnest of our sibes by a large margin. Similarly, Summer has the least thick coat of all our dogs and at a quick glance looks thinner than the rest. In fact she is the heaviest!

Trader

Summer

Mick