|
by Tracy Young
Reproduced here with
the written consent
of Robert Zoller
& Tracy Young
Starhawk congratulates
and thanks these
brave
and dedicated individuals
for their forthrightness
and determination
to the true story
of the
Alaskan Malamute
history!
Copyright - Robert
Zoller / Tracy Young
1998-1999
Any reproduction
of this article must
be
done with the written
consent of the copyright
holders.
A particular thanks
to Christopher Cooper
of the Starhawk Kennel
that has allowed
me
to publish this very
beautiful and interesting
interview www.northernterritories.com.
Lisa Piccolo
Blue type: Tracy
Young
Black type: Robert
Zoller
Robert Zoller - "who is this man?"
I think everyone has heard of the Husky-Pak
line. Well, that's who he is. This man
is now 83 years old and is a major part of
the Alaskan Malamute history with a factual
history of our breed. Several years ago,
Dick Tobey persuaded Bob Zoller to write
an article for the A.M.C.A. newsletter describing
the first years of the development of this
breed. He complied then, and some of the
tales that were part of history seem to not
be exactly as we have been led to believe.
I have the pleasure of being a friend of
Sam Maranto, a member of A.M.C.A. since 1952
and who owned Ch. Cochise of Husky-Pak and
finished his championship in 1955. He was
out of Ch. Toro of Bras Coupe X Ch. Arctic
Storm of Husky-Pak. After reading the story,
I called Sam and questioned him in regard
to the article. He stated that the article
was very factual. In my opinion, Robert Zoller
has not been given the credit that he deserves.
So sit back, relax and enjoy " the other
side of the story".
Robert Zoller's Story
I haven't been
active in Alaskan
Malamute
affairs for quite
a long time. But
I keep
in touch with a few
people and dick tobey
is one of them. A
couple of years ago
I told
him about an article
I had written for
the
New Zealand Kennel
Gazette, about the
many
problems we encountered
in getting our breed
established in the
1940's and the
1950's
- - - the critical
years. Dick thought
it
should be published
in our newsletter.
The
more we talked about
it, the more I agreed
with him that the
events of those years
following
world war 11 should
be told in some detail,
before all the people
who were there were
dead and the true
facts lost forever.
I had tried to do
this in my New Zealand
article. But, done
properly, it's
a long
story and I felt
there was a limit
to the
space an all breed
publication halfway
around
the world would devote
to a 30-year-old
history
of a single breed
here in America.
So I had
to skip a lot of
details and just
hit the
highlights, without
explaining what really
happened and why.
I had also shied
away from naming
names.
Even after thirty
years, it is difficult
to call a spade a
spade, because it
may appear
self-serving to do
so. It may even be
construed
as an attack on old
enemies who are no
longer
around to defend
themselves. I assure
you
it is not that at
all; I just became
convinced
that, finally, the
full story should
be told.
For many years some
of the bizarre happenings
were covered up to
spare feeling and
to maintain
as much unity as
possible within our
club.
In the short run,
I believe that is
the proper
thing to do. So I
rewrote the story
and here
it is: names, dates,
places, people, dogs
- - all as accurately
as possible.
It is important to
say some things clearly,
right up front. My
first point is that
after
all these years I
bear no animosity
toward
anyone. Not even
a little bit. In
those days
I had ample reason
to be outraged on
many
occasions but I don't
think I ever was,
really. And lest
you think with that
statement
I may be proposing
my own candidacy
for sainthood,
I assure you I am
not. I am human.
I bleed
when punctured, and
I bled from a lot
of
stab wounds in those
early years. I was
indeed
"teed off"
from time to time,
but
I got over it quickly
- - for several reasons.
First, by nature
I am not a grudge-holder.
I am a fighter, and
I suspect not one
bit
less opinionated
than most others
in our
breed. But I have
never believed that
others
must agree with me
to deserve my friendship
or respect (I've
been a democrat surrounded
by republicans all
of my life!).
Secondly, after the
initial shock, much
of
what I saw coming
out of new hampshire
in
those times was so
audacious that some
of
it was actually amusing,
and practically
all of it was fascinating
to observe at close
range. You had to
see it to believe
it.
Most important, I
think, it wasn't
all
that difficult for
me to be somewhat
generous
in my judgment since,
eventually, I ended
up winning all the
fights, at least
the really
important ones.
It wasn't always
easy, believe me.
Many
times I sincerely
feared for the welfare
of our breed. I was
relatively young,
not
well known in our
breed or anywhere
in the
world of purebred
dogs, and I was taking
on some pretty important
people. Like many
other newcomers to
the wonderful world
of
Malamutes, I was
a bit "snowed
under"
in my initial contacts
with the "in"
group. But I learn
fast and was able
to sort
things out in rather
short order. After
that,
it was mostly a matter
of hard work.
The second point
to be made up front
is that
some of the following
is opinion and some
is fact, and I hope
there is no misunderstanding
or confusion as to
which is which. It
should
be clear to everyone
that when I say our
Cherokee was the
best Malamute ever,
that's
an opinion. While
there is much evidence
to support such a
belief, there is
of course
no way to compare
him or any of the
top dogs
of this time with
any of the outstanding
winners who may have
come along twenty
or
thirty years later.
On the other hand,
much of what I write
is
indeed fact: the
show records of "third
strain" dogs;
the events that resulted
in changes in the
standard; the charges
and
counter-charges and
the outcome of the
historic
"Seeley Vs.
Zoller" trial
at A.K.C.
much is well documented
by official records,
some is subject to
verification by people
still living who
are knowledgeable
about
the happenings described.
In a few cases, I
present facts I can
no
longer prove, perhaps
because they were
never
made a part of official
records, or because
after many years
the letters or whatever
were lost, or maybe
never intended to
be
kept. In these cases
you can take my word
for them - or not.
They are facts, nonetheless
(you can rest assured
that I will understand
it if you find some
of the facts incredible.
If you were there
and I was not, and
you
were telling the
story, I'm not
sure
I would believe you).
Having said that,
I will get to the
point
and tell you my story..
It's about the
Kotzebues and the
M'Loots and our
own
Husky-Pak days. About
where our breed came
from and how it got
to where it is.
It's about a
few years when varying
opinions
led to vigorous disagreements,
choosing sides,
and bitter battles
over what the Alaskan
Malamute is and what
it should be; about
a rare on-again,
off-again policy
as to the
American Kennel Club
registration, about
changing the standard;
about who runs the
club and how. It's
about the trial that
totally determined
what our breed was
from
that point on.
Almost all registered
Malamutes today are
in some way related
to the events that
occurred
in a relatively short
period of time, more
than thirty years
ago. Had things turned
out differently then,
our breed would be
a lot different now!
Malamutes are pretty
much a product of
evolution,
so they've been
around for a long,
long
time. Early explorers
wrote that the dogs
of the Malamute indians
of Alaska were bigger,
stronger, more beautiful
and more gentle
with their human
companions than any
other
arctic dogs they
had seen. But the
breed
was virtually unknown
for many years. Until
AKC recognized Malamutes
as a distinct breed
in 1935, they were
lumped with a lot
of others
as "eskimo dogs".
Even then, not much
happened before and
during
World War II. But
in the late 40's
and
early 50's a
lot of people became
interested,
all about the same
time. That is when
the
modern Malamute really
began.
I saw my first Malamute
in a primitive U.S.
Navy Officers Club
in Newfoundland in
1941.
Impressed, I decided
to learn more about
those dogs -- someday.
When "someday"
came in 1947, my
wife Laura and I
began our
search. We read everything
we could find
(there wasn't
a great deal to be
found).
We fell in love with
the breed, went to
New
York and talked to
AKC, wrote dozens
of letters
(maybe hundreds),
and logged thousands
of
miles driving around
to see almost every
Malamute we could
locate.
There were so few
dogs to see, so little
written about them,
so few people who
seemed
to know much, that
we were doubly interested.
We felt we had stumbled
upon something rare,
beautiful and virtually
unknown.
In our search we
saw a lot of Malamutes
that
were not Malamutes
- some not even close.
Everyone with an
arctic dog had a
story to
tell, and no two
stories were alike
(in those
times they didn't
even agree on how
to
spell "Malamute"!).
Pedigrees,
often recorded in
handwriting, were
difficult
to decipher and frequently
misread. We soon
learned that most
early sled dog people
were
not very good at
record-keeping, and
usually
didn't really
know much about our
breed.
In all, it was like
living a detective
story
- trying to sort
out the clues, separate
facts from fiction
and the good buys
from
the bad guys, and
somehow arrive at
the truth.
It took a lot of
work but we finally
learned,
and we applied what
we learned to a limited
breeding program.
I stress the word
"limited";
people today are
surprised to learn
that
Husky-Pak's numerous
national championships
and breed records
were achieved with
a handful
of dogs, and we produced
only twelve litters
in 12 ½ years, start
to finish!
Our dogs won about
everything there
was to
win. This made me
exceedingly unpopular
with
an awful lot of people.
But it helped us
develop credibility
and resulted in a
following
of good people who
supported us and
became
important contributors
on their own.
From almost total
chaos in the late
1940's,
it took us less than
ten years to achieve
a stable, established
and secure Alaskan
Malamute breed; an
active, growing,
democratic
national breed club;
and a new standard
that
worked well and which
everyone could live
with for many years
to come.
At that time, mission
accomplished, we
quit
and went on to other
interests, and let
others
carry on the legacy
we left to them and
all
who followed.
In one sense, Husky-Pak
came to the end of
the line on July
16, 1968, the day
"Eagle",
our last Malamute
died. But in reality
we
closed up shop in
1962 when we sold
the last
puppy in our "m"
litter (in case
you are counting,
we didn't have
an "f"
litter). So it has
been years since
we have
been active in any
way. Remarkably,
we still
get letters, some
from overseas. They
are
nice letters that
talk about the great
Husky-Pak
dogs of the 1950's
and many tell us
there
have been nothing
like them since.
We are
exceedingly grateful
to be remembered
after
all these years.
The Kotzebue and the M'Loot and the "third strain dogs"
In the 1920's
and 30's a few
people
here in the USA became
interested in sled
dogs and discovered
the Malamute. They
brought
from Alaska a number
of dogs believed
to
be Malamutes. But
nobody really knew
what
they were. There
was no IKC (Indian
Kennel
Club) or EKC (Eskimo
Kennel Club) - and
of
course none of them
were registered,
and
with many, even their
immediate ancestors
were unknown. In
all cases, it was
a matter
of opinion.
Since opinions differ,
different-looking
dogs were selected,
labeled "Malamutes", and bred.
In New England we
found the Kotzebues.
Their
stateside beginnings
were mostly at arthur
walden's kennel
- he was the noted
"dog
puncher” who handled
the dogs on byrd
antarctic
expeditions - but
they were taken over
and
their progeny later
AKC registered by
milton
and Eva Seeley. Seeley's
also imported
other dogs that resembled
what they believed
the Malamute to be.
Scattered about in
other places were
the
M'Loots, assembled
and developed by
Paul
Voelker, near Marquette,
Michigan. Voelker
was an enthusiast
who sold a lot of
puppies
but wasn't interested
in showing or in
the AKC, so none
of the M'Loots
were
registered.
In Newbury, Vermont,
we saw an older dog
named Irwin's
Gemo that we thought
was
the best we had run
across. Once owned
by
Lowell Thomas, the
famous explorer-newscaster,
Gemo (sometimes "Gimo”
or "Chimo”)
had been shown to
best of breed at
Westminster
in Madison Square
Garden in 1941. We
bought
his grandson, a puppy
we named "Kayak”,
and we learned these
dogs were neither
Kotzebue
nor M'Loot: they
weren't many
of
them, and some had
been crossed with
M'Loot-strain
dogs. Dick Hinman,
the owner, had gotten
some of his dogs
from Dave Irwin,
another
explorer and author
of "alone, across
the top of the world".
Later I began
to call these dogs
the Hinman-Irwin
strain
or "the third
strain”, although
actually
they weren't
a strain at all,
just a
few individual dogs
(perhaps a family)
that
were neither Kotzebue
nor M'Loot.
Our main asset in
those days, I believe,
was a rare degree
of objectivity. The
Kotzebues
and the M'Loots had
developed fanatical
followings
who were too busy
maligning the other
side
to really look, listen
and learn. We kept
open minds and eventually
came to these conclusions:
the Kotzebues were
good type, mainly
because
of their heads, muzzles,
eyes, ears, expression
and good body proportions.
They were more
uniform than the
M'Loots, mostly wolf
gray,
usually about the
same size and structure.
Generally good rears
and bad fronts -
chests
too wide, out at
the elbows. And most
of
them were much smaller
than we believed
the
original Malamute
was or should be.
The M'Loots had better
size but some were
rangy and lacking
in substance. Good
fronts,
many bad rears -
lacking angulation,
which
produced some stilted
gaits. Tendency toward
long ears, long muzzles.
Some "snipeyness”.
Much variation in
coats and colors
- long,
short; from light
gray to black and
white,
some all-whites.
Dispositions differed
as well. The Kotzebues
were less aggressive,
easier to control;
the M'Loots prone
to fighting, often
difficult
to handle around
other dogs.
In short, the M'Loots
were bigger, flashier
and more impressive,
but they had some
rather
characteristic faults
and I felt they varied
considerably in type
and in quality. Kotzebues
were too small, but
they had uniformity
going
for them, and their
main asset was type-as
a whole they more
closely resembled
the original
Malamute as we believe
it to be.
We easily concluded
that crossing these
strains
with some skill,
to combine their
good points
and minimize the
faults, would produce
better
Malamutes than by
breeding within either
two strains.
That "third
strain”, however,
could
not be ignored. Kayak,
unfortunately, never
turned out to be
another Gemo. Our
second
Malamute was one
of the better pure
M'Loot
bitches: she became
Ch. Husky-Pak's
Mikya
of Sequin. Then we
really got lucky.
Near
Great Barrington,
MA., we found a pair
of
pups sired by an
impressive dog named
Alaska
(later Ch. Spawn's
Alaska). This brother-sister
pair that we bought,
raised and took to
national
championships became
Ch. Apache Chief
of
Husky-Pak ("Geronimo”)
and Ch. Arctic
Storm of Husky-Pak
("Takoma”).
They
were the biggest
winners of their
era and
became milestones
of breed progress
Best of all, they
had third-strain
genes;
they were three-quarters
M'Loot, one-quarter
"other” going
back to Irwin's
Gemo
and Hinman's
Sitka. Sitka, incidentally,
may have been an
even better bitch
than Gemo
was a dog. I think
she deserves a great
deal
of credit for the
quality that resulted
later
on.
Our pair were as
large as the bigger
M'Loots
but a bit heavier
in bone and better
proportioned;
in body they were
almost like king-size
Kotzebues.
Good coats and coloring
and excellent overall
balance. Heads were
broad. Ears were
correct
size and shape and
set properly on the
skull.
We knew this combination
was superior, and
the show results
soon convinced a
lot of
other people.
But we weren't
entirely satisfied.
We
felt a "third-strain-cross”
would heavy
up the muzzles and
set the type. We
searched
for a Kotzebue of
adequate size and
came
up with Toro of Bras
Coupé, then owned
by
Earl and Natalie
Norris of Anchorage,
Alaska.
Fortunately, Toro
was in the states
being
shown by a professional
handler. He had just
gone best of breed
at Westminster. We
brought
him to Husky-Pak,
mated him with Takoma
and
produced our "C”
litter.
We think this was
the greatest litter
in
the history of our
breed. Five were
shown,
all became champions.
One was Cherokee,
and
we think he was the
best Malamute ever:
three
consecutive National
Specialty best of
breeds,
and three consecutive
AMCA dog-of-the-year
awards. There was
not the slightest
doubt
in my mind that he
could easily have
gone
best of breed at
the next two specialties,
for five years in
a row, had we chosen
to
keep showing him.
But we retired him
as a
gesture of good sportsmanship.
Cliquot-the dog shown
in our official AMCA
emblem - was the
first Malamute to
win both
a championship and
a CDX. He was also
the
top winner in New
England. Cochise
was the
best in California
for a time, and the
sire
of Ch. Snocrest's
Mukluk, our breed's
first best-in-show.
Comanche and Cheyenne,
the "C” litter
females, were consistent
winners starting
with the big 1953
national
specialty where,
at 14 months, they
were
winner's bitch
and reserve winner's
bitch - to their
mother's best
of breed!
Comanche died shortly
thereafter. Cheyenne
produced two daughters
who won three consecutive
national specialty
bos, and both of
whom
defeated most of
the top males of
our breed
in that era - including
Ch. Mulpus Brook's
The Bear, who was
our 1954 national
specialty
best of breed and
dog-of-the-year.
The sixth "C”
litter pup was Chippewa,
a sure champion except
for one little detail:
his owner, who I
couldn't talk
into showing
him!
The saying is, the
lord giveth and the
lord
taketh away. Our
"c" litter
was
the formula. Unhappily,
Arctic Storm (Takoma)
and Comanche died
from hardpad distemper
following the december
1953 Philadelphia
K.C. show. When Takoma
died, we had advance
orders for more pups
than she could have
produced in a lifetime.
And Comanche, owned
by Martha and Bob
Gormely, was an extremely
powerfully-built,
broad-headed, heavily-muzzled
bitch that I thought
could have become
a
superlative producer
of the real, original
Malamute type. What
a loss!
When we settled down
from these tragic
events,
we decided on two
ways to approximate
the
"C” litter.
(1) mate Geronimo
to Takoma's
surviving daughter,
Cheyenne. And (2)
import
a Toro daughter,
also for mating with
Geronimo.
Cheyenne's litter
produced three champions
including Ch. Husky-Pak
Marclar's Sioux,
national specialty
BOS (to Cherokee)
both
in 1956 and 1957,
and ch. Barb-Far's
Marclar's Machook,
Specialty BOS in
1958
and our breed's
first female to place
in the group.
Sioux just has to
be the finest show
female
in our breed, unless
I missed count somewhere
in recent years.
She completed totally
in
top national competition
against the best
of those times, from
her first show until
her retirement. And
no other female ever
came close. The only
male she never beat
was Cherokee! Consider
this: Sioux finished
her championship
in four straight
shows in
one month's time,
defeating 55 different
Malamutes including
nine champions! (fifty-five
was a might impressive
number in the mid-1950's)
and, like Cherokee,
she could have won
at
least two or three
more national specialties,
had we chosen to
show her.
Toro's daughter
was ch. Kelerak of
Kobuk,
right off a dog team
in Anchorage, Alaska.
The Norris' had
sold us a good one:
we
showed her to two
national specialty
BOS.
(and after all these
years, we still talk
about her wonderful
disposition.) Her
mating
with Geronimo produced
three fine champions.
Erok was the youngest
ever to place in
group
and he became a winner
and outstanding sire
in California. Echako
was rated the outstanding
Malamute of 1960
(Phillips System),
held
the record for group
placings (and probably
still does on a percentage
basis) and was
our 1960 best of
breed at Westminster.
Except
for his first show
as a puppy, Echako
was
never beaten by any
other Malamute!
Eagle was the best
of the three, but
he came
along about the time
we lost interest
in
showing. We showed
him only a few times
and
he was never given
a chance to show
what
he could do. Still,
he was best of breed
at Westminster in
1958, held the dog
world
award for his overall
show record, and
in
group placings he
defeated several
of the
all-time record holders
in other working
group breeds. And
I think Eagle may
have
been the best moving
Malamute I ever saw.
Our Husky-Pak "E”
litter was the first
and perhaps the only
one in our breed
to
produce three brothers
to place in group
(which was difficult
for any Malamutes
in
those days) and two
to win best of breed
at Westminster.
Show results play
a major role in the
improvement
of all breeds because
they are supposed
to
be expert, unbiased,
third-party judgments.
They usually are
that (or about as
close
as you can hope for
in this imperfect
world)-except
for relatively unknown
breeds as ours was
in the 1950's.
In which case, expertise
is not always provided.
Since judging is
a matter of opinion,
mistakes are made,
probably
a lot more often
in the lesser-known
breeds.
I showed under several
judges who were seeing
Malamutes for the
first time. But that's
all part of the game
and there isn't
much you can do about
it.
So a few wins or
losses don't
mean a
lot; a consistent
pattern of winning
is what
counts. Quality of
the competition,
and who
beats whom, how often
are the major factors
indicating relative
quality.
Before 1953, with
a few exceptions,
competition
among Malamutes was
mainly local or regional.
It was in early 1953
at the National Capitol
and Harrisburg shows
that the top regional
winners got together
and national competition
in our breed began.
Then in october 1953
we held our first
real national specialty
in rye, New York.
In these biggest
and most important
shows
of their time, the
results were revealing.
Geronimo won both
at National Capitol
and
Harrisburg. Takoma
came out of two years
retirement to win
the specialty, defeating
all the best dogs
and bitches of that
era.
Her brother Geronimo
was BOS and three
of
her 14-month-old
pups won just about
everything
else: WD, WB, RWB,
BW! (in the bestof
breed
judging, Takoma's
and Geronimo's
main competition
was their father,
Ch. Spawn's
Alaska).
By year-end - after
the Philadelphia
show
in December was again
a total family affair
- the message was
loud and clear: strain
crosses had produced
a superior Alaskan
Malamute.
If further evidence
is needed, consider
this:
in national specialty
shows in the seven
years 1953 - 1959,
all seven best of
breeds
and five best of
opposites were strain
crosses
involving "third
strain” genes. (our
Kelerak, a Kotzebue,
had the other two
BOS)
In 1955 AMCA selected
it's "top
ten” in our breed
and eight were the
strain
crosses. Toro and
Kelerak were the
two Kotzebues.
No pure M'Loots.
(nine of the top
ten, incidentally,
were part of, or
results of, our Husky-Pak
breeding program!)
Quantum leap?
At this point an
interjection; you
will remember
that former President
Nixon often said,
"now
let me make one thing
perfectly clear.”
I
need to do that now,
because I well understand
that what I have
been telling you
sounds
like a eulogy of
Husky-Pak. That -
I assure
you - is not my purpose.
My recitation of
the foregoing statistics
is essential to
prove beyond any
doubt that dramatic
improvements
in the Alaskan Malamute
breed had taken place
at this point in
time. You might well
call
it a "quantum
leap forward”.
I'm convinced
that statistics prove
this
point-of-view because
they are overwhelming.
That's point
number one.
Point number two,
equally important,
is that
because of this obvious
breakthrough, immediate
steps were taken
to discredit all
the dogs
involved in it; to
totally destroy this
noteworthy
progress, and return
our breed to the
rather
sorry state it was
in, only a few years
before.
I will describe these
events in some detail.
But first a few observations
on some of the
important dogs of
those times.
Except for moosecat
M'Loot - our Mikya's
sire, owned by Cecil
Allen of Fayetteville,
Tenn. And I thing
never shown - the
best
pure M'Loot those
days was Ch Mulpus
Brook's
Master Otter, owned
and extensively shown
by Jean Lane (formerly
massaglia, and later
briar). This dog
was the first to
place in
groups and helped
publicize our breed.
But
he was beaten by
Toro, and consistently
by
Ch. Spawn's Alaska.
Alaska was the big
winner - twice best
of breed at Westminster
- until Geronimo
and Takoma (Apache
Chief
and Artic Storm)
came along and totally
dominated
the breed. Geronimo
was AMCA's first
"dog-of-the-year".
He was a tremendously
popular dog, so powerful,
regal, impressive,
yet gentle and friendly.
I suspect he may
have done more than
any other dog to
call
attention to the
Malamute breed in
those
days when we were
relatively unknown.
Master Otter sired
one outstanding winner,
Bill and Lois Dawson's
Ch. Mulpus Brook's
the Bear. Bear was
our national specialty
best of breed in
1954 and our first
ever
to win the group.
He got his third
strain
genes from his dam,
and he was a better
Malamute
than his sire.
The best Kotzebue
I ever saw was, of
course,
Toro. And I suspect
his daughter Kelerak
was the best of the
Kotzebue bitches;
show
records support this
opinion. I was most
fortunate to discover
these two and appreciate
their virtues. And
over the years I
have
deeply appreciated
the generosity and
good
sportsmanship of
Earl and Natalie
Norris
who were willing
to share them with
us.
In all, the Kotzebue
and the M'Loots were
important contributors
to our breed, and
the third-strain
and the three strain
crosses
we pioneered in the
1950's added
significant
quality and ended
up improving our
breed
for countless generations
to come.
Janet Edmonds, an
English lady who
researched
"the origins
of the present day
Malamute”
and published her
findings in 1979,
tells
pretty much the same
story I am telling
you
now, although in
less detail. She
did miss
an important point
- the role of the
third-strain
dogs - but I forgive
her because she wrote:
"I find it interesting
that it was when
the types were sensibly
interbred that the
resulting dogs looked
most like the (original)
pre-gold rush Malamutes.
The classic examples
of this are the Husky-Pak
dogs of the 1950's"
Eva B. Seeley, a formidable opponent
The breeding program
described was a significant
development, but
there were others
in those
critical years: the
lengthy battles over
revising (or "clarifying”)
the standard
was one, the fight
for control of the
club
was another. These
major conflicts occurred
about the same time,
with Eva Seeley being
the major proponent
of the status quo,
and
yours truly leading
the newcomers who
came
to believe the status
quo was intolerable
and had to be changed.
To me, the status
quo meant total domination
of both the breed
and the club by Mrs.
Seeley.
And so long as that
continued, our breed
was dead in its tracks
and going nowhere.
In my initial contacts
with Mrs. Seeley
and
other New England
owners, the idea
of all-out
war never entered
my mind. I felt sure
that
cooperation and negotiation
could solve the
problems and get
both the breed and
the club
moving. I was wrong.
Mrs. Seeley like
things
the way they were
and she intended
to keep
them that way, no
matter what.
She was indeed a
formidable opponent.
Less
than five feet tall
and maybe 90 pounds
-
her nickname was
"Short"
- she
would nonetheless
fight like a tiger
when
crossed. Unfortunately,
I seemed to have
crossed her, early
on. And repeatedly.
Everything
Malamute soon become
Seeley vs Zoller.
I really did not
want to fight. She
was,
I thought, something
of a legend in our
breed
and I was the new
kid on the block.
But I
did have one thing
in my favor: early
in
life I learned you
should not believe
everything
you read or are told.
There is value in
being
skeptical, in finding
out for yourself.
Already
in my life I had
met a lot of "celebrities”
and was never all
that impressed with
any
of them. I learned
we are all human,
with
our own peculiar
set of faults and
virtues.
Nobody's perfect;
it's just that
some of us are luckier
than others. It is
right and proper
to acknowledge achievement,
and even to honor
it when it deserves
to
be honored. But hero-worship
is not my thing,
and never was.
So I was a bit skeptical
right from the beginning
and I'm sure
Eva Seeley detected
that.
Unlike many others
new to our breed,
I did
not become a "disciple”
and I did not
believe everything
she said, simply
because
she said it - especially
when I discovered
that what she said
didn't always
make
a lot of sense.
Still, I knew she
was a pioneer and
had rubbed
elbows with the likes
of Arthur Walden,
Leonhard
Seppala, Scotty Allen
and Admiral Byrd.
She
owned Chinook kennels
and was well known
by most sleddog people,
and apparently by
some of the people
at the American Kennel
Club. So at the beginning
I was willing to
give her the benefit
of the doubt. I listened
a lot more than I
talked. But eventually
I came to not believing
a great deal of what
I was being told.
It bothers me when
the pieces of the
puzzle
began to fall into
place. She had a
virtual
monopoly on AKC-registered
Alaskan Malamute
and wasn't about
to let that get away.
According to the
Seeley-Riddle book,
there
were no more than
thirty registered
Malamutes
in 1947! She owned
a number of those
and
the rest were owned
by close friends
or had
been sold by her
under written agreements
that no breedings
would ever occur
without
her approval, and
then only with a
male of
her choosing!
That you could buy
a dog or a bitch
and not
be allowed to breed
it, was a new one
on
me. But you have
to admit it's
a great
way to protect a
monopoly.
All this wasn't
too surprising in
view
of two later discoveries.
When AKC reopened
our breed to registration
- based on the
same requirements
under which her dogs
had
been registered,
plus a quality test
requiring
each candidate to
be shown and accumulate
ten championship
points as well -
Eva Seeley
immediately declared
all Malamutes not
of
her own Kotzebue
stock as "Eskimo
dogs,
not Malamutes”!
This was quite a
shock for new owners
in
those days. They
would approach the
legendary
Short Seeley at a
dog show, or by journeying
all the way to her
home in the middle
of
New Hampshire, to
get her opinion of
their
new Malamute puppy,
and be told their
pride
and joy was not an
Alaskan Malamute
and probably
not a purebred of
any breed!
I have seen people
shattered by this
experience.
But in time the word
got around. Since
it
had happened to almost
everyone at one time
or another - even
those of us whose
dogs
were going best of
breed (or even placing
in groups under AKC
licensed judges)
- we
all began to view
this as a sad joke.
You
just weren't
important in our
breed until
Eva Seeley had labeled
your dogs as "Eskimo”.
It was just "Seeley
being Seeley”.
Toro repudiated
Still, I was indeed
surprised when she
repudiated
Toro of Bras Coupé,
probably the best
Kotzebue
ever. Eva's husband,
Milton Seeley, had
died and it seems
that in the mid or
late
1940's she became
quite ill. Unable
to
care for her dogs,
she sold her kennel
to
a man named Dick
Moulton, who lived
nearby.
Dick produced two
litters from the
same sire
and dam and sold
them both to a winter
resort
in Canada, called
Bras Coupé. After
a couple
of years the resort
decided to sell the
dogs.
They offered them
to me and other Malamute
people - apparently
I was one of the
first.
Toro was one of these
dogs and he caught
my eye immediately;
I would loved to
have
had him. But we were
just getting started,
already had four
dogs, and no plans
whatever
to ever be more than
a very small hobby-type
operation. Toro really
tempted me, but Laura
said no.
So Earl and Natalie
Norris bought toro
and
some of the others.
When Toro started
showing
and winning, I asked
Mrs. Seeley how she
ever let him get
away. She literally
bristled.
"those two litters
were a mistake,”
she told me. "those
two should never
have been mated!
I am going down to
AKC next
week and have all
those registrations
revoked!”
They were not revoked.
But not because she
didn't try. I
know she tried because
later, at the "Seeley
vs. Zoller"
trial, I cited her
actions against Toro
and
his littermates as
evidence of the lengths
to which she would
go to discredit any
Malamute
no longer under her
ownership or control.
I did this both in
my defense briefs
and
again in person at
the trial, and it
was
never denied either
by Eva Seeley or
her
lawyer.
That she was willing
to repudiate Toro
was
surprising, but I
thought it was even
more
surprising that she
actually believed
AKC
would revoke his
registration on her
say-so.
But again, it was
another example of
"Seeley
being Seeley”.
Later on, of course,
she claimed full
credit
for Toro. When I
used him at stud
with Takoma,
the Norris' instructed
me to send him
on to Mrs. Seeley
who wanted to use
him as
well. (surprise,
surprise.) A bit
later,
while Toro was still
at Chinook kennels,
I drove up to attend
the annual meeting
and
specialty show in
Framingham, MA. Since
I
had brought no dogs
of my own, Mrs. Seeley
asked me to handle
Toro in specialty.
He
was entered in open
dogs and Seeley wanted
like crazy for him
to beat the specials
entry,
who was Ch. Mulpus
Brook's Master
Otter,
the M'Loot owned
by Jean Lane. Well,
Toro
won and I think short
Seeley actually liked
me for about ten
minutes on that june
day
back in 1952!
It didn't last
long. A year later,
at
the 1953 annual meeting
in Winchester, MA.,
the AMCA President,
Paul Pelletier, greeted
me with a verbal
attack so violent
that I
was stunned, and
bill and Lois Dawson
who
were nearby couldn't
believe what they
were hearing. After
all these years,
I don't
remember what he
said, or what I replied.
I do know that he
and I had had virtually
no contact ever before.
He knew nothing about
me from personal
experience, so obviously
somebody had done
a real hatchet job
on me
among the New England
members. It wasn't
hard for me to figure
out who.
The Alaskan Malamute Club
Until 1952 the club
was very small, closed
(Kotzebue only) organization
composed solely
of New England members
and dominated by
Eva
Seeley. These people
were not very active,
either in breeding
or showing. Mostly
this
was just a few friends
with a common interest,
getting together
at a dog show or
at someone's
house to talk dogs
and socialize a few
times
a year. I didn't
know it at the time,
but the club was
not affiliated with
or officially
recognized by the
American Kennel Club.
But with Malamutes
suddenly growing
in popularity
and quite a number
now being shown in
other
parts of the country,
it apparently occurred
to the New England
group they'd
better
hurry and get AKC
recognition as the
official
breed club before
someone else beat
them
to it. So I figured
they petitioned AKC,
or at least inquired
and apparently were
told they'd have
to grow a bit and
get
some members from
outside their own
neighborhood.
Or, in other words,
appear a bit more
like
a representative
breed club.
This seems logical
in view of the fact
that
all of a sudden,
I was allowed to
join their
club! (me, the guy
with the Eskimo dogs
down
in Maryland!)
They also took in
another outsider,
Jean
Lane. She lived in
New England but owned
an "outside”
dog, Master Otter.
So I paid my dues
and over the next
several
months began to wonder
why. All I got out
of it was an occasional
postcard announcing
a meeting at someone's
house in New England.
Some of these even
reached me a few
days
after the meeting
had been held! Some
arrived
prior to the meeting
date but seldom far
enough in advance
for me to plan on
going
and actually get
there. And none ever
included
a reason for me to
drive that far.
Reading show reports
in the AKC gazette,
I knew there was
a lot more Malamute
activity
taking place in other
parts of the country.
Especially in the
Milwaukee area. On
a business
trip out that way,
I visited Ralph and
Marcheta
Schmitt who owned
Silver Sled, the
largest
Malamute kennel in
the country. They
had
heard of me and welcomed
me, and immediately
started phoning people.
In a couple hours
they had assembled
more than twenty
members
of their Alaskan
Malamute club, all
of whom
lived reasonably
nearby. They also
knew of
other interested
owners in Chicago
and other
parts of the Midwest.
Some people in California
were getting active
as well.
We soon figured out
that if my group
and
their group joined
forces we could come
up
with fifty or sixty
members in a few
weeks
time.
The Schmitts proposed
we do just that and
petition AKC for
recognition as the
official
National Breed Club
- and leave the new
england
people out in the
cold. But I felt
AKC would
look more kindly
on our putting together
a truly national
membership, including
the
owners in New England.
I also argued that
a cease-fire, if
one could be arranged,
would
be better for everyone.
It wasn't an
easy sell. The Schmitts
were singularly "unfond"
of Mrs.
Seeley. But they
agreed, reluctantly,
to
give me a chance
to see what I could
do.
I was to attend the
next meeting in New
England
and spell out the
new facts of life
to the
people there. Their
choice: open the
club
to new members everywhere,
or we would start
our own National
Breed Club without
them.
Their response would
determine out future
course of action.
A few weeks later
I drove up to the
1952
annual meeting in
Farmington, MA. This
was
the same day and
place where I had
handled
Toro to the specialty
best of breed over
Master Otter. We
held the meeting
in a tent
on the show grounds.
Only nine or ten
members
were there, including
Jean Lane and me.
I
was surprised to
learn the total club
membership
was only about twelve;
or sixteen or seventeen,
depending on whether
you counted those
who
hadn't paid any
dues for the past
year
or two.
I told them about
my meeting with the
Milwaukee
club - including
the arithmetic of
the breeding
and showing activities
going on in other
parts of the country.
After some discussions
they agreed but not
very enthusiastically,
as you might suspect
- to my proposal
that
we open the membership
to any Malamute owners
who wanted to join,
unless there was
some
legitimate reason
not to accept them.
Jean Lane, apparently
still feeling a bit
of an outsider, did
not have a great
deal
to say at this meeting.
Mrs. Seeley, however,
was not at all pleased
with the proposal
to expand. And, true
to form, she came
up
with a great idea:
we would have two
classes
of members - the
new ones would be
"auxiliary
members” and only
"original members”
would be allowed
to vote! I guess
that was
a bit much, even
for the other "original
members”. Her motion
didn't pass:
nobody
seconded it and it
never came to vote.
At this meeting,
I also pointed out
that
we have to give our
members something
for
their dues. A nationwide
membership, whenever
it came about, would
require more services
than a few postcards
each year about occasional
get togethers somewhere
in New England. What
Malamute owners wanted,
I submitted, was
information. Communications
was the key requirement.
I volunteered to
write, produce and
mail
an official monthly
newsletter to all
members.
After much discussion
- and apprehension
- they said okay.
But they made it
clear
they would cancel
it if they didn't
like
what I wrote.
Our newsletter, I
think has been published
every month since
I wrote and mailed
the
first issue in august
1952. Membership
grew
rapidly as the Schmitts
and I and a few others
contacted our customers
and got them t join.
Before long, the
new majority pretty
much
took over, achieved
a great deal of growth
and progress and
planted the seed
that grew
into a democratic
national breed club.
Today
we have a membership
of nearly 900 including
a fair number outside
the USA. While growth
isn't everything,
we're a lot better
off than when we
had twelve or sixteen
members
in early 1952.
Today's members
should know the facts
about the democratization
of our Malamute
club. At the 1953
annual meeting in
Winchester,
MA., the new majority
had gained complete
control and I submit,
we exercised our
control
in a most responsible
manner. We elected
more than a proportional
number of New England
members - including
Eva Seeley - to our
board
of directors. And
then our majority
on the
board - I was one
of them so voting
- elected
Eva Seeley as our
president!
We tried hard to
be more than fair
because
we felt that by doing
so, we could convince
Mrs. Seeley and her
followers that working
together was the
best thing any of
us could
do to benefit our
breed and our club.
It
really didn't
help. Nothing much
improved.
The 1954 annual meeting,
for some stupid
reason (like believing
if we continued our
goodwill and cooperation
we might get some
in return) we again
allowed to be held
up
in the middle of
New England - actually
in
Wonalancet, N.H.,
just a couple of
miles
from Seeley's
home. This, of course,
was about as remote
and inconvenient
as we
could get, for the
vast majority of
our members.
This meeting, however,
was a major step
forward,
in that Eva Seeley
was not re-elected
to
anything. And this
was not my doing:
she
alienated too many
members outside her
own
group. It didn't
help any when she
hired
a high- powered boston
lawyer, and brought
him into our meeting
to make sure the
rest
of us did not pull
any illegal shenanigans!
(the lawyer's
name was Kenneth
Tiffin.
He had been an official
of the American Kennel
club, and at the
time, I believe he
was president
of the Great Dane
Club of America.
More on
Mr. Tiffin later.)
At the 1954 annual
meeting, I was re-elected
a director and elected
president. We continued
to be fair; we elected
Nelson Butler of
the
New England group
to our board of directors,
and appointed Dr.
Lombard as our delegate
to AKC. We also decided
to incorporate -
in the state of New
Hampshire, as a further
gesture to Seeley
and our New England
members.
Shortly thereafter,
we became the Alaskan
Malamute Club of
America, inc.
Incidentally, in
the interest of accuracy,
it is necessary to
point out that Mrs.
Seeley
was not the founder
of our club. I cannot
remember exactly
when we achieved
official
AKC recognition as
the parent club of
our
breed - it probably
was in 1953 - but
I know
for sure after we
had grown into a
truly
representative national
organization (over
Eva Seeley's
vigorous objections),
thereby
meeting the requirements
of the American
Kennel Club. In my
view, it was probably
not until the 1954
annual meeting that
we
really became and
began to act like,
a national
breed club.
Standard of the breed
The original standard
was based on the
Kotzebue
dogs, because it
was written by the
people
who had Kotzebue
dogs. In all, it
wasn't
a bad job and it
never occurred to
me to
try to change it.
Contrary to some
opinions,
I was never one who
believed "the
bigger,
the better” when
it comes to Malamutes.
Still,
I thought that 20-inch,
50-pound bitches
and 22-inch, 65-pound
males - allowed by
the standard - were
smaller than Malamutes
ought to be. And
I could not see that
23-inch,
70-pound bitches
and 25-inch, 85-pound
males
should be the upper
limit of our breed.
But
we had been showing
our larger dogs under
that standard and
were doing quite
well.
Only one judge ever
put down one of our
dogs
for being over the
standard size, and
I could
live with that.
It was Eva Seeley
who wanted to change
the
standard. She had
come to Washington,
D.C.
in early 1953 to
show one of her dogs
at
the National Capitol
Show. It was a large
turnout for those
for those days, and
it
included dogs from
several different
areas
of the country. Her
dog didn't do
all
that well, while
our king-size Geronimo
took
Best of Breed.
She didn't like
that. So after the
judging
she called a meeting
of all the Malamute
owners and announced
that on her way home
she would stop at
AKC to "see
my good
friend John Neff”
and have our standard
"clarified”
to disqualify all
Malamutes who were
over
the sizes stated!
She said the original
intent was to disqualify;
they just overlooked
making that clear.
This announcement
created quite a stir,
as
you might expect.
Almost everyone's
dogs
were over 25",
85 lbs and bitches
over
23", 70 lbs.
We were all fairly
naive
about AKC: based
on her claimed relationship
with "good friend
John Neff”, whom
we
did recognize as
the guy who pretty
much
ran AKC, we figured
maybe she just might
be able to pull it
off.
We heard no more
about it, though,
until
October that year,
at the Big National
Specialty
in Rye, NY. After
judging, Mrs. Seeley
(now
the president) convened
an official meeting
and the first thing
she did was to introduce
the executive vice
president of AKC
- her
good friend, John
Neff!
We were totally taken
by surprise, and
most
of us fully expected
him to make some
pronouncements
about disqualification's
that we really
did not want to hear.
But he spoke briefly,
complimented us on
our large turnout
and
the excellence of
our dogs, and then
departed.
This was a happy
surprise.
The first point of
business at the meeting
then, was "standard
clarification”.
By obvious pre-arrangement,
Delta Wilson
made a motion that
Eva Seeley be designated
as chairman (we didn't
have "chairpersons”
in those days) of
a standard review
committee
and appoint her own
committee members
to
serve with her! Fortunately,
we had the votes
to put a stop to
that sort of thing.
I made
a short speech about
democracy, and upon
my motion we voted
to elect a committee
representative
of the membership
as a whole.
Then, with fair and
proper consideration
for all points of
view, we voted Mrs.
Seeley
a seat on the committee.
Bill Dawson, Ralph
Schmitt, Jean Lane
and I were also elected.
Leaning over backwards
- again - trying
to
accommodate Eva Seeley,
which we did on so
many occasions, turned
out to be a bad idea.
She was dead set
on regaining control
of
the breed by disqualifying
as many competitors
as possible, and
she would not give
an inch.
We argued for two
years. Dawson, Schmitt
and I agreed on what
we felt was a correct,
fair and representative
standard. Jean Lane,
for reasons known
only to her, just
would
not function and
contributed nothing
whatsoever.
Mrs Seeley insisted
on the sizes in the
original
standard with automatic
disqualification's
for any over that
size. (but not for
being
under that size).
She wanted to add
five
other disqualification's
as well!
After two years of
getting nowhere,
the best
we could do was to
give our membership
a
choice: the majority
report, the Seeley
minority,
or leave the standard
unchanged. 107 members
voted - 73 for the
Zoller-Dawson-Schmitt
version (as I remember,
Jean Lane didn't
even vote), 9 for
Seeley's and
25 for
no change.
AKC added the 25
to the 9 and said
that was
"significant
opposition”. They
said
we couldn't change
anything without
a
"more unanimous”
opinion.
So the committee
was disbanded in
October
1956 after some 2
½ years of hard work,
and
I declined to waste
any more time on
the
standard review matter.
Let someone else
do it, for a change.
In September 1957,
Martha
Gormley, then president,
appointed a new
standard committee
consisting of Bill
Dawson,
Dorothy Dillingham
and Hal Pearson.
I felt
this was a fair committee,
in that it represented
the three points
of view among our
members
- although not at
all in proportion
to the
number of members
in each group. (but
then
it didn't have
to be: any sane person
knows the majority
isn't always
right.)
at any rate, Pearson
liked the big Husky-Pak
dogs, Dillingham
was a Seeley- Kotzebue
fan,
and Dawson - whose
bear was 25",
85
lbs and often lost
to king- size Cherokee
- was solidly in
the middle.
Size, really, was
the major bone of
contention
from the beginning
to end. The new committee
finally reached an
intelligent compromise:
instead of defining
a size range they
settled
for a statement that
"the desirable
sizes” were 25/85
and 23/75, males
and bitches.
Otherwise, the revised
was pretty much as
written in our earlier
majority report.
I
remember writing
many of the words
that still
exist: "there
is a natural range
in
size in this breed”,
and also that "size
considerations should
not outweigh that
of
type, proportion
and functional attributes...”.
I remember writing
the closing paragraph:
"important -
in judging Alaskan
Malamutes,
their function as
a sledge dog for
heavy
freighting must be
given consideration
above
all else”. And the
words that follow
that
statement.
There were no size
disqualification's
in the committee's
recommendation so,
of course, Eva Seeley
denounced it and
voted
no. But the membership
approved it in november
1959 and AKC gave
it their blessing
in april
1960, nearly seven
years after our first
committee was elected
and began its work.
What happened then
is why I feel now
that
anyone who suggests
"revising” the
standard
to spell out whether
red Malamutes (or
whatever)
are acceptable, etc.,
ought to be chained
to an iceflow and
set adrift in the
bering
sea. Of course, the
standard is not perfect;
it's a compromise.
But it's one
we
can all live with.
I could write a standard
better than the
one we have. And
so could Penny Devaney,
whose knowledge of
our breed I respect.
But
I know what it takes
to get an "almost
unanimous” approval
by 800-some-odd members,
most of whom want
a standard that describes
their dogs. I also
think you don't
want
anymore details than
our standard now
has.
You don't want
judges to come into
the
with scales and a
tape measure. You
don't
want a standard with
so many words that
most
judges won't
read them, and the
ones
who do will not remember
what they read!
Before I leave this
matter of size, a
few
final words: despite
what our standard
says,
I am not at all convinced
that 85-lb males
and 75-lb females
are "the ideal
freighting
size”. That statement
was a compromise,
the
best we could do
then, and a lot better
than
the way it was. But
I always felt the
"original”
Malamute was a big
dog, even after many
generations
of survival in a
harsh environment.
I think
the old photos show
that. In the 1950s,
near
Lake Placid, NY,
I saw real, honest-to-god
good-type Malamutes,
brought out of the
arctic
by Jacques Suzanne,
that were bigger
than
any real Malamutes
I have seen before
or
since.
For many reasons
I was told that anyone
who
ever worked sled
dogs had found the
big dogs
"much less efficient”
than the smaller
ones. Some even said
any dog over 80-lbs
was clumsy and more
likely to break down
and drop out. Not
being a driver, I
couldn't
argue. But now that
opinion has been
made
to look silly by
Will Steger and his
gallant
companions who journeyed
totally across antarctica
in what has to be
said to be the greatest
feat of human and
canine endurance
ever on
this earth. They
accomplished this
with teams
of 100-lb dogs -
and their performance
was
magnificent!
Susan Butcher and
her smaller Iditarod
dogs
are to be much admired.
Let us all keep in
mind that Iditarod
is a race, not a
freighting
event. The Malamute
is "not intended
as a racing sled
dog”... He is a "sledge
dog for heavy freighting”.
Anyone disagree?
It's in our standard.
And now - again -
let me be perfectly
clear:
I did not say, the
bigger the better.
And
in no way am I suggesting
we rewrite the
standard to conform
to my opinions.
The plot thickens (enter John Hofft and John
B. Roth)
By late 1954, Eva
Seeley was an unhappy
woman,
to say the least.
She was no longer
allowed
to run the breed
and the club, her
dogs were
not winning anything
important, AKC had
registered
a lot of dogs she
claimed were not
Malamutes
(i.e. Kotzebue),
and it looked like
she was
failing in her efforts
to eliminate the
competition
by rewriting the
standard. There were
rumors
she was up to something
and a good guess
was that it had nothing
to do with establishing
a Husky-Pak fan club.
Soon we heard she
was gathering "facts”
to prove our dogs
were not purebred.
She
had told a number
of people that Dave
Irwin,
Dick Hinman, Hazel
Wilton, Paul Voelker
and
Brud Gardner - all
breeders of dogs
behind
my stock - had "admitted”
their dogs
were not purebred
Malamutes!
I immediately checked
with Hinman and Wilton
and they said this
was totally untrue.
Seeley
had said Jean Lane
was with Paul Voelker
on the occasion when
he had repudiated
all
his M'Loot dogs,
and Jean Lane said
this
never happened. "quite
the opposite,”
she maintained, "Paul
said his were
purebred, and a lot
better than hers!”
My friend Jim Lynn
was a friend of Brud
Gardner,
so I asked him to
check that one out.
Brud
told Jim that Seeley
had approached him,
asking that he sign
certain "affidavits”
and he flatly refused
because "they
were based on falsehood.”
On january 23, 1955,
I received a most
interesting
letter. It was from
margaret Tracy Irwin,
wife of Dave Irwin.
These people did
not
know me at all. They
did not even know
where
I lived. S they addressed
their letter to
me in "care
of the American Kennel
Club”!
Something strange
was going on, she
wrote
in her letter, and
they thought I should
know about it.
She said that a man
named John Hofft
had
popped in at the
Irwin's a few
months
previously, with
no money, no job
and a truck-full
of hungry Malamutes.
Irwin's had helped,
fed the dogs and
gave him a job. Some
weeks
later, he left. Now
he had come back.
Mrs. Irwin wrote:
"recently the
man
has been calling,
writing and coming
here
to get affidavits
signed by Mr. Irwin.
Since
he had not been successful,
a letter we received
yesterday took on
a most threatening
tone.”
The letter, she said,
was signed by a "John
B. Roth" - but
was "suspiciously
in the handwriting
of one John Hofft”!
It
was a long and rambling
letter, but among
other things it said:
"Mrs Seeley
has letters you wrote
to
Mr. Wolff also one
fingerprinted affidavit
from Lowell Thomas,
Margaret Dewey, Jack
O'Brien and Dick
Moulton.”
"Mr. Zoller,
president of the
Malamute
club, wrote John
a letter claiming
you have
a terrible reputation
and that you couldn't
tell the difference
between a Malamute
and
Siberian Husky. Zoller
for years has controlled
the Malamute and
Siberian situation
and no
dog could be registered
unless approved by
him. Zoller could
expose you as a phony
who
was never in the
arctic and never
was in
king Williamland,
who simply was lost
in
the arctic. The affidavits
are for your protection.
I have spent a lot
of money over this
registration
business, taking
officers of the kennel
club
out to dinner and
shows on broadway.
Registrations
do not come cheap.
I have spent over
$50.00
in the last few days
buying scotch for
different
officials. Now I
don't intend
to spend
a lot of money to
come all the way
up to
milford to get those
affidavits. "(further
on:)” now Mr. Irwin,
these affidavits
are
for your protection
because Mr. Hofft
and
Mrs. Seeley have
enough affidavits
and letters
to put Zoller on
the lam and get their
dogs
registered. Both
Hofft and Seeley
are going
through regardless
whether you furnish
affidavits
or not. Zoller will
put you over a barrel
to save himself.
For you to hold back
the
affidavits you are
not going to stop
Mr.
Hofft and Seeley
from putting Zoller
on the
pan because they
intend to do it anyway
and
let Zoller pass the
buck on to you.”
I responded to Mrs.
Irwin and tried to
explain
what I thought was
happening. When she
wrote
back she enclosed
a photocopy of the
"John
B. Roth” letter.
I found several Hofft
letters
in my files, compared
the handwriting,
and
found beyond any
doubt that John Hofft
was
"John B. Roth”.
Mrs. Irwin also wrote:
"there is a
garage man, Terpster
by
name, who befriended
Hofft, and to whom
David
took our Pontiac
station wagon after
Hofft
had messed it up.
He told David that
Mrs.
Seeley was tempting
Hofft with a promise
of getting him to
the South Pole expedition
coming up. Hofft
perhaps would do
anything
to get to such a
place, although I
doubt
it is sincere on
her part. He had
nothing
but horrible things
to say about her
when
he was here, and
then suddenly he
became
pen pals with her!”
It was hard for me
to believe all this
was
happening, but there
it was, in black
and
white, before my
very eyes.
About the same time,
several members noticed
and complained that
the AMCA column in
the
AKC gazette always
included a small
head
study of a dog with
a forlorn and unappealing
expression, that
was a poor advertisement
for our breed. They
suggested we come
up
with a better photo.
The board agreed.
But
since the dog shown
was one of Seeley's
we were very careful
to set up a fair
system
for selecting a replacement.
We solicited
unidentified photos
from our membership.
(as I remember, it
was one of Toro that
was
finally chosen.)
But of course the
very announcement
that
we were considering
a change was greeted
by the expected Seeley
tantrum and related
threats: she was
going to protest
to AKC
and "demand
proof” of pure breeding
of the dog selected,
etc. etc.
I guess this one
was the straw that
broke
the Camel's back.
Not long after that,
I received a strange
letter from her.
It
started out by inquiring
about the health
and well being of
my wife and children
and
sending them her
best wishes. And
then, it
issued an ultimatum;
I was to prove to
her
that my dogs were
purebred Malamutes
and
do so within ten
days! Failure to
comply
would result in her
immediate launching
of
an AKC investigation!
At the same time
she sent a letter
to each
member on our board
of directors which
said,
"the American
Kennel Club must
now prove
to me that the persons
who signed off affidavits
of pedigrees and
made their own declaration
as to these pedigrees
being of purebred
of
the same breed, have
not been impostors.”
I wrote back, a long
letter, saying to
her
that things were
getting out of hand
and
that her constant
harping and outlandish
accusations were
damaging our breed
and our
club; but most of
all were damaging
to her;
that many of our
members who honored
her
for her pioneering
efforts in the 1930s
were
now saddened at seeing
the disruptive influence
she had become.
I felt sorry for
her, and with complete
sincerity
I suggested in my
letter that before
she
issued any more threats,
she should check
her judgment with
some of the people
she
trusted - Dr. Lombard,
Edna Lawlor, Delta
Wilson.
I also wrote to the
Lombards and the
Lawlors.
They were good and
reasonable people,
I thought:
I especially liked
Edna Lawlor. Dr.
Lawlor
had a Malamute team
- some were registered,
some not - and his
main interest was
racing.
He persisted in running
his Malamutes against
the Siberian teams
and I don't think
he won very often,
if at all. Lombard,
a
veterinarian, was
one of the best and
best-known
dog drivers in the
world. He ran Siberians
exclusively, but
always had a Malamute
or
two around the place.
I asked them to do
me no favors, but
to please
help Mrs. Seeley
stop making a fool
of herself;
that if she would
use a little common
sense
and back off a bit,
she could possibly
regain
some of the respect
she had earned a
few
years previously.
I pointed out that
while
I was the target,
literally dozens
of other
people were involved;
if she persisted
in
her efforts to destroy
thework of so many
people over so many
years, we would have
to take whatever
counter-measures
became
necessary, and Eva
Seeley would be a
certain
loser in the process.
I never heard a peep
from the Lombards
and
the Lawlors, and
I do not know why.
Could
be, they too were
finally fed up with
Mrs.
Seeley and decided
to let her go hang.
More
likely, they agreed
with her and hoped
she
could get rid of
all the new people
and new
dogs and return to
the cozy little family
set-up they had in
the past. It is also
possible
that neither the
Lombards nor the
Lawlors
cared enough, one
way or the other,
to become
involved. I never
was able to figure
it out.
Seeley vs. Zoller: the charges
In October that year
I was notified by
AKC
that Mrs. Seeley
had formally accused
me
of knowingly breeding
mixed-breed dogs
and
representing them
to be purebred Malamutes.
If I wished to deny
these charges, I
could
present my arguments
at a formal trial
at
AKC headquarters
in New York City.
Included
were photocopies
of the letters that
Mrs.
Seeley had submitted
as "proof".
There were a couple
of letters from a
man
named R. Gibson Perry,
a retired medical
doctor, establishing
that in 1936 he had
purchased certain
dogs from Milton
Seeley.
Other letter's
established that
Brud
Gardner had obtained
some puppies from
Dr.
Perry and in due
course had bred one
called
"Alaska ",
and sold one of her
female pups named
"Sitka"
to Dick
Hinman. Hinman later
had mated Sitka with
Irwin's Gemo,
producing a dog who
later
sired my "Kayak
of Brookside".
I realized immediately,
of course, that the
same dogs were ancestors
of Spawn's Alaska
- and therefore,
of course, of Geronimo,
Takoma, Cherokee,
Sioux, Eagle, Echako,
Machook,
etc., etc. Even Dawson's
"Bear"
and Pearson's
Banshee and Aabara
(national
specialty winners)
were involved. In
short,
most of the National
Specialty Winners
over
a period of years,
and virtually all
of the
top dogs and bitches
of that era!
So the Seeley charges
seemed to be based
totally on this:
our dogs and many
others
went back to one
or more dogs the
Seeley's
had owned some twenty
years before - and
she now claimed they
were not purebred
Malamutes.
I kept looking through
the material AKC
had
sent me, searching
for her proof. I
couldn't
find any. I wrote
AKC saying they must
have
forgotten to send
me everything they
had
planned to. They
replied and said
no, that
was it. That was
everything.
It was hard for me
to believe the whole
case
boiled down to this:
Eva Seeley said the
ancestors of my dogs
were not Malamutes.
All I would have
to do is prove they
were
Malamutes.
Question: at this
early stage in the
development
of the breed, how
do you do that?
Since all Malamutes
in 1936 - including
hers
- were only a generation
or two from "unknown",
we couldn't prove
that the ancestors
of our dogs were
purebred Malamutes,
just
as she couldn't
prove anything, one
way
or the other, about
her dogs. According
to
AKC, all Malamutes
were "eskimo
dogs"
before 1935!
In my defense brief
- mine was hardly
"brief",
more like a textbook
- I took several
approaches.
I pointed out that
she had no proof
whatever
to substantiate the
charges, that her
whole
case was based solely
on her claim that
my
dogs were not Malamutes.
My claim was that
Eva Seeley was famous
throughout the Malamute
world for labeling
all Malamutes not
of her
own breeding as eskimo
or crossbred dogs,
and that she had
been doing this for
many
years, and nobody
any longer believed
her
or took her seriously.
I also called attention
to her repudiation
of her own Kotzebue
dogs - Toro and the
others
who had slipped away
from her control.
This
consistent pattern
of behavior, I said,
should
show her claims had
no validity.
One thing, however,
had me worried. That
was the unique nature
of our breed in those
times - so recently
out of the arctic,
so
close to the "unknown".
I knew
the members of the
trial board knew
nothing
about Malamutes,
and so could totally
err
in their findings
by not realizing
how different
our breed was from
most others. So I
wrote
a fairly lengthy
history of our breed.
And
to put Seeley's
charges in proper
perspective,
I submitted a lengthy
history of her attempts
to eliminate the
competition by revising
the standard, to
control the Club,
to discredit
all dogs not of her
own.
I emphasized that
this case was in
no way
a simple "Seeley
vs. Zoller"
matter,
but rather an attempt
to destroy the work
of years by as many
as seventy members
of
our Club (the vast
majority as of then)
and
even including eight
of the nine people
serving
on our board of directors.
I established
that the fourteen
"Seeley years"
had produced two
AKC champions in
our breed,
while the following
five years had produced
61 - most of which
she was now trying
to
discredit and render
useless for all further
breeding programs.
I even pointed out
the Seeley charges
made
AKC itself look pretty
silly: I enclosed
a list of 46 AKC-licensed
judges - all of
them among the best
known dog judges
of those
times - who had judges
these "eskimo
dogs or arctic mongrels"
and put them
up as the best Alaskan
Malamutes in our
country.
If they couldn't
tell crossbreds from
purebreds they were
obviously incompetent
and should have their
licenses revoked.
This
case, I suggested
should be renamed
"Seeley
vs. Everybody including
AKC!"
I also covered the
whole story about
the
Irwin's Gemo
- John B. Roth case
as an
indication of how
far she would go
to build
her case. I submitted
copies of letters
from
Irwin, Hinman, Brud
Gardner and Mrs.
Wilton
to show that everyone
in the chain had
bought,
owned, bred and sold
these dogs and their
progeny as purebred
Malamutes.
Almost everyone.
One line is missing:
Dr.
Gibson Perry. This
concerned me more
than
somewhat: I did not
know this man at
all,
but I had heard Mrs.
Seeley praised him
and
quoted him on many
occasions. I figured
he
was either a relative
or a close friend
of
the family, and as
such might be willing
to sign anything
just to help her
out.
I had no choice but
to find out. I learned
he was retired and
living in the woods
way
up on the vermont
border with Canada.
Jim
Lynn offered to drive
me there, a long
trip.
After two days of
fast driving, we
arrived
in a mid- afternoon.
It was november.
Cold.
I remember the skies
were dark gray. It
was
just beginning to
snow.
We had no idea what
to expect. When the
old
doctor found out
who we were and why
we had
come, maybe he'd
throw us out. It
was
make-or-break time,
I knew that for sure.
He came to the door
of his cabin. He
was
indeed an old man,
in his eighties I
found
out. Didn't see
too well. But he
was,
I soon learned, a
right sharp senior
citizen.
"Dr. Perry?",
I inquired. He said
"yes".
I said, "I've
come
to talk to you about
Eva Seeley”. He held
up his hand to stop
me. He took out a
match
and lit his pipe.
Then in a moment
or two
- without knowing
anything more about
me,
or why I was there
- he volunteered
his opinion
of Eva Seeley.
Throughout this account
of the critical years
in our breed's
history I have, in
the
interest of accuracy
and historical perspective,
been totally frank
- perhaps more so
than
some readers may
feel is necessary.
But so
much misinformation
still exists, it
must
be corrected, and
I have done so with
considerably
more charity than
I ever received from
Eva
Seeley or any of
her friends. Still,
I cannot
bring myself to tell
you what Dr. Perry
said,
although the exact
words are etched
forever
in my memory!
But I knew then for
sure that if we ended
up losing our case
at AKC, it wouldn't
be due to Dr. Gibson
Perry.
One of the printable
things he said about
Mrs. Seeley was that
she drove him crazy.
Always pestering
him "to sign
something
or other". We
talked at some length.
More than an hour.
When we left he had
given
us a letter that
said:
"to whom it
may concern":
"the dogs I
purchased from Milton
Seeley
in 1936 were represented
by him to be Alaskan
Malamutes and were
understood by me
to be
of that breed.
The dogs I mated
to produce the pup
I sold
to Vernon (Brud)
Gardner were purebred
of
the Malamute breed.
I have never had
reason to suspect
that those
dogs were crossbred
or purebred of any
other
breed.
I have owned other
sledge dogs, but
the above
facts apply to the
dogs in question;
those
purchased by me from
Milton Seeley in
1936.
I have never told
Eva Seeley, or anyone
else,
otherwise."
The trial
There were several
delays, postponements
and changes in the
composition of the
trial
board, so the hearing
did not take place
until june 1956.
Jim Lynn went with
me. He
was our AMCA delegate
to AKC, and came
along
as a witness to verify
the Brud Gardner
and
Dr. Perry statements
in case that became
necessary. My wife,
Laura and Connie
Lynn
were there, too.
But just along for
the ride.
We arrived at the
AKC offices in Manhattan
before the others.
Nobody knew us, but
we
told the receptionist
who we were, and
we
were asked to have
a seat in the waiting
room. People we didn't
know kept walking
in and out, and no
one spoke to us or
paid
any attention.
AKC had told me most
people hire an attorney
for cases like this,
but I figured I would
handle it on my own.
Besides, (with apologies
to any lawyer reading
this) the money I'd
save would buy us
a nice trip to europe
later
on. Or a new car.
Someday. (maybe)
Then a lot of people
came into the waiting
room, all at the
same time. A half
dozen
or more well-dressed,
distinguished-looking
gentlemen in their
fifties or sixties,
obviously
lawyers, probably
members of the trial
board,
and some AKC officials.
Eva Seeley was with
them and I recognized
Mr. Tiffin, Seeley's
lawyer from Boston.
Being President of
the
Great Dane Club of
America and a former
AKC
official, he was
well known there
and was
shaking hands with
everyone. As a matter
of fact, everyone
was laughing, shaking
hands
and slapping each
other on the back
like
long-lost buddies.
Or fraternity brothers.
Seeley was right
in the middle of
the festivities,
being treated like
it was a family reunion
and she was one of
the family!
Jim Lynn looked at
me and shrugged,
with
a "win some,
lose some" expression
on his face. I felt
terrible. If ever
I saw
a stacked deck of
cards, this was it.
It
occurred to me that
maybe I had lost
the
case before the trial
even started.
However, the trial
board turned out
to be
courteous and imminently
fair. Seeley got
to present her case
first. She brought
in
John Hofft as a witness
and he told a lot
of lies about me.
This really hurt,
since
he was once a customer
of mine and I had
done a number of
favors for him over
the
years. I could not
believe what I was
hearing.
But as he continued
to berate me, I began
to realize he was
such a bad liar he
was
probably doing more
damage to their side
than mine.
When my turn came,
I think I was able
to
discredit him completely.
I brought up a
few character flaws
I knew about and
I introduced
Mrs. Irwin's
letters and the ridiculous
John B. Roth letter.
Hofft denied writing
this, of course,
and I told the trial
board
that it was so obvious
that any handwriting
expert - even one
who wasn't very
good
at it - could easily
identify the writing
as Hofft's. And
I insisted on having
this done if the
board had any doubts
who
was lying and who
was telling the truth.
I accused Seeley
of bribing John Hofft
and
there was no real
response to that,
either
from Seeley or her
lawyer. They just
changed
the subject.
One thing surprised
me: Seeley and her
attorney
introduced matters
at the trial that
were
not included in their
original charges!
I
though that was illegal.
With no advance
notice, they brought
Irwin's Gemo
into
their case.
They had not mentioned
him in their original
charges, obviously
because dave Irwin
had
refused to sign their
affidavits. But now
they claimed he was
not a Malamute because
he had been shown
as an eskimo dog
in 1934!
They did not back
up their charges
with any
information or proof
of any kind-no mention
of when or where
or anything else!
This caught me by
surprise. But then
it dawned
on me that Gemo wasn't
even born yet
in 1934!! I said
so, and then I also
said
it didn't really
make any difference
anyway, because all
Malamutes were "eskimo
dogs" under
AKC's definition
until
they acknowledged
ours as a separate
breed;
and that didn't
happen until 1935
- at
least a full year
later than the alleged
showing took place!
And then I declared
most emphatically
that
I could prove that
gemo was shown as
an Alaskan
Malamute at the Westminster
K.C. show in
Madison Square Garden
in 1941 and again
in
1942, after AKC recognized
our Malamutes
as a breed separate
and distinct from
the
eskimo.
Introducing such
a careless accusation
with
no evidence whatever
to back it up, was,
I am sad to say,
typical Eva Seeley
behavior.
But I could not imagine
her big-time Boston
lawyer doing anything
that dumb. When it
happened, I began
to feel a lot more
at ease
about handling my
own case without
legal
representation.
The other new "evidence"
presented
without any advance
notice was a statement
by Paul Voelker that
was potentially damaging
to my defense and
to all owner's
of M'Loot
dogs (of which there
were many). Apparently
after Hofft had failed
to bulldoze Dave
Irwin,
he had gone to Arizona
where voelker was
living at the time,
and tried the same
thing
with him. I had no
way of knowing whether
the Voelker statements
presented at the
trial
were authentic or
forgeries, and I
said so.
I also said that,
by several years
of corresponding
with Voelker, I had
figured him to be
not
totally reliable
and something of
an egotist
who considered everyone
else in the breed
as a "Johnny-come-lately",
or an
"impostor".
That he was intent
on playing the role
of the master, with
all
others as devoted
disciples. I had
letters
from him calling
his best customers
- the
Schmitts and Jean
Lane - stupid people
who
refused to follow
his teachings and
who had
"ruined"
the dogs he sold
them.
Since Voelker was
totally out of the
business,
and I believed quite
jealous of how far
the
breed had progressed
beyond where he was
able to take it,
it was possible he
may have
decided to repudiate
his M'Loot dogs to
get
even for imagined
wrong.
Possible, I said
at the trial, but
not likely.
It was easy to prove
that for all of the
years he had been
in the dog business,
he
had consistently
represented his dogs
to
be not only purebred
Malamutes, but by
far
the best Malamutes
on planet earth!
It would
take a lot more than
"affidavits"
by Seeley and Hofft
to convince me the
documents
they presented against
the M'Lloot dogs
had
any more validity
than the rest of
their
case.
Finally they got
to the matter of
the Perry
dogs and I figured
this was the big,
high,
hard one of the Seeley
case. And just about
the time I was beginning
to feel quite comfortable,
her lawyer tossed
Dr. Perry onto the
table
a document about
the dogs bought from
Milton
Seeley in 1936 -
and it included the
statement,
"these dogs
not of purebreeding!”
I was dumbfounded.
What in hell was
happening
here? All I could
do, of course, was
to present
my letter signed
by Dr. Perry which
stated
positively that the
dogs were Alaskan
Malamutes.
I called on Jim Lynn
as a witness to tell
the story of our
visit to Dr. Perry's
camp and attest to
the validity of my
document.
Then I told the trial
board I could not
explain
the conflicting documents
but it wouldn't
be all that difficult
to contact Dr. Perry
and find out from
him which of us had
presented
the true facts, and
I insisted that this
be done.
At that point, Mr.
Tiffin began to whisper
to Mrs. Seeley, and
in a moment or two
(rather
painfully, I thought)
he explained to the
trial board that
Mrs. Seeley had herself,
typed in the words,
"these dogs
not
of purebreeding"
above Dr. Perry's
signature, after
he had signed it!
(I told you early
in this story that
some
of the things that
happened in those
days
were indeed incredible.
I don't know
what records AKC
has kept on this
trial or
how detailed they
would be. But if
a complete
transcript still
exists and is available,
it will show this
account to be totally
accurate).
I cannot remember
every detail, but
I do
know that another
document signed by
Dr.
Perry turned up at
the trial, and it
included
the words "not
of purebreeding".
Immediately after
the trial concluded,
Jim
Lynn drove all the
way to the Canada-Vermont
border to see if
Dr. Perry could explain
how that had happened.
Dr. Perry was away
on a hunting trip,
but his granddaughter
remembered. "Just
as he was ready to
leave", she
told Jim Lynn, "Mrs.
Seeley pulled in
with some papers
for him
to sign. He refused
and she told him
it was
nothing but a statement
that he had bought
some dogs from the
Seeleys at one time.
He
didn't have his
glasses, so he accepted
her word and signed.
Then he told her
to
leave as he was in
a hurry".
The granddaughter
said she would tell
Dr.
Perry what had happened
when he returned.
He would be mad,
she said, and he
would go
to AKC personally
and give his views
on Mrs.
Seeley if that were
necessary.
Although the trial
was over, the findings
of the trial board
would not be announced
immediately. So I
sent this new information
to AKC, just in case.
I knew the future
of
the entire breed
was at stake, so
I would
leave no stone unturned!
The verdict and the appeal
A couple of weeks
later we were notified
that the Seeley charges
were not sustained
and that the case
was dismissed. Seeley
and
her lawyer, however,
immediately appealed
the verdict to the
AKC board of directors
as a whole. Mr. Tiffin's
appeal brief,
which AKC sent me,
was three pages of
undiluted
hogwash containing
statements like this:
"there is further
contradicted evidence
to be found in the
transcript that certain
of the dogs in the
line of Kayak were
first
shown as Siberian
Huskies....."
Unbelievable! Another
new accusation never
before mentioned
in the charges or
introduced
at the trial! And
therefore - think
about
it-there was no possible
way for them to
be "found in
the transcript"
as
stated. I cannot
believe Mr. Tiffin,
a lawyer,
did not know his
tactics were improper.
And
more important, like
everything else charged
in this trial, his
statement about "shown
as Siberian Huskies"
was not accompanied
by explanation as
to which dogs, which
shows,
when, by whom, or
any evidence or proof
of
any kind!
When I studied Mr.
Tiffin's appeal
brief,
I found no substance
whatever. The appeal
was based on his
claim that with all
the
affidavits I had
submitted, "the
people
probably were not
telling the truth".
And the board, he
said, should really
decide
the case on "
Mrs. Seeley's
own
testimony which I
do not believe can
be questioned."
(Maybe I'm wrong,
but that seems to
me
to be quite a claim
about a woman who
typed
in "these dogs
not of purebreeding"
over Dr. Perry's
signature and introduced
it as evidence at
the trial!)
I did not even attend
the appeal hearing
in New York on November
28,1956. In due course,
I was notified that
the appeal was denied.
Aftermath
Several people who
had followed the
case
suggested I should
sue Mrs. Seeley for
slander,
libel, and defamation
of character. I did
not. I will fight
to defend my interests,
but not to get even.
I had won the case,
but it took nearly
two
years of my time,
a great deal of hard
work,
and a right fair
amount of money I
could
ill afford in those
days.
She had lost her
case. But she never
really
paid the price -
not when you consider
the
tactics she used.
Many who knew what
happened
excused her. Looked
the other way. Again.
People believe what
they want to believe.
I didn't care.
I was in favor of
sweeping
it all under the
rug, now that she
was no
longer a threat to
our Malamute breed.
I
actually felt sorry
for Eva Seeley -
although
at times I cannot
understand why! At
any
rate I refrained
from publishing the
whole
story for more than
thirty years.
I am convinced also
that it never occurred
to Eva Seeley that
anything she had
done
was wrong. Even a
little bit wrong.
In a few years, I
was out of it - and
I think
that at least in
some measure the
way I had
been treated had
something to do with
my
getting out. On the
other hand we had
made
a number of close
and lasting friendships.
We met a lot of interesting
"characters"
and some really good
people. Jim Lynn
was
always 100% with
his support, and
the Pearsons
and gormleys and
the Dawsons and some
others
were solidly on my
side from start to
finish.
But I think everyone
who owned Kotzebue
dogs
wanted Seeley to
win, and they didn't
care how. (Human
nature is like that.
Even
as I write, millions
of Arabs worldwide
revere
and support Saddam
Hussein simply because
he is Arab, and nothing
else counts). Most
of our AMCA members
realized I was fighting
to save their dogs
as well as my own,
and
therefore were firm
allies at the time.
But quite apart from
the trial, and except
for a few of us in
the middle, our Malamute
people remained mostly
Kotzebue or M'Loot
fanatics and they
viewed each other
with
about the same amount
of trust and affection
we see with the jews
and the arabs in
the
middle east today.
Since I had said
some
nice things about
both strains, I was
viewed
with suspicion by
both camps. Winning
a lot
didn't help me
much either.
You know and I know
that our dogs are
more
like our kids than
just possessions.
This
overstates to make
a point, but: you
beat
me stamp collection
and I will admire
your
stamp collection;
you beat my dog in
the
show ring and I'll
hate you forever-and
probably the judge
as well! Some of
this
you have to expect,
but a little goes
a long
way. Over time, you
get a it tired of
it.
Things like this
bothered me: just
before
the trial, a prospective
customer in California
wrote:
"A touch matter
has come up. Another
breeder out here
wants us to take
one of
her bitches ....
I told her after
seeing
Geronimo's picture,
I wanted a daughter
of his. She wrote
back quite a reply.
Before
you hit the ceiling,
let me state again,
I like Apache Chief
and definitely feel
he's
the most beautiful
Malamute I've
ever
seen - whatever is
said about him. I
still
like him and want
his daughter. Her
letter
read, "I'm
reasonably well acquainted
with the stock ...
The dam is an excellent
specimen. (Author's
note: that was Kelerak.).
The sire, Apache
Chief, is the dog
I spoke
of, that is under
fire with the AKC.
What
a shame that a bitch
of her quality was
bred
to a dog of questionable
background".
I never said anything
about that letter,
but it's the
kind of thing that's
hard to forget; the
kind of behavior
that
makes the dog hobby
less joyful than
it ought
to be.
I'm sure there's
still some of this
going around. But
those of you who
came into
our breed in the
1960's or since,
found
everything pretty
neatly packaged and
not
a lot different than
in most other breeds.
It may be difficult
for you to understand
what things were
like in the early
days.
That's mainly
why I am telling
you this
story.
Great dogs like Geronimo
and Takoma and Cherokee
and Sioux were only
a few generations
from
"unknown".
So they were maligned
constantly by Eva
Seeley and some others
who's own dogs
were even closer
to "unknown".
They used the term
"foundation
stock"
as if it applied
solely to the Seeley
dogs.
Actually, Irwin's
Gemo and Sitka and
the early M'Loot
dogs were foundation
stock
as well.
And consider this:
Ch. Gripp of Yukon,
one
of the first Seeley
dogs to be registered
was by Yukon Jad
out of Bessie. Bessie
is
described as "a
Greenland Eskimo"
by none other than
Eva Seeley herself
in
her book, "Chinook
and his family".
What's more,
Yukon Jad was sired
by Grey
Cloud - a dog whose
owner, Frank Berton
of
Dawson, in the Yukon
Territory, claimed
was
"about three-quarter
wolf".
(To give credit where
it is due, the above
information was the
result of research
by
Richard Tobey, who
in my opinion, knows
more
about the early history
of our breed than
anyone else in the
world).
Now please understand,
you cannot use the
above facts to indicate
the Seeley dogs therefore
were not Malamutes.
Every breed has to
start
somewhere. Malamutes
- regardless of bloodline
- all go back to
"unknown".
Which
isn't at all
bad when you consider
that
most other breeds
go back to known
dogs of
other breeds!
A postscript
One final note. Years
later - 1975? - the
phone rang. It was
Maxwell Riddle. I
didn't
know this man personally,
but I remembered
him as one of the
best and best-known
dog
judges in America.
He told me he was
working
with Eva Seeley to
produce an authoritative
book on Alaskan Malamutes.
I said, "that
sounds like a contradiction;
to me "Mrs.
Seeley" and
"authoritative"
are mutually exclusive.
Since she claims
there are no Malamutes
except her own; obviously
you will be writing
a very short book!"
Mr. Riddle said he
was definitely including
our Husky-Pak dogs.
That's why he
was
calling; he needed
to verify some of
the
facts and figures.
We talked at some
length,
and I'm sure
he was hearing a
lot of
things from me that
he hadn't heard
from
her. He asked if
I would be willing
to put
some of it down on
paper.
A bit later on he
wrote to thank me
for the
material I had sent
to him. "What
I
have done",
he explained, "is
to
have a chapter in
the beginning by
Eva Seeley,
and another chapter
in the beginning
by Robert
J. Zoller".
And he added, "I
am
printing what you
sent, word-for-word..."
Surprisingly, the
Seeley-Riddle book
was
published just that
way. Maybe you saw
the
book and wondered
how this happened.
So did
I! Could it be that
Seeley finally decided
the hundreds of AKC-registered
Alaskan Malamute
champions were really
Malamutes after all?
I found out.......
Years later, in September
1987, when I received
another letter from
Maxwell Riddle. He
told me what had
happened.
"After the book
was published",
he said, "short
Seeley refused to
speak
to me ever again!"
So that's what
happened in our Alaskan
Malamute breed in
those critical years.
Perhaps
I have told you a
lot more than you
really
want to know. This
was a true life adventure
and, like life for
almost everyone,
it was
a bit sad in places.
But I think it turned
out well in the long
run - for all of
us
who love this breed
and want to be the
very
best it can be.
In retrospect, I
am proud of what
I did to
so effect (and protect)
the quality of the
Malamutes of today.
I don't think
about
it often, but it
hit me recently when
Laura
and I decided to
drop in on a dog
show for
the first time in
more than ten years.
There,
at quite some distance,
we spotted a big
male Malamute. "Look",
I said,
"a Husky-Pak
dog!" Anyway
he looked
like one, an on closer
examination we decided
he was the best Malamute
we had seen in many
years. And I didn't
have to see his pedigree
to know that this
magnificent dog would
never
have been born if
the events I describe
herein
had turned out differently
many years ago.
And I'm willing
to bet the same is
true
of virtually every
top winning Malamute
of
the past twenty years!
For me, my experience
with Malamutes was
a lot like my involvement
in World War II
(which isn't
a bad analogy, come
to think
of it); I wouldn't
have missed it for
anything, but i'd
never want to go
through
it again!
THE END!
|
