We are speaking ONLY about Breeding Shika to Shika, Kai to Kai, Hokka to Hokka, etc. etc. We are NOT talking about blending two seperate breeds together to increase genetic diversity?
I guess my point is if we go this route & eventually the dogs have no resemblance to the original, might they as well be a different breed? Might we as well have mixed Shika & Kai?
I have no real opinion right now, I'm just sort of playing devil's advocate ;p
I guess the real question is...What makes a shikoku a shikoku? What makes a Kai a Kai? etc. Is it appearance? Is it Size? Is it Temperament? Or...is it just lineage?
Again, I'm not quite sure either...we're really blurring lines when we talk about breeding away from the standard, so I'm not sure what to think. ~
Not that I think breeding away from the standard is wrong, I don't even think throwing another breed in for genetic diversity is wrong either, I'm just not sure if we can call it by it's original breed name.
I don't understand the legalities of it
I was taught if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.~
"I guess my point is if we go this route & eventually the dogs have no resemblance to the original, might they as well be a different breed? Might we as well have mixed Shika & Kai? "
Even breeds that are bred to standard no longer look the same as they once did; Bassets, Bulldogs and Poms are good examples. It's even occurred with the shibas, American bred show dogs look somewhat different than Japanese bred.
Like with my color example, mixing yellow and blue can make green which is the ultimate goal. We want to eventually have green, but if we stick to just breeding greens, we may wind up with a pea green than the hunter green that we really wanted. But to really get hunter green, you need some blues mixed in there. And to keep the green from turning into blue, you need to still mix in some yellow every once in a while.
One problem (though I'm not sure if it really is a problem) that will occur and even occurs in with the traditional standard breeding is that everyone has their own idea of what the breed should look like. I may find that it should be hunter green, but you feel that the breed is supposed to be neon green. I will breed towards my goals while you will breed towards yours, and we will each have a color that is similar but not exactly the same. Even amongst the many great shiba/akita breeders, you see a trend of tastes for each breeder, each kennels group of dogs having a 'theme' that is stightly different than other kennels
This is true. I definitely see your point, & again, I'm neither for nor against the route we're talking about.
Yes, there will always be a breed variance, coat colour, face shape, size, etc. But, if I take a Shiba from Japan & a Shiba from the states they'll have differences but they'll be more alike then different. Essentially, I can tell that they are both "shibas."
If we have shikoku that end up Pinto, or All Black, or some Shikoku that are Akita sized & other Shikoku that are Shiba sized...there's not much "tieing" them to the shikoku breed nemore other than lineage [ the same can be said for kai, hokkai, kishu, etc. ]
Essentially, we are going to go into the direction, as hubby pointed out, that the Akita has gone. There will be "American Shikoku / Kai / etc." then "Japanese Shikoku / Kai / Etc."
The only thing that sort of troubles me is this...if we breed TOO far away from the standard that most of the japanese adhere to...THEY might not want to send us dogs anymore. If they don't support the "American Shika / Kai / etc." they wont want to give us dogs for the breeding program...
I guess I feel like either way, we are cutting a corner off somewhere. Whether it's through limiting the genepool we have, or splitting the breed into two types.
Again, I've no real "for or against" this...as long as the dogs are healthy & have a sound temperament, looks don't really bother me. [ For example, I love those hunting shikoku that look nothing like the rest of shikoku ] but I'm tring to say...where do we draw the line? How long do we "not care" about the standard? Are there ramifications to this? [ ie: will the japanese still send us dogs ]
Also...I still want to know. What makes a shikoku a shikoku? Lineage? Or Looks? ~
This is my suggestion and/or take on it... Kinda just a thought flow...
For the a rare breed, I think that what Dave has suggested is what the base-line effort should be, the "preservation" effort, so to speak.
We use the Shikoku as an example here, but I don't think it should be limited to that breed.
If a breeder wants to title a progeny to championship, then that would be done with (more than likely) a representative from a 1:1 breeding (a "best x best" breeding), but they wouldn't only breed for for 1:1, the will do 0:1 x 1:0 breedings as well.
Basically, a breeder would have a "champion" breeding (1:1), where they would expect some potential show champions to be produced, but they will also do pet breedings as well (1:0, 0:1) as an effort to keep the lines going and to raise the overall quality.
By doing the pet breedings it raises the chances of producing a "pick" (1:1) progeny, but it also will raise the overall quality of the "pet" pups (0:1, 1:0) because of the culling (of the 0:0 pups) - this maintains a more diverse gene pool (since there would be breedings done that would, in a typical breeding program, not be).
So, to answer your point, Osy, the "standard" of the breed would still be derived from the 1:1 breedings as they will be the ones being showed.
----
The way to combat the "Akita direction" thing is to never close the stud book in the US. That is why the Akita got so f#cked, they (AKC) closed the stud book (in the 80s I think).
Ditto to what Brad said. And, Osy, I'll also point out that the Shikoku is already in a divided situation with show and hunting lines in Japan. Some breeders care about showing and titling their dogs, and others care about producing boar or deer hunting machines. Each breeds based on their preferences to produce the best dog they can (inclusively) and on occasion will outcross to the other to keep certain traits in their lines.
I see your points though. I think you are just taking this to the extreme. Even though it doesn't take many generations for a morphological change to occur, there are so few breeding dogs available that it is going to take a long time before those types of changes are something the breeding community will need to confront. I'll also reiterate what Beth said. Even established breeds evolve over time. It's a function of selective breeding. If there are a set of traits that are desirable, there will always be a dog that comes along that exhibits one or more of those traits more than previous dogs. Those are the dogs that get bred more often. So over time, when breeding to a standard of any kind, the dogs will become increasingly extreme examples of the standard and will end up vastly different from where they started.
"By doing the pet breedings it raises the chances of producing a "pick" (1:1) progeny, but it also will raise the overall quality of the "pet" pups (0:1, 1:0) because of the culling (of the 0:0 pups)"
This is a little OT, but this statement reminds me of how I kind of wish that they had some sort of dog show thing (like an official one) that would allow registered "pet" quality dogs to compete. Most people seem to think that a "pet" quality dog is not as good as a "show" quality dog, even though the only major difference in most cases is the use of said dog. I know dog shows are "supposed to be used for breeding reasons" and "what's the use if the dog can't breed". But wouldn't it be interesting to see that a breeder makes such great dogs that even their "lesser" quality dogs can win Best in Show.
Osy, I think the goal is to eventually produce dogs that follow the standard, Dave's idea is to take the scenic route instead of the direct way (and miss out on the lovely sights). I find the concept interesting, though something like this would require a lot more planning and communication between the different breeders.
I don't know if I would blame the Akita situation entirely on the AKC's closed stud books (closed in 1973, re-opened 1992). The problem seem to go much further back with different foundation dogs and a lack of communication on what was the ideal Akita.
In more recent times, I think the differences were accentuated by the acceptance of the JKC standard as the Japanese Akita standard for FCI and other parts of the world. I think acceptance of the AKIHO standard, which accepts goma, pinto, and black masks, would have not been so shocking or created such extreme camps.
Sure, its not the ONLY thing that screwed the Akita, but it was a big component. The stud book was closed again after '92, wasn't it? Nevertheless, that is OT. We could fill a novel with how and what screwed the Akita over in the US.
Well, people will sometimes enter their intact pet or lesser quality dogs in shows in order to create a bigger entry. In AKC, it can create the coveted major towards a conformation CH.
The UKC allows altered but registered purebred dogs to enter in conformation shows. I wouldn't be so surprised if the AKC follows suit if they see a big turnout in UKC altered class shows.
I don't have an objection to putting "pet" next to "show" in a ring, but I don't think it is right to put altered next to intact. Depending on the age the dog is neutered, their development is altered and one isn't comparing like to like.
Whoa, just to be clear since it's hard to read from text, I'm not fighting you guys on this [ I hope no one is seeing me as confrontational or psycho-against this idea ]
I like this idea, I like the fact that we aren't excluding perfectly healthy dogs, or dogs with a minor fault, just because they aren't "perfect." IMHO, there is no "perfect" so to take a bunch of average dogs is a good thing.
I'm just the type of person, that type of paranoid that I am, is that I look at things how they will be 10 years, 20 years, or even 30 years down the line. My sort of point was it's already split between Hunting & Show...& then we're going to split it again?
Again, I have no problems with any of this, as long as the dogs are healthy & temperamentally sound, go for it! I'd love to see the variety that we can come up with, I love to see these dogs in less of a genetic corner. I love these breeds a ton, you all know that
If I ended up with a 60 pound shikoku that was pitch black I'd love him. Or a Red Sesame Kai. Or a Grey Hokka, or a Sesame Kishu. It's all good to me LOL I am really the last person to care about standard. In fact, if I was a breeder, which I'm not nor plan to be, I'd say to hell with 75% of the standard. He's too big? So what? His colour is off? Who cares? Urajiro isn't perfect? That's not really important. My focus has been on 3 things, as of late, 1. Temperament 2. Health & 3. Workability.
I guess my question was, for how long do we take averagexaverage? When do we start going back to a standard? We're talking about this as the genetic pool is limited, but it won't always be, with all the people getting into the rarer nihon ken, we've made so much progress with just a few people on this forum. I won't be surprised if in 5 or 10 years the Shikoku & Kai esp. are much higher in numbers. We have a few people here interested in expressing the desire to do co-ownerships, the desire to breed their pups 1-3 times before they fix them. More people are importing pups...
It's going to grow eventually. So...the real question is...is this a "temporary" solution to a limited genetic pool as it's needed? Or is this just another "form" of breeding that's going to be permanent here in the states?
Again, just playing devil's advocate & trying to spark some convo & get everyone to flesh out their thoughts ;p I'm not for or against, as long as everyone is practicing ethical breeding, then I think a breeder has a right to take the dogs / breed where they want to go.
---
On another note...
We talk about breeding Average to Average, & 1:0 to 1:0, blue to yellow....now...how about some examples using our precious nihon ken?
What would be considered factors for "exclusion" for a breeding practice? Poor Hips? Bad Knees? Colour? Temperament? Too small? etc.
What would be considered factors for "inclusion" for a breeding practice? Good Urajiro? Workability? Colour? Temparement? etc.
Just curious
Again, I'm not arguing with you all because I'm against this or nething. I'm just trying to see the whole picture ~
"We talk about breeding Average to Average, & 1:0 to 1:0, blue to yellow....now...how about some examples using our precious nihon ken?"
I think basically, over time the with enough eliminating of what is not wanted, even the average pups start to become closer to what the standard is. If you keep mixing blues and yellows, eventually you'll produce more greens and less yellows and blues. You start to have shades of greens to work with and you breed the blue-greens with the yellows, and the yellow-greens with the blues. Slowly the greens become the desired shade and the yellows and blues start to fade away.
As far as "inclusive" and "exclusive", there are certain things that everyone knows is a must (exclude bad hips, knees, major health issues), and with the way the nihon ken are 'designed' there's no reason to for there to be any sort of 'necessary' health issue (like how Bulldogs need to be inseminated and have C-sections due to the desired body type).
As far as anything else (temperament and appearance) even with a standard that can be pretty subjective and more to how the breeder interprets the meaning. If we state that the coat color is brown, some may prefer to go for a light golden-brown, while others will go for dark chocolate brown.
I'm remembering something that Brad said around the time that he first got Blue. I'll quote it if I can find it, but what he said was sort of that even though the standard for CCs is (I think) almond shaped eyes, the breeder still chose to breed some of their dogs with rounder eyes for better workability.
And Osy, you make some very good points that really help with building and developing upon this idea
Comments
We are speaking ONLY about Breeding Shika to Shika, Kai to Kai, Hokka to Hokka, etc. etc. We are NOT talking about blending two seperate breeds together to increase genetic diversity?
I guess my point is if we go this route & eventually the dogs have no resemblance to the original, might they as well be a different breed? Might we as well have mixed Shika & Kai?
I have no real opinion right now, I'm just sort of playing devil's advocate ;p
I guess the real question is...What makes a shikoku a shikoku? What makes a Kai a Kai? etc. Is it appearance? Is it Size? Is it Temperament? Or...is it just lineage?
Again, I'm not quite sure either...we're really blurring lines when we talk about breeding away from the standard, so I'm not sure what to think.
Not that I think breeding away from the standard is wrong, I don't even think throwing another breed in for genetic diversity is wrong either, I'm just not sure if we can call it by it's original breed name.
I don't understand the legalities of it
I was taught if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.~
Even breeds that are bred to standard no longer look the same as they once did; Bassets, Bulldogs and Poms are good examples. It's even occurred with the shibas, American bred show dogs look somewhat different than Japanese bred.
Like with my color example, mixing yellow and blue can make green which is the ultimate goal. We want to eventually have green, but if we stick to just breeding greens, we may wind up with a pea green than the hunter green that we really wanted. But to really get hunter green, you need some blues mixed in there. And to keep the green from turning into blue, you need to still mix in some yellow every once in a while.
One problem (though I'm not sure if it really is a problem) that will occur and even occurs in with the traditional standard breeding is that everyone has their own idea of what the breed should look like. I may find that it should be hunter green, but you feel that the breed is supposed to be neon green. I will breed towards my goals while you will breed towards yours, and we will each have a color that is similar but not exactly the same. Even amongst the many great shiba/akita breeders, you see a trend of tastes for each breeder, each kennels group of dogs having a 'theme' that is stightly different than other kennels
Yes, there will always be a breed variance, coat colour, face shape, size, etc. But, if I take a Shiba from Japan & a Shiba from the states they'll have differences but they'll be more alike then different. Essentially, I can tell that they are both "shibas."
If we have shikoku that end up Pinto, or All Black, or some Shikoku that are Akita sized & other Shikoku that are Shiba sized...there's not much "tieing" them to the shikoku breed nemore other than lineage [ the same can be said for kai, hokkai, kishu, etc. ]
Essentially, we are going to go into the direction, as hubby pointed out, that the Akita has gone. There will be "American Shikoku / Kai / etc." then "Japanese Shikoku / Kai / Etc."
The only thing that sort of troubles me is this...if we breed TOO far away from the standard that most of the japanese adhere to...THEY might not want to send us dogs anymore. If they don't support the "American Shika / Kai / etc." they wont want to give us dogs for the breeding program...
I guess I feel like either way, we are cutting a corner off somewhere. Whether it's through limiting the genepool we have, or splitting the breed into two types.
Again, I've no real "for or against" this...as long as the dogs are healthy & have a sound temperament, looks don't really bother me. [ For example, I love those hunting shikoku that look nothing like the rest of shikoku ] but I'm tring to say...where do we draw the line? How long do we "not care" about the standard? Are there ramifications to this? [ ie: will the japanese still send us dogs ]
Also...I still want to know. What makes a shikoku a shikoku? Lineage? Or Looks? ~
For the a rare breed, I think that what Dave has suggested is what the base-line effort should be, the "preservation" effort, so to speak.
We use the Shikoku as an example here, but I don't think it should be limited to that breed.
If a breeder wants to title a progeny to championship, then that would be done with (more than likely) a representative from a 1:1 breeding (a "best x best" breeding), but they wouldn't only breed for for 1:1, the will do 0:1 x 1:0 breedings as well.
Basically, a breeder would have a "champion" breeding (1:1), where they would expect some potential show champions to be produced, but they will also do pet breedings as well (1:0, 0:1) as an effort to keep the lines going and to raise the overall quality.
By doing the pet breedings it raises the chances of producing a "pick" (1:1) progeny, but it also will raise the overall quality of the "pet" pups (0:1, 1:0) because of the culling (of the 0:0 pups) - this maintains a more diverse gene pool (since there would be breedings done that would, in a typical breeding program, not be).
So, to answer your point, Osy, the "standard" of the breed would still be derived from the 1:1 breedings as they will be the ones being showed.
----
The way to combat the "Akita direction" thing is to never close the stud book in the US. That is why the Akita got so f#cked, they (AKC) closed the stud book (in the 80s I think).
----
I see your points though. I think you are just taking this to the extreme. Even though it doesn't take many generations for a morphological change to occur, there are so few breeding dogs available that it is going to take a long time before those types of changes are something the breeding community will need to confront. I'll also reiterate what Beth said. Even established breeds evolve over time. It's a function of selective breeding. If there are a set of traits that are desirable, there will always be a dog that comes along that exhibits one or more of those traits more than previous dogs. Those are the dogs that get bred more often. So over time, when breeding to a standard of any kind, the dogs will become increasingly extreme examples of the standard and will end up vastly different from where they started.
This is a little OT, but this statement reminds me of how I kind of wish that they had some sort of dog show thing (like an official one) that would allow registered "pet" quality dogs to compete. Most people seem to think that a "pet" quality dog is not as good as a "show" quality dog, even though the only major difference in most cases is the use of said dog. I know dog shows are "supposed to be used for breeding reasons" and "what's the use if the dog can't breed". But wouldn't it be interesting to see that a breeder makes such great dogs that even their "lesser" quality dogs can win Best in Show.
Osy, I think the goal is to eventually produce dogs that follow the standard, Dave's idea is to take the scenic route instead of the direct way (and miss out on the lovely sights). I find the concept interesting, though something like this would require a lot more planning and communication between the different breeders.
In more recent times, I think the differences were accentuated by the acceptance of the JKC standard as the Japanese Akita standard for FCI and other parts of the world. I think acceptance of the AKIHO standard, which accepts goma, pinto, and black masks, would have not been so shocking or created such extreme camps.
The UKC allows altered but registered purebred dogs to enter in conformation shows. I wouldn't be so surprised if the AKC follows suit if they see a big turnout in UKC altered class shows.
I don't have an objection to putting "pet" next to "show" in a ring, but I don't think it is right to put altered next to intact. Depending on the age the dog is neutered, their development is altered and one isn't comparing like to like.
I can't find any info about the Akita stud book being closed again. Do you know of a link?
I like this idea, I like the fact that we aren't excluding perfectly healthy dogs, or dogs with a minor fault, just because they aren't "perfect." IMHO, there is no "perfect" so to take a bunch of average dogs is a good thing.
I'm just the type of person, that type of paranoid that I am, is that I look at things how they will be 10 years, 20 years, or even 30 years down the line. My sort of point was it's already split between Hunting & Show...& then we're going to split it again?
Again, I have no problems with any of this, as long as the dogs are healthy & temperamentally sound, go for it! I'd love to see the variety that we can come up with, I love to see these dogs in less of a genetic corner. I love these breeds a ton, you all know that
If I ended up with a 60 pound shikoku that was pitch black I'd love him. Or a Red Sesame Kai. Or a Grey Hokka, or a Sesame Kishu. It's all good to me LOL I am really the last person to care about standard. In fact, if I was a breeder, which I'm not nor plan to be, I'd say to hell with 75% of the standard. He's too big? So what? His colour is off? Who cares? Urajiro isn't perfect? That's not really important. My focus has been on 3 things, as of late, 1. Temperament 2. Health & 3. Workability.
I guess my question was, for how long do we take averagexaverage? When do we start going back to a standard? We're talking about this as the genetic pool is limited, but it won't always be, with all the people getting into the rarer nihon ken, we've made so much progress with just a few people on this forum. I won't be surprised if in 5 or 10 years the Shikoku & Kai esp. are much higher in numbers. We have a few people here interested in expressing the desire to do co-ownerships, the desire to breed their pups 1-3 times before they fix them. More people are importing pups...
It's going to grow eventually. So...the real question is...is this a "temporary" solution to a limited genetic pool as it's needed? Or is this just another "form" of breeding that's going to be permanent here in the states?
Again, just playing devil's advocate & trying to spark some convo & get everyone to flesh out their thoughts ;p I'm not for or against, as long as everyone is practicing ethical breeding, then I think a breeder has a right to take the dogs / breed where they want to go.
---
On another note...
We talk about breeding Average to Average, & 1:0 to 1:0, blue to yellow....now...how about some examples using our precious nihon ken?
What would be considered factors for "exclusion" for a breeding practice? Poor Hips? Bad Knees? Colour? Temperament? Too small? etc.
What would be considered factors for "inclusion" for a breeding practice? Good Urajiro? Workability? Colour? Temparement? etc.
Just curious
Again, I'm not arguing with you all because I'm against this or nething. I'm just trying to see the whole picture
I think basically, over time the with enough eliminating of what is not wanted, even the average pups start to become closer to what the standard is. If you keep mixing blues and yellows, eventually you'll produce more greens and less yellows and blues. You start to have shades of greens to work with and you breed the blue-greens with the yellows, and the yellow-greens with the blues. Slowly the greens become the desired shade and the yellows and blues start to fade away.
As far as "inclusive" and "exclusive", there are certain things that everyone knows is a must (exclude bad hips, knees, major health issues), and with the way the nihon ken are 'designed' there's no reason to for there to be any sort of 'necessary' health issue (like how Bulldogs need to be inseminated and have C-sections due to the desired body type).
As far as anything else (temperament and appearance) even with a standard that can be pretty subjective and more to how the breeder interprets the meaning. If we state that the coat color is brown, some may prefer to go for a light golden-brown, while others will go for dark chocolate brown.
I'm remembering something that Brad said around the time that he first got Blue. I'll quote it if I can find it, but what he said was sort of that even though the standard for CCs is (I think) almond shaped eyes, the breeder still chose to breed some of their dogs with rounder eyes for better workability.
And Osy, you make some very good points that really help with building and developing upon this idea