The expression of personal preferences in dogs is perfectly appropriate and is, dynamically, an important part of the psychology behind our enjoyment of them. It is, after all, a fancy - this very word suggests the expression of personal preference. However, one must consider the Standard, and we believe that this consideration must come first.
Comparing a dog to the Standard is tedious and demanding, and requires commitment to the breed over self, a high degree of objectivity over subjectivity, and the ability and discipline to recognize and analyze quality. There comes a time for everyone, no matter how long or short his experience in the breed, to answer the sincere question of the newcomer who asks, "What do you think of that dog?" This is an opportunity for you to teach; you may choose to promote your own personal preferences, or you may pass on objective values within the breed.
One would hope that your answer to this eager question, whatever it is, will be well rooted in the Standard, and that it will be honest, candid and free from subjective bias, justifications, excuses and defenses. It will be, hopefully, an answer that teaches and inspires, transcending personal prejudice and superiority; it will embrace correct type, soundness, the original function of the breed, movement, and balance.
"Soundness" in the broadest sense probably means many things to different people, but it usually connotes freedom from defect. It does, however, quickly focus attention on the WHOLE DOG and upon the BALANCE of his parts.
The phrase "range of type" is crucial. The work "type" has been so overused and misused as to be almost meaningless to most people. The things that we want to describe with that word to necessarily cover a variance or an array; the phrase "range of type" truly focuses on a set of characteristics that varies over a spectrum, i.e., shape of head, length of hock, ear set, angulation, temperament, degree of bone, size and substance, tail carriage, shape of eyes and overall proportions - EVERYTHING that contributes to the correct breed character of a specimen. The word and concept must be used and understood or they will forever be lost! The powers of discrimination upon which we rely in order to create an animal of quality will surely degenerate as the concepts themselves degenerate. Seldom does a sloppy sentence conceal a magnificently detailed and thoughtful idea.
And now, what is quality? What IS the difference between a good dog and a great dog? There exists in our fancy some sort of aesthetic absolute - some objects of art and some dogs simply "have it," while others don't. An old friend and mentor might call it Quality - not quality, or qualities, but Quality. For some the recognition of Quality is not tedious at all, and it is, in fact, one of the rare thrills in life. If one has heard the Quality of Bach, if one has viewed the Quality of Rembrandt, or if one has stood before the Great Pyramid of Cheops, he possesses an understanding of and an appreciation for Quality, for Quality is appreciated and understood throughout all time; it is timeless. Without the capitalization, quality can be defined simply as the sum of the good points of an animal; this is so elementary as to be the same as asking for the point total. With the capital "Q", in our fancy, Quality means aesthetic beauty, presence, soundness, and balance, i.e., the ways in which the finer points of the Siberian Husky fit together, totalling more than the sum of their points. Quality means more than being fault-free; a dog free of major faults and with the usual array of minor faults can still be perfectly mediocre, and standing next to a dog with the same point total of minor faults, but with Quality, can look, and be, a poorer specimen. Quality is not a myth, it is a reality, although many breeders and judges seem to have given up on it, thinking it unobtainable. Inspire the newcomer with the vision of Quality, to look for it always, but to understand that the truly great dogs are few and far between. The near-great, the ones we can all, with effort, be privileged to know and have our hands on and learn from, come along every few years; the good dogs are the ones which most people show and finish, live for, and devote their lives to.
All too often, some of us think as we speak and breed as we think. In teaching, care the use of words and concepts provides the opportunity for real communication between intensely interested people. "I like" so often can, and does, miss the real opportunity for communication, teaching, and learning.
Now we would like to turn to the constructive and positive side of "I like," and the role it plays in the preservation and beauty of our Siberians. Personal preference and range of type can and should interact in the fancy, WITHIN the limits of the Standard and in the pursuit of Quality so that - except for the pressures of fads of show and working trends, which can be overcome and are dynamic anyway - we can satisfy the requirements of the Standard and enjoy Quality in our backyards while still accepting a healthy range of individual genetic potential. Dread the day when all litters are so uniform , all lines so defined, that our Siberians fall into one or two of these molds, and all look alike within these molds, for then we will predictably, and absolutely, be lined up at blood clinics, kidney clinics, and eye clinics - there will be no end to the clinics - fearing with each generation what new disorder out of the thousands possible will find its way into our veterinary journals. Hopefully, we will keep all these clinics from our doorstep by using the best of the lovely, sweet-tempered Siberians that are now available in well-considered moderate line-breedings or outcrosses. We are so very fortunate in having a breed which is basically still sound, healthy, beautiful, showy, loving, and willing to work! We must not insist on more and more faddish uniformity, exaggeration of winning stride, longish show coats, angulation, pretty heads and assertive temperament, because NONE OF US knows enough to intensify the good without leading the breed straight down the primrose path. We can not discriminate and cull enough, even if we want to; we can not contemplate all the bleeding disorders, organ dysfunctions and psychic instabilities that will result from metabolic defects caused by intensive linebreeding programs. There is no meaningful need for the kind of uniformity that intense linebreeding produces, either in this culture or in any other. We read and hear about the great linebreeding programs to produce a kind of cattle dog, or swine, to perform a certain function. Does anyone think, even for a minute, that such a function-oriented approach was ever intended to be scaled up to 10,000 litters a year, the number of Siberian litters registered in the U.S. annually?
So we see that we are working under adverse conditions as we strive for meaningful Quality and performance in our dogs, along with beauty, soundness, attitude, sound temperament and some extension of our own personalities through them.
Let us back off a bit, refer ourselves and others constantly to the Standard, and to that sublime Quality that rewards those who seek it instead of their own subjective preferences. The acceptance of a range of type, soundness and balance within the Standard and the constructive use of "I like" will serve us well in the future. But let our answer to that inquisitive and eager questioner be steeped in the Standard and in the notion of Quality, for it is there, and not in the obsessive pursuit of personal whim, that the purpose and value of breeding purebred dogs are to be found. ###
-- The above article is published in The Siberian Quarterly: Hoflin Publishing, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Summer 1981 Issue, p. 16.
Back to
Artyk Siberians
All Web Pages and Images ©Copyright 1997-2005 Fredric R. Cornell, MIS
All Rights Reserved
Maintained By HarborNet