NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac

[Karen Hinchy]

I'm just curious to others' thoughts based on the discussion on the NW dogs a few weeks ago. 

We originally agreed to create their CPP Pedigrees to match the AKC ones with all siblings the descendants of Singing Woods Cygnus and Georgianna's Sheena.  I'm fairly sure no one really thinks those are accurate pedigrees, just a good compromise given the debate about the DNA results. 

Not that we've had the change to Riki's birthdate, and information from his owner and breeder that supports the DNA evidence - do you feel we should keep the blanket Cygnus x Sheena pedigrees for all?  Or should we review the DNA evidence now supported with 3rd party documentation and update pedigrees to match?  

******

So, this is interesting.  When we first discussed the NW dogs, we talked about the UKC pedigrees (a real mess), the AKC pedigrees (blanket all dogs as full siblings) and the DNA results.  We elected to go with the AKC pedigrees that note all NW dogs as full siblings, despite (disputed!) DNA evidence that this is clearly not the case.  

I find the information from Rick Strle, whose reputation is solid and who got Riki in a single transfer from Ron to be compelling.  It should be noted that this information on Riki from Rick Strle actually supports the DNA results.  While I'd LOVE to have the UKC do DNA Parent Verification on Tia and Nome to definitively link them to Riki, at this point I think that noting their parents as North Wind Riki x Georgianna's Sheena is certainly not less accurate than the current pedigree we have for them, and likely it is a good deal MORE accurate.  I have actually made this change in my personal databases when evaluating COIs.

Kodiac, of course, is more complicated.  But IF we believe Rick about Riki, that supports the DNA evidence, which says that Kodiac is NOT the son of Georgianna's Sheena.  I can't figure out who Kodiac's parents might be, given the times he was handed off and the mutliple variable involved.  But - I agree that keeping his pedigree open, or at least opening the dam where DNA evidence has excluded Sheena is probably a more accurate version of Kodiac than the one we have now.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Susan E Bragg <ross...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi All;
I'm ready now to further discuss/Posit we Update SIRE record on Nome and Tia (to NW Riki or Rikki [of Bear Creek]); As WELL as Update DAM record on NW Kodiac to OPEN; as per Zoogen/UKC/COA documentation(s) prior, etc.

Are others yet ready or no?  Thanks, for I can make no further apologies for noting the sooner we Correct these also NW peds finally, the better off we'll be when MARS OS begins also analyzing breed alleles frequencies too, etc.  And I have no idea if ICB has completed their own Updated Analysis yet, but better they do it with also further corrected NW peds too finally, eh?  Best, Susan

P.S.  I'm also ready to revisit Updating ND Nugget pedigree at least, if and when others are.  To Add Victor's Kobuck as her documented (AND a continued statistically probable) SIRE then, aye.  If others are too, just shout.  I can say more when needed separate Subject that.  seb

--

Karen Hinchy

Bashaba Chinooks
www.bashabachinooks.com

--

Karen Hinchy

Bashaba Chinooks
www.bashabachinooks.com

[Leslie Donais]

I think we need to be as accurate as possible and lean towards the evidence we have on hand.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chinook Pedigree Project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chinook-pedigree-p...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Susan E Bragg]

Ditto, Les' statement. We need to lean on all evidence (and lack thereof) nearest North Wind transfers OUT still. Seems crystal clear to me too this month, after exhaustive researches again these issues since 2015, 2013-2014, 2011, 2009, etc. For we have already proven here within CPP how past efforts to remedy current UKC (and AKC) pedigrees were faulted.

Which is no excuse NOT to attempt further remedy HERE, frankly. Otherwise; This is no longer an also valid pedigree project, if we willfully choose not to seek indicated remedy(ies). The GOOD news is, imho; How when we do re-validate these pedigrees as needed; They too will become Valid means by which to inform UKC and/or AKC of said remedy(ies).

No muss no fuss then. Let UKC and AKC also remain sovereign, while we also seek NOT to further compromise THIS ICB CPP, please. For no one is seeking legal action(s), I'm sure. If I were going to do so; I would have done it in 2011, not 2016. I've already survived MULTIPLE DNA challenges in my time(s), which leaves me wholly NOT interested in another in my lifetime (grin ;). And my track record HEREIN this CPP project remains solid, since 2013.

But/so we do need to keep our also works here real and really Valid, as next step, seems painfully clear to me. For no pedigree project sets it's objective to ignore evidence(s), and if we begin doing so here in 2016, then we will be directly compromising ALL efforts to date herein too from 2012 on. Which I too cannot abide. For TOO MUCH of this living ref pop today rests on these VERY DOGS we are correctly discussing here still, from North Wind kennels, agreed.

So let's keep digging IN not OUT, please. We can do it, I know we can. Because we are in fact already 7/8ths THERE. ALL we need to do is take further courage, and keep listening to one another over this also real 1986 baseline, imho.

best, susan
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 3/30/16, Leslie Donais <granitehi...@comcast.net> wrote:

Subject: Re: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2016, 8:39 AM

[Karen Schiller]

I agree with Les & Susan.  We need to be as accurate as possible.

Karen S.

from it, send an email to chinook-pedigree-project+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.





--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Chinook Pedigree Project" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails

from it, send an email to chinook-pedigree-project+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chinook Pedigree Project" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chinook-pedigree-project+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Bob and Connie Jones]

Changes should only be made when there is enough DNA scientific evidence to proof the parenthood.    Any other  ‘evidence” may be looked at now or in the future as biased or swayed or left to future interpretation- notes, letters etc from past breeders may lend an eye to what may have happened, but should not be the basis for changing a pedigree. 

DNA proof of parenthood should also only be used from DNA companies that ( UKC or AKC acknowledge) provide certifications of the authenticity of the reading and methods used to determine parent hood. 

No Changes should be made on armchair reading of DNA  profiles. 

Connie Jones

[Susan E Bragg]

This is a pedigree project (not a DNA project). Which remains an also REAL issue, how NOT to impede THIS project's obvious need to act, imo. Hard choices, agreed.

So if we remove ANY also PRIOR DNA posits even based upon ANY RECONSTRUCTS (including for SW Cygnus); This means we had no reason(s) to also continue keep him as sire of ANY of these NW dogs, including Hoon and Kiska, then as now, frankly. Because he WAS ALSO SIRE then of (false) Record of Nome and Tia, as per Ron/NW.

Which in fact COULD be the way forward here still- To REMOVE Cygnus from ALL NW Dogs records?

THEN, RECOMPARE G SHEENA FULL Profiling(s) to-

Riki
Kiska
Hoonah
Kodiac
Nome
Tia

When likely they will further exclude KODIAC and not the others still, if I had to guess. But no reason not to restest in 2016 what Zoogen affirmed in 1996; By also REMOVING ALL RECONSTRUCTS, I think.

But/So we are already ahead of the game here yet then, with REAL TRANSFER DOC on Riki and info from Strle indicating he may have sired Nome and Tia. Which is likely valid evidence yet here, within an also valid Pedigree project.

Yet many here remain ignoring Karen H's prior fully DOCUMENTED case here, based upon NO LAY analyses. Namely-- Riki's transfer doc PLUS Strle's continued statement(s) I was correct he may have sired Nome and Tia.

Which means we are pending progress, yes. Just the hard fact(s). But just claiming the past posits need remain pat is NOT the way forward either, for we've already made the cracks in those posits too crystal clear, in documented proofs here in recent months.

But we COULD remove ANY further comparisons to ANY Reconstructs (pro even); Then rerun all against a fuller Profiling on G Sheena, aye. But by 'we' that would mean UKC. And if they are not interested in 2016; Then our best move is to get clear and continue moving HERE, within confines of this already better ICB CPP dbase, I think. Because we DO in fact have better proofs again on also F Mac and ND Nugget herein, etc. We have truly done our jobs WELL here since 2013, agreed.

best, susan

--------------------------------------------

On Wed, 3/30/16, Bob and Connie Jones <rjo...@maine.rr.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac

To: "'Susan E Bragg' via Chinook Pedigree Project" <chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2016, 11:03 AM

[Karen Hinchy]

OK, fair enough Connie.  That means that we erred in assigning the AKC pedigrees to the NW dogs in the first place, and both the UKC and AKC pedigrees are wrong.  

The recommendation from the DNA analysis was:

NW Kiska & Hoonah - Singing Woods Cygnus (by presumption) x Georgianna's Sheena

NW Tia & Nome - TBD x Georgianna's Sheena

NW Kodiac - TBD x TBD 

Although I suppose for Kodiac I'd have to recheck- I do not think Cygnus was excluded as the sire (or even if this was asked as a possibility), just that Sheena was excluded as the dam.

Is this what you feel is most correct?

[Ginger Corley]

I agree with Connie that we should use DNA to verify the pedigrees of dogs where available.  If we can use science, we might as well.  Connie and bob Jones have been at the forefront of getting our pedigrees correct from the get-go and I think that they should be lauded for their efforts to DNA as many Chinooks as possible.  I know they poured a lot of funds into DNA profiling Chinooks that were not their own simply to make the big picture more whole.

 

Karen, I’m not familiar with the DNA analysis you’re talking about below.  Can you refresh my memory and possibly those of some of the others who possibly may not know of it?

 

Another question:  have we ever compared the DNA of the two recorded Georgiana’s Sheenas that were DNAed?  It would be interesting to see how closely related the two were.

 

Has Rick Strle made available North Wind Riki’s DNA analysis so it could be compared to any of the other North Wind dogs?  Perhaps I should be asking, does anyone have a copy of the DNA of any of the North Wind dogs’ DNA profiles so that it could be compared?  When I can get to my file cabinet again, I can look in my North Wind Riki file and see what I have.  I did the swab on him myself and sent it in with his registration and OFA paperwork all on the same day.

 

I originally thought that my bloodline was based on three North Wind littermates:  Kodiac, Kiska, and Riki.  This was at the time when line breeding was considered to be the most sound breeding methodology.  So if I find out that they are not littermates, it simply means that my line breeding was not as tight as I thought at the time I was doing it.

 

Ginger Corley

Rain Mountain Chinooks

established 1988

www.rainmountain.net

 

 

From: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Karen Hinchy
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:44 AM
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac

 

 

OK, fair enough Connie.  That means that we erred in assigning the AKC pedigrees to the NW dogs in the first place, and both the UKC and AKC pedigrees are wrong.  

[Karen Hinchy]

Hi Ginger

Karen, I’m not familiar with the DNA analysis you’re talking about below.  Can you refresh my memory and possibly those of some of the others who possibly may not know of it? 

What don't you remember about the Zoogen analyses, whose results were discussed years ago, and rediscussed several times since then, with your input, on multiple Chinooks email lists?  I'm happy to fill in any blanks.  

 

Another question:  have we ever compared the DNA of the two recorded Georgiana’s Sheenas that were DNAed?  It would be interesting to see how closely related the two were.

You're going to have to be a bit more explicit here.  The Zoogen analysis was based on Georgianna's Sheena, the dog that could not be excluded as the dam of Kiska, Tia, Hoonah, and Nome.  After the results came back excluding her as the dam of Kodiac I saw Joyce's claims that maybe this wasn't the real Sheena. Except, I've never seen a shred of evidence, not even a single piece of paper, that would support this speculation.  There is also the fact that she WAS included as a possible dam of the other four dogs as well.

 

Has Rick Strle made available North Wind Riki’s DNA analysis so it could be compared to any of the other North Wind dogs? 

Not to my knowledge. 

 

Perhaps I should be asking, does anyone have a copy of the DNA of any of the North Wind dogs’ DNA profiles so that it could be compared? 

Yes, the profiles for Sheena, Hoonah, Kiska, Nome, Tia, Kodiac and several close relatives are available.

 

I originally thought that my bloodline was based on three North Wind littermates:  Kodiac, Kiska, and Riki.  

To my knowledge no one has theorized that Kiska and Riki are not full siblings.  Would be great to have the DNA to validate this.  Kodiac, on the other hand, is a complicated dog with a muddied and relatively undocumented history of transfer, and that pesky DNA that excludes him as the offspring of Sheena.  I don't personally have any confidence that we have a solid pedigree for him.  I don't really care what his background was, I just wish we had a way to find out for sure for documentation purposes. 

 

[Susan E Bragg]

Well put, Karen H, aye.

re: G Sheena
There was and remains just the one recorded. Both DNA profiles match too, so far as I'm aware, since 2000, aye. There indeed was no documented proof she was wrong dog IDd (either time) and/or had died prior to her profiling(s). That was just Joyce's wishful thinkings circa 1996, frankly, imo. I do think she learned too late how UNdocumented her Kodiac remained, also frankly. I will NEVER blame her for being angry with Harry. ONLY that she did not share the Zoogen results from 1996. But foolish to remain angry with an also deceased person, agreed. So I digress.

re: NW Kodiac
Ya, again, to date; since 1997, I have also seen NO documented proof the 3 white Males which WERE shipped east with Hoonah in Apr 1986 or thereabouts were also DOCUMENTED by North Wind. If others own such documents on ANY of those 3, not just on Kodiac; Then we all need to see them too finally, thanks. But I reviewed ALL these NW peds of Ron's to Harry's at Kalina's PGK in 1997. And there were NONE on those 3 white males. ONLY for Hoonah, Kiska, Nome & Tia. This has remained my also direct experience since then until Riki's transfer Doc resurfaced by some of Karen H's good researches here this Winter, etc.

Best, Susan
--------------------------------------------

On Wed, 3/30/16, Karen Hinchy <kcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac

To: "chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com" <chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2016, 3:16 PM

[Ginger Corley]

As I’ve often told Carie, my brain gets full and falls out.  I only keep at the forefront what I need to remember for my own personal life right now and I have blotted out the DNA on the North Wind dogs.  I know there was a tempest about it but don’t recall the results.

 

There were two different dogs that were DNA-profiled and identified by Harry Gray as Sheena.  I thought that was common knowledge.  I’m sorry if you didn’t know that.  That is part of the problem with the DNA analysis of the North Wind dogs.  Harry identified two different dogs as Sheena on two different occasions when DNA samples were being taken.  So it is possible that the pedigrees ***COULD*** be accurate but they were compared against the wrong Sheena.  Contrary to what Susan Bragg says, I don’t think Joyce had anything to do with the DNA profiling of Sheena.  The DNA profile that you’re discussing here is based on the DNA profile of the second Georgiana’s Sheena.  Bob and Connie Jones took the sample and paid for the DNA profile of the first dog Harry Gray identified to them as Georgiana’s Sheena.  When the mix up was discovered, Sheena was dead so it wasn’t possible to sort the mess out.  All I knew at the time was that I had good dogs that were good pullers with good structure and gaits and I was satisfied with that.  That was how I resolved it for myself.  I don’t think Susan has ever had the first Sheena’s DNA profile in her custody unless it has been very recent since it’s the private property of the Jones.  It may not be recorded but it exists.  Connie Jones can correct me if I’m wrong on any part of my recollections. 

 

I don’t think that anyone can make any assumptions about who North Wind Riki is out of or who he may have sired until someone has his DNA profile in hand.  Without that we need to simply go by the names on the pedigree Rick Strle was given when he got Riki.  What reason did Ron McJunkin have to lie to him?  I think Rick Strle spent more time with Ron than anyone else so he would know more than anyone else.

 

The only thing that we have for certain, that we truly rely on for our pedigree database is the DNA parent verifications.  So where they are available, we have to go with them.  Where we know there are DNA profiles that have not been analyzed, we have to reserve judgement until they can be brought into play.

 

Ginger Corley

Rain Mountain Chinooks

established 1988

www.rainmountain.net

-

 

 

 

From: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Karen Hinchy
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 1:17 PM
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac

 

Hi Ginger

--

[Bob and Connie Jones]

Karen, I am unsure what you mean by the statement that the UKC pedigrees for NW are incorrect. I pulled Kiska’s pedigree from 1994 and our Flints from 200 and Kiska is listed as Singing Woods Cygnus and Georianna’s Sheena. The pedigree for Kiska is as you listed below.

[Karen Hinchy]

Connie, if you consider that the DNA evidence supports this pedigree for Kiska, and that it is correct, then the exact same DNA evidence supports Georgianna's Sheena as the dam of Tia and Nome (currently OPEN in UKC pedigrees) and the exact same DNA evidence excludes Sheena as the dam of Kodiac (she is currently listed as His dam in UKC). This means that the NW pedigrees collectively are incorrect in UKC as they encompass more than just Kiska.

Same thing for AKC which has all NW dogs listed as full sibs Cygnus X Sheena which again is not true per the DNA.

Sent from my iPhone

[Susan E Bragg]

re: Sheena
You are confused, Ginger.

I agree the dog Jones sampled with Harry as G Sheena remains one and the same dog Harry AGAIN profiled, also G Sheena. So we know Harry himself was never confused. In fact; The so called 'confusions' did NOT occur in the records until AFTER Zoogen EXCLUDED MATERNITY in 1996 between her Kodiac and G Sheena. Which remains key and suspect in that Joyce had also shared NO NW TRANSFER DOC on her Kodiac then, that I'm aware. So basically; Instead of going about further documenting her OWN dog (Kodiac) in 1996; She too entertained whether Sheena was Sheena. Which seems yet odd to me today. But I digress.

So after Joyce too became unwittingly further conflicted in 1996; In stead of recusing herself further; She DID entertain whether Sheena was Sheena. That's in the record(s).

THEN she or others led many down a rabbit hole only as to whether G Sheena and AP Sheena had been mis-id'd, etc. Point is; Harry still owned G Sheena then and NEITHER JOYCE or others re contacted him to ask for his also proofs then, that I'm aware.

If they did; And if they yet possess them; Then odd these docs did not resurface when we were CPP Validating G Sheena here in 2013, eh?

I could also go on further about add'l anecdotal evidences which Harry shared with me and others then HOW he felt he knew G Sheena was correctly ID'd by both him AND RON still then; But don't really need to in 2016.

And I never said Joyce SAMPLED Sheena.

And you are wrong there were 2 variant dogs sampled then. That's been well proven since 2000. COA Registrar remains in possession of the also 2000 G Sheena profile since 2014/15. And I believe a handful of us have already ascertained it matches the Jones' earlier profile, same G Sheena.

Point(s) remains too; NONE of these breeders which then also OWNED some of these same NW DOGS RECUSED themselves from this further NW problem in 1996. Not that I'm aware. Which remains also telling in 2016, also with specific regards to these 3 White Males came east with Hoonah, imho. Which simply remains also, in fact, NW Kodiac. best, susan

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 3/30/16, Ginger Corley <Gin...@hughes.net> wrote:

Subject: RE: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2016, 4:54 PM

#yiv6548455383
#yiv6548455383 --

_filtered #yiv6548455383 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv6548455383 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15
5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv6548455383 {panose-1:2 4 6 4 5 5 5 2 3 4;}
_filtered #yiv6548455383 {panose-1:2 11 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv6548455383 {panose-1:3 15 7 2 3 3 2 2 2 4;}
#yiv6548455383
#yiv6548455383 p.yiv6548455383MsoNormal, #yiv6548455383
li.yiv6548455383MsoNormal, #yiv6548455383
div.yiv6548455383MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}
#yiv6548455383 a:link, #yiv6548455383
span.yiv6548455383MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv6548455383 a:visited, #yiv6548455383
span.yiv6548455383MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv6548455383 p
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}
#yiv6548455383 p.yiv6548455383msonormal0, #yiv6548455383
li.yiv6548455383msonormal0, #yiv6548455383
div.yiv6548455383msonormal0
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}
#yiv6548455383 span.yiv6548455383EmailStyle19
{color:#1F497D;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none
none;}
#yiv6548455383 span.yiv6548455383EmailStyle20
{color:windowtext;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none
none;}
#yiv6548455383 .yiv6548455383MsoChpDefault
{}
_filtered #yiv6548455383 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
#yiv6548455383 div.yiv6548455383WordSection1
{}
#yiv6548455383 As I’ve often told Carie, my

judgement until they can be brought into play.  Ginger CorleyRain Mountain Chinooksestablished 1988www.rainmountain.net-      From:

chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Karen Hinchy
Sent:
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 1:17 PM
To:
chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we
Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on
NW Kodiac
 Hi
Ginger
 Karen, I’m not familiar with the
DNA analysis you’re talking about below.  Can you refresh
my memory and possibly those of some of the others who
possibly may not know of
it? What don't you remember
about the Zoogen analyses, whose results were discussed
years ago, and rediscussed several times since then, with
your input, on multiple Chinooks email lists?  I'm
happy to fill in any blanks.  Another question:  have we ever
compared the DNA of the two recorded Georgiana’s Sheenas
that were DNAed?  It would be interesting to see how
closely related the two

were.You're going to have to

be a bit more explicit here.  The Zoogen analysis was based
on Georgianna's Sheena, the dog that could not be
excluded as the dam of Kiska, Tia, Hoonah, and Nome.  After
the results came back excluding her as the dam of Kodiac I
saw Joyce's claims that maybe this wasn't the real
Sheena. Except, I've never seen a shred of evidence, not
even a single piece of paper, that would support this
speculation.  There is also the fact that she WAS included
as a possible dam of the other four dogs as

well.Has Rick Strle made available North

Wind Riki’s DNA analysis so it could be compared to any of
the other North Wind
dogs? Not to my
knowledge.  Perhaps I should be asking, does
anyone have a copy of the DNA of any of the North Wind
dogs’ DNA profiles so that it could be compared? 
 Yes, the profiles for Sheena,
Hoonah, Kiska, Nome, Tia, Kodiac and several close relatives
are available. I originally thought that my
bloodline was based on three North Wind littermates: 
Kodiac, Kiska, and Riki.
   To my knowledge no one has
theorized that Kiska and Riki are not full siblings.  Would
be great to have the DNA to validate this.  Kodiac, on the
other hand, is a complicated dog with a muddied and
relatively undocumented history of transfer, and that pesky
DNA that excludes him as the offspring of Sheena.  I
don't personally have any confidence that we have a
solid pedigree for him.  I don't really care what his
background was, I just wish we had a way to find out for
sure for documentation purposes.    -- Karen Hinchy

Bashaba Chinooks
www.bashabachinooks.com--

[Bob and Connie Jones]

Ginger,

Bob and I only knew one Sheena form Harry’s days. She was presented to us as the mom of Hoonah and Kiska. She was a very sweet girl, that actually our Robin looks like her at times. We only knew this one Sheena. We were not introduced to any other Sheena at Harry’s in the context of being Hoonah and Kissy’s mom. Any DNA that we took at that time came only from this one dog and nothing was mixed up on our side, regarding us identifying this dog as Sheena.

Connie

[Susan E Bragg]

Thanks Karen H, your statements ring true. Just the humans remain slow to comprehend, but we'll get there, eventually. best, susan


--------------------------------------------

On Wed, 3/30/16, Karen Hinchy <kcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac

To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2016, 5:20 PM

Connie,
if you consider that the DNA evidence supports this pedigree
for Kiska, and that it is correct, then the exact same DNA
evidence supports Georgianna's Sheena as the dam of Tia
and Nome (currently OPEN in UKC pedigrees) and the exact
same DNA evidence excludes Sheena as the dam of Kodiac (she
is currently listed as His dam in UKC).  This means that
the NW pedigrees collectively are incorrect in UKC as they
encompass more than just Kiska.

Same thing for AKC which has all NW dogs listed
as full sibs Cygnus X Sheena which again is not true per the
DNA.

Sent from my
iPhone

[Karen Hinchy]

Ginger- 

That's great that even though your brain gets full and falls out sometimes, you remember that two different Sheenas were id'd by Harry and DNA'd by different people. :). There doesn't seem to be any other mention of this in records that I have found.  

I'm confused though- if you've not seen the dogs or disparate DNA results how do you know it was two different dogs?  Since, as stipulated, there were different people involved, so they couldn't attest to the identified dogs being different as they didn't see the dog on both occasions?  

Wasn't the Sheena that Bob and Connie tested the one used in the Zoogen analyses?    I thought all of the Samples of Harry's dogs in the analysis were Done by the Jones'- is this not true?

Re: Riki- I'm very confused. Who has said we should not use the Cygnus X Sheena pedigree for Riki?  Not me. I agree with you that Ron had no reason to lie to Rick Strle. This is why I feel Rick's testimony that Ron told him he was trying to breed Riki to Sheena before Riki was placed with Rick is so powerful.  Based on your comments I feel I might not be communicating this point effectively. Not sure what other way to say it, though, can someone else help out?

And we need to be careful about saying breeders documentation , transfers, etc is not a good way to validate a pedigree as there are a bunch of dogs whose ancestry would be called into question...

Sent from my iPhone

[Susan E Bragg]

Thanks for this clarification too, Connie.
Susan

--------------------------------------------

On Wed, 3/30/16, Bob and Connie Jones <rjo...@maine.rr.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac

To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2016, 5:23 PM

Ginger,

Bob
and I only knew one Sheena form Harry’s days. She was
presented to us as the mom of Hoonah and Kiska.  She was a
very sweet girl, that actually our Robin looks like her at
times.  We only knew this one Sheena.  We were not
introduced to any other Sheena at Harry’s in the context
of being Hoonah and Kissy’s mom.  Any DNA that we took at
that time came only from this one dog and nothing was mixed
up on our side, regarding us identifying this dog as Sheena.


Connie

On Mar 30,

[Ginger Corley]

As I understand it from what Susan published on her old website, there was a different Sheena that she DNA profiled when she visited Harry and she DNA profiled that Sheena.  If I’m wrong about that, then I’m wrong.  But I was led to believe that the dog known as Sheena could have been two different dogs but by the time this was discovered, Sheena, whoever she was, was dead so it couldn’t be sorted out.  I was on the sidelines of the transfer of the studbook to UKC since I was out here in the Northwest with just Susan Fletcher and a few other odd dogs; the majority were on the east coast at that time so the work was done by people such as Bob and Connie and Joyce Maley who were on the east coast and could travel to the populations of dogs.

 

Susan did a bunch of DNA work back in the late 1990s / 2000s when she was trying to sort out the pedigrees of some of her dogs.  I know that she questioned the pedigrees of some of the dogs she got from Perry Greene Kennel (? correct me if I’m wrong ?) because at one point during the process she asked me if I had DNA on Riki that she could use for comparison purposes.  At least I think it was Riki that she wanted to use; it could have been another dog.  I didn’t have the DNA she wanted so I was of no use to her.  She had a published write-up of this on her website for many years.  But at the time that she was doing this she never asked Bob and Connie for access to the DNA they had.

 

I believe it was Connie that told me it was not the Sheena they tested that was used in the Zoogen analysis.  Connie or Bob would have to confirm this.  And as Connie says, there is only so much we can do.  I’ve ensured my pedigrees by DNA profiling most of my breedings.

 

As for Riki, I am not stating that he is by or out of any other dogs than stated on his pedigree nor that he produced any others.  I only made the statement to forestall any future statements to that effect since he was the only one of the North Wind dogs not mentioned previously.

 

You know it comes to a point that all I can say is that you had to be there.  The first ten years of my involvement in the Chinook breed it was like a Wild West Rodeo sometimes.  I lived through it though sometimes it was “just barely”.  Without Connie and Joyce I wouldn’t have.  And we had to pay ten cents or more per minute for long distance then too!  We all had huge phone bills every month.  Thank doG for cell phones and free long distance.

[Bob and Connie Jones]

Oh Ginger the part about the phone calls makes me laugh.  And makes me feel 110 years old!  But how true, some months it was do I pay the phone bill or buy dog food decisions!  It was so expensive back then to make these calls.  Yeah for e-mail is all I can say!

Connie Jones

[Corine Lindhorst]

I’d like to introduce a different point of view on this subject, and pose a question.

 

We all know there was a significant bottleneck back in the 80’s where only two males who were littermates and 9 females moved forward. Not long before that there was another even more significant bottleneck where only one female and three males moved forward. So we have both sire and dam lines severely reduced at these two points in time.

 

We now have new information that may or may not help us sort out the accuracy of the pedigree of a few of the NW dogs that we know to be inaccurate. This would likely take a fair amount of time and effort to pursue. The last time we tried to do this it took approximately 6 months of correspondence to make no progress.

 

The CBCP is due to launch in a few months. It will take a fair amount of time and effort, particularly at the start up.

 

Let’s say we are able to straiten out the NW dogs in question and bring accuracy to the Chinook pedigree. Would that make any significant change in the current state of the Chinook genome?

 

If the answer is yes than we should pursue it.

 

If the answer is no than I suggest we get on with the work that will do our Chinooks the most good, and pursue this when we have the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corine

High Plains Chinooks
Home of the working lap dogs

---

From: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Leslie Donais

Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 7:40 AM
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com

[Susan E Bragg]

YES. I believe it would still significantly influence this Genome to complete our knowledge whether--
A) Riki was also out of G Sheena (which he probably was, agreed); and
B) Riki was also Sire of Nome and Tia (Riki x G Sheena) (which he probably was, imo); and
C) Whether A and B above also do not further exclude the others (Hoon, Kissy, Nome, & Tia) from also having remained out of G Sheena.
D) Whether Kodiac was even a NW Pup vs another born in also 1986 or thereabouts at NW or other PNW kennels, etc.

I believe we remain in fact CLOSER than we have ever been in ascertaining ALL these issues, yes. Dropping the ball now remains, to me; A most dangerous proposition, genomically. And I'm yet committed to continued toil over these issues within both CPP and COA in 2016, yes. best, susan

I do have other idea(s) how to break OUT the above too, A, B, C, D; But so far; Others are not hearing me. So enough for now, while others need study their own thoughts/issues too, understood. But Suffice it to say; How I believe it remains genomically past time to affirm at minimum WHICH of the NW dogs are EXCLUDED as out of G Sheena. As I said to Connie J here a day or so ago too, aye. best, susan

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 3/31/16, Corine Lindhorst <hip...@mt.net> wrote:

Subject: RE: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Date: Thursday, March 31, 2016, 1:26 PM


#yiv6320350400 #yiv6320350400 --

_filtered #yiv6320350400 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2
11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv6320350400 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11
6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
#yiv6320350400
#yiv6320350400 p.yiv6320350400MsoNormal, #yiv6320350400
li.yiv6320350400MsoNormal, #yiv6320350400
div.yiv6320350400MsoNormal

{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}

#yiv6320350400 a:link, #yiv6320350400
span.yiv6320350400MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv6320350400 a:visited, #yiv6320350400
span.yiv6320350400MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv6320350400 p

{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}

#yiv6320350400 p.yiv6320350400Style1, #yiv6320350400
li.yiv6320350400Style1, #yiv6320350400
div.yiv6320350400Style1
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:150%;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;}
#yiv6320350400 span.yiv6320350400EmailStyle19
{font-family:Arial;color:navy;}
_filtered #yiv6320350400 {margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in
1.25in;}
#yiv6320350400 div.yiv6320350400Section1
{}
#yiv6320350400

[Karen Schiller]

I don't know, Corine.  I think the geneticists working with us would want to be given information that is as accurate as possible.  I also think it is up to the geneticists to state the significance of their findings after they are given that accurate information.

Unfortunately, letting go of the past would be nice, but it would probably not help the future of the Chinooks.

Karen S.

[Ginger Corley]

Since I'm the only person here (unless Richalene is also on this list) that knew both Riki and Kodiac in person quite well, let me tell you there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were closely related.  The first phone call I made after meeting Riki was to Joyce to tell her that Riki was Kodiac's absolute identical twin though on steroids since he was in far more muscular shape than Joyce kept Kodiac.  But if you had the two of them in a room at the same weight, it would have been impossible to tell which was which.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen two Chinooks that looked more alike than Riki and Kodiac.

 

Now that is anecdotal evidence but do with it as you may.  I will swear to it on a stack of my new puppies, who are sleeping and twitching away right next to me as I write this.

 

Ginger Corley

Rain Mountain Chinooks

established 1988

www.rainmountain.net

-

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 12:32 PM
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac

 

D) Whether Kodiac was even a NW Pup vs another born in also 1986 or thereabouts at NW or other PNW kennels, etc.  

 

[Ginger Corley]

What does the acronym “CBCP” stand for?

 

Ginger

[Susan E Bragg]

We need to get their DNA together finally too, agreed; Ginger. Also Riki and Kodiac. It's entirely doable. It's just not yet DONE. Truly, to me; This simple still in 2016. best, susan

--------------------------------------------

On Thu, 3/31/16, Ginger Corley <Gin...@hughes.net> wrote:

Subject: RE: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac

To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Date: Thursday, March 31, 2016, 3:17 PM

Since I'm the only
person here (unless Richalene is also on this list) that
knew both Riki and Kodiac in person quite well, let me tell
you there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were
closely related.  The first phone call I made after meeting
Riki was to Joyce to tell her that Riki was Kodiac's
absolute identical twin though on steroids since he was in
far more muscular shape than Joyce kept Kodiac.  But if you
had the two of them in a room at the same weight, it would
have been impossible to tell which was which.  I don’t
think I’ve ever seen two Chinooks that looked more alike
than Riki and Kodiac.  Now that is anecdotal
evidence but do with it as you may.  I will swear to it on
a stack of my new puppies, who are sleeping and twitching
away right next to me as I write this.  Ginger
CorleyRain
Mountain Chinooksestablished 1988www.rainmountain.net-
       -----Original
Message-----
From: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com]

Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 12:32 PM

To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record

on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac  D) Whether Kodiac was even

a NW Pup vs another born in also 1986 or thereabouts at NW
or other PNW kennels, etc.  
 

[Susan E Bragg]

I think it likely stands for Chinook Breed Conservation Plan (or Program). The Objectives were published in the Winter CQ. They are good ones :) best, susan

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 3/31/16, Ginger Corley <Gin...@hughes.net> wrote:

Subject: RE: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com

Date: Thursday, March 31, 2016, 3:18 PM

#yiv2374787894
#yiv2374787894 --

_filtered #yiv2374787894 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv2374787894 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15

5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}

_filtered #yiv2374787894 {panose-1:2 11 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
#yiv2374787894
#yiv2374787894 p.yiv2374787894MsoNormal, #yiv2374787894
li.yiv2374787894MsoNormal, #yiv2374787894
div.yiv2374787894MsoNormal

{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}

#yiv2374787894 a:link, #yiv2374787894
span.yiv2374787894MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv2374787894 a:visited, #yiv2374787894
span.yiv2374787894MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv2374787894 p

{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}

#yiv2374787894 p.yiv2374787894msonormal0, #yiv2374787894
li.yiv2374787894msonormal0, #yiv2374787894
div.yiv2374787894msonormal0

{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}

#yiv2374787894 p.yiv2374787894style1, #yiv2374787894
li.yiv2374787894style1, #yiv2374787894
div.yiv2374787894style1

{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:150%;font-size:10.0pt;}

#yiv2374787894 span.yiv2374787894EmailStyle20
{color:navy;}
#yiv2374787894 span.yiv2374787894EmailStyle21

{color:#1F497D;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none
none;}

#yiv2374787894 .yiv2374787894MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt;}
_filtered #yiv2374787894 {margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in
1.25in;}
#yiv2374787894 div.yiv2374787894WordSection1
{}
#yiv2374787894 What does the acronym “CBCP”

stand for?  Ginger  From:
chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Corine Lindhorst

Sent:
Thursday, March 31, 2016 11:26 AM

To:
chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we
Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on

NW Kodiac    The CBCP is due to launch in a few

months. It will take a fair amount of time and effort,
particularly at the start up.
 

[Karen Hinchy]

Hi Corine, 

Fixing the NW pedigrees won't change the state of the overall genome.  It will likely improve the population numbers a bit, but most definitely won't move the needle on overall diversity in a meaningful way.  What it WOULD do, though, is provide better information to plan purebred breedings (which we need, CBCP or not).  If this was all far far in the past in pedigrees, it wouldn't be so impactful, but NW dogs appear in a lot of four and even three generation pedigrees.  They are multiplied many many times in 6+ generation pedigrees - It is not unusual to see NW Kodiac as having the genetic contribution of a grandparent or great-grandparent.  While being OPEN in his pedigree will (likely artificially) lower COIs, it will more accurately state the actual relationship of dogs in his generation.  This makes it no different than Nugget or Ford's Mac - we suspect their missing parents are purebred Chinooks, and have artificially lowered the COI of their offspring by leaving their unknown parent blank.  But it actually makes the overall pedigree integrity better.

So yes, while I appreciate the debate is difficult, in some ways this is an Original Sin in Chinook pedigrees we are all still paying for.  Nugget is no different - and we agreed to follow the DNA evidence for Nugget.  But perhaps even I chickened out a bit on the NW discussion and happily seized on the politically correct version of the AKC pedigrees, which it doesn't appear anyone actually believes are correct.  I've also not heard anyone say the actually believe the UKC pedigrees are really correct, just that they were politically expedient and arrived at after much rancor and argument.  

With Connie's re-enforcement that Sheena was indeed Sheena, I honestly think the DNA evidence is completely compelling, and at a MINIMUM it should be followed.  We have no credible evidence that the DNA is wrong - at least not that I have seen.  If there is credible evidence and not personal speculation, please bring it forward, I'd love to see it.  The "Two Sheenas" theory has been debunked.  The DNA evidence is actually supported by the recent documents that came to light re: Riki. 

Why would we NOT follow the DNA here?  Why would be support UKC or AKC pedigrees (remember, they don't match in this case) that no one believes are correct?  

[Karen Hinchy]

Since I'm the only person here (unless Richalene is also on this list) that knew both Riki and Kodiac in person quite well, let me tell you there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were closely related.  The first phone call I made after meeting Riki was to Joyce to tell her that Riki was Kodiac's absolute identical twin though on steroids since he was in far more muscular shape than Joyce kept Kodiac.  But if you had the two of them in a room at the same weight, it would have been impossible to tell which was which.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen two Chinooks that looked more alike than Riki and Kodiac.

Ginger- pretty much all Chinooks in the late 80s were very closely related.  They still are pretty closely related.  So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here- are you saying Kodiac and Riki must be full siblings because they look alike?  While it's possible they are full sibs, "they look alike" doesn't meet any sort of actual burden of proof.  And to think of all the times I've seen Harry Gray and others vilified for determining parentage based on who pups looked like....  :)

[Susan E Bragg]

Another good post/recap, Karen H. 'Why?' indeed.

best, susan
--------------------------------------------

On Thu, 3/31/16, Karen Hinchy <kcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac

To: "chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com" <chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Thursday, March 31, 2016, 3:59 PM

--




Karen Hinchy



Bashaba Chinooks

www.bashabachinooks.com















 



--




Karen Hinchy



Bashaba Chinooks

www.bashabachinooks.com

--
Karen
Hinchy

Bashaba Chinooks
www.bashabachinooks.com

[Susan E Bragg]

Yes, this hasn't been a phenotype(s) only problem since 1986, let alone since 1996 or now. 20 to 30yrs on; At least we are here within also CPP; where it remains a COMBINED DOCUMENTS set of proofs (including some but not all DNA docs, nor yet all original pedigree(s) transfer docs, etc.). But this is at least improvement(s) over 1996, yes. So me too, keep sharing, positing, working here. This is NOT the hour to all pick up our marbles and go home. Of that much; I remain gut certain. We all have worked TOO HARD HEREin since also 2013 to do that, for starters! We need to dig further IN not OUT, exactly, therefore! best, susan

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 3/31/16, Karen Hinchy <kcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac
To: "chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com" <chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com>

Date: Thursday, March 31, 2016, 4:07 PM

[Marne Lindhorst]

That's good enough for me.

Corine

-----Original Message-----
From: "Karen Hinchy" [kcc...@gmail.com]
Date: 03/31/2016 02:59 PM
To: "chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com" <chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome &amp; Tia; &amp;
REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac

Hi Corine, 

Fixing the NW pedigrees won't change the state of the overall genome.  It will likely improve the population numbers a bit, but most definitely won't move the needle on overall diversity in a meaningful way.  What it WOULD do, though, is provide better information to plan purebred breedings (which we need, CBCP or not).  If this was all far far in the past in pedigrees, it wouldn't be so impactful, but NW dogs appear in a lot of four and even three generation pedigrees.  They are multiplied many many times in 6+ generation pedigrees - It is not unusual to see NW Kodiac as having the genetic contribution of a grandparent or great-grandparent.  While being OPEN in his pedigree will (likely artificially) lower COIs, it will more accurately state the actual relationship of dogs in his generation.  This makes it no different than Nugget or Ford's Mac - we suspect their missing parents are purebred Chinooks, and have artificially lowered the COI of their offspring by leaving their unknown parent blank.  But it actually makes the overall pedigree integrity better.

So yes, while I appreciate the debate is difficult, in some ways this is an Original Sin in Chinook pedigrees we are all still paying for.  Nugget is no different - and we agreed to follow the DNA evidence for Nugget.  But perhaps even I chickened out a bit on the NW discussion and happily seized on the politically correct version of the AKC pedigrees, which it doesn't appear anyone actually believes are correct.  I've also not heard anyone say the actually believe the UKC pedigrees are really correct, just that they were politically expedient and arrived at after much rancor and argument.  


With Connie's re-enforcement that Sheena was indeed Sheena, I honestly think the DNA evidence is completely compelling, and at a MINIMUM it should be followed.  We have no credible evidence that the DNA is wrong - at least not that I have seen.  If there is credible evidence and not personal speculation, please bring it forward, I'd love to see it.  The "Two Sheenas" theory has been debunked.  The DNA evidence is actually supported by the recent documents that came to light re: Riki. 


Why would we NOT follow the DNA here?  Why would be support UKC or AKC pedigrees (remember, they don't match in this case) that no one believes are correct?  






On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Corine Lindhorst <hip...@mt.net> wrote:

I’d like to introduce a differentpoint of view on this subject, and pose a question.
 
We all know there was a significantbottleneck back in the 80’s where only two males who were littermates and9 females moved forward. Not long before that there was another even moresignificant bottleneck where only one female and three males moved forward. Sowe have both sire and dam lines severely reduced at these two points in time.
 
We now have new information that may ormay not help us sort out the accuracy of the pedigree of a few of the NW dogsthat we know to be inaccurate. This would likely take a fair amount of time andeffort to pursue. The last time we tried to do this it took approximately 6months of correspondence to make no progress.
 
The CBCP is due to launch in a few months.It will take a fair amount of time and effort, particularly at the start up.
 
Let’s say we are able to straitenout the NW dogs in question and bring accuracy to the Chinook pedigree. Wouldthat make any significant change in the current state of the Chinook genome?

 
If the answer is yes than we should pursueit.
 

If the answer is no than I suggest we geton with the work that will do our Chinooks the most good, and pursue this whenwe have the time.

 
 
 
 
 
 

Corine

High Plains Chinooks
Home of the working lap dogs


From: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Leslie Donais
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 20167:40 AM
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: NW Pedigrees was:POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac

 

I thinkwe need to be as accurate as possible and lean towards the evidence we have onhand.

On Mar 30, 2016 9:16 AM, Karen Hinchy <kcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm just curious to others' thoughts based on the discussion on the NWdogs a few weeks ago. 

 

We originally agreed to create their CPP Pedigrees to match the AKCones with all siblings the descendants of Singing Woods Cygnus and Georgianna'sSheena.  I'm fairly sure no one really thinks those are accuratepedigrees, just a good compromise given the debate about the DNA results. 

 

Not that we've had the change to Riki's birthdate, and information fromhis owner and breeder that supports the DNA evidence - do you feel we shouldkeep the blanket Cygnus x Sheena pedigrees for all?  Or should we reviewthe DNA evidence now supported with 3rd party documentation and update pedigreesto match?
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

******
So, this is interesting.  When we first discussed the NW dogs, wetalked about the UKC pedigrees (a real mess), the AKC pedigrees (blanket alldogs as full siblings) and the DNA results.  We elected to go with the AKCpedigrees that note all NW dogs as full siblings, despite (disputed!) DNAevidence that this is clearly not the case.  

I find the information from Rick Strle, whose reputation is solid and who gotRiki in a single transfer from Ron to be compelling.  It should be notedthat this information on Riki from Rick Strle actually supports the DNAresults.  While I'd LOVE to have the UKC do DNA Parent Verification on Tiaand Nome todefinitively link them to Riki, at this point I think that noting their parentsas North Wind Riki x Georgianna's Sheena is certainly not less accurate thanthe current pedigree we have for them, and likely it is a good deal MOREaccurate.  I have actually made this change in my personal databases whenevaluating COIs.
 

Kodiac, of course, is more complicated.  But IF we believe Rickabout Riki, that supports the DNA evidence, which says that Kodiac is NOT theson of Georgianna's Sheena.  I can't figure out who Kodiac's parents mightbe, given the times he was handed off and the mutliple variable involved. But - I agree that keeping his pedigree open, or at least opening the dam whereDNA evidence has excluded Sheena is probably a more accurate version of Kodiacthan the one we have now.

 
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Susan E Bragg <ross...@yahoo.com> wrote:
HiAll;

I'm ready now to further discuss/Posit we Update SIRE record on Nome and Tia(to NW Riki or Rikki [of Bear Creek]); As WELL as Update DAM record on NWKodiac to OPEN; as per Zoogen/UKC/COA documentation(s) prior, etc.

Are others yet ready or no?  Thanks, for I can make no further apologiesfor noting the sooner we Correct these also NW peds finally, the better offwe'll be when MARS OS begins also analyzing breed alleles frequencies too,etc.  And I have no idea if ICB has completed their own Updated Analysisyet, but better they do it with also further corrected NW peds too finally,eh?  Best, Susan

P.S.  I'm also ready to revisit Updating ND Nugget pedigree at least, ifand when others are.  To Add Victor's Kobuck as her documented (AND acontinued statistically probable) SIRE then, aye.  If others are too, justshout.  I can say more when needed separate Subject that.  seb

 



--
Karen Hinchy

Bashaba Chinooks
www.bashabachinooks.com





 

--
Karen Hinchy

Bashaba Chinooks
www.bashabachinooks.com


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups"Chinook Pedigree Project" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an emailto chinook-pedigree-p...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups"Chinook Pedigree Project" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an emailto chinook-pedigree-p...@googlegroups.com.

[Susan E Bragg]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Susan E Bragg <ross...@yahoo.com>
Date: Mar 31, 2016 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac

To: Marne Lindhorst <hip...@mt.net>
Cc:

> I'd still like to hit this equation with further Riki comparison(s) too; If Connie and Bob J still have right(s) to NW Tia Profiling, then we could ask them to consider a straight UKC DNA-VIP recheck on NW Tia as NW Riki x G Sheena.  Because if they could/would; Then that would in fact help prove Strle's posits from this past Winter further.
>
> So IF Tia UKC DNA-VIP's Riki x Sheena; Then we'll be further ahead here.  And if she is excluded from Riki x Sheena; Then we'll know Strle's knowledge too was not first hand in terms of what Ron was doing at NW with Riki.  And we'll still be further ahead here. 
>
> If Jones' can too; Run same VIP recheck for NW Nome too (Riki x Sheena).  But it's TIA which also REMAINED with Harry for life, where he later sold Nome to Sutherlands, aye.  So the TIA UKC records likely remains both cleaner & closer to us being able to further PROVE Strle's statements also without his further aid(s) yet then, I think. 
>
> I would do it/sign off on such a VIP request myself still even; But I never had any also dna rights on Tia samplings.  I DO still have some rights over ND Natasha (but she was 'next generation'), etc.  So I think the person(s) would need to attempt this would be the Jones, aye.  Harry told me directly how Tia was the only Chinook he ever owned which died naturally in her sleep, etc.  Anyway; these are my best thoughts on the fly to aid the peds again tonight.  susan

[Bob and Connie Jones]

I will not engage in any DNA searches etc.  The DNA is with UKC and if anyone is interested in using the DNA for whatever purposes, should work with the UKC and its procedures.

Connie Jones

On Mar 31, 2016, at 9:24 PM, 'Susan E Bragg' via Chinook Pedigree Project <chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Susan E Bragg <ross...@yahoo.com>
Date: Mar 31, 2016 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac
To: Marne Lindhorst <hip...@mt.net>
Cc: 

I'd still like to hit this equation with further Riki comparison(s) too; If Connie and Bob J still have right(s) to NW Tia Profiling, then we could ask them to consider a straight UKC DNA-VIP recheck on NW Tia as NW Riki x G Sheena.  Because if they could/would; Then that would in fact help prove Strle's posits from this past Winter further.

So IF Tia UKC DNA-VIP's Riki x Sheena; Then we'll be further ahead here.  And if she is excluded from Riki x Sheena; Then we'll know Strle's knowledge too was not first hand in terms of what Ron was doing at NW with Riki.  And we'll still be further ahead here. 

If Jones' can too; Run same VIP recheck for NW Nome too (Riki x Sheena).  But it's TIA which also REMAINED with Harry for life, where he later sold Nome to Sutherlands, aye.  So the TIA UKC records likely remains both cleaner & closer to us being able to further PROVE Strle's statements also without his further aid(s) yet then, I think. 

I would do it/sign off on such a VIP request myself still even; But I never had any also dna rights on Tia samplings.  I DO still have some rights over ND Natasha (but she was 'next generation'), etc.  So I think the person(s) would need to attempt this would be the Jones, aye.  Harry told me directly how Tia was the only Chinook he ever owned which died naturally in her sleep, etc.  Anyway; these are my best thoughts on the fly to aid the peds again tonight.  susan

best, susanOn Mar 31, 2016 3:02 PM, Marne Lindhorst <hip...@mt.net> wrote:

That's good enough for me. 

Corine 

-----Original Message----- 
From: "Karen Hinchy" [kcc...@gmail.com] 
Date: 03/31/2016 02:59 PM 
To: "chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com" <chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com> 
Subject: Re: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & 
REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac 

[Susan E Bragg]

Understood.  Not sure the UKC will aid COA even, however; Also without your consent(s).  That's the point here still since 2015/16.  How also 'useless' the UKC dna bank itself is becoming, if you nor Strle will continue to utilize it, etc.  best, susan

---

From: Bob and Connie Jones <rjo...@maine.rr.com>
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 6:02 AM

[Susan E Bragg]

OK, so now what do we do since we've essentially got still a dual sired option on Hoonah, Kiska, & Riki; (SW Cygnus or G Bonehead);

A triple sired option on Nome, Tia (NW Riki or SW Cygnus or G Bonehead); and

Yet still NO DAM option(s) even on Kodiac (who appears to ME even to have remained an also near relation of SOME SORT(S) to SW Muskeg if not Cygnus [NO direct dna on either, just reconstructs!], but no clue HOW!  Unless he was one of the unnamed 1985 Muskeg x Tavi Males?  Do you want to ask Marra W whether those pups were creams?  And/or, while you're at it; Ask her if SW Muskeg's 1984 litterbro SW Kodiac was cream?)?  I don't find color notes on these here today.

Just today's thoughts and reachings then, while trying not to give up also group posits here.  We've come a long way, gotta keep on keepin' on; All fronts.

best, susan

[Susan E Bragg]

For again; We don' really KNOW even if the Zoogen Reconstruct labeled 'SW Cygnus' was really him or G Bonehead, eh?!

And where my also partial Reconstruct for SW Muskeg likely remains HIM indeed (as I based it upon my real full profile on 1987 ND x Timba, which was before Harry's kennels also became 'grand central station', etc.); I still can't do 'much' with it until we also peg a likely DAM for Joyce's Kodiac.  Which agreed; We have none of us yet to accomplish. 

So is it time to just Revalidate/Update all these CPP NW pedigrees with--
OPEN SIRES; yet
ALL out of G Sheena (excepting Kodiac)? 

OR?  I'm still listening, thanks.  best, susan

---

From: 'Susan E Bragg' via Chinook Pedigree Project <chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com>
To: "chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com" <chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2016 3:08 PM

Subject: Re: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac

[Susan E Bragg]

In short then; I think we've already effectively rendered that 'SW Cygnus' reconstruct from 1996 invalid, Karen H.  For I agree, worst case scenario(s) might remain if one or both these NW litters were also (accidentally or purposely) Dual sired even, aye.  We don't have Samplings on EITHER of them (Cygnus or Boney), which remains a bummer, but there it is. 


For I have no clue whether we can even BEGIN to also resurrect any USEFUL meanings to whether Hoon and Kissy were FULL siblings; And/or whether Nome and Tia were more homozygous FULL siblings.  But if so; I too am still listening.

Kodiac, I agree, has already fallen fully OPEN, unless we keep working within both Ron's and Harry's kennels environs/matings.  (And Rick S never stopped squabbling with Joyce over whether or not she owned Ron's records or never received them, or Ron never in fact SENT them to her, etc.!  That is truly another headache I TOO wish to leave DEEP SIXED in 2016, heh!;)

Riki has YET to be COMPARED to G Sheena, let alone to the prior Cygnus reconstruct, that I'm aware. 

So basically, we are progressing, but by also realizing how much of the past posits remain either clearly Debunked or the DNA itself not yet clearly comprehended, imo.  best, susan

---

From: 'Susan E Bragg' via Chinook Pedigree Project <chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com>
To: "chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com" <chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2016 3:59 PM

[Susan E Bragg]

OK, so it's clear (to me) at least how we do need to Validate something more real yet here.  But also while I await others thought on how best to do this/that; I'll try to run a straights MARS WP 3.0 on both Lander and Wos here this spring/summer; Which will give us an also new baseline on some of his BB and G Bonehead genetics.  Some of the RSH folk are utilizing WP to give them good 2 Gen(s) posits yet within their own genomes too, etc.  And I think this test is slightly more affordable than OS.  But if others want to underwrite also OS on these 2 elders of mine here, just say the word, and I'm willing.  Either WP or OS will suit me fine & keep me fine and this genome honest yet, I'm sure.  Best, Susan

P.S.  Ginger; Suffice it to say how it can't HURT still, and may HELP, yes; IF you can FIND an old Copy of Riki's DNA Cert still, and get it IN to Corine's COA Registrar's hands as soon as possible, thanks.  But otherwise; Our prior posit(s) (to Strle's emails & 2014/15 docs gleanings this project) do reveal how much we remain 'back to the drawing board(s)' outside G Sheena here.  So I'm not going to remove NW Riki as SIRE of Nome/Tia in ANY of my dogs peds UNLESS and UNTIL you or UKC releases his dna for full comparison(s) as needed.  Thanks for your understandings and aids yet then, if you will.  best, seb

---

From: 'Susan E Bragg' via Chinook Pedigree Project <chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com>
To: "chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com" <chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2016 5:16 PM