After a great deal of upheaval, storm and strife, the Chinook Club of America has FINALLY advanced a proposal whereby any UKC registered Chinook (whether Cross or otherwise) will be admitted to AKC FSS. This proposal has been greeted with choruses of "Hallelujah" and email threads along the lines of the title of this blog posting. Of course, if they had any sense that is what the CCA Board would have done at the outset. Probably 95% of COA supporters would have tumbled on board the AKC-train with enthusiasm. At the present moment there are a lot of bruised and battered feelings, a lot of suspicions remaining as to whether there are undisclosed agendas; support may be less wholehearted. Nevertheless, "Hallelujah" is the phrase of the moment.
Personally I do not see how any breed can support this scenario of "one gene pool, two breed clubs and two registries." I see that as an inherently unstable configuration. The two breed clubs, the two registries, will inevitably struggle for domination of the one gene pool, and the larger, better-funded, better legally-staffed entity will be the eventual winner. No prizes for guessing which one I mean.
So it has to be, in the words of the song, "a cold and broken hallelujah." COA breeders seem determined to submit to AKC rape.
And sure enough, some of the very people who were not interested enough in the unique Tullibardine Chinooks to come and get them, free for the taking, subject only to providing their own transport for the dogs, are now hopefully dangling before my wife and myself the offer to AKC/FSS those same dogs, free of charge (as will be the case for any UKC Chinooks for a certain time period, according to the proposal), because they "want those dogs in the gene pool."
Sure, they want them in the gene pool. Just like the Siberian Husky people wanted Jeffrey's Seppalas in their gene pool, as long as Jeffrey or someone else would continue to CKC register them, breed them, feed them, and care for them, while those SH people remained free to diss and bash them at liberty -- and avail themselves of the genetic resource from time to time when their own bloodlines needed an injection of "soundness."
These people are operating on the same old tired assumption that prevails like a sickness throughout the purebred dog world -- the assumption that a person's dogs do not belong to the owner really, they "belong to the breed," so that others who contribute to the support of those dogs in no way whatsoever feel entitled to dictate to the owner what she must or must not do with those dogs. Well, I don't buy it.
I'm here to say that I want NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH A.K.C. And most especially I will not feed, train, and care for AKC Chinooks so that others can enjoy the security of being able to use them when they get desperate enough with their "purebreds." Not on my nickle; not on my time; not on my energy.
I have received messages of support from a number of folks now, particularly among the I.S.A. contingent. Some in Canada as well. It seems obvious that W.C.A.C. will have to work hard to reinvent itself as a more active organisation. One dissident Director has resigned; four loyal Directors remain. A quick ad hoc online Board meeting has been held accepting the resignation of Stephen Pilby and appointing Director Linda Sked as W.C.A.C. Treasurer. The new W.C.A.C. website has been placed online at http://www.canadacanines.org/ and will continue to be developed in the weeks to come; moreover, the SSSD Project Forums have been re-opened.
I don't have time for a long post. I must cut meat to feed the puppies, who are already late being fed. It has been the most incredible morning this year, I would say for years, but for the series of incredible incidents last summer.
A do-gooder, who shall remain nameless, informed me this morning that I must immediately cease blogging for at least a week while he and others chosen by him undertake a "damage control" exercise in an effort to "salvage" my life's work from the "irrepairable" [sic] damage that I have done in the last week. I gave a noncommital reply and mentioned where I thought the "damage control" could start, namely with trying to figure out the individual who started this whole affair.
I then watched in open-mouthed amazement as a rapid series of email forwards cascaded into my inbox, among them several messages taking into the circle of confidence the very folks who have most threatened the survival of the Project, including the past W.C.A.C. secretary now under Board disciplinary action.
Hard to tell, but from what I saw it seems probable that there's an effort underway to set up a parallel shadow-org with Isa B. Murray as "breed steward" and JMB as . . . well, who knows what! All with the purest and most innocent of high-minded motives, of course.
At the moment (see some of the comments on this blog) there's a great deal of mealy-mouthed hypocrisy being uttered, to cover the fact that some folks would like to cut Jeffrey out of the loop and herd the old stallion out to pasture. I'm not much impressed with the soft words and the protestations of innocence and pure love of the dogs. As always, I watch actions and ignore the pretty words.
As usual, the do-gooders have taken a serious situation and escalated it into a disaster. If WCAC can survive this it will take decisive concerted action. I wish I could say more, but I'm not going to starve my puppies in the name of sordid dog politics.
This blog has always had trouble with weblice -- usually peddlers of viagra, body-part enhancement, shyster lawyers, etc. But this time around we're getting a new variety of weblice -- anonymous commenters with fake email addresses. This is a very infantile and amusing kind of cowardice -- entering comments on a blog discussion using a fake username and a nonexistent email addy. "Preacherman" just joined the louse contingent, whoever he may be. I just mailed a test message to both his email addy and that of "Perfect Pet" -- both tests were undeliverable.
Why do you suppose these people bother? Do they really think anyone cares what an anonymous nonentity has to say?
So far feedback has been minimal. One forums member has emailed me a message of solidarity and support, which was much appreciated. Everyone else is playing it close to the vest. I must make it clear that I am in process of making my mind up here, no fooling. So, a little feedback would be nice. Just how much do you (or don't you) want to see the Project continue? Not just W.C.A.C. members -- I'm asking everyone this question.
Because that's the question at issue here. I hope I've explained myself clearly enough for everyone to understand. Whether or not you, as an individual, feel like talking to me at the moment, now is the time to declare your own interests and to let me know what you are or are not willing to do to advance those interests. It is not in anyone's best interest to remain silent. My email address is functional and I'm in listening mode now.
One major problem is that I'm not at all sure that everyone really wants an SSSD evolving breed enough (a) to take on their share of the work that's involved and (b) to support loyally what's being done and the person who has been doing it for the past dozen years. There are those, apparently, who want Seppalas but want somehow to breed Project Seppalas without having to interact with the breed founder (and WCAC Breed Steward). Sorry, but that's not possible. As we all know, sleddogs bred in somebody's back yard, with no registry or organisational affiliations, are by definition Alaskan huskies, whether they have Seppala background or otherwise. Perhaps some have the notion that it would be a very good idea to get Jeffrey out of the picture. I don't intend to be put out to pasture, and I am not going to make it easy for those who (like Petsy there) have decided that I'm "senile and irrelevant."
Someone has to guide the development of an evolving breed, and that had better be the person with the greatest amount and longest duration of experience with that breed. You all know this already, but just the same: I owned, leased, and bred from dogs from J. D. McFaul in the 1970s. No one else can say that. Half of the "Second Foundation" dogs of that period of Seppala history belonged to me: Ditko of Seppala, Shango of Seppala, Frostfire Anisette, Lyl of Sepsequel, Malamak's Okleasik -- and I leased Duska of Seppala and bred to Vanka of Seppala 3rd and Mikiuk Tuktu Tornyak. (That's eight out of the ten Second Foundation animals.) I'm the only one of you who has owned a Siberia import. I'm the only person here who has bred over fifty litters of Seppalas. Added to which, I probably have more personal miles on sled runners than all the rest of you put together.
Go ahead and say I'm arrogant. Say, with Réjean, that I'm a "dictator" if you like. I refuse to feel apologetic about either my experience or my accomplishments. I'm proud of both. I'm also proud of my other abilities. There is not another person here who has demonstrated the ability to construct and manage a website like the SSSD Project site, for example.
This whole affair reminds me of Ayn Rand's book, Atlas Shrugged. I'm being asked to contribute my abilities, my resources, my dogs, my knowledge, my time, my energy for the benefit of those who do not have those things, and to apologise for having them myself. If you don't know what I'm talking about, read that book and you will.
I don't ask anyone to like me. That is not required. I do expect some R.E.S.P.E.C.T. and I expect decent backup and support for what the Project is trying to do. I expect people to put their shoulders to the wheel, their noses to the grindstone, and do whatever they CAN do to the very best of their abilities. Because that is what I do. Nothing less is acceptable. But if that is too much to expect in the postmodern era, let's find it out now, so we can all stop wasting our time on an impossible dream.
Every one of you has praised "Seppalas" to the skies in my hearing. I don't particularly need to hear it; I already know what Seppalas are like, better than anyone. But if that is truly what everyone does think, then it's time to back up your words with your wills and your energy. From here on out -- if there IS a future for W.C.A.C., the evolving breed, and the SSSD Project -- we'll be operating on the understanding that wholehearted support is a primary requirement. And if we cannot achieve that, then personally I will subscribe to the general half-hearted ethic, and stop doing all that I am doing now for Seppalas and the people who want to own them in the future.
True to its history, this blog continues to attract anonymous comments! Right from the beginning, when I was posting about Tina Barber (the Shiloh Shepherd founder), there were people who wanted to diss Tina but were too chicken to reveal a name or profile.
Anyway, Petsy, for your information I didn't spend weeks composing any of this series of posts. My blog posts are written straight off in one sitting and rarely get more than minor edits. Blogs are too ephemeral to arse around trying to get it perfect.
Petsy is entitled to hir opinion respecting my senility and relevance, or the lack thereof. Personally, I feel my powers undiminished. "Little Napoleons" expresses adequately the process I seem to see happening here. Were I writing a book, I might spend the time to find a more clever metaphor, but I'm just banging out a blog here.
Who are you, really, Petsy? And why are you too chicken to sign your real name? You used a yahoo.ca email addy, so probably you're Canadian; you seem articulate enough in English that you are probably anglophone. Beyond that, I'm mystified. Guess you aren't anyone of much importance to me. And as for your take on what "people say" . . . get a life, web-louse.
One of my most serious concerns for the future welfare of the SSSD Project is a tendency that has arisen in the past couple of years. Here is what seems to happen. People acquire two to four Seppalas, harness a small team, get thoroughly hooked on the dogs -- and then decide that they are Seppala experts in their own right. They no longer feel the need of advice, believing that they already know all they need to know. They don't require a Breed Steward or a support system! They have the "Seppalas" that they coveted and will now pursue their independent course, making their own decisions and somehow "breeding Seppalas" without having any further truck with the Forums or the breed founder -- and without access to the core of broodstock at Seppala Kennels.
J. M. Bélanger's "Gatineau Kennels" was the first example of this tendency. After acquiring an open bitch and two open males, breeding two litters (one of them accidental) and reneging on a stud-service agreement with Seppala Kennels, Jean-Marie is now an independent little Napoleon. His latest achievement was to allow a newborn litter of Seppalas to freeze to death in an outdoor doghouse in winter, or so they tell me. That's what happens when you decide you don't need advice.
Last winter T. J. Shrader left the Forums and the Project after deciding that SK was too distant from his location and SK dogs too expensive. He acquired Sepp-Alta and Sepp-Lok castoffs and started racing, advertising his own dogs as "Seppala Siberian Sleddogs."
This summer another newly-minted Seppala team-owner left the Forums shortly after acquiring an open female to go with the retired 12-year-old male he was given after a six-weeks dogsledding "learning experience" at SK in 2007. Jacob apparently feels he can do without the Forums, without SK, and without the breed founder. Other supporters recently received a PDF-file anticipated-litter announcement from him, together with his own attempted deductions as to the probable acceptability of the mating, by analogy from SK breedings.
On the forums there has been an undercurrent of resentment and disrespect. I get the distinct feeling that although people want the dogs at SK, they don't want me as part of the package. Okay, in a way that's understandable. I'm not a "people person," I'm blunt, direct, no diplomat. (If I think someone has fucked up, I tell them so. I try to offer enough advice to prevent fuckups; that's not always appreciated, either. Mentoring isn't an easy job.) Every winter this restiveness peaks in February, the month when everyone gets sick of winter, the light cycle's on the upswing, and the young males feel the proddings of nature in their gonads. Yes, it's understandable. But it can be pretty destructive.
I found I had had "enough" two days ago after the new W.C.A.C. Secretary told me on the forums that I suck. Even after the moderator intervened, he continued his attack. He, too, has a handful of SK Seppalas and has bred a litter. I have to ask myself whether the pattern will now repeat itself again. (So, if it matters, that was the event that triggered this re-evaluation of the Project's viability.)
The example of Doug Willett and his "satellite kennels" is far from encouraging. Doug has had a long succession of "protegés," his fair-haired boys whom he would introduce to others by saying, "this is Bob Davis -- he has the second-best team of Seppalas in the world!" Bob Davis, Mark Hartum, Uwe Krupp, Deron Kazmaier, Frank Caccavo and a host of others went this route, and all of them went their own ways after a brief spell on centre stage of DW's attentions. So one has to wonder whether anything at all can be done about secessions of this kind.
If it's true that the above is inevitable, then I don't believe that the evolving-breed programme has any reasonable chance of success. If dogs are removed from the overall breed programme virtually as soon as they are sold, then there will be no way of maintaining a coherent breed development plan. The SSSD would quickly become indistinguishable from the Siberian Husky, complete with the traditional race-vs-show-vs-pet dilemma; or from the ISSSC's ragtag collection of dissident racers. So -- are we to have a Seppala Siberian Sleddog Project here, and develop an evolving breed of versatile sleddogs, a population that will be able to survive for the long-term -- or shall we just be an unfocussed bunch of little Napoleons?
If it's to be the latter, then I think I'll let the whole thing die decently. I'll be spending a lot of money at the vet clinic on spays and neuters, and the ghost of Leonhard Seppala will finally be laid to rest.
I owe SOME Project supporters an apology for so drastic and abrupt an action as taking down the now-familiar websites. Seppala Kennels' site remains "up" -- I have no reason to take that down, as it directly serves my own kennel and dogs. As to the rest, I had very good reasons for doing so.
Every one of those sites was built entirely by me, hand-coding HTML/CSS to produce a fast, easy-to-navigate, accessible source of information. Each of those sites is hosted in my own web-space. I pay the domaine registration fees and the web hosting fees each year. I produced the informational content. Those sites BELONG to Jeffrey. They are a SERVICE to those who are interested in Seppalas, a service which I provide and which I can withdraw at any time.
In the extended discussion that took place on a couple of email lists in 2001 just prior to the founding of the "International Seppala Siberian Sleddog Club" and its ConKC wildcat registry, the Project site came up for discussion. (At the time there was another of the regular rumours that Jeffrey had died.) A couple people were of the opinion that the site had a lot of useful material, and that they should just "take over that site" and put that material to their own purposes, discarding, of course, the crazy stuff of Jeffrey's with which they did not agree! And in fact, Tamara Davis downloaded Project photographs which in less than a year turned up on coffee mugs, sweatshirts, teeshirts, and the brand-new ISSSC website. Since that time I have been continuously aware of the risks of web piracy and image-ripping. (That's not the only example -- the "Chukchi Sled Dog" site of the "Sanjankah Dog Club of America" ripped extensive Project text, massaged and integrated it into their own little scam-site.)
So when I see things spiraling out of control, my first instinct is to circle the wagons, protect my web resources and remove public access. Additionally, this makes the point of just HOW MUCH of what everyone takes for granted has come from one single source. If that source becomes unavailable, then what is left?