1) The readers deserve a response to Mr. George Cook’s perspective, and here it is: I will try to overlook the personal inflammatory remarks made in his Letter To The Editor, and simply respond to the content of his remarks as they might pertain to the Siberian breed. Rather than quote his entire letter, I will try to respond paragraph by paragraph; I apologize if each sentence doesn’t always transition smoothly into the next. 2) Cook takes issue that I speak to the historical fact that the “Siberian was not, for the first 20 or 30 centuries bred for, or even occasionally used for sport racing”, yet the very first sentence in his immediately following paragraph is: “The sport of sled dog racing began in the goldfields (sic).” Gold was not discovered in Alaska until 1880, but it wasn’t until 1896 that the gold rush, as such, really began, so, while bemoaning my statement, he nonetheless gives it historical credence. As far as “overlooking the known history of the Siberian and its function, which covers a period of about 200 years”, Cook seems to have missed the point that, by emphasizing the adjective “Original”, I was referring to the extremely long period of time of their use by their breeders in their native land of Siberia prior to their importation. The last 200 years of the breed’s history is acknowledged by almost everyone, but pathetically little attention is given to the breed’s earlier 2,800 years (or so). By drawing our attention from the obvious to the lesser known and understood, I was making the point that the “known” use (that of sport racing) is, an aberration. (A more thorough discussion of the breed’s Native history will appear below.) Cook confirms the very point be bemoans, i.e., that the known history of the breed clearly points to the fact that “explorers and traders first encountered the Chukchi dogs in Siberia where they were used as working sled dogs”, not as racing sled dogs; in fact there is not even the slightest suggestion in the breed’s known history that the Native Siberian was used for racing. Cook cites “physical economy and exceptional endurance” as the first two characteristics of the Siberian which enticed Goosak, and he places “superior speed” in third position. Endurance and speed, in this context are structural, physiological and mechanical opposites; they are two opposing sets of engineering. An economy car can be mis-used as a race car for 7% of its existence, but that does not alter the fact that the economy car was engineered to be an economy car. 3) It is here that Cook acknowledges the point in the Siberian’s ancient history that the breed has been (is) recently (aberrantly) used as a racing dog by saying “The sport of sled dog racing began in the goldfields” [sic]. Cook also here acknowledges that Seppala used his dogs “for both work and racing”. As I mentioned, Seppala, in fact, used his dogs for hauling the heavy ore from the mines. A little knowledge of pre-history, and a bit of logic lead one to understand that the Chukchi could not afford keeping dogs for the luxury of the “sport/work” combination, but only for the primal purpose of insuring their very existence. As Demidoff and Jennings encapsulate the new easy life following importation, “Ironically, activities that in one part of the world constitute a grueling way of life, can – in another part and in under different circumstances – become a matter of pleasure and sport”. (p.57) Oddly, Cook sustains the very point about which he complains. 4) Cook now stresses “transportation, (and) exploration” as the primary use of the Siberian even in Alaska. While I have no interest in “divorcing our breed from sled dog racing”; it is my intent to here make the point that this aberration was (is) not the breed’s Original Purpose. 5) Of course, the Original (Native) Siberian had “speed”! But, it was not primarily the characteristic of speed, per se, which made this breed of sled dogs such a valuable asset to the Chukchi (otherwise, they would have bred just a speed dog); it was their capacity for endurance and economy which insured and, therefore, preserved the very lives of their Native breeders. Standards throughout the breed’s history have established the Siberian’s phenomenal capability for endurance and economy over “speed” per se. I would like to refresh Cook’s memory on some of the wording of that Original 1932 Standard which emphasized so vividly “what the Chukchis had sent”: “For hundreds of years the Siberian Husky has been used as a sled dog in northeastern Asia (no reference is made of a “racing dog”) …. He should have a deep strong chest, heavy bone, strong legs and feet, straight powerful back... A grown dog should stand about 23 inches at the shoulders and weigh about 60 pounds…. The chest should be deep and strong…The ribs should be well arched and deep. Legs - good bone. Dogs – 54-64 pounds.” In writing this Standard, “it was often Seppala, himself, who was called upon for advice…. He stated that his preference, and those he felt to be most typical, were the relatively short-coupled…dogs. (Demidoff & Jennings, The Complete Siberian Husky, p. 65) Cook states, “The only measurable means currently available in our culture (for testing) is racing.” I disagree, not only because racing was never the Original Purpose of the breed (do we test an economy car by racing it?), but because even racing is an inadequate means of measuring the endurance, economy and relative speed of the Siberian. I never wrote that “the Iditarod and the Yukon Quest have nothing to do with endurance” (Cook misrepresents my article), but I do believe that they test the rigors of man more than they do the fortitude of the Siberian. Cook seems to agree when he states, “I can’t believe anyone one (sic) in his right mind stayed out in the arctic winter longer than he had to.” But what many of us fail to appreciate is that the Chukchi, and their Siberians, lived in this inconceivably cruel environment 24-7, year in and year out. This was life; it was their only life! There was no escape from these deplorable conditions; there was no end to them. A replication of this unbelievably ruthless life’s existence would be the true and historical test of the working Siberian. Every race, as its end, has a hot meal and warm sleeping conditions for both driver and dog; not so for the Original working Siberian, or his Native owner. I don’t want to appear disparaging of the modern race driver, but the races Cook mentions simply are no match for the conditions and demands of the Siberian’s Original environment, or work. We must come to understand this, and, if we truly want to test our breed, we need to devise something more historically correct. 6) With regard to Cook’s objection to the calculations I have cited, they are all that I can find, and were reported as those the historians had noted. But, he is in error when he now writes that these calculations did not take into considerations trail conditions (I specifically reported that Thompson and Foley stated that the trail was “well-trodden and level”). In fact, the Original 1932 Standard actually mandated a speed for the breed: “He…should be able to run in harness with a load, at a speed of twenty miles an hour for short distances.” Cook states that the SRC (Standard Revision Committee) discovered a speed of “nine to thirteen miles an hour”. N.B. the discrepancy between these two speeds. If Cook has additional historical notations, and they are documented, I would be happy to consider their reliability. I believe it is Cook’s “slow, fatigued march” at which the Native Siberian excelled, and which calls to mind the Original Purpose of the valiant historical Siberian. The trails of which these early historians wrote were not “groomed” by snowmobiles. Cook’s mention of them prompts me to remind us that these “modern, snowmobile-packed groomed racing trails” are, also, not an adequate test for the Siberian’s Original (Native) ability to find and break his own trail. 7) The overlapping circles, which Cook supplies, do little to clear what he terms as my “blurred vision”. Why, in this discussion, is there a need for an astigmatic discourse involving “crossbreed sled dogs” – we are discussing the purebred Siberian? 8) It seems to me that Cook’s point in this paragraph can be understood by applying logic without simple circular diagrams. 9) I believe that my Fall 2001 article addresses the changes which the drive for competitive speed have brought about in gear, but perhaps (at another time) more time needs to be spent in describing what this drive for competitive speed has wrought in the breed, which has precipitated the drive to alter the Standard to describe a “re-invented” breed. 10) I can’t now recall who once made the point that, “Some Siberians are wonderful sprint race dogs (fast as a bullet), but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they fit the Standard of the breed.” 11) Cook now launches into a lament of the SRC (the work/membership of which my article makes no reference whatsoever). Are there “inconsistencies in the breed”? If there is but one Standard, and if it is respected as THE OFFICIAL STANDARD, hopefully there wouldn’t be. Is there a need for two Standards? Maybe. The Standard Revision Committee, in its recommendation often used the wording (and mentality) of the “SIBERIAN EVALUATION PERFORMANCE PROJECT (SEPP) Revised Standard for the Siberian Husky”. I am told that most racers already use this criteria, so maybe there are already two such documents in use. With regard to the number of man years represented in the SRC (meaning no disrespect to its membership) it is a moot statistic since the number of man years represented by the SHCA membership declined to accept the recommendations of the SRC body by its all-membership vote, and these people, apparently, “had hands-on-knowledge” as well. 12) I will, however, join George Cook in sharing sadness and dismay that these matters weren’t more thoroughly, universally, and knowledgeably discussed in some sort of open forum prior to the actions of the SRC. I personally submitted a five (5) page letter to the SRC, and I know that others did the same. To the end of creating learned and open discussion on this all-important matter, I created an e-mail discussion forum which received some constructive use, but interest eventually waned (even though the list still exists). There was scant discussion on the larger breed e-mail forum. It is my opinion that the parent club could have been more helpful had they initiated such a forum; the vote, however, demonstrated that the membership knew its mind. 13) Apparently, the hands-on-knowledge of the SHCA membership, by its vote, thought the current Standard adequately, and correctly “emphasizes the athletic triumvirate of power, speed, and endurance most vital in preserving our breed”. I trust that our judges also heard the vote. 14) I don’t think it was “rumors” which caused the work of the SRC to be voted down; it was the actual content of that Committee’s recommendation. Neither do I believe that the membership voted “like sheep” (but may have been expected to do so). 15) Apparently, the membership felt that there was, indeed, sufficient “heresy” within the suggested revision which would re-invent the breed, and it was this sufficiency which caused it to be voted down. One of the “gray areas” which the committee sought to “clarify” was the absurd change from “In profile…” to “Viewed from the side.…” I don’t think that there was anything “political” about the vote at all. I think that the “hands-on-knowledge” of the membership prevailed. Why would Cook feel “ambushed” by the result of knowledge? 16, 17) With regard to my “(mis)use of Curtis Brown’s ‘Dog Locomotion and Gait Anatomy’”, I know of no such book. Mr. Brown, in 1986, did author, and Hoflin Publishing did publish a book entitled “Dog Locomotion and Gait Analysis”. While Mr. Brown was gathering research prior to this publication, I wrote an article on Movement entitled “Natural Or Man-made Exhibit”, which was also published by Hoflin Publishing in the Winter 1981-82 Issue of “The Siberian Quarterly”. Pursuant to that writing, Mr. Brown and I shared considerable conversation and correspondence, and there was a very great deal about which we were in agreement. One of the things, however, upon which neither of us was able to sway the other was the matter of the Siberian’s natural working gait. As Cook rightly mentions, Brown thought the Siberian to be a “Galloper”. I have maintained that he is a “Trotter”, and I base my opinion on several points, the first being: Once a Siberian in harness is strung out in his work (when he is really exerting hard and steady forward force against a load, instead of lunging, putting intermittent force against that load) he is in the trot; therefore, in my opinion, he is an efficient “endurance Trotter”. Brown (p.78) expresses this fundamental law of kinetics in his illustration of a wheel in motion exerting “continuous propulsion”, but (in my opinion) he did not follow through in this axiom of kinetics with the correct categorization of the Siberian in his working modality. Secondly, Brown (p.94) states: “The magnitude (of up and down motion at the topline and withers at the trot) depends on the function of the breed. Superior endurance trotters have a minimum; superior gallopers have a greater amount...” If the Siberian is to have “a smooth and seemingly effortless” gait, and if his topline is to “remain firm and level”, as both characteristics are mandated by our Standard, I must conclude that the Siberian is an “endurance Trotter”. Thirdly, Brown goes on to say, “The rise and fall of good galloping dogs (Greyhounds, etc.) should be visible in the ring. If it is not, the exhibit is probably a better trotter than galloper…” Brown notes that these findings are confirmed by Gambaryan (“How Mammals Run”, Chapter 3). So, once again, referring to our Standard: If the Siberian is to have “a smooth and seemingly effortless” gait, and if his topline is to “remain firm and level”, I must conclude that the Siberian is an “endurance Trotter”. (Yet another logical reason for my considering the Siberian to be a “Trotter” will follow two paragraphs below.) In my 1981 presentation, I also pointed out that “the flying trot” is incorrect for the Siberian – an important point on which the SRC, some years later, was in agreement. So, the portion of the article to which Cook now refers is a re-write, and expansion, of the earlier 1981 published material. I greatly respect Curtis Brown, but I disagree with him on the matter of the breed’s natural gait, and I make no apologies for my belief. Cook quotes Brown’s writing: “The average show Siberian has legs too short for speed in arctic sled work” (p.113), apparently, in an attempt to use Brown to bolster his own notion that the Siberian is now a racing animal, and that the Standard should be altered to reflect this re-invention. This attempt falls considerably short when one realizes that the Original Purpose of the Siberian precludes him from being a racing animal in the first place, and this is why the Siberian is not a racing animal – “his legs are too short”. But Cook continues: “The dog show Siberian is an excellent trotter because of its too short legs.” (p.113) Here, Brown and I agree, and he adds “because of his too short legs”. “Too short” for what? “Too short” to be a speed Galloper (like the Borzoi, and Greyhound, and the Whippet), but he is “an excellent trotter”. Brown seems to be saying that the Siberian’s legs are “too short for speed”, but just right to be an “excellent Trotter”. Since the Siberian is a working sled dog, I categorize him at work (kinetic weight pulling) and classify him as a “Trotter”. Finally, as a working dog, the Siberian most effectively uses the trot as his “working endurance gait”. For several sound reasons, it only makes sense to classify the Siberian as an “efficient Trotter”. (A discussion on leg length will follow.) 18) In this paragraph, after spending much time belaboring the work of the SRC, and again quoting Brown (apparently) in support of his contention, Cook then states, “This should sound eerily familiar to anyone who has read the (current) AKC Standard of Siberians.” Well, if the AKC Standard describes what Cook considers correct, and what Brown describes as being correct, why did his SRC need to “revise” what is already correct? 19) Cook, apparently, considers the Siberian to be a “Galloper”. I don’t – not in the same sense as the Borzoi, the Saluki, the Greyhound, and the Whippet are “Gallopers” (Brown does place these latter two breeds as “Gallopers” (p.115). But, to appease Cook, let’s presume (just for the moment) that the Siberian is a “Galloper”. Being a “Galloper”, like the Borzoi and the Greyhound, and the Whippet, would render the Siberian incompatible with being the efficient, economical, endurance worker we (and the Chukchi) know, and value him to be. For this fourth reason, I must disagree with Brown (and Cook) and categorize the Siberian as an “endurance Trotter”. (As I have pointed out, Brown continuously emphasizes that “speed” per se (sprint racing), and endurance clearly demand two distinctly opposing principles and corresponding structures.) If we want the breed to be the efficient, economical, endurance worker, as he was Originally created, bred, used, and prized (rather than the speed demon some now want him to become), I am not “confused” about his “general leg length ratio” as Brown describes it: “Endurance trotting dogs tend to have lower leg length vary from 1.0 to 1.1 times the depth of chest.” (p.31) Do we want a Greyhound, or a Siberian? 20) What is the purpose and function of a Standard? Does it contain the fixed specifications which define a correct Siberian? Or, is it a bunch of words which try to describe the dogs being bred and exhibited at any particular point in the breed’s history? Is it the significant guide by which breeders breed, and judges judge? Or, is it words of relative insignificance which need to be constantly tweaked to fit the current fads du jour in the breed? Brown does not speak to Original Purpose, and my articles are not necessarily written to express his views, but rather to voice my considered opinion which is based on my experience, what I have gleaned from mentors, and from research; I do not discount logic and reasoning. I place the Siberian as a natural endurance “Trotter”, and Brown sees him as a “Galloper”; when addressing this difference, there is no need to refer to Brown at every turn. If Cook is trying to preserve the integrity of the breed, why does he not acknowledge the points which direct us to the breed’s integrity? In saying (when mentioning SRC measurements), “They discovered that quite a number of Siberians, including many of the working ones, fit this ratio”, why does he not mention that (apparently) quite a few did not? He is telling us that the Standard needs to be tweaked to correspond with “quite a number of Siberians”. Again, does the Standard define the breed, or does the whim of some breeders define the breed, and render the Standard inadequate and in want of “revision”? Frankly, it seems to me that Cook is attempting to twist a fundamental matter. If Cook has historical evidence of “moderate speed”, why doesn’t he present, and document it? While finding fault with what I have been able to find by saying that it “does not take into consideration trail conditions, load, or rest time (Cook is in error, and would do well to re-read what I wrote), Cook here claims that the SRC “discovered that these dogs (those they measured) traveled about nine to thirteen miles an hour. I might add that they have always moved along at this speed…This is a moderate speed.” It is noteworthy that, given his criticism of the statistics I garnered from respected authorities and historians, Cook would here make his own statement, totally undocumented, and without giving any of the same perameters he previously cited as being so important. He writes, “This (nine to thirteen miles an hour) is moderate speed. It is the pace…the founders of our Standard expected them to do.” In point of fact, NO, it isn’t! The founders of our Standard clearly expected them to be faster (averaging “twenty miles an hour”) than those which Cook claims the SRC “discovered”, and, as I mentioned earlier, the founder’s expectation was such that they actually specified that faster speed range within their Standard. Obviously, they were describing the racing speeds, not the sustained speed of the working, endurance Siberian. Interestingly, the dogs which that founding Standard described performed at that faster speed, yet they weren’t “an athlete”; their bone was “heavy”, not “moderate”; their chest was “deep and strong”, not “slightly above the elbow”; their leg-bone was “good”, not “moderate”; males weighed “54-64 pounds”, not “45-60 pounds” – yet they were faster! Hmmm….?? 21) Just as Cook finds his overlapping circles to be of value, I find the analogies I use to be helpful, and if he prefers to liken his Siberians to the Welsh Pony (see http://www.welshpony.org/ ), he is certainly free to make that association. As for his remark that I “shirk from races”, he may be interested to know that it was via the racing crowd that I matured into the exhibition ring. It occurs to me that Cook’s “unrest” seems to have more to do with the fact that his view of the breed (and that of the SRC) was not upheld by the membership rather than by anything I have written. But, if he wishes to meet me on the pages of “The Quarterly”, or on an e-mail discussion forum, we can continue this discussion in civil fashion. Because I am not now a racer, and no longer use my dogs for racing, I have no doubt that, on the trail, Cook could beat me to a checkpoint. But, if he would tell me what he would be serving there for the dinner he mentions, I would like for him to know that I would like to transport some firewood, and a compatible wine.   ### -- The above “Letter To The Editor” is published in The Siberian Quarterly: Hoflin Publishing, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Fall 2002 Issue, pp. 22 - 24.

---

Back to
Artyk Siberians


All Web Pages and Images ©Copyright 1997-2005 Fredric R. Cornell, MIS
All Rights Reserved

Maintained By HarborNet