The Samoyed Dog

Classic type, working type, show type – a divided breed?

Have our pedigree dogs become designer dogs?

Author: Camilla Nyström

The Samoyed, one of the oldest dog breeds with a history spanning thousands of years, today branches off into different directions and appearances. As a whole, the breed no longer looks like the dogs that once served as models for the establishment of the breed standard. An alarmingly small part of the global breed population today is still bred with preserved traits for work and function connected to their polar characteristics and role as sled dogs. I have spent a lot of time studying this and seeking information on the phenomenon of split breeds, a phenomenon that has also been discussed in many forums and contexts. Here I would like to contribute some thoughts and facts to these debates; perhaps my questions and reflections on this will spark interest in more of you who are reading this. Quite a long time ago I found a site called Sundahundar (“sound dogs”) with many interesting articles, but unfortunately that site no longer seems to exist. In this article, I will return to some quotes from there that are worth reflecting on.

“People often talk about the fact that several working breeds exist in two variants, a working variant and a show variant. That dogs, despite having the same breed name, look so different and have such different traits is due to the fact that different breeders have different goals with their breeding. Some breeders strive to win in the show ring, some want to produce a gentle companion dog that suits most puppy buyers, and some want to produce a dog that can be used for the breed-specific purpose. And then there are breeders who, to varying degrees, try to combine these different goals in various ways.”

— Quote: Sunda hundar

Above: This picture was taken in 2011. These are two finalist dogs at a major breed specialty, judged by two different judges at the same show. One judge judged the females and another judged the males. The difference in how the judges evaluate is quite striking. The breed type shown by the female on the left is today becoming more and more rare, even though it is closest to the original classic type. Very few conformation judges understand the importance of preserving this type of dog and often judge it unfairly, eliminating them in competitive evaluations. This is sad and a threat to the preservation of the working Samoyed with its retained polar traits. Very few dogs today can display such a fantastic polar coat as this female does, both in terms of quantity (with body contours still visible) and quality.

The Samoyed of today is unfortunately affected by the same phenomenon as most other working breeds (polar breeds as well as hunting, herding, and other utility breeds). In breeding, working traits (energy, drive, ability to work against physical resistance, forwardness, grit, curiosity, motivation, etc.) are being neglected, and in the show rings dogs are being rewarded that increasingly diverge from the original appearance described in the breed standard, including the body construction and build required for the dog to be able to work well and perform satisfactorily in terms of endurance, speed, and strength. Quite simply, we now have dogs with a conformation that no longer supports the function described in the breed standard. We can clearly see how this has affected the Samoyed by studying pictures of the breed over time. That the breed’s appearance is linked to its working ability and performance is governed by biomechanics. I encourage you to conduct a deeper study of biomechanics and its laws when reflecting on this.

Around 2010, after studying the breed for over 20 years, I wrote an article about how this has affected the Samoyed for the magazine Polarhunden, which was first published in Sweden and later also in Norway after Norwegian breeders appreciated the article and wanted to publish it in their own magazine as well. Something that came as a great shock to me afterwards was what I was subjected to by those who did not like my article—both personal attacks and hostilities from a group of individuals were directed against me after it was published. I had not expected to be lynched in this way by some. I was so absorbed in my studies and the joy of having come so far in mapping out some of the breed’s shortcomings and problems—something I was passionate about sharing. Already then I learned that some people are not interested in facts and truths IF they do not align with their own agenda and vision of how they want things to be.

Already as a child I had begun to take an interest in in-depth studies of the breed’s history, uniqueness, anatomy, biomechanics, the breed’s development, function, traits, mentality, genetics, population genetics, trait genetics, epigenetics, etc., and how we through selective breeding can influence our dogs’ abilities, characteristics, and appearance. When I become interested in something, I love to really “nerd out” with deep, detailed studies, which have cost me money and thousands of hours of study time. In my naivety, I thought that all quarrels and conflicts would be resolved if someone just took the time to find out how things really were. I believed I could get everyone to agree and work toward the same goal if as much factual truth as possible came out on the table. I thought that through knowledge, by bringing forth facts and old photos, one could map out and establish the truth about different aspects of the breed, and that everyone would be interested and excited to share in my many years of study in the subject. But no, I rather quickly became aware that many people were not at all interested in facts or old historical material about the breed. Some people were only interested in their own opinions and became angry at the truths and facts that emerged when I began presenting parts of my material and the analyses I had made.

But today I can smile a little at my eagerness and wish to solve everything so that all conflicts and quarrels around the breed would disappear. I probably thought better of people then than what I have experienced since. People are more interested in keeping conflicts alive than in acknowledging the truth that emerges from fact-based studies. The article I wrote in 2010 is just as relevant today as it was then. The situation for the breed has unfortunately continued in the same direction. The problems in the rings with over-typing and drifting type have continued to grow and spread. Today it is difficult to impossible to get a fair assessment of a dog of the older, classic, more moderate type—the type of dog the breed standard was once established from.

Others have also written on this subject, including the highly competent, now deceased Dutch conformation judge Mr. Clay. He wrote an interesting and important article entitled “What is wrong with the Samoyed?” Mr. Clay in turn learned about the Samoyed breed directly from the first Western breeders, the daughters of the Kilburn-Scott family in England. This family was very active in establishing the breed and cared for the early foundation dogs that came from Siberia for further breeding in the West. Another interesting writer on this subject is the Dutchman Pieter Keijzer, who left his material and website—where he published much of his work—to his former partner Sarah de Monchy, who today keeps that site alive. Jim Osborn in the USA is also someone who has written many interesting articles about the Samoyed in the US, for example about the breed’s original work as a sled dog, and how that is confirmed by his historical studies of the breed as well as deep studies and follow-ups of pedigrees going back to the first Siberian imports.

The problem of succeeding with both work and conformation.

A common comment one hears is: Why can’t the dog be both? Let us analyze this more closely to answer the question. To be “both” means that the dog is both a good working dog and earns show certificates—in other words, can in principle become a dual champion. The prerequisite for this is that the judges reward the type of dog that actually can work. You don’t need to be Einstein to see that judges in several divided breeds reward a type of dog that does not have the optimal conformation to be able to work. Skin, size, and coat are not exteriors optimal for hunting, utility, or herding. Overall one can see that the show variant of the bird dogs are larger, more coated, and have more skin than the hunting lines of the breed.

A dog’s working traits are not preserved simply because it is purebred! To preserve traits in breeding, one must see that they exist in the breeding stock and how they are inherited by the offspring. That is why it is important that breeding dogs have their offspring evaluated in working trials if the goal is to preserve a working dog.

Why can’t one breed dogs in divided breeds that look the way the judges want and can also work? Well, part of the answer is above, namely that judges reward an exterior not aligned with the dog’s use. Another reason is that the exterior ideal has changed over time. Exteriors go in and out of fashion, and judges tend to “over-type” the dogs, i.e., they reward the dogs that display a more exaggerated/extreme version of a desirable/typey trait on the grounds that more must be better, thereby encouraging progressively worse exaggeration to the point of entering an “extreme zone.” The type of dogs rewarded today does not look like those rewarded 50 or 100 years ago. The demands then placed on breeders are unreasonable: they cannot preserve and improve the complex working traits while also having to change conformation to keep up with fashion. Additional complications are that evaluations focus on and emphasize details such as eye color, coat color, ear set, tail carriage, and other traits that are really of no importance except to the human eye—that is, judges include the wrong things in the evaluation. Plainly speaking, one could actually argue that the great majority of working-type dogs are in fact “both”; they simply have against them a judging corps that does not happen to consider their type ideal. If the judges prioritized their conformation, there would be no problem in producing more dual champions.

The split has already gone too far.

Some working breeds are shown without being divided into different varieties. In these breeds, people have succeeded in rewarding the dogs that function in work and in prioritizing the right things in evaluations. In most British gundog breeds and working dog breeds, a show career is not possible within the working type, as it does not match the judge’s taste and preference. The working variant may perhaps have a more heterogeneous type in appearance, but it still stays within the frame of its exterior breed type compared with the original.

In some breeds, people have successfully linked working trials to the shows so that one cannot earn one merit without the other. Note that this may seem exemplary, but it is not a solution for all the breeds that are divided today, since the split has gone too far.

How do we solve this then? Well, there is not one answer that applies to all breeds, since the split has progressed to different degrees in different breeds and has been ongoing for varying lengths of time. Some working breeds are well-established as companion dogs, while in others the “damage” is not as widespread, so there the development can perhaps be reversed.

In the breeds where development has gone on for a long time, we do not believe the ship can be turned around. However, one can work so that we do not produce even more extreme dogs. Therefore, a continuous dialogue with Sweden’s governing dog body—the SKK—and their corps of judges must be maintained, where Sweden’s dog owners stand up for the sake of the dogs.

— Quote: Sunda hundar

For the Samoyed, the split within the breed has already gone so far that many perceive the different types almost as different breeds, and the traits differ greatly as well. This is despite the fact that in Sweden the Samoyed has, for decades, had a requirement of a working merit for the awarding of a show championship—something which has at least slowed the negative development compared to other countries. The division within the breed has gone so far that it has led to subpopulations within the overall population. Breeders who aim to preserve a working Samoyed do not use breeding animals that deviate too far from the older classic type (functional body structure) or that lack essential mental qualities for work and performance. Breeders who prefer the more modern show types (more compact, heavier and coarser dogs, denser coats, broader and shorter muzzles, and heads of a more teddy-bear-like type) do not use classic-type dogs in their breeding, and they select for the opposite mental traits of what someone seeking a working dog wants.

I would argue that the division within the Samoyed has gone so far that internationally it cannot be reversed, and even nationally the split has gone too far to unite the breed and get all breeders working toward the same goal. A question that arises more and more often in discussions is whether the breed would benefit from an official split, so that breeders with different goals could focus on their interests under different breed names. Some go so far as to claim that this might be the only way to preserve the older, classic working type of Samoyed in the future. But if such an official split were to be made, it would have to happen internationally, which places heavy demands on dog organizations worldwide. The Akita, for example, is a breed where this choice was made: Japan saw how their national breed was disappearing due to changes and drift away from the original type and appearance, which led to today’s two separate breeds—the Japanese Akita and the American Akita.

For the Samoyed, I believe it is important that we continue to keep the discussion alive so that knowledge and understanding of the classic working Samoyed and its polar traits are not forgotten. Two true role models and driving forces in this were our recently departed honorary members Elga Carlsson and Annica Uppström, two people who meant an enormous amount to me and my interest in Samoyeds, as I learned much about the breed from them. Elga and Annica, among other things, laid the foundation for the concept of “polar traits” many years ago when they worked to explain to judges what is important in a working polar dog (Samoyed). This is a concept now well established in polar dog circles (across all polar breeds) and includes both anatomy and character. We should continue to honor their memory by letting the work they built over many years live on. Without Elga and Annica, SPHK (the Swedish Polar Dog Club) could never have shown such excellent work in preserving and managing a working Samoyed of classic type. They never missed an opportunity for good dialogue about preserving the breed both in appearance and in traits.

What Elga and Annica laid the foundation for is something I deeply hope SPHK continues to protect, so that we keep the Samoyed of classic type with preserved working traits. Something that was of tremendous importance to Annica, as responsible conformation judge for SPHK’s judge handbooks, was to complete the handbook for the Samoyed before the 2022 conference. She worked on this until her deathbed, carefully selecting images and information to present to conformation judges for the upcoming conference. For the Samoyed, Annica completed the handbook shortly before she passed away—something I deeply hope SPHK will safeguard and not discard or alter, so that the legacy and incredible knowledge of the breed she left behind remains intact.

It is important that SPHK continues to educate the judging corps on the importance of rewarding dogs of the older classic type with good polar traits in their evaluations, since this affects many breeders’ choices of breeding animals. Unfortunately, many breeders today select their breeding animals based on what judges reward in the show rings rather than evaluating their dogs’ anatomy and traits in practical work themselves. A breed standard does not only describe an appearance but also a functional area, a breed-specific purpose. If one intends to follow the breed standard, one cannot reward dogs whose conformation collides with what is required of them in practical use to work and perform optimally within their traditional field of work.

Illustration or Decoration of the Breed Standard?

Above: Male dogs. Left: the Samoyed Lobi (one of the last direct imports from Siberia, 1917). Middle: the Samoyed Nansen, 1903, first-generation Samoyed born in England after direct imports from Siberia. Right: English breed standard illustration from 1912, which in image illustrates what had been attempted to describe in words in the standard.

There exists an illustration, a drawn picture of the Samoyed’s structure, from an English book on breed standards from 1912, which visually represented the appearance and structure described by the breed standard (the image above), as well as the interpretation of the words in the standard. This standard illustration was made at a time when the breed type was still unchanged, which makes it interesting in showing how the breed type was originally interpreted and what was intended to be described when the breed standard was established. At that time, they believed that the dogs looked as the breed standard described—before people had forgotten how the dogs appeared when they came from Siberia.

We must also remember that the Samoyed is not a breed created by humans in the West, but a dog type with a history spanning thousands of years, which was preserved and carried into the future by being given a breed name.

In this illustration one sees a dog with a rich coat but not overly large and long—the body contours are still visible. The coat on the legs and crown of the head is short and smooth, which is not always the case in today’s show dogs. The hock is set low in relation to the length of the thigh bone, not overly short as in many of today’s show dogs (where the thigh bone has also been proportionally shortened). It also shows a dog with a proportionally smaller body compared to legs than the modern show type. The head is far from as broad and heavy as in many of the dogs rewarded in rings today. This dog also shows a more developed rear with more length in the various sections of the hind legs than we see in many modern show dogs, where the leg bones have been shortened and the rear has almost become lower than the withers. Russian cynologists studying the Siberian dogs wrote in their book in the early 1900s that the West Siberian sled dogs were built for running at high speeds; among other things, this was shown by their slightly higher rear than front (the height at the hips was marginally higher than at the withers).

And as Mrs. Kilburn-Scott once said: “It should be built along the lines of a Border Collie” (this is written in old issues of Our Dogs, the world-famous English dog magazine). In other words, a rather light and airy type of dog—not overly compact. She expressed this after seeing many of the Siberian foundation dogs that established the breed in England, and she was also involved in writing England’s first breed standard in 1909. The Swedish/Norwegian breed standard is slightly older, written already in 1908. Mrs. Kilburn Scott also stated that a Samoyed must never become as coarse and heavy as a Greenland Dog. She said: “If you think the dog is wrong and too thin and light in body, it is probably correct.”

How should the expressions in the standard be interpreted, and what was really meant when the standard was written (established)?

I find this question quite interesting, since today it is rather clear that a new modern show variant has emerged within the Samoyed. Now, what one considers beautiful may be up to each individual, but the real question is: what does the standard actually describe? And what is correct if we are to preserve the breed instead of changing it, and what is correct if the anatomy/conformation is to support the dog’s function as a sled dog capable of sustained physical work over long distances, while allowing both strength and speed in good balance for the working sled dog?

Is there a solution?

I would argue that there is. By looking at a large number of old archive photos from the time when the breed was established in the West, we get a picture of what the words in the breed standard were really trying to describe. The early dogs stood as the models for the establishment of the breed standard. In creating a breed standard, they were attempting with words to describe the dogs they had before them. We should also remember that they most likely did not describe an extreme or an odd specimen of the breed, but rather how the dogs generally looked.

What is somewhat unfortunate about today’s breed standards is that kennel club organizations within the FCI have chosen to decorate the documents with pictures drawn by an artist who had little knowledge of what the standard actually describes. It is also the same artist who drew most of the pictures decorating the covers of standards for hundreds of breeds. In a discussion with the SKK’s (Swedish Kennel Club’s) standard committee about this, I received the reply:

“Everyone who works with a breed standard knows that these pictures have nothing to do with the standard text and in no way are an illustration of how the standard should be interpreted.”

They also said that it was so well understood that there was no risk that either judges or breeders would imagine that the picture represented a breed-typical dog in line with the standard.

Personally, I do not believe it is as simple or as obvious as the SKK suggests. Many newcomers to the breed who see the picture alongside the standard are easily misled into thinking the picture is an illustration of what the standard describes. This in turn leads judges to look for the type of dog shown in the picture when they evaluate, and many breeders who have not done their homework and studied the breed in depth do the same. Would the breed benefit if the decoration were removed altogether?

Above: To the left, the illustration from 1912. To the right, today’s FCI decoration of the document—which according to SKK has nothing to do with the standard. Conformation judge Mr. Clay also wrote about this decoration in his article on the breed’s development and change, “What is wrong with the Samoyed?” The dog shown above depicts a dog far too heavy, coarse, and compact; the athletic waist is missing and the head is heavy and mastiff-like. For example, the standard states that a Samoyed should have a body somewhat less than half of its wither height, which this drawn dog does not show. The proportions in the standard describe the adult dog; the younger dog should have even more leg and less body, in order to continue growing without ending up with incorrect proportions as an adult. According to the breed standard, the Samoyed is a relatively high-standing type. Low on leg is listed as a fault in the standard, but nowhere does it say that long legs or being high-standing is a fault (of course, the chest must be sufficiently deep to ensure good lung capacity, but it should not be excessively deep). Low- or high-standing has nothing to do with the dog’s overall height, but only with the proportions between the body depth and the length of the forelegs.

Were there different types already in Siberia?

The Samoyed is a dog type that originally showed a natural range of appearances within the type. In Siberia, these dogs came in all colors, but in our Western-bred Samoyed only the white and biscuit-colored varieties remain. It is important that we safeguard genetically the colors we still have, as they broaden the genetic variation in our dogs. Of course, the dogs varied in appearance somewhat beyond just color already in Siberia—this is natural in a landrace shaped by nature and the conditions and demands of the environment and the dogs’ working tasks. But in Siberia, there never existed the exaggerated variants we see in the rings in many places today.

Naturally, both so-called short-haired and long-haired variants existed; the more long-haired were characterized mainly by somewhat longer coats around the mane, breeches, and feathering on the back of the forelegs. The very large and voluminous coats we see in many individuals today are not a natural variation within the original framework of the type, but something created by humans through hard selective breeding on an exterior detail that became more and more pronounced with each generation. Changing appearance can happen genetically fast; other traits take longer to change. The heaviness, coarseness, and body mass that many dogs exhibit today have also arisen through Western breeding in the same way that coat volume has increased.

Naturally, there was also variation in muzzle length and appearance, but the short, broad muzzles we see today combined with an overly pronounced stop were never part of the original range of natural variation. The Samoyed is a dog type from Siberia that was preserved—not a man-made breed where humans started from the assumption that all dogs should look like a particular individual. To define the frame of the Samoyed’s natural variation in appearance, one must study a larger number of individuals from a given time period.

We should also be aware that even nature itself can sometimes fail and produce individuals with odd appearances—dogs perhaps less well suited to the prevailing environment and work, standing out from the range of normal variation in appearance. If we search thoroughly enough in old photographic documentation, we can surely find occasional “proof” that extremes existed early in history. But one thing to consider is this: if nature occasionally “failed” and produced such an odd-looking individual, should we humans then make that unusual individual’s appearance into a breeding goal? Are we truly preserving the breed’s integrity as a whole if we elevate such extremes into breeding ideals? Is “more”—more coat, more compactness, shorter leg segments—always better?

Above: Dogs of the original classic breed type. Male, male, female, male. Some of the first Western-born generations that form the foundation of today’s breed population. These were also shown at exhibitions with fine results and championship titles. The dog on the far right is a five-time Crufts winner. The dog on the far left is a direct import from Siberia and is considered one of the breed’s most important foundation dogs according to Jim Osborn’s pedigree study. Very few dogs today show the body-to-leg length proportions that these dogs did. Many dogs today show large bodies with shortened limb segments; it is particularly clear that, for example, the thigh bones have become proportionally very short in many of today’s show winners (resulting in a less well-developed rear), and the coats have become much longer and denser. Even the short, smooth hair on the head and legs has become woollier and longer. These dogs also did not have the same body mass and heaviness that many of today’s show winners exhibit—changes that do not benefit the breed as a draft/sled dog.

Above: Male, male, male, female. Some examples of today’s type variants, all of which have received good results at shows from different judges, yet look so different. The dog on the left is closest to the original breed type, but today such a dog can only be shown under a mere handful of judges if it is to receive a fair evaluation. The other three are the types that dominate shows today and win under most judges. If you asked an active owner who wanted a strong, durable dog for mountain work in harness, they would without hesitation choose the dog on the far left, since that dog’s anatomical features provide better conditions for sustained work at good speed over long periods of time.

A thought that struck me is that when people in general—and even conformation judges—say that “all types are correct and have always existed,” very few to no judges actually reward the classic type with the older appearance (an anatomy designed to support the dog in its traditional work). Why do these dogs no longer win in the rings? The breed standard states that “faults shall be judged in relation to the dog’s ability to perform its traditional work.” That is quite clearly worded. Yet we see how new types have emerged because of how dogs are judged in the rings—dogs with poorer anatomical conditions for their traditional work are rewarded and win in competition. We also see how many of today’s show winners are becoming increasingly over-angulated. A spitz-type dog should have so-called “moderate angulation,” since too much angulation tires the dog during sustained physical work (as explained by the laws of biomechanics). Their forechests are also becoming more pronounced, which predisposes them to wear-and-tear injuries in the shoulder joints. Are the judges really evaluating faults in relation to the breed’s traditional work?

A “middle ground” dog (Samoyed) then?

What I have long wondered about is when people say things like, “Well, I want a middle-ground dog, an in-between type,” or “But I have a middle-ground type, not extreme in either direction.” What do they actually mean by that? What is a middle-ground dog? Middle between what?

In the Samoyed, we do not have two extremes, like one might find within the Siberian Husky (race type – original type – show type). In the Samoyed, we have an original type of dog from which the standard was established, and we have an extreme variant that has developed in the show rings. Between them, we have dogs that display various degrees of exaggerations and drift from type.

Yes, I understand that people probably mean between the different types seen today—the classic original type with its moderate appearance (as the breed once looked) and the most extreme show variant found in some parts of the world. But what puzzles me with this expression is that the person speaking often seems to think they then have a dog that is “between two extremes” in the breed. And this, I believe, is where it goes wrong. The original, more moderate type of the breed can never be an “extreme,” since it represents the breed type as it was from the beginning. There exists an answer key: the appearance the breed standard was established from. By definition, the original type that the standard is based on can never be an extreme or exaggerated variant within the breed—it is moderate and close to the standard (not a man-made, selectively altered type with a changed appearance).

Unfortunately, the older, moderate type is becoming increasingly rare today. When a Samoyed of classic type does appear in the show ring, it often stands quite alone and stands out among the more show-bred dogs, and the judges sadly often give it a lower quality grade and eliminate it in competition. More breeders need to value and preserve the appearance of the older type. It is more important to preserve the breed’s function and suitability in line with the standard than to win in the show rings. Among many of today’s breed enthusiasts, the older, more moderate type is often referred to as the “working type”—probably because these older-type dogs are still capable of working satisfactorily, which is why active owners seeking a capable harness dog choose dogs of the older appearance.

If we take the older, moderate, and more standard-aligned type as a starting point and then compare it with the modern variants of the breed that have emerged in step with how judges have awarded in the rings, we see that there is of course variation in how extreme the exaggerations are. Some of the modern show types are naturally less extreme than others; the most extreme exteriors are found at the far edge, where “over-typing” borders on unhealthy dogs in everyday life. Especially abroad, we see muzzles that have become as short and broad as those of the Chow Chow.

So back to the question: if someone who says they want a “middle-ground” dog really means they want a dog not as extreme as those most changed, but still not the original type that the standard was established from, then in other words they want a dog that has changed in appearance about halfway compared to the most extreme of the modern show dogs. If the appearance has changed significantly from the original but not as extremely as the international extremes, is that then a correct Samoyed? Is being “halfway away” from the older, moderate type really a middle-ground dog—or is it still a dog that is “half wrong,” if the goal is to follow the standard and preserve the breed’s original, classic type?

I have, in many earlier issues of Polarhunden, shared a great deal of image material and facts from the breed’s historical surveys. In the rings today, dogs with such abundant coats that body contours are no longer visible often win. What do the dogs gain from this? How do our dogs fare with less functional bodies? What benefits animal welfare? Even if a trait has not yet become so extreme that it affects the dog’s daily life, it is still a deterioration of its function.

We must accept one another.

It is necessary, for us to live well together, that we always separate issue from person and always respect each other regardless of opinions. But in order to be able to conduct breed management and preservation work for our ancient working dog breeds at all, it is necessary that we can talk factually about our dogs without bringing emotions into the discussions. The dogs each of us owns will, of course, always be the most beautiful dog in their owner’s eyes—and so it should be. We should love our dogs no matter what they look like, what traits they have, or what their personalities are like.

But when we are working with the preservation of a working breed with a history spanning thousands of years, we must be able to talk about our breed, its development, and what has produced positive and negative results with respect to the dog’s function, based on the breeding selection that has been practiced. We must be able to talk factually about our dogs while still maintaining respect and acceptance of each other’s differences. We must also be able to talk about the shortcomings even of our own dogs, despite the fact that in our hearts they are our princes and princesses.

As an individual dog owner, your only duty is to love and respect your dog as an individual. Take good care of your dog both physically and mentally, and give it activities that best enrich its life and lead to good animal welfare. Whether you do sled training, hiking, or engage in general dog sports such as agility, nosework, rally obedience, etc., doesn’t matter—as long as your dog is well, has its needs met, and you are having fun together. One of the most important needs for a Samoyed is companionship and getting plenty of exercise—being thoroughly and physically tired on a regular basis.

But the day you have your first litter or make your male available for breeding, you then have an entirely different duty to the breed. You are obliged to ensure that all aspects of the breed standard are included, which among other things means preserving and selecting those dogs for breeding that best help the breed move forward in preserving its historical heritage and its ability to function as well as possible in its traditional work, and with a temperament that allows the dog to thrive in today’s modern society. We need to test our breeding dogs in practical use in the breed’s specific work (the Samoyed’s breed standard states sled dog) to be able to fully evaluate their anatomy and traits.

Breeding a working breed with a history of thousands of years is not about personal taste, what we think is pretty or ugly, and so on. It is about much more—among other things, what is correct from a historical and functional perspective. If you are not interested in a working breed but still want to breed, you must ask yourself why? Why breed away traits and change the breed just to suit your personal wishes? Or perhaps there is another breed that might suit me better? Have our pedigree dogs become designer dogs where breeders “cook” according to taste and preference? Why don’t more of our conformation judges take greater responsibility for our breed management when they know how strongly their evaluations affect breed development?

“We cannot condemn people who love dog shows just because we do not.

But we can condemn judges who overuse their position as if they were unaware that their actions affect dog breeding.

And we can condemn breeders who do not prioritize the dogs’ health first in breeding.

We must work for healthier dogs and for show titles to carry a more balanced value…

No group should have to stand hat in hand before the other.

Who is right or wrong in interpreting the breed standard can be argued about endlessly.

What is important is that we and our dogs are well.

It may feel difficult to bite the sour apple and accept that the breed as a whole will not look exactly as one personally wishes.”

— Quote: Sunda hundar

We will have different opinions and come to different conclusions—and that is completely fine. What matters is to continue respecting each other and separating issue from person. People must stop attaching mocking labels and attributes to one another. History has shown time and again that today’s truth can be tomorrow’s lie. The truth we see today is based on what we know right now; later on, we may know more, know something different, develop our knowledge, and be able to draw other conclusions. If you also discuss with those who disagree with you in a factual and respectful way, you will develop yourself more than you think—as long as both of you show each other respect and separate issue from person.

-Camilla Nyström