I would rather see more Kai kept intact and the community have an occasional oops litter, than to see the breed over-managed and ending up back in the same place the breed was before we imported all these dogs.
It's that hyper-vigilant, hyper-selective, self-important over-controlling "breed police" mentality that ruined the breed to begin with.
Yes, being a breeder is a HUGE responsibility, and something to take very seriously. As is owning a dog, intact or not, it's a big responsibility. Placing intact dogs in cooperative homes is a HUGE responsibility for the breeder AND the owner - it starts with proper selection of potential homes by the breeder tho.
I 100% support any home we place a puppy in who wants to keep their dog intact and work with the community to continue the breed. We, as breeders, shouldn't place dogs in homes where we need to worry about the owners being able to manage an intact dog. That's a very simple thing to do.
In regards to not keeping some dogs intact because their sibling is also intact and will breed, while I see that logic there, I don't think that's the way to look at it. For example, Chase (my daughter) is much different than my sister's kids. Me and my sister are twins, yet we still got very different genetic make up, and have produced very different progeny. Same applies to dogs. Keeping siblings intact helps to add type diversity to the population - and a diverse population is the number one key to a healthy breed.
Hyper-selection and over-management is what ruins dog breeds.
Ooh ouch. Yes you are completely right about the "breed police". I guess I'm starting to mentally block those days out of my mind since the politics and arguing was so ridiculous.
@brada1878@hinata23 Ok with that said, we are breeding Gordito to Mika. ha ha ha ha. JK.
Real quick have to run...all joking aside and before everyone gets on a bandwagon and yay for no spay etc etc I can not speak for the original policing but there is a happy medium and room for flexibility and selectively about this. The initial person one sells to may be fine and dandy, it's the run off after that to God knows where that is of issue. A decent contract is worth it in some respect as far as expectations with a client/buyer breeder etc etc. Not every home can manage intact dogs and frankly it is unfair to expect that they would. In some cases it best to help that along, especially if one wants to tap into the wider pet owner base.
Not every dog is going to be a good candidate for breeding and as a whole it's time to start thinking about selection and what criteria is needed and what to measure against....BEFORE we individually get jaded about the animals we have to potentially "contribute to the gene pool". If a dog fails to meet the specifics there should be some pressure to move it out of the selection pool (sp/neuter is one way to do that).. If everyone starts handing dogs and puppies around like candy, a few are going to end up in unsavory situations. It could happen anyway but reducing the probability is just makes sense as numbers grow.
Sorry, this is not to besmirch anyone, but this is my personal view after dealing with much of rescue for another breed and seeing the sickening aftermath of mill animals.
In any case, if I do choose to go a breeding route, I am looking at health for starters and if I decide to breed I will have the data to back that up for my dog(s) before any servicing is done. If the partner that I hope to pair my canine with does not then will state it right now, the pairing will be a no go!
Had to get this off my chest.... "contributing to the gene pool" is a grand idea but I hope there will be a little more structure to it than simply tapping into one or two peoples opinions on a dog or "friending" to make that happen. Right not it's not clear to me what the intentions are or the guidance to make positive things happen.
@StaticNfuzz All jokes aside, yes it's a big responsibility for an owner to keep a dog intact, especially for an owner with a female.
I'm not sure why but I can't follow everything you are saying exactly. We all have contracts with our dogs, and I can say for myself regular check ins with Brad and Jen. For me, I chose not to spay Mika early because of what happened with Koda. He blew his ACL, and the first thing the surgeon said was that ligaments are weakened with early spay and neuter. My vet felt like Mika, although large for her age, was still not ready to be spayed. He urged me to wait. The first thing I did was call Jen and discuss it with her. That coupled with Shakko still living in the wild, I think it will be good for Mika to be kept in tact to attract him from his hiding spot. She still has not yet gone into her first heat. Thought she was, she even had my dad fooled, but we are still waiting. Then she got into Koda's Rimadyl, and not she will not be cleared for anesthesia. She's fine, no signs of any ill effects. My vet just really adores her and wants to make sure everything is ok before even considering surgery.
I don't really think that we can compare these dogs to dogs in puppy mills. I am from the Kai era that knows that two breeding dogs were sold to an amish puppy mill in the late 90's. Trust me, I do not want to see that happen again. But I don't think that will ever happen again. That breeder was completely irresponsible with their dogs in the end. It was horrible. Since this breeder controlled the blood lines, she was able to get away with it. I think this is where Brad's point comes in about not having one person control the breed. It creates accountability to a community that trust me will speak up if anything unsavory happens with our dogs.
@StaticNfuzz I can see what you mean. I think the key is to not trade one ideology for another and instead focus solely on what progresses the breed. So, at any given time both methods are appropriate, not just one or the other. IMO too much structure makes a system (or breed in this case) stagnant. I think there is also the issue of trust that needs to be considered. If we assume that people are naturally ill willed, then the rational solution would be to attempt to control their meddling in the breed. I don't think this is generally the case, nor is it necessarily best for a small breed population as one selection mistake carries a disproportionately large risk. further restricting access to who can and can't breed only heightens the severity of mistakes should they be made (I don't think you mentioned that at all, but i thought it was worth adding). I think that there are tools that enable us to "let go" and trust each other and those interested in the breed- namely this community. It practically creates its own guidelines without a police force, and if it constitutes a large portion of the US and abroad Kai owners, then that speaks about the level of responsibility overall.
Thanks Yanharr, I do understand there has to be an element of trust etc etc. but there is a fine line with that once you step outside of the immediate circle. Restriction does not have to be all or nothing but there does need to be some grounding.
What is frustrating there is a lot of banter about "contributing to the gene pool" and very little info what we are contributing exactly. Where is guideline/objective and or actual info on where things might be headed. Where are these supposed breeders and what are the objectives for the breed overall. If there is a network of people, who and where are they and why is that not clear, at least to me. Maybe I missed it but if the intent is non exclusivity then why is there not more input on elements surrounding the breed. Right now it appears that many are interested in breeding dogs for dogs sake and not for any other valid criteria that is concrete. Heck I can find only four dogs listed on in OFA , yet there are obvious adults producing puppies, so from an outside view the effort appears scattered.
In my region there are four Kai that have shown up at one training center in the last several months. Kind of odd coincidence. They have to be coming from somewhere.
Again I am by no means suggesting that anyone intends ill will or poor program just that this flag waving of "contributing to the gene pool" is rather vague at best at the moment.
Tara: I am not comparing these dogs to puppy mill dogs at this point just voicing my concern that a lot of dogs are being placed and it can't possibly be that everyone of them need be a "contributor". Keeping an iron fist is not helpful but churning creates some fall out and often not to the best of hands when the market floods be it dogs or other things.
@ Brad. ....Appreciate the list and a lot of this true to a degree.... points from that I do think should be something to ponder. For example:
"*Require that every pet be sold on limited registration. Or better yet, be sterilized"
This is what I was referring to as far as flexibility! Again, it should not be all or nothing but certainly limited in a selection process.
*"Withhold papers unless the buyer belongs to the breed club, shows his dogs, does health testing, and otherwise demonstrates proper ethics."
It does not exactly have to be like this either, but there should be a standard to measure....how else are we going to know what education and effort towards quality is being attempted. No we do not have to be elitists but certainly you would hope there was some education going on. I like Dlroberts points as well.
I know what I wrote could probably be considered taboo, but I meant it. I know it goes against what breeders and rescuers believe is "correct"... But look around at all the dog clubs and the rescues, and ask yourself...
Does it all really work?
If you answer "yes" to that question then, I'm afraid, you are not seeing the whole picture.
With all these restrictions in place, the rescue system is still flooded with more than they can handle, and dog breeds are still being ruined and inbred until they are broken representations of what they once were.
Take a look at Japan. As far as I know, there are no Kai Ken flooding the rescue systems there, and yet I'm not sure pups are sold with contracts and desex clauses.
I see collaboration in the KKA, and I think it shows in the relative diversity of the very small Kai Ken population over there. If they had a more strict system, whether in the form of selection, or in the form of restrictive contracts, do you think the KKA Kai Ken would be what it is now? Nope. It'd probably be more like NIPPO's Shikoku Ken - a rapidly shrinking population due to hyper-selection and an outmoded system.
I just can't support these archaic rules and ideas. These systems have ruined so many dog breeds I love. My goal and focus is that of preservation for the Kai Ken, and to continue on a path that's ruined so many other breeds in the US seems very counter-productive to our goal.
If it means I get besmirched for pointing out the taboo and calling it as I see it, so be it. I'd rather my dogs and the Kai Ken breed not end up like all the other than to have everyone love me.
Also, no one's forcing owners to keep dogs intact. That's just a silly implication. Our pup owners have the option, and their contract is based on what they decide with a clear "out" clause for later.
Brad we cross posted earlier.. see post above yours.
I am not sure that either way will work fully. But time will tell in regard to attempting a more egalitarian type system with such an open method.
I don't believe I actually implied that anyone was forcing buyers to keep dogs intact.
As far as restrictions....I'd say it probably would be worse for specific breed rescues if a lot more dogs remained intact....It's just a matter of opinion though.....I don't have any closed system analysis or numbers to back that up.
As far as the Japanese rescue system, it's difficult to compare to the U.S. My understanding there is not a lot of them in JP. The culture on purchase, and disposal are somewhat different as well. I don't know the record keeping on shelter dogs and or disposal would be the same either to determine breed propensity disposal.
@StaticNfuzz I am curious what you mean by "the culture on purchase and disposal are somewhat different as well" -- do you think dogs are seen as more or less 'disposable' in Japan than in the US? I ask because one of the people I met with in Japan was sadly telling us how in Tokyo, everyone has a different toy breed every year to match that season's fashion. He didn't know or wouldn't tell us where the dogs all went the next year when that breed was no longer in vogue.
I think what we are talking about here are puppies that just haven't been spayed or neutered yet.
@Staticnfuzz do you think that there should be a set age like 5 months or 6 that breeders should mandate that puppies should be neutered by? Or that owners should be able to wait until their dogs mature fully before they are neutered?
I felt the pressure with Koda to get him neutered young. I'm really sorry I did. I may have caused him injury by doing so and a very painful and invasive surgery because of it.
For Mika I just want to be more cautious and wait until she has matured and I'm thankful that Brad and Jen trust me enough to let me make the best decision for her.
@StaticNfuzz I've been trying to sit this one out ever since Brad joined the discussion and things turned into an ideological debate about the role of the breeder, etc., but it irks me a little bit that you keep quoting/paraphrasing me--in fact, you've used the term "contribute to the gene pool," at this point, more than I have in this entire thread, while no one else has really used it at all--while repeatedly saying things like, "I'm not trying to besmirch anyone"...and then you proceed to launch into a criticism of the whole idea of non-breeders keeping their dogs intact. Am I really supposed to not see this as aimed, at least to a certain extent, at me?
I think we all appreciate your concern for the breed, not to mention all the dogs in shelters.
But when you say things like, "This flag waving of 'contributing to the gene pool' is rather vague at best at the moment," or, "What is frustrating there is a lot of banter about 'contributing to the gene pool' and very little info what we are contributing exactly," I wish you would keep in mind some of the things that I've already said so many times in my earlier posts.
Yes, the plan to breed Goro in order to help out the breed is extremely vague at the moment. In fact, it's not a plan at all. It's not even necessarily a goal. It's a "vague possibility for some point down the road"--that's how I phrased it. Certainly, if things turned out in such a way that we were to move towards that as an option, we would hammer out more of the details, including making sure we get all the necessary medical info so we're not passing on undesirable physical issues (I already said that, too). We're not pretending to be breeders, but we're fully aware that you can't just start crapping out puppies.
We take owning a dog very seriously. I've mentioned this elsewhere on this forum, but we waited 3+ years before getting our dogs in order to make sure, first of all, that we would be in a position to provide a good life for them, and also to make sure that we were getting the right breed(s) for us. And the fact that the NK are rare breeds makes us all the more aware of the responsibility we have to do our best with them.
You're free to have your own opinions about this. For my part, I feel like Brad is on the right track, and I'm completely behind his preservation efforts. That includes making my pup available for breeding if he ever needs/wants him in his program (until we decide to have Goro neutered after he's fully mature). So far, Brad has done an exceptional job of selecting the dogs to use in his program, and we would ONLY consider moving forward with Goro with Brad's OK.
But for crying out loud, Goro is a puppy right now, and it's not like we're going to start shopping him around as a stud to anyone with a female Kai or, as you say, start "handing out dogs like candy."
So please, if this really is meant as a general response to people keeping their dogs intact, just lay off with the implicit criticism of me for using the phrase "contributing to the gene pool." I was very earnest when I said it, and I'm getting tired of the caricatures of me and my viewpoint, especially since you don't really seem to pay much attention when I've responded to concerns you've voiced during this thread.
I know this forum is a place where people discuss things, but there's no need to exaggerate and try to make anyone look like an idiot even when it's a topic you care about deeply.
Sorry everyone, I've felt really privileged to be a part of this forum and to be able to share experiences and advice with other NK enthusiasts, but this discussion has kind of left a bad taste in my mouth. I apologize for starting such an unintentionally divisive topic....
@StaticNFuzz I think you took @Hinata23 and @tjbart17's light hearted banter as being serious. Speaking for myself, I have decided to keep Ren intact "to contribute to the gene pool" if Stacey and/or Brad are interested in using her in their program. I don't intend on independently finding a male to mate her with purely for the sake of "Ooo lets have puppies". One main thing mentioned was that there seem to be enough now to be able to pick out "traits" that are wanted in the breed. The only way to find those traits out are to let them mature and then pick amongst them.
Just the fact that the people who are discussing keeping their Kai intact are in fact members of the forum, that alone is already far ahead of the average person who has litters because they feel like it. Stacey and Brad both select owners personally and from everything I've seen they do it quite responsibly. The discussion of keeping a pet intact is a significant decision, one which everyone here has discussed with their own breeder and done their own research. As a default I would think all of the forum Kai owners would defer to their breeder's opinion/advice when their pets mature, as well as their breeder being the first person they go to when considering a pairing.
The argument of everything being vague at best is not applicable to the people you're discussing. The examples you pointed out (the Kais showing up at the places you mentioned and irresponsible breedings) don't pertain to anyone here afaik. So your arguments and examples are out of place for being critical of these particular dogs and owners.
Why would it not be a benefit to keep as many responsibly owned Kai intact, to and shortly past maturity, if the intentions are to coordinate with the breeders to select traits?
Hinata it was not my intent to anger anyone. I apologize for offending.
This comment "contributing to the gene pool" is not directed at one individual. It is a phrase that has been used often over a period of time by more than one person and after some point I really felt it should be broken down as to what that really meant and how it should be directed in terms of the breed.
Since this went of topic I will leave it at that even if the questions presented were not answer.
Perhaps a "State of the Breed" summary could be provided in a different thread?
Honestly, I thought Hinata was lined up with Brad and so when she mentioned that there were a lot of grandkids, it signaled a shift in his thought and that now that the new imported blood are in a comfortable place and priorities/selection could be started. I offered up a suggestion for one trait that I thought very important as it could limit available dogs if it were to grow into a bigger problem. But later down the thread, I realized that the imported blood is not so safe yet in Brad's opinion and so selection is not wise. That's fine.
But what I'm confused about is the concern for genetic diversity but the lack of use of two outcrosses, Hana & Kibou. I know there are difficulties working with Kibou's owner's schedule, but I simply don't get Hana being placed where she can't contribute.
Also, what venue are the KKA and KKA-UKC dogs being shown? I thought the UKC standard is inappropriate for KKA Kai, the ARBA/JKC/FCI standard deviates from KKA Kai, and the NIPPO Classic standard is also not appropriate. Are people really showing dogs to determine how well they stack conformationally (which is iffy IMO), or is it to expose more and more dog people to the breed? What is the purpose?
@ayk - Hana is being kept intact with her new owners. At some point as she matures we will decide on if she should be bred and to whom.
As for UKC, I see no point in showing my Kai in the UKC, and so I don't. Due to the bizarre exaggerated UKC standard, I hold no value in the UKC for the Kai Ken breed. When the Kai Ken goes full AKC, assuming they choose the (NIPPO-based) FCI standard, then I will be consider showing Kai in that venue, even tho the FCI/NIPPO standard deviates from the KKA standard. Eventually I would like to have a KKA-sanctioned bi-yearly venue where KKA Kai Ken can be shown in front of a KKA judge in the USA. I'm working on that, it takes time.
----
And on that note, here is a bit more thoughts on keeping Kai intact in cooperative homes...
With the size differences between the standards, and so many breeders wanting to show in the UKC where the standard allows for HUGE Kai Ken, and the KKA standard being smaller, dogs like Goro ( @Hinata23 ) are important. He's large, so he will hopefully contribute new blood to the US population while not taking away from their size (which is needed in the UKC, NIPPO, and FCI venues). That is why we, Yamabushi Kennel, asked Cecilia to keep him intact. We mentioned to from day one that Goro was an exceptionally nice Kai and we would love him to keep his testicles if they are ok doing that - just as we did with Leo ( @shibamistress ), Bentoue and Sachi - we even discussed it with Tara ( @tjbart17 ) for Mika, but she expressed that she didn't want to breed - and so we respected that - Sahkko too was meant to be kept intact for other breeders to use him and for Julie to build her breeding program.
Also there is the issue of geography, we are not close to any of the Kai breeders. So, the more Kai we can have on the east coast who are kept intact, especially males, for the other breeders to use, the better. That's a key aspect of the preservation effort: accessibility.
Having written that, as of now, Stacey ( @sjp051993 ) has been the only one who has used our imports outside of our program. I have had interest expressed to me by other breeders, but when the time comes to use our males there is no follow-through, and they choose to continue and inbreed on the UKC dogs.
Unfortunately we can't force people to use our imports...
So perhaps that is why it seems confusing that we place Hana ( @ayk ), an out-cross, or choose to give up on Kibou. It's due to the fact that we (Yamabushi Kennel) are a small kennel and just do not need the outcrosses as much as the breed as a whole needs them. Every dog we keep her costs us money, and we have to make decisions on who to keep and who not to keep. The breed in the US needs a more diverse population, but if breeders do not choose to use the imports, then that will never be fixed and our breeding effort by itself was never meant to fix the breed.
Comments
It's that hyper-vigilant, hyper-selective, self-important over-controlling "breed police" mentality that ruined the breed to begin with.
Yes, being a breeder is a HUGE responsibility, and something to take very seriously. As is owning a dog, intact or not, it's a big responsibility. Placing intact dogs in cooperative homes is a HUGE responsibility for the breeder AND the owner - it starts with proper selection of potential homes by the breeder tho.
I 100% support any home we place a puppy in who wants to keep their dog intact and work with the community to continue the breed. We, as breeders, shouldn't place dogs in homes where we need to worry about the owners being able to manage an intact dog. That's a very simple thing to do.
In regards to not keeping some dogs intact because their sibling is also intact and will breed, while I see that logic there, I don't think that's the way to look at it. For example, Chase (my daughter) is much different than my sister's kids. Me and my sister are twins, yet we still got very different genetic make up, and have produced very different progeny. Same applies to dogs. Keeping siblings intact helps to add type diversity to the population - and a diverse population is the number one key to a healthy breed.
Hyper-selection and over-management is what ruins dog breeds.
----
@brada1878 @hinata23 Ok with that said, we are breeding Gordito to Mika. ha ha ha ha. JK.
Real quick have to run...all joking aside and before everyone gets on a bandwagon and yay for no spay etc etc
I can not speak for the original policing but there is a happy medium and room for flexibility and selectively about this. The initial person one sells to may be fine and dandy, it's the run off after that to God knows where that is of issue. A decent contract is worth it in some respect as far as expectations with a client/buyer breeder etc etc. Not every home can manage intact dogs and frankly it is unfair to expect that they would. In some cases it best to help that along, especially if one wants to tap into the wider pet owner base.
Not every dog is going to be a good candidate for breeding and as a whole it's time to start thinking about selection and what criteria is needed and what to measure against....BEFORE we individually get jaded about the animals we have to potentially "contribute to the gene pool". If a dog fails to meet the specifics there should be some pressure to move it out of the selection pool (sp/neuter is one way to do that).. If everyone starts handing dogs and puppies around like candy, a few are going to end up in unsavory situations. It could happen anyway but reducing the probability is just makes sense as numbers grow.
Sorry, this is not to besmirch anyone, but this is my personal view after dealing with much of rescue for another breed and seeing the sickening aftermath of mill animals.
In any case, if I do choose to go a breeding route, I am looking at health for starters and if I decide to breed I will have the data to back that up for my dog(s) before any servicing is done. If the partner that I hope to pair my canine with does not then will state it right now, the pairing will be a no go!
Had to get this off my chest.... "contributing to the gene pool" is a grand idea but I hope there will be a little more structure to it than simply tapping into one or two peoples opinions on a dog or "friending" to make that happen. Right not it's not clear to me what the intentions are or the guidance to make positive things happen.
Snf
I'm not sure why but I can't follow everything you are saying exactly. We all have contracts with our dogs, and I can say for myself regular check ins with Brad and Jen. For me, I chose not to spay Mika early because of what happened with Koda. He blew his ACL, and the first thing the surgeon said was that ligaments are weakened with early spay and neuter. My vet felt like Mika, although large for her age, was still not ready to be spayed. He urged me to wait. The first thing I did was call Jen and discuss it with her. That coupled with Shakko still living in the wild, I think it will be good for Mika to be kept in tact to attract him from his hiding spot. She still has not yet gone into her first heat. Thought she was, she even had my dad fooled, but we are still waiting. Then she got into Koda's Rimadyl, and not she will not be cleared for anesthesia. She's fine, no signs of any ill effects. My vet just really adores her and wants to make sure everything is ok before even considering surgery.
I don't really think that we can compare these dogs to dogs in puppy mills. I am from the Kai era that knows that two breeding dogs were sold to an amish puppy mill in the late 90's. Trust me, I do not want to see that happen again. But I don't think that will ever happen again. That breeder was completely irresponsible with their dogs in the end. It was horrible. Since this breeder controlled the blood lines, she was able to get away with it. I think this is where Brad's point comes in about not having one person control the breed. It creates accountability to a community that trust me will speak up if anything unsavory happens with our dogs.
http://www.nihonken.org/forum/index.php?p=/discussion/5115/how-to-ruin-a-breed-a-primer/p1
----
What is frustrating there is a lot of banter about "contributing to the gene pool" and very little info what we are contributing exactly. Where is guideline/objective and or actual info on where things might be headed. Where are these supposed breeders and what are the objectives for the breed overall. If there is a network of people, who and where are they and why is that not clear, at least to me. Maybe I missed it but if the intent is non exclusivity then why is there not more input on elements surrounding the breed. Right now it appears that many are interested in breeding dogs for dogs sake and not for any other valid criteria that is concrete. Heck I can find only four dogs listed on in OFA , yet there are obvious adults producing puppies, so from an outside view the effort appears scattered.
In my region there are four Kai that have shown up at one training center in the last several months. Kind of odd coincidence. They have to be coming from somewhere.
Again I am by no means suggesting that anyone intends ill will or poor program just that this flag waving of "contributing to the gene pool" is rather vague at best at the moment.
Tara: I am not comparing these dogs to puppy mill dogs at this point just voicing my concern that a lot of dogs are being placed and it can't possibly be that everyone of them need be a "contributor". Keeping an iron fist is not helpful but churning creates some fall out and often not to the best of hands when the market floods be it dogs or other things.
@ Brad. ....Appreciate the list and a lot of this true to a degree.... points from that I do think should be something to ponder. For example:
"*Require that every pet be sold on limited registration. Or better yet, be sterilized"
This is what I was referring to as far as flexibility! Again, it should not be all or nothing but certainly limited in a selection process.
*"Withhold papers unless the buyer belongs to the breed club, shows his dogs, does health testing, and otherwise demonstrates proper ethics."
It does not exactly have to be like this either, but there should be a standard to measure....how else are we going to know what education and effort towards quality is being attempted. No we do not have to be elitists but certainly you would hope there was some education going on. I like Dlroberts points as well.
Snf
Does it all really work?
If you answer "yes" to that question then, I'm afraid, you are not seeing the whole picture.
With all these restrictions in place, the rescue system is still flooded with more than they can handle, and dog breeds are still being ruined and inbred until they are broken representations of what they once were.
Take a look at Japan. As far as I know, there are no Kai Ken flooding the rescue systems there, and yet I'm not sure pups are sold with contracts and desex clauses.
I see collaboration in the KKA, and I think it shows in the relative diversity of the very small Kai Ken population over there. If they had a more strict system, whether in the form of selection, or in the form of restrictive contracts, do you think the KKA Kai Ken would be what it is now? Nope. It'd probably be more like NIPPO's Shikoku Ken - a rapidly shrinking population due to hyper-selection and an outmoded system.
I just can't support these archaic rules and ideas. These systems have ruined so many dog breeds I love. My goal and focus is that of preservation for the Kai Ken, and to continue on a path that's ruined so many other breeds in the US seems very counter-productive to our goal.
If it means I get besmirched for pointing out the taboo and calling it as I see it, so be it. I'd rather my dogs and the Kai Ken breed not end up like all the other than to have everyone love me.
Also, no one's forcing owners to keep dogs intact. That's just a silly implication. Our pup owners have the option, and their contract is based on what they decide with a clear "out" clause for later.
----
I am not sure that either way will work fully. But time will tell in regard to attempting a more egalitarian type system with such an open method.
I don't believe I actually implied that anyone was forcing buyers to keep dogs intact.
As far as restrictions....I'd say it probably would be worse for specific breed rescues if a lot more dogs remained intact....It's just a matter of opinion though.....I don't have any closed system analysis or numbers to back that up.
As far as the Japanese rescue system, it's difficult to compare to the U.S. My understanding there is not a lot of them in JP. The culture on purchase, and disposal are somewhat different as well. I don't know the record keeping on shelter dogs and or disposal would be the same either to determine breed propensity disposal.
Snf
@Staticnfuzz do you think that there should be a set age like 5 months or 6 that breeders should mandate that puppies should be neutered by? Or that owners should be able to wait until their dogs mature fully before they are neutered?
I felt the pressure with Koda to get him neutered young. I'm really sorry I did. I may have caused him injury by doing so and a very painful and invasive surgery because of it.
For Mika I just want to be more cautious and wait until she has matured and I'm thankful that Brad and Jen trust me enough to let me make the best decision for her.
I think we all appreciate your concern for the breed, not to mention all the dogs in shelters.
But when you say things like, "This flag waving of 'contributing to the gene pool' is rather vague at best at the moment," or, "What is frustrating there is a lot of banter about 'contributing to the gene pool' and very little info what we are contributing exactly," I wish you would keep in mind some of the things that I've already said so many times in my earlier posts.
Yes, the plan to breed Goro in order to help out the breed is extremely vague at the moment. In fact, it's not a plan at all. It's not even necessarily a goal. It's a "vague possibility for some point down the road"--that's how I phrased it. Certainly, if things turned out in such a way that we were to move towards that as an option, we would hammer out more of the details, including making sure we get all the necessary medical info so we're not passing on undesirable physical issues (I already said that, too). We're not pretending to be breeders, but we're fully aware that you can't just start crapping out puppies.
We take owning a dog very seriously. I've mentioned this elsewhere on this forum, but we waited 3+ years before getting our dogs in order to make sure, first of all, that we would be in a position to provide a good life for them, and also to make sure that we were getting the right breed(s) for us. And the fact that the NK are rare breeds makes us all the more aware of the responsibility we have to do our best with them.
You're free to have your own opinions about this. For my part, I feel like Brad is on the right track, and I'm completely behind his preservation efforts. That includes making my pup available for breeding if he ever needs/wants him in his program (until we decide to have Goro neutered after he's fully mature). So far, Brad has done an exceptional job of selecting the dogs to use in his program, and we would ONLY consider moving forward with Goro with Brad's OK.
But for crying out loud, Goro is a puppy right now, and it's not like we're going to start shopping him around as a stud to anyone with a female Kai or, as you say, start "handing out dogs like candy."
So please, if this really is meant as a general response to people keeping their dogs intact, just lay off with the implicit criticism of me for using the phrase "contributing to the gene pool." I was very earnest when I said it, and I'm getting tired of the caricatures of me and my viewpoint, especially since you don't really seem to pay much attention when I've responded to concerns you've voiced during this thread.
I know this forum is a place where people discuss things, but there's no need to exaggerate and try to make anyone look like an idiot even when it's a topic you care about deeply.
Thanks.
Just the fact that the people who are discussing keeping their Kai intact are in fact members of the forum, that alone is already far ahead of the average person who has litters because they feel like it. Stacey and Brad both select owners personally and from everything I've seen they do it quite responsibly. The discussion of keeping a pet intact is a significant decision, one which everyone here has discussed with their own breeder and done their own research. As a default I would think all of the forum Kai owners would defer to their breeder's opinion/advice when their pets mature, as well as their breeder being the first person they go to when considering a pairing.
The argument of everything being vague at best is not applicable to the people you're discussing. The examples you pointed out (the Kais showing up at the places you mentioned and irresponsible breedings) don't pertain to anyone here afaik. So your arguments and examples are out of place for being critical of these particular dogs and owners.
Why would it not be a benefit to keep as many responsibly owned Kai intact, to and shortly past maturity, if the intentions are to coordinate with the breeders to select traits?
This comment "contributing to the gene pool" is not directed at one individual. It is a phrase that has been used often over a period of time by more than one person and after some point I really felt it should be broken down as to what that really meant and how it should be directed in terms of the breed.
Since this went of topic I will leave it at that even if the questions presented were not answer.
Snf
Honestly, I thought Hinata was lined up with Brad and so when she mentioned that there were a lot of grandkids, it signaled a shift in his thought and that now that the new imported blood are in a comfortable place and priorities/selection could be started. I offered up a suggestion for one trait that I thought very important as it could limit available dogs if it were to grow into a bigger problem. But later down the thread, I realized that the imported blood is not so safe yet in Brad's opinion and so selection is not wise. That's fine.
But what I'm confused about is the concern for genetic diversity but the lack of use of two outcrosses, Hana & Kibou. I know there are difficulties working with Kibou's owner's schedule, but I simply don't get Hana being placed where she can't contribute.
Also, what venue are the KKA and KKA-UKC dogs being shown? I thought the UKC standard is inappropriate for KKA Kai, the ARBA/JKC/FCI standard deviates from KKA Kai, and the NIPPO Classic standard is also not appropriate. Are people really showing dogs to determine how well they stack conformationally (which is iffy IMO), or is it to expose more and more dog people to the breed? What is the purpose?
As for UKC, I see no point in showing my Kai in the UKC, and so I don't. Due to the bizarre exaggerated UKC standard, I hold no value in the UKC for the Kai Ken breed. When the Kai Ken goes full AKC, assuming they choose the (NIPPO-based) FCI standard, then I will be consider showing Kai in that venue, even tho the FCI/NIPPO standard deviates from the KKA standard. Eventually I would like to have a KKA-sanctioned bi-yearly venue where KKA Kai Ken can be shown in front of a KKA judge in the USA. I'm working on that, it takes time.
----
And on that note, here is a bit more thoughts on keeping Kai intact in cooperative homes...
With the size differences between the standards, and so many breeders wanting to show in the UKC where the standard allows for HUGE Kai Ken, and the KKA standard being smaller, dogs like Goro ( @Hinata23 ) are important. He's large, so he will hopefully contribute new blood to the US population while not taking away from their size (which is needed in the UKC, NIPPO, and FCI venues). That is why we, Yamabushi Kennel, asked Cecilia to keep him intact. We mentioned to from day one that Goro was an exceptionally nice Kai and we would love him to keep his testicles if they are ok doing that - just as we did with Leo ( @shibamistress ), Bentoue and Sachi - we even discussed it with Tara ( @tjbart17 ) for Mika, but she expressed that she didn't want to breed - and so we respected that - Sahkko too was meant to be kept intact for other breeders to use him and for Julie to build her breeding program.
Also there is the issue of geography, we are not close to any of the Kai breeders. So, the more Kai we can have on the east coast who are kept intact, especially males, for the other breeders to use, the better. That's a key aspect of the preservation effort: accessibility.
Having written that, as of now, Stacey ( @sjp051993 ) has been the only one who has used our imports outside of our program. I have had interest expressed to me by other breeders, but when the time comes to use our males there is no follow-through, and they choose to continue and inbreed on the UKC dogs.
Unfortunately we can't force people to use our imports...
So perhaps that is why it seems confusing that we place Hana ( @ayk ), an out-cross, or choose to give up on Kibou. It's due to the fact that we (Yamabushi Kennel) are a small kennel and just do not need the outcrosses as much as the breed as a whole needs them. Every dog we keep her costs us money, and we have to make decisions on who to keep and who not to keep. The breed in the US needs a more diverse population, but if breeders do not choose to use the imports, then that will never be fixed and our breeding effort by itself was never meant to fix the breed.
----