I have an JA that is AKC registered but his parents were imported from poland. I am from the USA, and I believe AKC and CAC should split the breeds. I think it is a shame that it is allowed to happen. The AA line is being diluted, because some breeders are actually "fixing" their AA's by mixing, and they are making mixed breed puppy's that get to be call pure breed and even get papers. I am an american that thinks it is messed up. If I ever do buy an AA I will search long and hard to find one with out JA in its pedigree.
Actually, back feb/march, the UKC acknowledged the breed split. So far no JA shows yet, but we can now officially say there is the JA and AA in the states, and this is awesome.
Oh yes, it has been proposed to the AKC. Definitely. but I'm not into all of the politics, so unfortunately I can't tell. However, the AKC doesn't support the split.
Those who are aware of the split are generally pro split, but of course, there are a few who aren't. All the folks I've talked with have all been pro split, so I've never actually met a person who didn't believe in the split.
There is facebook page that has lots of anti split people, and some of them are administrators so be careful what u say about splitting the breeds, they will boot ya if you defend your position on the split. Plus they delete any post that don't hold their views about the split and other touchy topics like breeding opinions. Don't tell a breeder they have tweenies if they are mixing, they will get very offended, and defend their position, with, AKC says it is ok so they are pure breeds. Oh yes this conversation can get naaaasty. (Runs and hides.)
I support the split. But I'd like to know the reasons why anti-split people don't want the split. Wouldn't they want their dogs to compete against similar dogs? JA's look so different.
OMG! @Calia, that article was awesome! From now on I am gonna post that link, when the split comes up. I like the hybrid as a diplomatic way to say tweenie or mix.
Thanks Calia I loved the article, however it is not specifically true that the American Akita is larger than the Akita inu (japanese) in fact in the UK the height for them both is the same 26-28 inches at the withers. However it is true that the American is heavier boned. My Akita inu is a big fella actually hes bigger than most American Akitas that ive seen around here. Can anyone let me know how to upload pics to my post so I can show him to ye?
http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/breed/standard.aspx?id=4223 This is the JA standard in the uk, first I read the colour then I read the size that is the only way I can tell which is which. There is only a 1/2 inch difference between the two on the tall side. It is said that they shoot for the middle meaning they want 26 1/2 but 27 1/2 is excepted. I do wonder if I am supposed to push his hair down till it stops on his flesh to get the measurement.
I replied to this in another post. 27 is not expected in the males it just isn't. Some breeders are worried about the JA getting too small but that was dues to males winning in Japan coming in at 24.5". The problem is that people like to make is sound like their dog is bigger than it really is.
We had an opportunity to ask a Japanese breeder this weekend and I've asked him this before. According to him. Females 23.5 - 24.5 is the average height and 25-26.5 for the males. This is inline with what has been imported to the US in the past few years. YES some breeders breed higher but we are talking about the general population. IMO 26.5" is a good top end for the males with 24.5/25 on the females.
So we measure at the withers, but do we push the hair down till we touch the skin? Cuz not pushing the hair down adds like 1.5 inches. Also Size AA standard Height at withers: dogs: 66-71 cms (26-28 ins); bitches: 61-66 cms (24-26 ins). Looks like th male JA is near the same as the female AA.
Size JA
Height at withers: dogs 64-70cms (25 ¼-27 ½ ins); bitches 58-64 cms (22 ¾-25 ¼ ins). I really would like to know though how exactly to take the measurement.
I'm pro-split. I think the AKC should stop allowing tweenies or JAs to be registered as akitas, but probably allow the ones that are already registered to stay registered (to avoid some major problems). AAs should be judged according to the AA standard anyway, so a JA registered as an AA would, presumably, do poorly in the confirmation ring and those traits would be bred out anyway.
Although, one thing to note is that breed distinction is essentially arbitrary and has no clean-cut scientific method. Breeds are defined by consensus only, so any attempt to appeal to science or history doesn't really make or break the argument.
I should have a photo somewhere. They take a wicket and set it at 23". Then the wicket is slid in at the withers if the dog is clealy under it's an issue. No upper measurement was taken. This was at the akiho show this past winter. For males I believe they did it at 25".
http://ezwicket.homestead.com/ This is a pretty good description on how to make a cheap wicket and how to use it. Think when I get time it will do this.
Yes I hope the AA will accept the Japanese Akita inu as a seperate breed. However the size difference is not as extreme as what you might think. Ive been to shows here in Ireland and the size difference is in bulk not height. The Akita inu is usually more lean and athletic looking but not necessarily smaller in height. The standard height of the two breeds is more or less the same with slight changes from country to country. My Akita inu is 28 inches at the withers, hes actually bigger than the majority of American Akita's that I see about. It is a common misconception that the Akita inu is a lot smaller. Its mixing up weight and bulk with height. In fact some people even compare the two breeds to the Alaskan malamute and Siberian husky in size difference which is ridiculous really. I think an Akita American or Japanese types should all be at least 26 " as there size is part of there charm.
@davidgary1980 On photbucket if you scroll down you can find the embeded code, copy that code and then paste it into your comment and it will show up as a picture on your comment. Also if you have youtube click share and then click embeded the click the box for old code. copy and past the code to comments and you can share video.
In countries where the Akita breed has been split into two separate breeds, many have been perplexed about the reasons why America has not also split the breed. Even the JKC delegations that attended the 1997, 1998, & 1999 Akita Club of America National Specialty shows found it difficult to understand, because the ACA is controlled by the membership, where as the JKC is ruled by one person in power.
No doubt most Akita fanciers in countries that recognize two breeds of Akitas are very happy to have a show ring that allows the American types and the Japanese types to flourish. It's understandable that those who show Akitas want their dogs to be fairly evaluated rather than overlooked by the judging system.
But the Akita situation in America is quite a bit different than it is in the countries where the Akita breed has been split into two breeds. Let me explain by first reviewing a little pertinent history of the Akita breed in the United States .
From ACA's founding in 1956 until the stud books were closed February 28, 1974 (18 years) both the American types and the Japanese types of Akitas were part of the AKC foundation stock, and the same discussion and arguments for splitting the breed into the "American Akita" and the "Japanese Akita" were raging during that time period before the breed was AKC recognized, due to the differences in type between the Akitas from Japan at that time and the Akitas in America .
The ACA's foundation stock thus included both general types and the ACA Akita Stud Book Register by Kay S. Greisen clearly shows that those foundation Akitas were from the same lines as the Akitas in Japan . (www.kaysgreisenspecialties.com ) The Federation Cynologique Internationale (FCI) Akita Standards also mention that the "American Akita" (previously known for about 5 years as the Great Japanese Dog) and the " Akita" (Japanese type) have the same history.
The Akita name in different countries can be confusing, so just to be clear about the name differences, the Kennel Club in the UK names American type as the "Akita" (recently changed from its previous name, the "Japanese Akita") and the Japanese type is now named the "Japanese Akita". In the United States , the 1972 ACA/AKC standard describes the breed long known as the " Akita", which has not as yet been divided into two separate breeds. It is interesting to note that America has the largest number of Akitas.
From 1974 to April 13, 1992 (also 18 years) AKC would not register Akitas imported from Japan, but no other country in the world was prohibited from importing Akitas from Japan and America, and they had no restrictions on breeding their Akitas since they were all registered as the Akita breed. From 1992 until the present (December 2006) (15 years) Akitas imported from Japan to America have again been able to be registered with AKC as purebred Akitas. This was because the Japan Kennel club became recognized by the American Kennel Club, entering into a reciprocal agreement at that time.
The early 1990's saw the Japan Kennel Club all breed registering body change from using the long standing 1955 AKIHO standard to their own standard, which became the only Akita standard in the world at that time to so severely restrict the color and markings of the Akita . The main Japanese Clubs ( AKIHO, AKIKYO, NIPPO ) that hold the Akita breed in its care in Japan , still allowed for other colors, markings, and black masks, thus staying consistent with their earliest Akita standards.
The largest Akita specific club, AKIHO, has chosen not to be associated with an all breed club or organization, so FCI had to accept the new JKC standard change as the country of origin, even though the JKC registered very few Akitas compared to AKIHO. As a result, Akitas with black masks, pinto patterns or colors other than those being shown in Japan shows were not able to win and thus could not obtain their championship in FCI associated countries.
In an ideal world, it would seem the breed should travel down the path set forth at its infancy toward the goal the breed should eventually achieve based on accurate history and the standard. But we don't live in an ideal world. Motives and politics have changed the view.
The reason for the Akita breed split was not one based upon the standard or history from the viewpoint of the Japanese dog pioneers ( www.akitainuhistory.info ). It was based on how to best achieve show ring success for the owners and breeders of Akitas.
Whether an Akita fancier is in favor of a breed split or supports allowing the breed to remain as one Akita , few would argue that there has been a divergence in type between the general population of Akitas in Japan and of Akitas in America , though there have been exceptions. Ever since AKC recognition of the Akita breed there have been Akitas in America bred to look similar to their Japanese counterparts in Japan . One such example of Japanese type bred from AKC original foundation stock is pictured on page 226 of Joan Linderman's book "The New Complete Akita".
Many believe that type variation alone is a good enough reason to split the breed, changing the standard to fit these standard type deviations. Japanese type Akitas would certainly prosper if they had their own stage, something that is difficult to accomplish as one breed in the AKC show ring since Japanese types are a minority compared to American types. Preserving the best characteristics of Japanese type is a responsible endeavor, as these attributes conform to the Akita standard.
Others understand that the closer an Akita comes to meeting any Akita Standard, the more they look alike. They believe the results in the conformation ring should be secondary in importance to breeding Akitas that conform to Standard Type, thus satisfying a breeder's artistic goals rather than a judges interpretation. To these breeders it seems up side down and backwards to change the standard to fit the dogs being breed and shown.
One long time Akita breeder recently put it this way: "Dog shows are often poor indicators of breed type and quality. If one is to believe that dog show wins indicate a dog's quality, then doesn't it logically follow that losses indicate the opposite? Most champions lose more often than they win. In reality, this neither validates them nor invalidates them as of breeding value. Quality breeding programs are the result of developing a well-honed eye for identifying a composition of breed identifying traits that satisfies the breeder personally who then complements those traits through mate selection. It is a science-based endeavor entered into to reach purely personal outcomes. Dog shows shouldn't really enter into the process. They are, in essence, a valid but separate hobby."
America has more Akitas to choose from that are physically compatible with quality Japanese import lines than do other countries, and as a result, many Akitas that have some combination of American and post 1992 Japanese import heritage have been recognized for their quality and richly rewarded with top honors by AKC judges, even eliciting praise by Akita fanciers on both sides of the split issue. This was also noted by one of the last informed Japanese dog pioneers in Japan , Mr. Mutsuo Okada of AKIKYO. He has told Akita historian/translator Mr. Tatsuo Kimura that some of the pictures of blends he sees in the Akita World magazine look closer to the Standard than many of the Akitas in Japan . Mr. Okada also felt that very few in Japan today are knowledgeable about the Akita .
The more one reads Akita history, the more one realizes that not all Japanese Akita fanciers think alike any more than Akita fanciers in the rest of the world, so when someone says the Japanese think this or believe that, you should put no more faith in that statement than if they said all Americans think alike. But that is a subject for another article.
In order to determine the interest in splitting the breed into two breeds, the ACA conducted a poll by mail in 1999. The following question was asked of all ACA members: "Should the ACA consider splitting the Akita into two breeds?" The result of this poll was 43% voted "yes" and 57% voted "no".
The ACA constitution and bylaws require that any actual proposal to split the breed be passed by a two thirds majority before it approaches AKC to split the breed. It therefore made no sense for ACA to go to the work and trouble of preparing a breed split proposal that would have an even more difficult time being passed by the ACA membership. However, the breed split issue could still be resurrected and proposed in the future.
Other AKC requirements for a new breed include: A National Breed Club for which ACA would qualify. Sufficient numbers, currently a least in the mid 100's (likely 600-700 for full status) or the breed would be placed for a period of time in the Miscellaneous Class where no championship points are awarded and they cannot compete with the other groups. There must be sufficient genetic diversity from several different lines. Also needed is sufficient distribution to demonstrate enough interest in a new breed, so there should be a reasonable geographic distribution with many different owners and breeders in different parts of the country.
An acceptable breed standard would be needed in case of a split. Part of the ACA's mission ( www.akitaclub.org ) is to protect Standard Type in the Akita breed. If the breed is split (with new standards), and named America Akita and Japanese Akita, in all likelihood the Akita Club of America, at least initially, would remain the parent club for the two breeds.
According to AKC Secretary Mr. James Crowley at the 1998 ACA National Specialty, this would entail a change in the breed standard where you would have two different standards describing two different breeds that would be "mutually exclusive". The original Parent Club would have the responsibility of preparing a standard to define precisely the true type of the purebred. Each breed should have something in its type that distinguishes it from any other breed.
The exclusivity has to be marked such as the difference between prick ears and non-prick ears in the Norwich and Norfolk Terriers, coat type as between Wire Fox and Smooth Fox Terriers, etc. Exotic looks and more or less bone isn't going work. Even if you used height or color for a division, that would not address the type issue. Mr. Crowley didn't think AKC would ever split based on phenotype because that would mess up the integrity of the stud book as one littermate could be dubbed American and another littermate be labeled Japanese, as was done in FCI countries where the breed was split mainly by physical appearance.
The American Kennel Club is not going to initiate anything unless the request actually comes from the parent club. It is up to ACA to make a formal request before AKC can even look into doing anything at all.
But the question that begs to be answered is, how can the breed be split if there is no mutually exclusive feature? The answer seems to be to split by a percentage of pedigree. Some suggestions have been any Akita pedigree over 50% of post 1992 Japanese import lines would go to the Japanese type side and those with 50% or more of American lines would go to the American type side of a split. This would indicate a breeding direction. Other suggestions have been Akitas with 60%, 5/8, 66%, 3/4, or even 100% Japanese lines as the cut off point to be placed in the Japanese side of an Akita breed split. In any case, each breed would then have a "mutually exclusive" pedigree based upon a percentage of their pedigree heritage.
At the 1998 ACA National Akita Specialty James Crowley told the membership, "The actual method of splitting would have to be something that would be worked out based upon the request from the Akita Club of America with something reasonable, some reasonable rationale on the way to split. If it was reasonable, in all likelihood our board would go with it... Now, till we actually get a formal request from the Akita Club when they come up with a rationale, it's hard to say now. What we would have to have though is something definitive, say, three-quarters would be Japanese, anything less American, whatever. You'd have to have some cut-and-dried criteria. What we would not do is just leave it up to each owner... "Oh, I want my dog to be in this type, I want my dog to be in this type"...It'd have to be some clearly definitive thing that our computer and registration people can command and actually move into the two different registries. As long as it made sense and of course..?..that it could be done, but it would have to be, of course, across-the board split down and everything that was in this category went here, everything that was in this category went there. It's not going to be a mishmash where each owner can make up their own decision." ( http://members.tripod.com/madeleinebsmith/splitreports/SlpitReports.htm )
Mr. Crowley reiterated in a November 19, 2001 email "AKC would not act unless and until the request was made by the Parent Club. Even if this did occur, and the AKC agreed to go along, all of the details would have to be worked out so that no one is unfairly penalized." One
It doesn't make sense to insist on splitting the Akita breed in a manner that would be unreasonable and that would unfairly penalize any Akita fancier. If a person wants to see a breed split take place so they have a place to show their Akitas without prejudice, then taking a stance (such as insisting on a 100% Japanese pedigree split) that will make this goal impossible to achieve is most illogical, especially when a reasonable compromise, similar to what has already taken place in other countries, would achieve the same results.
It's certainly not "reasonable" to "unfairly penalize" or destroy whole breeding programs of AKC registered Akitas by removing all percentages of blends over the past 15 years
(as of December 2006) from the gene pool, as some fringe groups have suggested doing in order to keep the so called American Akita and the so called Japanese Akita each 100% free from each other's pedigree. Many fine Akitas and champions with top wins would no longer even be AKC registered or used for breeding. Fortunately, AKC has promised this will not happen.
It also doesn't make sense to a great many people to split the breed into two breeds by using the 100% rule, which could go both ways, either by splitting 100% American lines and all others going to the Japanese side, or by splitting at 100% Japanese lines and all others going to the American side. Though this would have been reasonable in 1992, after 15 years of interbreeding neither is acceptable in America today, anymore that it would have been in FCI countries before they split the breed.
Many Akita fanciers in America feel it is just wrong to take a fine looking Akita that is mostly Japanese lines and is Japanese type and put it into the American type side of a breed split. How would these Akitas get a fair shake in the conformation ring with mostly American type dogs if it looked like the Japanese Akita breed in another ring? What would happen to the breeders and dogs in those breeding programs? Wouldn't that be creating the same type of problem the Akita fanciers in FCI countries experienced before they split the breed? These Japanese type Akitas would never win even if they deserved it, just the reverse of the American types not being able to win in the FCI ring while being shown alongside Japanese types before the breed was split.
The JKC Honorary Chairman, Mr. Kariyabu, was the main force behind the FCI breed split, even though there was no reason to do so in Japan . Yet with all his power to do so, he didn't try to harm anyone's breeding program by proposing only 100% current import Akitas from Japan as a requirement to be recognized as a Japanese type Akita . From his comments at the 1998 ACA National Akita Specialty open meeting with the ACA members present, he understood what would be needed to successfully make a breed split a reality. He allowed some time (even an extra 5 years for some FCI countries after the breed split) to give breeders an opportunity to finish working with their current lines, judiciously crossing these with current Japanese imports. He knew it was the only way a split would be accepted by the Akita breeders. America would also need time in the event of a breed split. This is apparent by his comments at that time:
Question: about American breeders who have been using Akitas in America to change to Japanese type.
Answer: "Maybe my understanding of your question is right. You are now on the way of changing your type from American type to Japanese type since many years and you'd like to continue this procedure and if in the future ACA split, the possibility will disappear because interbreeding is forbidden. But if you choose the new breed in the United States , in this case Japanese type, you can continue, yeah, to develop or make progress of your dogs. It depends on your choice which direction do you continue to breed."
Question: about confusion, do Japanese agree with crossbreeding Japanese type and American type.
Answer: "The answer is very delicate. In European countries we have encouraged to make progress or to develop Akita in Europe . In this case we have had only one Akita in these countries. If somebody has American type Akita , we ask to make progress with the breeding, but in this case we checked. If the dam is 75% Japanese and 25% American, we persuaded to finish to breed to change [to Japanese] but now, we are now considering to split, we cannot anymore encourage the breeder in Europe to start to interbreed."
Question: about how split would be done.
Answer: "We believe most important point to split is the breeding policy of the breeder. Even if the pedigree describes only 25% blood of Japanese type or if the breeder is going to Japanese breed, maybe we can accept or can recognize the breed as Japanese breed."
Mr. Kariyabu also added these thoughts: "I agree basically with you, the American type body and the Japanese type head very nice to create if possible, we're afraid American type head and Japanese type body can also be possible. And, but my sincere answer is not joking, I'd like to say, if you want to develop or make progress American interbreed, realize your idea, you will need, if you, if you take direction the Japanese tree."
I have spoken with JKC translator Mr. Izumi Awashima on several occasions after first meeting him as an ACA Delegate at the 1996 First World Akita Congress in Japan . At the 1998 AKIHO Headquarters show we attended in Japan, he, my wife and I, and the owner/president of a small club in America that is not associated with ACA or AKC but that promotes only 100% Japanese pedigrees, were having a conversation about the breed split. Mr. Awashima tried to get her to back off the 100% Japanese requirement for her club she started and continues to rule, but she adamantly refused at this and other occasions to do so, choosing to oppose JKC in this matter.
On another occasion Mr. Awashima saw us showing our large 75% Japanese pedigreed red urajiro male Akita at the Sacramento , California show. When I asked him what side of a breed split our dog should be in, he responded by proclaiming him to be Japanese type! We asked him how he would do at a show in Japan , and he said he might win Best In Show. For the record, this AKC Champion Akita went on to win independent Specialty Winners Dog, several Award of Merits, a Best In Show Specialty, group placing, etc., all owner handled.
To remove the many high quality Japanese type Akitas with a large percentage of Japanese lines during a breed split, especially those that are bred up to 3/4, 7/8, 15/16 or more Japanese percentage, seems shortsighted at best. At worst, those who only will consider a 100% Japanese pedigree split appear to be motivated by self interest (ego, power, financial commitment, afraid of the competition, kennel blindness) rather than considering other breeders as a whole or the benefits of genetic diversity and the genetic possibilities for future generations. Its kind of a "my way or the highway" attitude, believing only they should have the authority to mastermind the direction of others' breeding decisions, even though the success most of them have had breeding AKC champions has been almost nonexistent.
Some ACA members believe that the threat of a 100% split in either direction was reason enough to vote for leaving the Akita as one breed in the United States . Though others have different philosophical reasons for not wanting to split the breed, I believe there are many who did not previously support a breed division that might vote for a split if a reasonable percentage of pedigree was assured, and a if given a reasonable amount of time to finish what they have started, perhaps three years or so to continue breeding toward the cut off percentage, before a split took place. 100% Japanese lines would then have a place to be shown, and all would work itself out in the breeding and judging down the road, just like it has in the FCI countries. But no such compromise seems to be in the works, there is little trust of honest negotiations with the vocal 100% groups, and people are just plain tired of the whole subject.
If people really want to follow the AKIHO philosophy, then they would work toward starting more AKIHO branches and would never allow their Akitas to be judged by anyone but an AKIHO judge. AKIHO does not recognize AKC and those who are AKIHO members would not show their Akitas to AKC judges even if the breed was split in the United States .
Still, the Akita breed split issue may not matter to most Akita fanciers in the world, as it doesn't really affect them personally for one reason or another. Those like myself who have not been breeding or showing for several years have nothing to gain personally no matter what the future holds in store. But that does not alleviate the keen interest held by Akita lovers of all sorts who continue to be captivated by the Akita breed split issue in America .
Recently there has been a steady influx of Akitas imported to America from Japan and other countries. These Akitas are AKC registered so they are available to the AKC gene pool. There have also been several 100% Japanese pedigreed AKC Akita litters of late as well as other high Japanese percentage pedigree litters that produce Japanese type Akitas. So many AKC Akita breeding opportunities are now available to those who choose to breed toward an oriental type.
Some American breeders are finding that Japanese type Akitas with a little American bloodlines are now being quite well received in conformation shows in other FCI countries where, in fact, one 75% Japanese pedigree Akita bred in the United States recently won a Best In Show. So importing, exporting, and showing does not seem to be much of a problem as far as pedigree percentage is concerned. For the time being, the Akita situation might be somewhat compared to the Belgium breeds that are separate breeds in AKC and one breed in other countries.
The Akita breed split issue is a complex subject in the United States and few really understand all the issues. It would require writing a long book to cover the subject in depth. Insulting others who don't hold the same views, calling them blind and ignorant will not help, nor do threats that 100% American or 100% Japanese lines will soon disappear, when the facts over the last 15 years have proven just the opposite to be true.
15 years also seems like enough time for breeders to have taken advantage of the opportunity to incorporate current Japanese lines into their breeding program if they were ever going to make the effort to do so. After this much time there should be no excuses for having failed to use Japanese lines by now, and if these folks are honest with themselves, they will realize that they won't be breeding to a Japanese pedigree in the future either.
There are pro's and con's that must be understood before contemplating a breed split. If the ACA revisits the split issue in the future, hopefully all who vote will inform themselves with accurate true information and vote with pure selfless motives.
In the meantime, the more time passes, it appears less likely an Akita breed split will occur in America .
Hmmmm..... Sounds like it is all about money to american breeders who want time to change their dogs to JA percentages that are except able upon agreement. Why don't these breeders just agree to the split and then buy full blooded JA that already exist. Then start to breed them after all they don't cost much more then an AA in many countries. It is possible to buy a JKC puppy and change it's registration to AKC now, so after the split it will still be possible. Why can't all others that are mixed fall under the same breed they always were, AA. Seeing how the breed description of an AA seems to allow mixes anyways. Sounds like some breeders just wanna complicate things. The breed has already been created, why does america have to recreate it? This in regard to what @Loren_Egland has posted and raises these thoughts as I read.
I think you speak for a very few minority when you say "its all about money to those who want to switch their percentages". I've been to a some AKC shows and all of those akitas were American Akitas except for one questionable tweeny looking dog, but he was judged as an american akita. (he didn't show well either). This is enough evidence for me that 95% of people who are active in the breed agree to a breed split. It is possible to buy a japanese akita registered with JKC and re-register it with AKC, but no one does this. If they were mixed, then they are "tweenies" and are not American or Japanese akitas, or this is the unofficial rule amongst Akita people. They're mixes, mutts, and shouldn't be allowed in either registry. Unfortunately, those tweenies are allowed and always judged as American Akitas in the AKC, which is ALL American Akitas. No one shows their Japanese Akita in an AKC show ring. Generally speaking, if you mix the two in your breeding program, it is super frowned upon by the rest of the Akita community (JA and AA).
Why does america have to recreate it? I don't see it as recreating more so as I do as creating another breed. I have absolutely no problem with this. Man has tampered with dog genetics for thousands of years and I see no difference then as I do now. Simple as that.
I think the current setup is a win win for pro-split people like myself. For those that like the idea of a second breed and are not into mixing you have Akiho and UKC. For those that like to blend you have AKC. In some respects UKC fits us better as they do not allow professional handlers.
You are correct doing a pedigree split using JKC pedigrees and Akiho pedigrees is short sighted. From 1998-present the number of JA in the world has increase as such they should be included in the new breed.
BTW Would somebody start writing some new articles. This cut and paste stuff is getting really old. It's 2012
My favorite article about it will always be the one on JACA's site because it says it best why AMERICAN AKITA breeders should be very worried about the purity of their breed. http://akita-inu.com/split.htm.
As a Japanese Akita breeder, I'm not worried; my dogs aren't AKC, the puppies aren't AKC, there's no way that my dogs can (legitimately) be bred to an American Akita. Moreover, because AKIHO doesn't import any pedigrees at all, I never have to fear that the dogs I import or admire at the shows and on peoples' Facebook pages are mixes or come from a phenotype-based split out of another country.
Comments
Oh yes, it has been proposed to the AKC. Definitely. but I'm not into all of the politics, so unfortunately I can't tell. However, the AKC doesn't support the split.
Those who are aware of the split are generally pro split, but of course, there are a few who aren't. All the folks I've talked with have all been pro split, so I've never actually met a person who didn't believe in the split.
I changed this thread to the "Akita" category.
An article on the split issue in the US: http://www.akita-inu.com/split.htm
But I'd like to know the reasons why anti-split people don't want the split.
Wouldn't they want their dogs to compete against similar dogs? JA's look so different.
Here are some pics of my Akita inu and my dads Akita.
Here is a link to the american standard I will look for another link from the uk for the japanese standard. I am on my phone though. So it may take a while.
This is the JA standard in the uk, first I read the colour then I read the size that is the only way I can tell which is which. There is only a 1/2 inch difference between the two on the tall side. It is said that they shoot for the middle meaning they want 26 1/2 but 27 1/2 is excepted. I do wonder if I am supposed to push his hair down till it stops on his flesh to get the measurement.
We had an opportunity to ask a Japanese breeder this weekend and I've asked him this before. According to him. Females 23.5 - 24.5 is the average height and 25-26.5 for the males. This is inline with what has been imported to the US in the past few years. YES some breeders breed higher but we are talking about the general population. IMO 26.5" is a good top end for the males with 24.5/25 on the females.
The UKC standard reflects the above numbers.
My AA is 29 inches at the withers and 110 pounds. He's a pretty big boy (probably even big for AA standards).
But of course, the big thing is, AAs and JAs look nothing alike. Or shouldn't. Two different breeds, regardless of what the AKC says.
Also Size AA standard
Height at withers: dogs: 66-71 cms (26-28 ins); bitches: 61-66 cms (24-26 ins). Looks like th male JA is near the same as the female AA.
Size JA
Height at withers: dogs 64-70cms (25 ¼-27 ½ ins); bitches 58-64 cms (22 ¾-25 ¼ ins). I really would like to know though how exactly to take the measurement.
Here is my Ares God Of War.
Although, one thing to note is that breed distinction is essentially arbitrary and has no clean-cut scientific method. Breeds are defined by consensus only, so any attempt to appeal to science or history doesn't really make or break the argument.
Splitting the Akita Breed in America
In countries where the Akita breed has been split into two separate breeds, many have been perplexed about the reasons why America has not also split the breed. Even the JKC delegations that attended the 1997, 1998, & 1999 Akita Club of America National Specialty shows found it difficult to understand, because the ACA is controlled by the membership, where as the JKC is ruled by one person in power.
No doubt most Akita fanciers in countries that recognize two breeds of Akitas are very happy to have a show ring that allows the American types and the Japanese types to flourish. It's understandable that those who show Akitas want their dogs to be fairly evaluated rather than overlooked by the judging system.
But the Akita situation in America is quite a bit different than it is in the countries where the Akita breed has been split into two breeds. Let me explain by first reviewing a little pertinent history of the Akita breed in the United States .
From ACA's founding in 1956 until the stud books were closed February 28, 1974 (18 years) both the American types and the Japanese types of Akitas were part of the AKC foundation stock, and the same discussion and arguments for splitting the breed into the "American Akita" and the "Japanese Akita" were raging during that time period before the breed was AKC recognized, due to the differences in type between the Akitas from Japan at that time and the Akitas in America .
The ACA's foundation stock thus included both general types and the ACA Akita Stud Book Register by Kay S. Greisen clearly shows that those foundation Akitas were from the same lines as the Akitas in Japan . (www.kaysgreisenspecialties.com ) The Federation Cynologique Internationale (FCI) Akita Standards also mention that the "American Akita" (previously known for about 5 years as the Great Japanese Dog) and the " Akita" (Japanese type) have the same history.
The Akita name in different countries can be confusing, so just to be clear about the name differences, the Kennel Club in the UK names American type as the "Akita" (recently changed from its previous name, the "Japanese Akita") and the Japanese type is now named the "Japanese Akita". In the United States , the 1972 ACA/AKC standard describes the breed long known as the " Akita", which has not as yet been divided into two separate breeds. It is interesting to note that America has the largest number of Akitas.
From 1974 to April 13, 1992 (also 18 years) AKC would not register Akitas imported from Japan, but no other country in the world was prohibited from importing Akitas from Japan and America, and they had no restrictions on breeding their Akitas since they were all registered as the Akita breed. From 1992 until the present (December 2006) (15 years) Akitas imported from Japan to America have again been able to be registered with AKC as purebred Akitas. This was because the Japan Kennel club became recognized by the American Kennel Club, entering into a reciprocal agreement at that time.
The early 1990's saw the Japan Kennel Club all breed registering body change from using the long standing 1955 AKIHO standard to their own standard, which became the only Akita standard in the world at that time to so severely restrict the color and markings of the Akita . The main Japanese Clubs ( AKIHO, AKIKYO, NIPPO ) that hold the Akita breed in its care in Japan , still allowed for other colors, markings, and black masks, thus staying consistent with their earliest Akita standards.
The largest Akita specific club, AKIHO, has chosen not to be associated with an all breed club or organization, so FCI had to accept the new JKC standard change as the country of origin, even though the JKC registered very few Akitas compared to AKIHO. As a result, Akitas with black masks, pinto patterns or colors other than those being shown in Japan shows were not able to win and thus could not obtain their championship in FCI associated countries.
In an ideal world, it would seem the breed should travel down the path set forth at its infancy toward the goal the breed should eventually achieve based on accurate history and the standard. But we don't live in an ideal world. Motives and politics have changed the view.
The reason for the Akita breed split was not one based upon the standard or history from the viewpoint of the Japanese dog pioneers ( www.akitainuhistory.info ). It was based on how to best achieve show ring success for the owners and breeders of Akitas.
Whether an Akita fancier is in favor of a breed split or supports allowing the breed to remain as one Akita , few would argue that there has been a divergence in type between the general population of Akitas in Japan and of Akitas in America , though there have been exceptions. Ever since AKC recognition of the Akita breed there have been Akitas in America bred to look similar to their Japanese counterparts in Japan . One such example of Japanese type bred from AKC original foundation stock is pictured on page 226 of Joan Linderman's book "The New Complete Akita".
Many believe that type variation alone is a good enough reason to split the breed, changing the standard to fit these standard type deviations. Japanese type Akitas would certainly prosper if they had their own stage, something that is difficult to accomplish as one breed in the AKC show ring since Japanese types are a minority compared to American types. Preserving the best characteristics of Japanese type is a responsible endeavor, as these attributes conform to the Akita standard.
Others understand that the closer an Akita comes to meeting any Akita Standard, the more they look alike. They believe the results in the conformation ring should be secondary in importance to breeding Akitas that conform to Standard Type, thus satisfying a breeder's artistic goals rather than a judges interpretation. To these breeders it seems up side down and backwards to change the standard to fit the dogs being breed and shown.
One long time Akita breeder recently put it this way: "Dog shows are often poor indicators of breed type and quality. If one is to believe that dog show wins indicate a dog's quality, then doesn't it logically follow that losses indicate the opposite? Most champions lose more often than they win. In reality, this neither validates them nor invalidates them as of breeding value. Quality breeding programs are the result of developing a well-honed eye for identifying a composition of breed identifying traits that satisfies the breeder personally who then complements those traits through mate selection. It is a science-based endeavor entered into to reach purely personal outcomes. Dog shows shouldn't really enter into the process. They are, in essence, a valid but separate hobby."
America has more Akitas to choose from that are physically compatible with quality Japanese import lines than do other countries, and as a result, many Akitas that have some combination of American and post 1992 Japanese import heritage have been recognized for their quality and richly rewarded with top honors by AKC judges, even eliciting praise by Akita fanciers on both sides of the split issue. This was also noted by one of the last informed Japanese dog pioneers in Japan , Mr. Mutsuo Okada of AKIKYO. He has told Akita historian/translator Mr. Tatsuo Kimura that some of the pictures of blends he sees in the Akita World magazine look closer to the Standard than many of the Akitas in Japan . Mr. Okada also felt that very few in Japan today are knowledgeable about the Akita .
The more one reads Akita history, the more one realizes that not all Japanese Akita fanciers think alike any more than Akita fanciers in the rest of the world, so when someone says the Japanese think this or believe that, you should put no more faith in that statement than if they said all Americans think alike. But that is a subject for another article.
In order to determine the interest in splitting the breed into two breeds, the ACA conducted a poll by mail in 1999. The following question was asked of all ACA members: "Should the ACA consider splitting the Akita into two breeds?" The result of this poll was 43% voted "yes" and 57% voted "no".
The ACA constitution and bylaws require that any actual proposal to split the breed be passed by a two thirds majority before it approaches AKC to split the breed. It therefore made no sense for ACA to go to the work and trouble of preparing a breed split proposal that would have an even more difficult time being passed by the ACA membership. However, the breed split issue could still be resurrected and proposed in the future.
Other AKC requirements for a new breed include: A National Breed Club for which ACA would qualify. Sufficient numbers, currently a least in the mid 100's (likely 600-700 for full status) or the breed would be placed for a period of time in the Miscellaneous Class where no championship points are awarded and they cannot compete with the other groups. There must be sufficient genetic diversity from several different lines. Also needed is sufficient distribution to demonstrate enough interest in a new breed, so there should be a reasonable geographic distribution with many different owners and breeders in different parts of the country.
An acceptable breed standard would be needed in case of a split. Part of the ACA's mission ( www.akitaclub.org ) is to protect Standard Type in the Akita breed. If the breed is split (with new standards), and named America Akita and Japanese Akita, in all likelihood the Akita Club of America, at least initially, would remain the parent club for the two breeds.
According to AKC Secretary Mr. James Crowley at the 1998 ACA National Specialty, this would entail a change in the breed standard where you would have two different standards describing two different breeds that would be "mutually exclusive". The original Parent Club would have the responsibility of preparing a standard to define precisely the true type of the purebred. Each breed should have something in its type that distinguishes it from any other breed.
The exclusivity has to be marked such as the difference between prick ears and non-prick ears in the Norwich and Norfolk Terriers, coat type as between Wire Fox and Smooth Fox Terriers, etc. Exotic looks and more or less bone isn't going work. Even if you used height or color for a division, that would not address the type issue. Mr. Crowley didn't think AKC would ever split based on phenotype because that would mess up the integrity of the stud book as one littermate could be dubbed American and another littermate be labeled Japanese, as was done in FCI countries where the breed was split mainly by physical appearance.
The American Kennel Club is not going to initiate anything unless the request actually comes from the parent club. It is up to ACA to make a formal request before AKC can even look into doing anything at all.
But the question that begs to be answered is, how can the breed be split if there is no mutually exclusive feature? The answer seems to be to split by a percentage of pedigree. Some suggestions have been any Akita pedigree over 50% of post 1992 Japanese import lines would go to the Japanese type side and those with 50% or more of American lines would go to the American type side of a split. This would indicate a breeding direction. Other suggestions have been Akitas with 60%, 5/8, 66%, 3/4, or even 100% Japanese lines as the cut off point to be placed in the Japanese side of an Akita breed split. In any case, each breed would then have a "mutually exclusive" pedigree based upon a percentage of their pedigree heritage.
At the 1998 ACA National Akita Specialty James Crowley told the membership, "The actual method of splitting would have to be something that would be worked out based upon the request from the Akita Club of America with something reasonable, some reasonable rationale on the way to split. If it was reasonable, in all likelihood our board would go with it... Now, till we actually get a formal request from the Akita Club when they come up with a rationale, it's hard to say now. What we would have to have though is something definitive, say, three-quarters would be Japanese, anything less American, whatever. You'd have to have some cut-and-dried criteria. What we would not do is just leave it up to each owner... "Oh, I want my dog to be in this type, I want my dog to be in this type"...It'd have to be some clearly definitive thing that our computer and registration people can command and actually move into the two different registries. As long as it made sense and of course..?..that it could be done, but it would have to be, of course, across-the board split down and everything that was in this category went here, everything that was in this category went there. It's not going to be a mishmash where each owner can make up their own decision." ( http://members.tripod.com/madeleinebsmith/splitreports/SlpitReports.htm )
Mr. Crowley reiterated in a November 19, 2001 email "AKC would not act unless and until the request was made by the Parent Club. Even if this did occur, and the AKC agreed to go along, all of the details would have to be worked out so that no one is unfairly penalized."
One
It doesn't make sense to insist on splitting the Akita breed in a manner that would be unreasonable and that would unfairly penalize any Akita fancier. If a person wants to see a breed split take place so they have a place to show their Akitas without prejudice, then taking a stance (such as insisting on a 100% Japanese pedigree split) that will make this goal impossible to achieve is most illogical, especially when a reasonable compromise, similar to what has already taken place in other countries, would achieve the same results.
It's certainly not "reasonable" to "unfairly penalize" or destroy whole breeding programs of AKC registered Akitas by removing all percentages of blends over the past 15 years
(as of December 2006) from the gene pool, as some fringe groups have suggested doing in order to keep the so called American Akita and the so called Japanese Akita each 100% free from each other's pedigree. Many fine Akitas and champions with top wins would no longer even be AKC registered or used for breeding. Fortunately, AKC has promised this will not happen.
It also doesn't make sense to a great many people to split the breed into two breeds by using the 100% rule, which could go both ways, either by splitting 100% American lines and all others going to the Japanese side, or by splitting at 100% Japanese lines and all others going to the American side. Though this would have been reasonable in 1992, after 15 years of interbreeding neither is acceptable in America today, anymore that it would have been in FCI countries before they split the breed.
Many Akita fanciers in America feel it is just wrong to take a fine looking Akita that is mostly Japanese lines and is Japanese type and put it into the American type side of a breed split. How would these Akitas get a fair shake in the conformation ring with mostly American type dogs if it looked like the Japanese Akita breed in another ring? What would happen to the breeders and dogs in those breeding programs? Wouldn't that be creating the same type of problem the Akita fanciers in FCI countries experienced before they split the breed? These Japanese type Akitas would never win even if they deserved it, just the reverse of the American types not being able to win in the FCI ring while being shown alongside Japanese types before the breed was split.
The JKC Honorary Chairman, Mr. Kariyabu, was the main force behind the FCI breed split, even though there was no reason to do so in Japan . Yet with all his power to do so, he didn't try to harm anyone's breeding program by proposing only 100% current import Akitas from Japan as a requirement to be recognized as a Japanese type Akita . From his comments at the 1998 ACA National Akita Specialty open meeting with the ACA members present, he understood what would be needed to successfully make a breed split a reality. He allowed some time (even an extra 5 years for some FCI countries after the breed split) to give breeders an opportunity to finish working with their current lines, judiciously crossing these with current Japanese imports. He knew it was the only way a split would be accepted by the Akita breeders. America would also need time in the event of a breed split. This is apparent by his comments at that time:
Question: about American breeders who have been using Akitas in America to change to Japanese type.
Answer: "Maybe my understanding of your question is right. You are now on the way of changing your type from American type to Japanese type since many years and you'd like to continue this procedure and if in the future ACA split, the possibility will disappear because interbreeding is forbidden. But if you choose the new breed in the United States , in this case Japanese type, you can continue, yeah, to develop or make progress of your dogs. It depends on your choice which direction do you continue to breed."
Question: about confusion, do Japanese agree with crossbreeding Japanese type and American type.
Answer: "The answer is very delicate. In European countries we have encouraged to make progress or to develop Akita in Europe . In this case we have had only one Akita in these countries. If somebody has American type Akita , we ask to make progress with the breeding, but in this case we checked. If the dam is 75% Japanese and 25% American, we persuaded to finish to breed to change [to Japanese] but now, we are now considering to split, we cannot anymore encourage the breeder in Europe to start to interbreed."
Question: about how split would be done.
Answer: "We believe most important point to split is the breeding policy of the breeder. Even if the pedigree describes only 25% blood of Japanese type or if the breeder is going to Japanese breed, maybe we can accept or can recognize the breed as Japanese breed."
Mr. Kariyabu also added these thoughts: "I agree basically with you, the American type body and the Japanese type head very nice to create if possible, we're afraid American type head and Japanese type body can also be possible. And, but my sincere answer is not joking, I'd like to say, if you want to develop or make progress American interbreed, realize your idea, you will need, if you, if you take direction the Japanese tree."
I have spoken with JKC translator Mr. Izumi Awashima on several occasions after first meeting him as an ACA Delegate at the 1996 First World Akita Congress in Japan . At the 1998 AKIHO Headquarters show we attended in Japan, he, my wife and I, and the owner/president of a small club in America that is not associated with ACA or AKC but that promotes only 100% Japanese pedigrees, were having a conversation about the breed split. Mr. Awashima tried to get her to back off the 100% Japanese requirement for her club she started and continues to rule, but she adamantly refused at this and other occasions to do so, choosing to oppose JKC in this matter.
On another occasion Mr. Awashima saw us showing our large 75% Japanese pedigreed red urajiro male Akita at the Sacramento , California show. When I asked him what side of a breed split our dog should be in, he responded by proclaiming him to be Japanese type! We asked him how he would do at a show in Japan , and he said he might win Best In Show. For the record, this AKC Champion Akita went on to win independent Specialty Winners Dog, several Award of Merits, a Best In Show Specialty, group placing, etc., all owner handled.
To remove the many high quality Japanese type Akitas with a large percentage of Japanese lines during a breed split, especially those that are bred up to 3/4, 7/8, 15/16 or more Japanese percentage, seems shortsighted at best. At worst, those who only will consider a 100% Japanese pedigree split appear to be motivated by self interest (ego, power, financial commitment, afraid of the competition, kennel blindness) rather than considering other breeders as a whole or the benefits of genetic diversity and the genetic possibilities for future generations. Its kind of a "my way or the highway" attitude, believing only they should have the authority to mastermind the direction of others' breeding decisions, even though the success most of them have had breeding AKC champions has been almost nonexistent.
Some ACA members believe that the threat of a 100% split in either direction was reason enough to vote for leaving the Akita as one breed in the United States . Though others have different philosophical reasons for not wanting to split the breed, I believe there are many who did not previously support a breed division that might vote for a split if a reasonable percentage of pedigree was assured, and a if given a reasonable amount of time to finish what they have started, perhaps three years or so to continue breeding toward the cut off percentage, before a split took place. 100% Japanese lines would then have a place to be shown, and all would work itself out in the breeding and judging down the road, just like it has in the FCI countries. But no such compromise seems to be in the works, there is little trust of honest negotiations with the vocal 100% groups, and people are just plain tired of the whole subject.
If people really want to follow the AKIHO philosophy, then they would work toward starting more AKIHO branches and would never allow their Akitas to be judged by anyone but an AKIHO judge. AKIHO does not recognize AKC and those who are AKIHO members would not show their Akitas to AKC judges even if the breed was split in the United States .
Still, the Akita breed split issue may not matter to most Akita fanciers in the world, as it doesn't really affect them personally for one reason or another. Those like myself who have not been breeding or showing for several years have nothing to gain personally no matter what the future holds in store. But that does not alleviate the keen interest held by Akita lovers of all sorts who continue to be captivated by the Akita breed split issue in America .
Recently there has been a steady influx of Akitas imported to America from Japan and other countries. These Akitas are AKC registered so they are available to the AKC gene pool. There have also been several 100% Japanese pedigreed AKC Akita litters of late as well as other high Japanese percentage pedigree litters that produce Japanese type Akitas. So many AKC Akita breeding opportunities are now available to those who choose to breed toward an oriental type.
Some American breeders are finding that Japanese type Akitas with a little American bloodlines are now being quite well received in conformation shows in other FCI countries where, in fact, one 75% Japanese pedigree Akita bred in the United States recently won a Best In Show. So importing, exporting, and showing does not seem to be much of a problem as far as pedigree percentage is concerned. For the time being, the Akita situation might be somewhat compared to the Belgium breeds that are separate breeds in AKC and one breed in other countries.
The Akita breed split issue is a complex subject in the United States and few really understand all the issues. It would require writing a long book to cover the subject in depth. Insulting others who don't hold the same views, calling them blind and ignorant will not help, nor do threats that 100% American or 100% Japanese lines will soon disappear, when the facts over the last 15 years have proven just the opposite to be true.
15 years also seems like enough time for breeders to have taken advantage of the opportunity to incorporate current Japanese lines into their breeding program if they were ever going to make the effort to do so. After this much time there should be no excuses for having failed to use Japanese lines by now, and if these folks are honest with themselves, they will realize that they won't be breeding to a Japanese pedigree in the future either.
There are pro's and con's that must be understood before contemplating a breed split. If the ACA revisits the split issue in the future, hopefully all who vote will inform themselves with accurate true information and vote with pure selfless motives.
In the meantime, the more time passes, it appears less likely an Akita breed split will occur in America .
December 22, 2006
Published in 2007 Akita Annual
Loren Egland
Why does america have to recreate it? I don't see it as recreating more so as I do as creating another breed. I have absolutely no problem with this. Man has tampered with dog genetics for thousands of years and I see no difference then as I do now. Simple as that.
http://www.nihonken.org/forum/index.php?p=/discussion/7131/ukc-recognition-of-the-japanese-akita/#Item_13
You are correct doing a pedigree split using JKC pedigrees and Akiho pedigrees is short sighted. From 1998-present the number of JA in the world has increase as such they should be included in the new breed.
BTW Would somebody start writing some new articles. This cut and paste stuff is getting really old. It's 2012
As a Japanese Akita breeder, I'm not worried; my dogs aren't AKC, the puppies aren't AKC, there's no way that my dogs can (legitimately) be bred to an American Akita. Moreover, because AKIHO doesn't import any pedigrees at all, I never have to fear that the dogs I import or admire at the shows and on peoples' Facebook pages are mixes or come from a phenotype-based split out of another country.