Pocket Kai Ken

Crispy

Imagine if they started making a "mini me" like they did with Alaskan Huskies? How awful would that be?

You're welcome for nightmares.

BradA1878

Crispy

No sad-face emoticon has ever been as sad to me as that one. It pulled a heartstring and made me feel like an awful person.



The apocalypse hasn't happened yet. This little guy is apparently a Jack Chi.

Losech

He's cute, but no Mame Kai please...
There's enough problems with intentionally bred little(er) Shibas as is.

WrylyBrindle

dont scare me like that...I think everyone is nuts about creatively clipped pomeranians right now, if fb is any indication...

cdenney

@wrylybrindle wha??

NotoriousScrat

He has that weird small dog head/eye thing going on. It kind of creeps me out.

WrylyBrindle

@cdenney have you not seen Boo, "the cutest dog in the world" :P

shibamistress

That scared me.

Zinja

Looks more like a chihuahua... Sort of like the Klee Kai.

tarokun

yah, no. no more minis. we have mini gsd, mini huskies, mini collie, mini doberman, mini beagles, mini dachs, mini aussie shepherds, mini fox terriers, mini greyhound, mini MINI MINI Eskimo dogs,mini poodles, mini spaniels, mini manchesters, mini schnauzers, mini bulldogs, mini elkhounds, mini tibetan masstifs, mini goldendoodles, damn mini chow chows and mini friggin bull terriers, AND MINI F*CKIN' DOGS THAT LOOK LIKE EFFIN" ALBERT EINSTEIN no more.

Trzcina

yah, no. no more minis. we have mini gsd, mini huskies, mini collie, mini doberman, mini beagles, mini dachs, mini aussie shepherds, mini fox terriers, mini greyhound, mini MINI MINI Eskimo dogs,mini poodles, mini spaniels, mini manchesters, mini schnauzers, mini bulldogs, mini elkhounds, mini tibetan masstifs, mini goldendoodles, damn mini chow chows and mini friggin bull terriers, AND MINI F*CKIN' DOGS THAT LOOK LIKE EFFIN" ALBERT EINSTEIN no more.

That's a Dandie Dinmont Terrier, not a miniature of... anything, really. Most of the "mini" breeds you list are established breeds at this point--and if you mean Shelties when you say "mini Collies," they're... quite different from one another. Same between a Miniature Pinscher (what you probably mean by "mini Doberman") and a Doberman (and if you mean a German Pinscher, they predate Dobes significantly). Some of what you list are "designer dog" types, but most of them are breeds that have existed for quite a long time and are generally recognized as breeds. Whether they're healthy or not is its own issue and depends a lot on which breed we're discussing, but a Miniature Schnauzer or even a Toy American Eskimo Dog (effectively a white, American-bred Kleinspitz, iirc) are quite a different issue than a "mini GSD" (or whatever).

Just because a breed is small doesn't mean it's pointless (in its original form) or even that it's necessarily a bred-down version of something else. If looking a little bit like a bigger breed was all that was necessary to be considered a "mini," then you'd have to characterize Shibas as "mini Akitas" as well--and we all know that isn't the case.

Araks

@tarokun There are no such thing as a mini doberman, unless there's some sick person out there taking doberman runts and breeding them together. What you're thinking of is the miniature pinscher, which originated from the German pinscher and largely predates the Doberman(and they make very nice family pets). I'm going to have to agree with Trzcina here. A lot of the breeds you have listed are established breeds with quite a bit of history behind them.

NavyDog

I think you may have also mistaken Klee Kai as a mini husky. They are a established breed. Theyre actually becoming quite popular in the states because they look like mini huskies but they are not

cdenney

By the m8ni greyhound do you mean the the whippet or Italian greyhound? Those are also both long established breeds too.

shibamistress

Yes, most of those breeds are established breeds, and have been around for a long time.

I think you may have also mistaken Klee Kai as a mini husky. They are a established breed. Theyre actually becoming quite popular in the states because they look like mini huskies but they are not

I disagree about this one though. I personally, do not consider them an established breed, and they WERE bred to look like mini huskies...that was the whole purpose. so this one, I think, does fall into the "mini" craze. I think the Klee Kai is one of these designer breeds. I understand, though, that this could be said of any new breed, but I just have a issue with this one, and the reasons it was developed and there is a lot of bs about the name and everything (claiming it is "Indian" when it's a bastardization of several Athabascan words etc). Sorry, if you can't tell, the whole development of the Klee Kai just annoys the hell out of me.

tarokun

I think you may have also mistaken Klee Kai as a mini husky. They are a established breed. Theyre actually becoming quite popular in the states because they look like mini huskies but they are not

No I've seen actual mini husky pics also it was a joke, don't take it seriously.

PoetikDragon

I think you may have also mistaken Klee Kai as a mini husky. They are a established breed. Theyre actually becoming quite popular in the states because they look like mini huskies but they are not

They are an established breed. Its also fact that they are miniature huskies, created by a lady in the 1980's.

Crispy

Haha, I specifically mentioned the Klee Kai in my OP.
It was a breeding program established to create a miniature Alaskan Husky. I believe they crossed Schipp and Eskie in there to get the size.

Calia

The Klee Kai is a mix of several breeds to create a small dog that looks similar to a husky. That aside, there is also a breeder or two who are purposely breeding mini huskies by breeding smaller purebred huskies without mixing in other breeds.

NavyDog

from what ive heard from years at working at a husky rescue, the breed was made originally to resemble huskies yes but no different from how chow chows and shar pei were bred to look like fu dogs but they are still their own seperate breed. They were created in Alaska, where huskies and other spitz breeds are very prodominant, for people who wanted a husky but lived in an apartment or couldnt keep up with the physical demand of a sled dog. They were not a spur of the moment "we should have pocket huskies", but actually bred for a specific reason. Does this make them a designer dog? depends on how you feel about that term. People interbreed with poodles to make hypoallergenic puppies. Those puppies are designed to meet demand from people allergic to dogs. No different then dogs being crossbred a long time ago. Technically all dogs are designer dogs. Dont get me wrong, im not a fan of people crossing breeds just for the hell of it (pocket beagles, teacup yorkies, ect) but the klee kai wasnt developed by a puppy mill trying to make profit off of "Mini" huskys. A woman in Alaska ended up with a very small husky. Huskies being very popular in Alaska, she met many people who wanted a husky but didnt have the space for one. She saw the demand and created a breed to meet that demand. Way back when Americans learned about Akita, there was an initial demand but with a different kind of look. BAM. American Akita. Bred to look different just for the sake of looking different. Does that make AA's designer dogs? And demand based on looks alone isnt only for shallow minds either. Any one who's ever showed dogs is guilty. All breeds have standards for looks because someone a long time ago decided they look better a certain way. Some things did serve a purpose such as white on many hunting dogs' tails were for the hunter to spot them better, but about 90% of the time it was because "this color doesnt look flashy" "socks that go too high hids the muscles in the legs" "a white spot on the back makes the back look bowed". Im not trying to argue, this is just my thoughts on the subject. The Klee kai is established and registerable with the UKC and probably soon with AKC as well

shibamistress

Well, I disagree about the Klee Kai, but it's probably because I grew up in Alaska and the whole thing just rubs me the wrong way. I do find them a "designer" dog regardless of their UKC registration, and I find the whole creation of the breed and the name in particular, dubious at best. I hate people ripping off Native culture/language for their own reasons, and naming the dog after a supposedly "eskimo" word is bs. (If anything, it is closer to Athabascan Indian). And I don't like the look of the dog either. If people want a husky get husky. There are plenty of not so big ones (in Alaska at least where husky is a generic term and not a particular breed) and a lot cheaper than a Klee Kai, which, thankfully, were not in fact at all popular in Alaska, at least not when I was growing up there.

And I'm not particularly down with the golden doodles and all that either, esp. since there is not truly "hypoallergenic dog."

And that version of Akita history is not particularly accurate.

NavyDog

Im not a fan either and im not saying i know everything. Im not a history book. I think there has been enough people stating "facts" that arent really true on this thread and I dont want a breed that is established to be tossed out because its new and must be a fad, or because they dont like it. I got enough of that drama when I was showing my dogs and thats why I got out of it. American versions of dogs like Akita, Labs, various hounds and herding dogs look different from their country of orgin. Partially do to the bloodlines imported and partially to difference in geographics but most of the differences are because Americans have a different veiw on how dogs "should" look. Our retrievers are thinner, Akitas bigger/blockier, ect. It isnt a bad thing. Personally I love AA's & ive shown them with AKC for years. My family breeds American Staffordshire Terriers and they look way different from their English counterpart. I dont think theres anything wrong with it as long as they are bred responsibly and with good intensions

PoetikDragon

Again, that version of Akita history is not particularly accurate. Americans did NOT chang the Akita. They bred and preserved what was brought over here, and if you look at the pictures of dogs from the late 1800s to mid 1900s they look like (unrefined and rough) American Akitas. The only changes Americans made was a greater consistency with less variability in type.

The Japanese decided to change the Akita after the AKC closed the stud book. They're the ones who changed their breed, not the other way around. For what its worth, the ACA saw the changes being done in Japan and acted intelligently to protect their own breed; to make sure that the Akita they'd been working on for decades wouldn't go through those same changes and become something else entirely. Its a shame that decision was overturned.

NavyDog

Im talking about the size. The Akita back then were much much smaller then the American Akita today. I made no mention to being rough, just that they are bigger and blockier now then the original imports.

NavyDog

and if I remember right it was Military members who brought the majority of the original imports of Akita and they specificly chose to bring the dogs from a larger and heavier line because that is what they prefered and they continued to breed for larger size with those dogs. Thus all AA's being "bear" type

WrylyBrindle

Klee Kai beginnings from the horse's mouth:
http://www.alaskankleekai.com/spurlin/history.htm

I have never felt comfortable with the creation of Klee Kai. But lots of things go on in the world that I am uncomfortable with or don't understand enough, and all that really affects me personally regarding them is that sometimes when I say my dog is a Kai, a person will respond "Oh, I know- one of those toy huskies" no, no, no... one is an historic native breed of Japanese hunting dog, one is a companion breed created out of whimsy in the 70's because it was small and cute. They dont just come from different places, do different work and not look alike- the intention of their existence isn't the same.

shibamistress

Klee Kai beginnings from the horse's mouth:
http://www.alaskankleekai.com/spurlin/history.htm

I have never felt comfortable with the creation of Klee Kai. But lots of things go on in the world that I am uncomfortable with or don't understand enough, and all that really affects me personally regarding them is that sometimes when I say my dog is a Kai, a person will respond "Oh, I know- one of those toy huskies" no, no, no... one is an historic native breed of Japanese hunting dog, one is a companion breed created out of whimsy in the 70's because it was small and cute. They dont just come from different places, do different work and not look alike- the intention of their existence isn't the same.

Yep, that's where I got my info. on the Klee Kai and I why I don't like it. But it's just my take....I'm pretty disgusted with them as a breed. But I also don't like labradoodles and golden doodles and all that (and I put them in the same category). I don't see the point of making a new breed that is strictly a companion (like the Klee Kai) because there are plenty of companion breeds out there already, and it also galls me that a good working dogs like the huskies of Alaska (totally different than siberians btw), were cross bred just to make a small "cute" dog.

I'm ok with people crossbreeding to make working dogs--that makes sense to me--but crossing just for cuteness or newness or to make yet another small companion when there are already so many does not make sense to me.

But I've had enough of a rant about the Klee Kai so I'll leave it at that.

But PoeticDragon is right about the American Akita (thanks for that post, too!) and I believe she means "rough" in the older Akitas because they were not bred to a certain type the way they are now.

NavyDog

That link is the same info I had read. Again I'm not saying I like the breed but no matter how many people dislike it, it's not going to change the fact that its a breed. I'm not a fan of companion breeds but what is wrong about breeding a dog to be just a companion? Many people on this forum have working dogs and don't work them therefor we keep them as just companions. Is it wrong to have a dog as only a companion? If not then why is it wrong to breed for a good companion dog? I'm sorry I just have to disagree. I don't like that dogs have been bred down to be "cute" or "mini" just for the sake of it but dogs are companions first and workers second. The Klee Kai isn't the first (or the last) dog that has been bred for poor reasons. Every companion dog was bred to look cute. Chihuahua's were bred to have a baby like face & we ended up with a breed that has many health concerns. Same with the bull dog, that breed has been mutated to the point of not even being able to reproduce naturally but that didn't matter because people like the way they look. I don't like this kind of breeding but if someone is breeding dogs & can do it in a way that produces healthy animals without bottle necking their genetic diversity then I don't see the harm. I think if someone wanted a dog that looks like a small husky then they should have looked into other breeds instead of creating a new one but its already done so no point in getting upset now.

shibamistress

I don't think there is anything wrong about having a dog just as a companion. I never said that. I just don't see why people need to breed more companion-only breeds when there are plenty out there already (and certainly the AKK is not being bred for health; they already have health issues). I'm not expecting the AKK to disappear as a breed (but I wish the AKC wouldn't legitimize them, but whatever), but as I said, I don't like them, and as I said, a lot of it is about the blatant (and incorrect) rip off of Native language/culture and romanticized bs about Alaska. I have a very very low tolerance for that. So this breed pushes buttons for me, personally, in ways that others do not.

It's not like my distaste is going to stop anyone from breeding them or having them or whatever. People who like them have the right to have them or breed them or whatever they want. But I also have the right to express my distaste for them, too.

LoboSpam

That link is the same info I had read. Again I'm not saying I like the breed but no matter how many people dislike it, it's not going to change the fact that its a breed. I'm not a fan of companion breeds but what is wrong about breeding a dog to be just a companion?

I think it makes sense to breed dogs for companionship since that is what most people want dogs for now. The issue though is that people seem to be breeding more for looks/physical features than for temperament. Temperament is what makes a great companion dog, not appearance or size.

It would be kind of cool if someone created a new breed called "bombproof" and it consisted of breeding dogs (from any breed) that were playful, friendly, non-reactive, and somewhat lazy (versus needing lots of exercise).