The following article I found to be very interesting. I note that with the Alaska husky the criteria of performance are evolving, and the genetic background is diverse.

I note that at least two Iditarod 4* winners in 2007 have announced they have the best teams they have ever had for the race. And yet, they are likely to be closely challenged.

In theory the increased diversity of a completely open breeding program should result in greater potential for improvement, and also greater chance of failure of a larger number of pups, at least by elite performance criteria.

There is also the chance of losing qualities of the "village dog" referenced in the article: thick fur, durable feet etc. The corresponding benefit is of course ability to select other desirable characteristics more quickly.

Of course there is the health issue, with Alaskas through fairly extreme selection for physical vitality and hybrid vigour being very healthy, long lived specimens. I note that many Iditarod dogs are 7-8 years old, and the leader for last years 2nd place team for the first 500 miles was an 11 year old...I suspect if a study were undertaken, that the process that selects Alaska huskies would be found to produce healthier dogs than most other working dog programs...

I wonder what thoughts this article gives to those who think of opening up stud books when breeding for performance.

In particular, what does it mean for management of the next generation if selecting a stud that is the process of a cross, say of GSD and dutch or Malinois, for example.

Another question involves specialized working functions, such as searching or detection, or patrol: is it possible to think of these functions as moving performance criteria that breeding constantly improves?

Food for thought.

http://www.cabelasiditarod.com/coverage_2007/cov07_feb12_01.html