From: <tabyz73@aol.com>
To: <issscseppala@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 8:57
Subject: Re: [issscseppala] Genetics and AKC--whoops!

From: Tilquhillie <tilquhillie@onetel.com>
To: <issscseppala@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:02:04 +0100
Subject: Re: [issscseppala] Genetics and AKC--whoops!

Just change the breed in this article and it describes our situation pretty well. Thanks for putting this online, Taby.

From: <tabyz73@aol.com>
Date: Tue, September 13, 2005 11:24 am
To: <issscseppala@yahoogroups.com>
Priority: Normal

I have always thought the Seppala situation parrallels the Border Collie (or any other working breed). The difference with the original and respectable Border Collie registries is that they recognized the problem of the closed registry immediately and have fought long and hard to keep AKC from ever recognizing them.

It is also a testament to performance preservation in the case of the Border Collie because a dog can be admitted into the registry based on merit (performance). I see little difference here compared to outcrossing a proven Alaskan Husky.

From: <seppalta@starband.net>
Date: Tue, September 13, 2005 1:34 pm
To: <issscseppala@yahoogroups.com>
Priority: Normal

One of the propositions some of us discussed back in 2002 when we were breaking away was establishing a "registry of merit". I still have stashed somewhere in the closet an article that I had put together about it. The idea of administering our own registry and maintaining continuance was not very appealing, however, and when the open registry format of the CKC was discovered, that appeared to be a nice compromise between a pure "registry of merit" and the traditional closed registry. In a broader sense, a registry of merit can be effected in any system provided the merit system attached to the registry totally reflects performance. This is the essence of the fault of the traditional registries (AKC, CanKC, KC). Their merit system reflects cosmetics (rewards show dogs), not sled dog performance, or whatever is the performance attached to a breed. And they are not going to change because the vested interests vastly overwhelm the interests for change. Such has always been the case and will be the case without a catastrophical event.

This is also why the apparent effort of a majority of the UK Seppala enthusiasts to incorporate the Seppala into the Kennel Club program is probably about the worst thing that could happen. It might end up preserving the "name", but cannot preserve the "substance" of the dog, because the present UK Kennel Club system has little substance for finding good sled dogs, albeit it may be a lot of fun as a propogater of big social events. The ISSSC summer meeting was a great social event, and probabily had more substance for identifying good sled dogs than does the whole UK Kennel Club system of cosmetic-oriented showing, short distance racing and genetic-screening-overkill.

We need to continually keep in mind that our guiding light is performance, direct our energy in that direction and let the chips fall where they may. If in the end there is just two of us, you and I, persuing this end, then that is more worthwhile for the dog than a million participants in a system that only pays lip service to performance at best.

From: "Frank Caccavo" <fcaccavo@whitworth.edu>
Date: Tue, September 13, 2005 2:59 pm
To: <issscseppala@yahoogroups.com>
Priority: Normal

As a neophyte in the seppala game, but a highly trained biologist, I personally put a much higher credence on genetic arguments than the symantics of registries. Breed registries, like taxonomy in biology, are artificial organizational tools that have little to do with genetics or evolutionary biology. The seppala breed is an unfortunate victim of the politics, personalities and rivalries typically associated with such artificial organizing bodies. However, genetics, not registries, are the foundation upon which the seppala as a breed has been and continues to be built. Doug Willett and others have used many of the genetic principles described in the border collie article to bring the seppala breed to where it is today. While they are to be commended, I do not think there is any room for complacency. I agree that performance should be the guiding light, but this is an overly simplistic criterion in the absence of a balanced, genetically-sound plan for the future of the breed. For example, when I look around my own small kennel (and others), I see a tremendous dependence on the Seppalta studs Race/Ruffo. The genes of those animals dominate the modern seppala. I think we need to ask ourselves where we go from here? Where do we see this breed in 10 or even 20 years and how do we get there? How do we maintain or even enhance the performance of the breed while at the same time avoiding genetic pitfalls such as homozygosity and the resultant defects? Chris Rose-Anderson has described an appropriate strategy as always “breeding the best to the best”. However, this approach presents problems with such a limited gene pool as is the modern Seppala. I do not have any good answers. But, these are the types of questions I think about whilst sitting around the kennel petting dogs each evening. The future of this breed depends not only on agreement on the guiding light, but perhaps more importantly on the path that light will take.

From: <seppalta@starband.net>
Date: Tue, September 13, 2005 3:54 pm
To: <issscseppala@yahoogroups.com>
Priority: Normal

Well put, and please quit apologizing about being a Seppala neophyte.

Let me briefly define what I see as the dilema (challenge). I totally believe in Chris's strategy of breeding "best-to-best". I also totally believe in Caccavo's "avoid homozygosity and genetic drift". But in a small population like the Seppalas, too much best-to-best is going to lead to homozygosity (genetic pitfalls), and too much mediocrity-to-mediocrity is going to lead to over-all performance deterioration. It appears that we are doomed!

The Alaskan Husky kingdom gets away with best-to-best because they have a large population. Therein lies the answer to our dilema. WE NEED to increase our numbers, and I do not mean just any numbers, but rather our numbers of "BESTS". How do we do this? In two ways. We get our people to do more real substantive testing (serious racing) to find more "bests" in our present population, and we use our open-registry-15/16th-outcross program to borrow "bests" from the other populations. I see no other way.

So we should NOT quit emphasizing our present "bests" (Race-Ruffo, etc), but, probabily slowly and deliberatly, search out and incorporate in, other "bests". Herein is a danger in that haste can create waste. You must remember that your present kennel is small and somewhat genetically narrow, and not an accurate representation of the whole population. None of our kennels are. But there is a lot of broad-based breeding going on and I think a new generation of "bests" is just around the corner. Our challenge is to develop a racing (working-performance) system that finds them. This is were I'm worried. I do not presently see anyone, including myself, doing that. For 30 years I did do it, and that is how we found the Beowulfs, Lesters, Hanks, Elviras, etc., and got to where we are now. Who is going to do it from hereon?

Substantive performance testing is much harder than most people are even able to imagine. I hate to appear so pretentious on this score, but I have had so many performance-failures that I have really come to appreciate the ones that do not fail. So our "tags" for "best" have to be meaningful, not only to insure progress, but also to not demean the great performers who got us to this point.

Subject: RE: [issscseppala] Genetics and AKC--whoops!
From: "Frank Caccavo" <fcaccavo@whitworth.edu>
Date: Tue, September 13, 2005 4:21 pm
To: <issscseppala@yahoogroups.com>

OK, now we are getting somewhere. Can you provide some more specific information on

• (A) what your idea of “substantive performance testing” entails?
• (B) What “best tags” would be meaningful?

In regard to (A), I infer from what I know about your kennel history that this involves 2-3 litters per year (both “best to best” and outcross breeding), raising, feeding and training these litters until they can be truly tested (2 years or so in age) and then racing them as often as possible in as many challenging situations as possible (i.e Montana, Quebec, Laconia) with your top performers to see how they compare. Yes, a daunting tast but not insurmountable if we as a club are committed and creative. I would imagine the definition of a meaningful “Best Tags” is more ephemeral and highly dependent upon the experience of the driver. For example, if Beowulf was the “best” seppala, how can I use his performance as a point of reference if I have never driven him or even seen him run? Interested to hear more about this.

From: <tabyz73@aol.com>
Date: Tue, September 13, 2005 4:35 pm
To: <issscseppala@yahoogroups.com>
Priority: Normal

Thanks for the insight Frank...very well said. It is nice to have your imput, I missed-out on some of the imput we had a couple years ago from a biologist(genetist?).

Doug, what do you mean by serious racing? I am assuming your theory of placing within a minimum within 110% of winners, but beyond that what kind of distance and how about the number of heats? There is a huge leap between winning Siberian teams racing on a 12 mile maximum, 2 heat race and winning Siberian teams racing on a 20 mile minimum, 2+ heat races. In your opinion, is there a minimum mileage (and number of heats) that should be strived for to maintain the breed? I suppose in the back of my mind I always thought a truely performance tested Seppala was one that is consistantly the "best" in a minimum of 20 miles after 2 or 3 consecutive days.

From: <seppalta@starband.net>
Date: Tue, September 13, 2005 8:12 pm
To: <issscseppala@yahoogroups.com>
Priority: Normal

Without muddying the water too much, one can characterize sled dog performance fairly accurately in terms of speed, endurance and toughness. Of course, these three "tags" are not mutually exclusive, in particular, toughness can be measured in terms of a speed component and an endurance component. I have had dogs that have had one without the other in both directions.

Sled dog racing is the best (probably only) test that I know for extreme measurements of these characteristics. Therefore, dog performance equates to race quality and racing record for that dog over his lifetime.

I gage race quality by how well the race tests dog speed, endurance and toughness, and by the quality of the competition. Races like the Iditarod, Beargrease, etc are ultimate tests of endurance and toughness, but are also somewhat misleading because they are a driver+dog test, and the driver part may corrupt the result as related to the dogs. A good speed test including speed-toughness would be the Fairbanks North American race, while still retaining an endurance test, but without endurance-toughness. A 6- or 10-mile sprint race on a flat hard trail would be a pure speed test. However, 10 miles on a soft mountain trail would bring endurance back into the picture, but would not test speed toughness. A 50-mile mountain trail with a steep 10-mile downhill section would test speed toughness. The point is that each race has its own special nature relative to how the race trail tests these qualities. Racing 3 days in a row is tougher than 2 days, etc. There is nothing very complicated in this analysis. It is essentially common sense and the acceptance that each race is unique, even the same race on the same trail in different years.

What constitutes a good performance at a given race? The answer is your placement, measured in time units, with regard to the competition. To place in 10th place 1 second per mile behind the winner is much more commendable than in second place 2 seconds per mile behind. The winner of the race is the ultimate competition in that race, and it is his time that should be the basis of measurement. Also, creditable races today generally attract at least one competitive professional team, often the local hot shot Alaskan Husky team out for some race training and "easy pickings". So using the winner's time as the basis of measurement actually has a uniformity over all races way beyond what one might think at first hand. All of this however is subject to the times, and should be subject to modification on a regular basis.

Finishing behind Dave Schindler at 116% of his time in the 9-dog, 3x35-mile, La Pas, Manitoba race in 1986 was not that commendable. However, 104% of Tim White's winning time in the 4x50-mile, 1987, Seeley Lake, Montana race was commendable; and winning the 180-mile,1988, 2day Defi-du-Lac-St-Jean, Quebec race over Grant Beck was highly commendable. There were dogs on my team common to all 3 races. So real dog evaluation has to come down to analysing who establishes the winning time at all that dog's races with conditions that test speed, endurance and toughness in so much as possible.

At this point in time, the ISSSC simplification of all of this is to require 110% of winner's time as the designater of quality (see dog titles program). This is a purely practical conclusion, attached to this point in time, and does not mean that we do not understand the idiosyncrasies of the situation.

From: "Frank Caccavo" <fcaccavo@whitworth.edu>
Date: Wed, September 14, 2005 12:41 pm
To: <issscseppala@yahoogroups.com>
Priority: Normal

DW: “Our challenge is to develop a racing (working-performance) system that finds them (the next generation of bests). This is were I'm worried. I do not presently see anyone, including myself, doing that.” You are probably correct in that conclusion. I see myself going in that direction, but not for 4-5 years. However, I think most of the components for a legitimate and functioning working-performance system are already in place within the ISSSC. These include:

• A set of clearly defined criteria and outcomes upon which the system is based (the speed-endurance-toughness tags, the 110% of winner time, the racing title format)
• A base population of animals that already meets those criteria.
• A group of people (ISSSC) that get along with each other, are committed to the preservation of the breed, and have diverse goals (competition would quickly stifle collaboration if everyone in the group wanted to win every race)
• Your free puppy distribution program.

For the last 30 years, Seppalta kennel has been the predominant workhorse in breeding, developing and testing seppalas within a defined performance system. What if the next 30 years saw a paradigm shift in which the work associated with such a system was distributed throughout the ISSSC? Club members would agree to focus on best-to-best and best-to-outcross breedings. The puppies resulting from such litters would be distributed to interested members for development. This would defray the time and monetary costs associated with the multiple yearly litters requisite for breed advancement. When members came across a pup/yearling with “best” potential, that member would either test it within the performance system him/herself, or distribute it to another member for testing. The summer meeting and the two proposed annual club races (Seeley Lake and Georgetown) would be excellent venues for evaluation and assessment. We may take it a step further and follow the Alaskan village model in which a few ISSSC members volunteer/are chosen each season to race composite teams from around the ISSSC kennels made up of “bests” and “best candidates”. Dogs that passed those tests would then be used in future breedings. Obviously this idea must be fleshed-out with details.

From: "Tilquhillie" <tilquhillie@onetel.com>
Date: Wed, September 14, 2005 3:51 pm
To: "ISSSC" <ISSSCSEPPALA@yahoogroups.com>
Priority: Normal

Anyone who is serious about the Seppala must accept the importance of performance testing as a guiding principle in breeding decisions. Frank's questions and Doug's replies highlight some of the problems we face in setting meaningful standards. Doug's way of testing performance has been tried and tested over thirty years. This is why his "best" dogs tend to dominate the pedigrees in our kennels. This has always been the case in the Seppala breed. With the creation of the ISSSC we are trying to broaden the approach. The problem is that there was only one Doug Willett (fortunately), and now even he sees the limitations he has in continuing the process. Over the thirty year of his racing life, things have changed quite a bit. The days of the dedicated amateur are numbered. Racing has changed in such a way as to favor very large kennels with enormous budgets and people who make a living out of it. Technology and scale dominate. We live in the age of "designer dogs". Really competitve people are unlikely to choose Seppalas as the means of achieving the success they crave in today's racing world.. This means that it will become increasingly difficult to find people who will develop highly competitive racing Seppala kennels. We should not lose sight of the fact that a team is a collective entity. Good Seppalas in the hands of poor dirvers are unlikely to excell. There is also the problem of small kennel size where people are racing all their dogs; dogs of mixed ability. Excellence is harder to identify in these situations. Doug's procedure has worked well, but it requires someone like him. There may be a potential "son or daughter of Willett" out there amongst you, but until he or she becomes known to us, we will have to look at other options for the survival of the Seppala.

This all seems very pessimistic, but not if we look upon it as a challenge. We have to be creative in coming up with new ways of testing the dogs and identifying the excellent ones that may show up from breedings where they were not to be expected. Right now, racing is the main focus and should be used to the fullest extent possible, but it is essential that people do not choose only those venues where they have the highest chance of success. Challenge is the name of the game. As Doug has pointed out, you must set the goal posts far enough away from you so that you have to stretch yourselves to get nearer to them.

We need to get more people and more dogs involved. It is difficult for people who are just starting out. People new to the breed, with just a few dogs, may feel that all of this does not really pertain to them. Nothing could be further from the truth. If we are to develop a broad based approach to developing the Seppala, we must do all that we can to provide the best environment for this to flourish. As a club it is necessary that we do all we can to help new people acquire good dogs and develop their own skills. The best way of learning how to identify a good dog is to see good dogs in action. The best way of learning how to train your Seppalas is to watch someone who is good at it. Fortunately, the club has a good pool of talent to meet this task.