What's more important Genotype or Phenotype when breeding?  Be specific.

The first rule of breeding is to breed “like to like,” so phenotype is the first thing to pay attention to: do the dogs match up well in terms of strengths and weaknesses, bone-lengths, angles, and so on? Beyond that the pedigree may give an indication of the relative family strengths and weaknesses of the animals in question. So first pay attention to the actual dogs and how they match up, and then pay attention to the pedigree as a window into the likelihood of the genotype reflecting the phenotype.

When you Judge Siberians, what can and can't you forgive, assuming there is no perfect dog?

I believe the proportions of a Siberian are the most important aspect of the meeting of type and function, so I fault most severely bad proportions. And then I fault bad toplines, bad fronts, poor muscling,  excessive bulk or bone, and anything wide coming and going, as well as bad feet, as I think these are the faults most likely to hinder function. And of course I also fault poor type. I’m most likely to forgive some narrowness in front or rear, provided it does not hinder the fluency of the side gait.

How rampant is politics in the ring today, specifically with Breeder Judges?   

There are by now lots of breeder judges, so it’s hard to generalize, but I believe that while breeder judges may have more definite notions of what they like and don’t, they would be less likely to be simply political than most. But that’s an intuition based on a lot of assumptions that may or not be accurate. The fact is we can never know what’s going on in someone else’s head, but since I started showing almost 40 years ago, I’ve always trusted breeder judges (the real breeder judges, not those who finished a couple of dogs) most.

I do believe the show ring is quite political, in part because it’s so much easier to learn who the people are than what a good specimen of the breed is. I also believe judges often make decisions based on what will give them future assignments, but of course catering to the powerful has always been a way to rise in almost any world.

When breeding, how hard is it to breed out fronts, heads, movement, rears, a sloping topline and leg?

I’ve long believed breeding a good dog is generally much harder than people realize, at least when they’re new to it. Best advice: start with the best you can lay your hands on, get lots of advice from as many sources as possible, take a decade or so sifting it, and then figure on a 20-year investment after that. Hope for a little luck, and then use your luck wisely.

On the other hand, I’ve always said, “If you can see it, you can breed it” – maybe not immediately, but eventually. The really hard part is learning to see with enough particularity to know what’s really good or bad about a dog. It’s not only a matter of identifying a “bad front,” for instance; it’s a matter of knowing what makes it a bad front; how many things would have to be changed to make it a good front, etc. etc. It’s playing the odds in a very tough casino.

Recently, I contacted a breeder about a puppy.  This person was very kind and quoted me the price and asked about my kennel, how many dogs I have and who they were from, etc.  She agreed to sell me the puppy.  I asked this person, what health issues has she/he had over the course of four generations of this pedigree.  She/he told me that they have never had any health issues.  I am a little concerned about purchasing the puppy, it is unusual that a line is free of genetic issues for four generations.  I understand that breeders do not want to air all their "laundry", but my point in asking was not to judge but to be aware of what problems to stay away from.  I like the puppy, and want him but I'd like your opinion.  Should a breeder disclose all the issues to a perspective buyer or should the person buying the puppy, trust the breeder and buy the dog?

That's a very hard, but good question. Phyllis Brayton once told me a story of faulting every dog in her kennel for the benefit of a young visitor apparently interested in learning about the breed, only to hear several days later that this person had been telling everyone that there wasn't a single good dog at Dichoda Kennels. So one has to be somewhat cautious in dealing with people very new to the breed.

That having been said, however, I always believe full disclosure is the best policy, provided one can also provide the necessary nuances to the information, a sense of what the facts mean; and while it is entirely possible that no dog within four generations of a given puppy exhibited a genetic problem, it is more than likely that some of the littermates, aunts, uncles or cousins of those dogs did. So either someone is not being entirely forthcoming or they simply don't know.

But whether or not you should further pursue the relationship depends on too many other factors that I am not privy to. I guess I'd probably pursue the issue with follow-up questions to the breeder and base my decision on the quality of the answers.

If you could spend an evening with anyone in the history of the breed, who would it be and what would you ask them?

I'd spend it with Seppala and try to get him to tell me about specific dogs, their strengths
and weaknesses, how he motivated them and otherwise got into their heads; and then I'd just want to hear whatever stories came to mind, because most of those guys were great storytellers. I did experience a lot of that with Charlie Belford, who was taught by Seppala and was perhaps the greatest driver since Sepp, depending on how you place Lombard; and Charlie knew more about Siberians than anyone I've ever met -- both mentally and physically.

Reflecting on this answer, it occurs to me I should point out that I WAS fortunate enough to have lengthy conversations with most all of the other significant founders of the breed: Nansen, Moulton, Lombard, Belford, Natalie Norris, Demidoff, Brayton, Koehler, etc.

When breeding, what are the advantages to line breeding and outcrossing, as well as the disadvantages?  Would you ever consider doing a inbreeding and if so under what circumstances?  

Purists in the field of genetics don’t really acknowledge line-breeding as a term, arguing that when one gets the results one is looking for it’s really a product of in-breeding. Moreover, in a breed as closely related as the Siberian, evolving from fewer than 20 animals, out-crossing is probably not a real possibility. Those things having been said, breeding to dogs within a given family – cousins, aunts, uncles, great-uncles, etc. – will tend to give you greater consistency, while breeding to animals farther from the immediate family may give you greater vigor and avoid some of the pitfalls of doubling up on unwanted recessive characteristics. And breeding to cousins and somewhat more distantly related animals seems historically to have been somewhat safer than brother-sister, father-daughter, son-mother breedings. And while I have never done such breedings, I have bred to aunts, uncles and cousins consistently enough to consider them in-breedings. And, yes, if there were, for instance, a compelling health reason, I would consider one of those very close breedings; but I don’t think that’s likely.

To sum up: the advantage of close breeding is consistency, the disadvantage health issues; the advantage of more distant breedings is the possibility of greater health and vigor, as well as possibly correcting certain family structural faults, while the disadvantage is greater unpredictability.

I have a problem, I recently acquired a new puppy. It was sent to me sight unseen, with the promise that it was show material. This puppy, although cute, has a terrible rear. I have already paid for the puppy. Do you think that the breeder should give me my monies back or replace the puppy with a show quality puppy? What do you feel is the responsibility of a breeder when placing a "show puppy"?

There is no hard and fast rule as to what constitutes a "show puppy" or "show prospect puppy," unless there is an explicit written contract. If, however, a show prospect puppy comes up with a serious structural or genetic fault, it is customary for the breeder to either replace the puppy or refund the cost of the puppy; or, sometimes, refund the difference between a show prospect puppy and a pet puppy, if the buyer wants to keep the pup as a pet. But these ethical issues, in the absence of an explicit contract, come down to personal relationships and trust, which is why it's good to get to know your breeder.

I am the owner of a Top 25 Siberian. My Siberian is doing really well; however, recently I found out that there are competitors that are spreading rumors about my Siberian. They are stating that my Siberian has epilepsy which is untrue. How can I stop the rumors?

You can't. I show my dogs for the benefit of the people I know and trust who will value that dog for the virtues I've worked long years for. The rest I simply don't care about. There's no award or honor that can be bestowed on my dog that can make him any better than he is in my estimation. The rest is just pettiness and social noise. Such rumors will not have an effect on what judges do with the dog, and as far as breeding opportunities, you probably don't want to do business with the sort of people who believe such rumors because, one way or another, they are always poison.

With the SHCA National Specialty closely approaching, will you be attending with Cassio? I would like to see him in person, since I have not attended a National.

I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect he will be there, his coat and the gods willing.

Who do you think are some to the best Siberians of all time that you have seen personally, both structurally as well as type.

I get asked this question all the time, and there's really not a good way to answer it for several dozen reasons. But from my perspective, Austrian Ch. Demavand's Santiago and Ch. Secondwind's Kalahari are probably the two best males I've ever seen, both bred by me, one living in Austria, the other in my backyard. Both have the type and body I'm looking for, and both move virtually flawlessly. But then, after breeding for nearly 40 years, if I didn't have pretty close to my ideal, I wouldn't be much of a breeder; so you can take this with as much salt as you wish.