@poeticdragon So, I can understand why asking for health testing might be considered insulting from someone looking to import--it's saying you suspect the dog isn't actually a good one---but do you have any insight to offer about why they haven't embraced it wholesale on an embracing technology (which it has been my impression that the Japanese are very willing to do) or a sometimes these things aren't obvious/structure can't tell you that sort of level? It's a part of the culture that I don't understand and so I am curious about whatever insight can be offered.
As for my own two cents on the Shikoku, I know this might be unpopular but given that the population seems to be so small and there's a worry about losing diversity if you cut dogs with health problems, it seems to me that the breed needs to be outcrossed to preserve it and really get it back on track. I know that doing that could make it even harder to get back to standard than using dogs with poor conformation and good health, but frankly it seems like the breed is in pretty sorry shape given the numbers overall and I just can't abide the idea of breeding dogs with health problems. If that's looking like a problem, to me you preserve diversity with an outcross rather than risking bringing puppies into the world that are unhealthy. I place trying to have the healthiest puppies possible over keeping the Shikoku pure Shikoku.
The technology thing is interesting. They may invent the latest tech, but businesses are still run with paper and fax machines for the most part -- from what I saw anyway. I saw typewriters and ancient (late 90s) computers in the offices when I went to the AKIHO headquarters. It takes months and months for any kind of response from AKIHO to a question generally because its all done by snail mail overseas.
I think the technology thing might be more of a generational rather than cultural thing. As it is here too - dog breeders are typically older and not the most tech savvy. I've been to Japan twice in the last decade (granted, not for dogs!) and tech was everywhere. (Waitresses with touchpads, self-opening taxi doors, hot/cold vending machines, heated toilet seats, and the awesome Shinkansen!)
I wonder what the younger breeders' opinions are on health and testing. What does @TheWalrus think about this topic?
Why is it unacceptable to ask about health though? Are breeder relationships that fragile? Wouldn't it be more embarrassing for a prideful breeder to produce a faulty product and have it represent his line? If all it takes is a friend on the inside, that sounds like a good start!
I don't know much about Shikoku except what I've read on this forum. I was quite interested in the various discussions though, especially about breeding a dog with bad hips to one with excellent hips, etc. I don't know enough about that to have an opinion.
However, I do have some thoughts on breeders who breed before health tests are in, or who don't inform people of potential health risks, because been there, done that. While yes, I absolutely believe buyers should check into the health tests done, that doesn't for one minute excuse the breeders who don't do health tests, or who breed before the tests are done, or who are simply not entirely forthcoming about their breeding program.
I bought an Akita after much, much agonizing. I did everything right, except for one thing: I looked up OFA records and only saw a preliminary hip test on the sire, because he had only just turned two. His preliminary hip test was excellent, so I figured he was ok, and honestly, I don't think there are hip problems in my dog. However, when, I asked the breeder about it, she dismissed my concerns and said it wasn't that big of a deal, she was breeding him at two, etc.
Turns out, he had already been bred, well before his hip test came in. She never did the second test as far as I know. And when I discovered he had micropthalmia, she didn't believe me even with a letter from the opthamalagist, and said "it wasn't a problem." She also repeated the breeding I believe, and then sold this dog as a stud to someone in Ireland who is likely to use him in their breeding program though he carries micro. When Oskar had other health problems, including serious issues in his spine, she simply stopped talking to me entirely.
What did I do wrong? Not actually demanding a later OFA test, I guess, but the way I was treated by that breeder, and the fact that she did things that I find unethical for a breeder was really a problem. It was not my fault that I got an unhealthy dog. And so, while I'm not a breeder, and perhaps am not looking at this from the perspective of someone who breeds a rare breed, to me, taking big risks (breeding without health tests) is really a problem. It's passing on a potential problem and a hell of lot of heartbreak to someone else, and I, frankly, find that unethical.
I don't know the specifics about this dog, or this situation. But to me, there were some bad choices made that were compounded by the lack of communication. In my case, I would have been a lot more forgiving of my breeder if she had simply talked to me, had said she was sorry for Oskar's bad health, and had maybe explained her choices, or talked about the health of the parents. But instead she totally ignored me. The thing is, taking risks with breeding dogs might be ok if a breeder is very clear about what they are doing and tells potential buyers, but taking risks and not telling anyone, and then letting the buyer find out when their dog has serious health issues? (And I'm not speaking of this situation particularly, I'm speaking in general). Well, really, is that any better than what the mills do? I don't see how.
And for people to have to find about a health problem on this forum rather than from their breeder? Totally unacceptable.
---but do you have any insight to offer about why they haven't embraced it wholesale on an embracing technology (which it has been my impression that the Japanese are very willing to do) or a sometimes these things aren't obvious/structure can't tell you that sort of level? It's a part of the culture that I don't understand and so I am curious about whatever insight can be offered.
As for my own two cents on the Shikoku, I know this might be unpopular but given that the population seems to be so small and there's a worry about losing diversity if you cut dogs with health problems, it seems to me that the breed needs to be outcrossed to preserve it and really get it back on track. I know that doing that could make it even harder to get back to standard than using dogs with poor conformation and good health, but frankly it seems like the breed is in pretty sorry shape given the numbers overall and I just can't abide the idea of breeding dogs with health problems. If that's looking like a problem, to me you preserve diversity with an outcross rather than risking bringing puppies into the world that are unhealthy. I place trying to have the healthiest puppies possible over keeping the Shikoku pure Shikoku.
These breeders are a bunch of old Japanese men that stick to old methods of determining the quality of their dogs. The registry is still done by hand, and even Shigs' own blogpost admits that many of these breeders would not qualify by our standards for what constitutes a good breeder/kennel.
One can assume that some of these Shikoku breeders are looking for preservation of the breed through preservation of their own lines (i.e. line-breeding). This is why our imports run the risk of having the issues we have. Over here, we are trying to breed for preservation of the breed through health via diversity.
I won't make any bones about it, I co-own Kurenai and I brought it up to the forum a year ago that it was very possible she has mild HD (turned into reality). Despite that, everything about her was quintessential Shikoku. This is where the impasse began with regards to considering her to be bred. At that time, many of the forum members here felt that the genepool in the U.S. was too thin to cull her from a breeding program and encouraged her to be bred to a male with good hips (Kaiju). I spoke to Corina and she made sure the future owners of the puppies were informed regarding the conditions of the breeding. As soon as I found out she had Fair/Mild HD, I put her on Non-Steroidal Anti Inflammatory Drugs (NSAID). Mainly she takes a ground up velvet elk antler tablet once daily. I've kept her weight down, her movement is great, and like @lizzysilvertongue said, she was able to convince a NIPPO judge to let her win this year ;-).
I'm not saying this to justify or rationalize any actions other than my own personal experiences about the health of the breed. What I said above is the reality any Shikoku owner/breeder faces. North American breeders are at ground zero of re-diversifying the breed in the U.S. We, as a community of owners and breeders, have an uphill battle. It will be years/decades until we can turn the corner on our preservation efforts. I encourage future owners to read the posts I've linked. Contemplate on the context and what this NK community represents for the Shikoku breed.
I wrote much earlier in this thread about culling dogs that are below average for the breed. In the case of imported dogs, the fact is we just don't know what "average" is overseas because of the lack of health testing. It may be that the "good ol' boy" attitude of selecting quality dogs to work actually selects towards healthier specimens. It may be that ignoring modern veterinary science has made the selection somewhat random; neither selecting for or against health. It may be that picking exagerted show specimens actually selects away from health, some conditions being directly related to those desirable features. We. Just. Don't. Know.
We have a small sampling of these populations here in North America, but there is nothing to say they statistically represent the whole. After all, breeders in North America do not have access to select their imported stock from the entire population. They are limited to the Japanese breeders they have connections with, generally who use computers and the Internet or from word of mouth and a friend actually located in the country. The most well connected breeder in US probably has significantly fewer options than a "good ol' boy" in Japan.
There too is the selection process of those who import, and perhaps even more so than breeding dogs here in NA, shape the future of the breed. Each individual importer's goals and ideals, structure of breeding program, and preconceived notions about certain lines determines the dogs that get brought over. The dogs brought from Japan therefor are definitely NOT a random cross-section of the breed. There is a selection process in play that skews our gene pool away from the country of origin. This will always be the case and is true even within larger breeds; a Laborador Retriever from Utah looks much different than one from Maryland. So the only averages we can know about are those in our own dogs, through open communication between the North American breeders.
There aren't many breeding Shikoku, and two in this thread have been bred that are mildly dysplastic. Is mild dysplasia above, equal, or below average in the North American Shikoku population? That is the question to consider. It is not simply a cut and dry answer that one should never breed a dysplastic dog. Consider if the average for the breed was to be moderately or severely dysplastic, as was the case with GSDs at one point in time. In such a situation, a mildly dysplastic dog looks like a good prospect. The status of the available breeding population must be known in order to make a good breeding decision.
There is as well another situation when one might consider breeding a dog with a very undesirable trait. That is when the average is so very high that odds are good that the offspring will not be affected, and if they are, it's easy to breed out with other crosses in the next generation. This scenario is best reserved for individuals who have something else significant to contribute to the breed. It doesn't need to be one trait -- in fact, it should not be just one -- but an overall very good specimen of the breed but for this one undesirable thing.
The larger the population, the easier it is to find a specimen that lacks the undesirable trait. In such a case, when there are better specimens readily available, the selection process needs be significantly stricter. A large population is less prone to shifts in its gene pool by irresponsible breeding compared to a smaller population, but the breeder has little moral or ethical excuse to produce poorly bred dogs when he has so many more options to choose from. So I do believe the rules are different for Laborador and Pit Bull breeders compared to our own tiny populations. Even the American Akita population is huge by comparison to the rest (except maybe the Shiba).
Above all else, though, remember that breeders are people with expenses and lives, just like everyone else. Nobody is doing this as a full time job or supporting themselves by breeding Nihon Ken. Most are losing money at this hobby. Some animals should not be bred, but there is a whole spectrum of possibilities between a cull and a grand champion. Not everyone -- or anyone -- can afford the absolute best of the best or be expected to start over from scratch each time a prospect turns out "just okay." Sometimes they have to play with the hand they were dealt or not play at all. If enough people quit playing, then we're left with nothing.
Living in Japan, this conversation is years away. Japan is on an entirely different page when it comes to the ethical and scientific side of breeding dogs. What I can do is repeat what I've always told everyone regarding the current situation of the Nihon Ken in Japan (the breeding animals).
1. No health tests are done. 2. There are many Shiba kennels that are run as businesses, and some Akita, but almost no for profit kennels breeding the medium sized breeds. 3. Dogs are generally not socialized, not trained, and are kept kenneled outdoors. Many are not walked at all. 4. Some kennels take a lot of time to prepare food for their dogs, but the majority are fed the cheapest kibble available. 5. The breeds are dying out with the older generation, as they are very few young people interested in getting involved. The ones that do, are still not aware of genetic issues etc, and are not trying to change the way things are, because general awareness regarding these issues is extremely low within the country as a whole.
To clarify each point... 1. There is a lack of awareness regarding genetic issues. When they do come up (like HD, LP etc) many kennels don't recognize it as a genetic issue, aren't aware of the issues, or worse yet, just ignore it. There is also a lot of incorrect anecdotal information that is passed on by word of mouth. Many animal hospitals (even one of the ones that I use) have never taken x-rays of joints etc, or done thyroid/eye/patella testing. Many of the adult Shiba going overseas to Europe now are getting tested before going, as the kennels buying them are requiring it. This works because there is a lot more money involved, I'm talking 3-5 times the amount it costs to import a medium size NK. 2. When you are not making money off breeding dogs (it's actually something most kennels just spend money on as a hobby), and you're not even selling dogs for profit, you are not going to be very inclined to get all your dogs tested, when there is no awareness regarding genetic issues among kennels, or the general populace. It's just seen as something that picky foreigners who meddle too much with, and are overly sensitive about perfection in their dogs, are interested in, when what they should be interested in is preserving the breeds' 'honshitsu'. Someone asking a kennel for a dog is at a disadvantage as you are very politely asking for the privilege of being entrusted with one of their dogs. If you are offensive in any way, or are just asking too much of them, they couldn't be bothered to place a dog with you. This is why many kennels couldn't be bothered to send dogs overseas. 3. You are not going to notice too many issues in the movement of your dogs if they are never walked. Of course many kennels walk all their dogs, or at least let them out into a run to defecate, but there are many that only exercise the ones that are being shown. I know a tiny handful of dogs that are kept indoors. The dogs are kept to breed and show, and that's pretty much it. There are very few working kennels left. 4. When a kennel in Japan says with pride that they feed their dogs good kibble, they're usually talking about Iams or Purina. That's the level of awareness regarding kibble in Japan.
This is what you're wading into when you decide to import a dog from Japan, or start breeding the Nihon Ken. Importing costs are high to begin with, it takes a lot of time, effort, and patience to find an available dog of good quality, and from a kennel that maintains their dogs at a decent level. Costs of buying Nihon Ken overseas are high because of the import costs, and the fact that many pups end up being culled from programs due to health/temperament issues. I've sent Brad a lot of dogs, and for all our due diligence trying to pick the best dogs possible, we've had our share of disappointments.
Regarding Shogun, he was a quality pick pup, from the most famous Shikoku kennel in Japan. He was only available because Yano-san is fighting cancer. He has been very helpful in trying to keep quality dogs going overseas so that the breed does not become too inbred, and type is not lost. It is a sad situation for Yano-san, since he was very happy with this pup, for the kennels who imported him, and for myself, since I sent him overseas.
This is definitely not an isolated case, as health issues within the Nihon Ken generally only become apparent once they are overseas. While some kennels will be honest with me about issues they have seen, this is only because of the relationship that I have with them. In most cases it's not something they will publicize.
And with that being said, if no one else, I'll be testing stock in my program, and as many other dogs in Japan as I can in the future. I'm also going to try to get as much pedigree data as possible, online. It's an undertaking that will take a lot of time and finances, but hopefully we can preserve these breeds, and pass them on to future generations in even better shape than the last generation passed them onto us in.
@TheWalrus, thank you so much for your perspective! I wonder if there is any possibility for more young Japanese enthusiasts to take up the reins from the older generation and bring technology and health testing to the forefront. We need more like you! It's a big burden for you alone.
You mentioned that dogs exported to Europe are tested (and more expensive because of it). Interesting that the Europeans are more willing to make that kind of deal. Also interesting that with enough money, the kennels will do what is necessary to please the "picky foreigners" even if they find it offensive! Has that requirement made any difference in the quality of European Shikokus vs North America?
You mentioned that dogs exported to Europe are tested (and more expensive because of it). Interesting that the Europeans are more willing to make that kind of deal. Also interesting that with enough money, the kennels will do what is necessary to please the "picky foreigners" even if they find it offensive! Has that requirement made any difference in the quality of European Shikokus vs North America?
I don't think he meant that this would apply to the medium sized breeds, but more towards the very popular shiba and possibly akita.
From what I've heard, in Europe the shiba is in a pretty sorry state compared to the US. Many are of poor show quality with bad form and missing teeth, and I think they do have their share of health issues. They are trying what they can to improve their breeding stock, while not also adding in more problems. Heck, some of the US breeders are even being asked and offered lots of money to send over some pups.
Probably due to their popularity Shiba and Akita kennels overseas seem to be more professional, with kennel set ups, and they have no qualms about importing adult dogs from Japan that have been kenneled their entire lives. Most all of the parties that have contacted me up to this point regarding Shikoku are looking to keep their dogs in a pet environment, and so choose puppies over unsocialized adults. Because of the demand for the Shiba and Akita, and lack of knowledge about them and the situation in Japan at the time they first started becoming popular, a lot of low quality dogs were (and are) unloaded overseas. It became a very monetized environment, which is why the market for Shiba/Akita going overseas is so much higher than for the medium sized breeds. In backlash to the decline in quality and the prevalent health issues, importers, especially from northern Europe, are starting to ask for testing on hips/elbows, before importing Shiba/Akita.
Edited to add that... @zandrame it's not so much a numbers issue, as it is the fact that these kennels are often buying from for-profit kennels. Even if they're not buying from a professional kennel, the kennels here know that they can make money selling Shiba/Akita overseas, so the dogs that become available are often from people looking to make a bit of profit. This means they are willing to go out of their way to make that sale happen (and the big numbers help), whereas with the medium size breeds, kennels still take pride in not breeding for profit, and anyone looking to make a buck off of them is looked down on a little bit. Amateurism is part of NIPPO's mission statement.
Ah, sorry @Calia, @TheWalrus, I was narrowly thinking of just Shikokus at the moment. But it sounds almost like the same reasons the European importers began requesting testing on Shibas/Akitas will happen here for Shikokus. Except in this case the situation is a little more dire, and the breed could be lost if breeders don't work together across borders.
Also, I'm kinda surprised there's no demand for the midsize NKs. But that's beyond this topic.
Probably due to their popularity Shiba and Akita kennels overseas seem to be more professional, with kennel set ups, and they have no qualms about importing adult dogs from Japan that have been kenneled their entire lives.
When it comes to structure and fertility/testicles, puppies are always going to be a gamble when importing. It's a gamble even with domestic dogs...
If a person wants or expects more certainty, they need to import an adult that has proven itself as fertile.
Don't know about costs of a puppy vs. a proven adult for a medium-sized NK, but it can be quite astronomical in other breeds. About 5-10x the cost of a puppy for a quality adult. That is what could happen if the medium-sized NK adopts a business model.
The only "discount" I've seen in my breed might be a senior stud dog with a rumored health issue (untestable allergies, fertile but not tieing, heartworm damaged, etc.), or if you happen to catch a kennel reducing their numbers or retiring.
It's better when dealing with Japanese friends/contacts who are going to share the rumors and advocate for you among other breeders. Pushing and insulting them isn't going to make friends...
One of the real problems, I think, with the medium size breeds is that no one outside Japan knows about them. I think there would be great demand for them if people did and I think that would really help their numbers but I can't say that I really want the sort of recognition that I think would help their numbers. Frankly, I think that if these breeds, especially the Shikoku, which has a look people seem to be really attracted to, it would ruin the breeds. The Kai Ken excepted, I think the breeds as they exist are really unsuitable for most homes (more so than the Shiba and Akita, which are more popular) but if people starting hearing about them, seeing pictures of them in magazines, they wouldn't be doing their research and I think that real popularity, the sort that could really up their production in Japan, would have a lot of puppies going to very unsuitable homes.
Way I see it, the rarer medium size breeds are in a bit of catch 22 with numbers and demand.
As unpalatable as it is to some folks, I think the medium sized NK like the Shikoku needs to be exposed to "dog people" rather than the "public". Meaning, letting dog show people see them and consider them.
@thewalrus - thank you for shedding some more light on this. You've posted about the situation in Japan quite a bit in other threads, but since we have new members it's valuable to hear it again I think. I've silently followed @brada1878's importing saga and it's clear just how difficult the process is. I admire those who put in the time and effort to try to preserve and improve the breeds.
@poeticdragon - I think that you have an excellent point about the difficulties in making breeding decisions in a limited genetic pool. There are a ton of variables. For those reading who might be newer to the forum, here is an interesting older discussion of breeding.
FWIW - I'm well aware of the difficulties of breed preservation of limited populations. However, when the original breeder of the litter has demonstrated bad faith in failing to inform the new puppy owners like @twobirds and @ryananthony, it makes it that much more difficult to presume good faith when looking at their decision to breed before health tests. This is a reflection strictly on the breeder of the litter, and not the breeder nor co-owner of the sire, who have either directly or by proxy, been much more forthcoming.
Not much I can add, Shigeru has really nailed all the issues that I see with importing Shibas in particular, including the issues with exporting US dogs to Europe.
As unpalatable as it is to some folks, I think the medium sized NK like the Shikoku needs to be exposed to "dog people" rather than the "public". Meaning, letting dog show people see them and consider them.
I 100% agree.
From what I've heard, in Europe the shiba is in a pretty sorry state compared to the US. Many are of poor show quality with bad form and missing teeth, and I think they do have their share of health issues. They are trying what they can to improve their breeding stock, while not also adding in more problems. Heck, some of the US breeders are even being asked and offered lots of money to send over some pups.
Yes, this is very true, and yes, they ask. Breeding Shibas in places like Russia for instance, is a big business. My biggest reason for not wanting to export anything to Europe, is that the dogs would be overbred and kenneled in the elements, and I would have no control over it. The breed people in the UK and Scandinavia are exceptions for the most part, IMO, and the breeders there have very good reputations for treating their Shibas well, and screening out health issues. Some of the kennel clubs in those countries even require passing specific health tests before being allowed to breed. There are breeders in parts of Eastern Europe who openly flaunt breeding dogs with missing teeth, LP, who are inbred son to mother, and they have been suspended from their countries kennel clubs as a result.
Probably due to their popularity Shiba and Akita kennels overseas seem to be more professional, with kennel set ups, and they have no qualms about importing adult dogs from Japan that have been kenneled their entire lives. Most all of the parties that have contacted me up to this point regarding Shikoku are looking to keep their dogs in a pet environment, and so choose puppies over unsocialized adults.
Because of the demand for the Shiba and Akita, and lack of knowledge about them and the situation in Japan at the time they first started becoming popular, a lot of low quality dogs were (and are) unloaded overseas. It became a very monetized environment, which is why the market for Shiba/Akita going overseas is so much higher than for the medium sized breeds.
In backlash to the decline in quality and the prevalent health issues, importers, especially from northern Europe, are starting to ask for testing on hips/elbows, before importing Shiba/Akita.
This is very true. A compromise I have seen is the importing of older puppies, and leasing adult dogs from the famous Japanese kennels for a certain time frame. With the older puppies it's less of a gamble for health issues, and with leasing the cost is reduced, but most won't offer that. The hard part is knowing they will at some point have to go back to living in a little kennel without the comforts of a home environment or stimulation from a pack of playmates. There are some very nice Japanese kennels that are immaculate from what I know, so I wouldn't have any ethical concerns buying from them. They are the exceptions from what I have come to understand. Maybe someday I can see for myself...
@ayk - Don't forget, there are "dog people" outside of "dog show people". I would consider the people of this forum to be "dog people" and not simply pet owners - they are invested in the community and care for the breeds - and they may not be "dog show people".
----
I've been biting my tongue on this topic because it's too dynamic of a discussion to really be able to conclude, and without the Shikoku breeders being part of it, it's a fruitless effort ( excluding @Edgewood ).
The reality in this breed (the Shikoku Ken) is that the breeders hold everything tight to their chest, a few of them may work together on some scale (co-owning a few dogs) but that's as far as it goes - at least as far as I can tell.
When it really comes down to building a Shikoku community, educating others (outside of trying to sell puppies), or preserving the breed, little to nothing is done. This can bee seen clear-as-day when you look at the Shikoku Club and the resentment and unwillingness to collaborate of some of the Shikoku breeders, importers, and owners.
The community lacks the type of collaboration, plan, and focus that it needs to save the breed.
----
I think we need to add a little perspective on the Shikoku's population size in North America to this discussion before we all jump on the everyone-must-OFA and hyper-select-for-nitpicky-health-issues bandwagon.
The majority of the Shikoku in North America are related.
Shogun is related to the majority of the Shikoku in the North American breeding pool. Looking at the database, all but 3 of the Shikoku listed as breeders in North America are related (Katja's Kuma and the two girls from Iwahori-san are not related).
So, pretty much the majority of the Shikoku on this forum are related to Shogun. That's a VERY small population. If we're gonna freak out and worry about Shogun's MILD HD, then EVERY Shikoku owner on here should be doing the same (whether they are Shogun offspring or not).
In dog breeding, as we select for specific traits within a population, and select away from other traits, we end up eliminating breeding options from the population - this shrinks the population and forces breeders to breed more closely (inbreed).
When you inbreed you are increasing the chances of traits possessed by the sire and dam being passed to the puppies (this is called Tandem Repeat).
Hyper-selecting for ANYTHING (including health) in a very small population (like the Shikoku) creates what is called the "Bottleneck Effect" (population undergoes a drastic reduction in size as a result of chance events. A cause of genetic drift.).
When this happens on a breed-wide scale, as it has in Shikoku and Kai, this is called "artificial drift" - the artificial selection for specific traits in a closed population pushes the population to "drift" in a certain direction.
So... the irony of culling Shogun from the breeding population over a MILD HD is that, by culling him to reduce risk of passing on HD, the breeding population shrinks and inbreeding increases (CORs rise), and the risk of future generations being born unhealthy is increased.
In other words - by removing Shogun from the population due to his mild HD, the breeders are increasing the chances of future generations GETTING HD.
Tools like OFA and PennHIP are nice to have and, in theory, should work to eliminate some health issues (tho there is no documented proof of that), but they aren't the answer for every situation (anyone that knows me well knows I hate the OFA, but I'm putting my feelings aside here).
In a LARGE population rich with diversity the effects of using a tool like OFA or PennHIP for removing unhealthy specimens from the breeding pool should result in the reduction of that health issues - it still results in drift, but the population is large enough to where the drift has a positive effect.
But that's not the the case for the Shikoku Ken. The population is small, and ANY form of selection within the breed can cause a bottleneck, and the resulting drift can have some major negative effects and/or lead to the extinction of the breed.
Fortunately for the Kai Ken, we have a (very slowly) growing population in Japan that we can import from. We have a much more diverse population we can use to increase the diversity of our smaller population here in North America - this has been Yamabushi's focus from day one.
The Shikoku, on the other hand, has the opposite issues. The population here in North America has no diverse, growing, population to import from - the population in Japan is SHRINKING.
Hyper-selecting for ANYTHING (including HD) in the North American Shikoku population is a bad idea. Simply put: this everyone-must-OFA mindset will be the nail in the coffin for the Shikoku breed.
Then we point out dewclaws and extra toes in the breed as an issue... REALLY? Shrink this tiny population even more for an extra toe? That's silly talk.
----
My only issue with Shogun is that he is being culled at all.
This to me shows how little direction the Shikoku breeding community has. Why cull a dog who has already produced puppies before you know if the trait you're culling for has been passed onto his pups? Especially when the trait is MILD - and based on results from a panel-based opinion like the OFA.
There have been other recent imports who have produced HD in their offspring, but those imports have not been culled. Yet, here we are culling Shogun w/o even knowing what issues he produces?
Furthermore, to reinforce my opinion on how the Shikoku breeding community has no clear plan or direction, Kuma, another import (who is not closely related to Shogun and all the other dogs listed above) has produced known health issues in offspring, that are MUCH more severe than mild HD, but we don't cull him. (???)
I repeat: Kuma, produced 2 pups, one of which is Osy's ( @Sangmort ), who have a severe neurological issues - yet Kuma is not culled from the breeding pool? But Shogun is for mild HD?
Plus, I'd be willing to bet the pups with those neurological issues have a dam that is related to Shogun and is still being used.
Also, I know that at least one of Kuma's offspring is part of the current Shikoku breeding population - seems a lot more risky to me than keeping Shogun in the breeding population.
I'm not saying any of these dogs should be culled from the population, as that would go against my points above on population diversity, I'm just pointing out the lack of logic and direction that exists in the shikoku breeding community - and with a dead club and very little cooperation... Well, it's very sad for the breed.
I really want to import a good male in the next year or two, but I don't even really know where to start. I know Shigeru @TheWalrus helps. And I figured I would ask him and my breeder Corina @ShikokuSpirit and maybe Brad @brada1878 when I got a little closer. How would someone go about importing a dog that has different bloodlines from all of the NA breeders? I would really like to do that. I'm a little hesitant to import an adult because I would have no idea how his temperament would be and I would be bringing him in to be part of the family. I would want him to be more than a "breeder." Nor am I sure on how much more it would cost to import. Anyone had a good experience importing an adult male dog or know the approximate costs? At least at a shelter you can meet them first lol. I was leaning more towards importing a puppy but I could consider an adult that has actual made puppies. I'm also not opposed to co-owning with another breeder. I plan to breed Arashi in a year or so if she checks out okay.... I was actually considering Shogun or Shuran for her first litter until recently. I honestly was wanting to see how Shogun's puppies turned out and how Arashi's hips looked before considering. With Shuran I have been a little worried because he has been turned down by two different girls and I don't know if dogs can sense something we do not. I was also planning to do what Brad does and breed her to a different boy every time except maybe her last litter and repeat my favorite breeding. So that's where I am, I am not really going to consider myself a breeder just a much more extended branch of Corina's program. Kind of an in between breeder and co-owner. If anyone has any information I might like or questions feel free to pm or find me on fb
@brada1878...thanks for the insight. that was all really interesting (though kind of sad) information. you just put things MAJORLY into perspective. I hope things change for the better for Shikoku
How would someone go about importing a dog that has different bloodlines from all of the NA breeders? I would really like to do that.
This is probably easier said than done, as many of the the shikoku (as it seems to me) in Japan are line bred to preserve "type". I know I just imported a female from Japan this spring, and Shigeru @TheWalrus helped me, as did Yano-san. They evaluated the pedigree of the female and went to look at her. Compared to most shikoku in NA, she is an outcross. But at 10 months old, I have to wait and see how she turns out. I just imported her half brother (by the same sire) with another person and we will co-own him. He also has an outcross pedigree.
And any which way, it is almost damned if you damned if you don't. As you can see on this thread, there are those vilifying the use of Shogun and others who say he should have been kept in the population because it is so small. It is a sad situation and I know I try to do the best that I can, but certainly it will not please everyone.
And finally, I own, and want to breed, shikoku, because I love their temperament and personality. Looks are a bonus too, but I just love their character.
Thanks Kris, I wasn't sure if there was anything more I could do on my end than just have Shigeru do the leg work. I feel like that would be lazy on my part. :-<
Thanks Kris, I wasn't sure if there was anything more I could do on my end than just have Shigeru do the leg work. I feel like that would be lazy on my part. :-<
It is hard unless you read Japanese. The pedigree from NIPPO was in Japanese and Shigeru and Yano-san helped determine how related it was further back as well as close up. They could go and look at the pedigrees on file in the NIPPO office. And even then, Shigeru did a "translation" of the names from Japanese to English, but some of the Kanji can be translated different ways, so the names on some dogs were slighltly different when I received the translated JKC pedigree (along with the Kanji NIPPO pedigree). Shigeru warned me that might happen. So again, not so easy to do, at least for me, with no Japanese language skills.
Here's a question I have for people, how much does diversity of the population really matter if it's a diversity of unhealthiness rather than health? While I agree that hyperselecting for only one good health test could have some major unintended consequences, I would much rather see a very low amount of genetic diversity that is healthy rather than the reverse. In my opinion, diversity is a means, not an end. Diversity is good because it means that we don't end up with a small population that has a hidden defect which gets continually doubled up on---so diversity is good because it should be helping the health of the population overall. If it's not, though, then I can't say I see much value in it.
And, again, with such a small population, if diversity is really the goal or something we need (and I do think it is because there are so many problems with the population we have---and serious ones rather than just cosmetic ones like extra toes), then it does really seem that outcrossing is the way to go. We won't ever get more diversity out of the population we have then there is currently if we stick to just that population.
And as for everyone doing OFA, I do think that's a good idea even if you're working in a population where breeding mild dysplasia can be acceptable. At least the you know what you've got and so will puppy buyers. More information is always good, in my opinion, because then you can make informed choices. If it's necessary to breed dysplasia then its necessary but that doesn't mean you hide from the information. After all, isn't the way you breed dogs with bad hips breeding them to dogs with good hips? How will we actually know what we're working with if we don't go out and gather the information?
@NotoriousScrat - A healthy population is a diverse population. You cannot have a healthy population w/o diversity...
High genetic diversity is also essential for a species to evolve. Species that have less genetic variation are at a greater risk. With very little gene variation within the species, healthy reproduction becomes increasingly difficult, and offspring are more likely to deal with problems such as inbreeding.[8] The vulnerability of a population to certain types of diseases can also increase with reduction in genetic diversity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity#Survival_and_adaptation
As seen in the Cheetah, which has a small number, as a population's diversity shrinks sperm count decreases and reproductive issues emerge - this has already been seen in the Shikoku breed.
Due to this, it's nearly impossible to achieve what you are suggesting.
The purification of the population, removing the unhealthy dogs, shrinks the population pool and increases the chances of reproductive issues emerging, those animals with reproductive issues are then seen as "unhealthy", and culled, which shrinks the population even more. This will happen exponentially until the breed has become extinct.
Yes, the OFA can be used to give a breeder more information, but there are much better tools out there for gaining data. Also, OFA is useful for one health issues - there are millions of health issues. In dogdom the OFA has been the primary focus for whether a breeders does "health checks" or not, which pushes the community's eye away from more important health issues like hearts, seizures, bloat, and... diversity (and extinction)!
Remember, hips can be fixed, a neurologic issue, or a bad heart, cannot (usually).
My partner and I were importing one of the puppies from Shoguns litter. We were informed of the HD by the breeder, and the three of us made a decision that we would not import this puppy into AUS. We were given the choice, and we feel that we made the right decision for us.
Plus there are dogs that test badly on OFA whose hips really aren't that bad (and probably vice versa). One specific case in point: my (now deceased) Finnish Lapphund had OFA Good hips (so did both of her tested siblings). Her sire had hips graded "C" in Finland (he was imported as an adult for outcross when the breed was very rare in the US and the population was getting closely related), but tested OFA Excellent. Her dam initially OFA'd as mildly dysplastic... but her owner submitted the x-rays again (I guess, I don't exactly know how it worked), and the second time around she was rated OFA Good. It's not a foolproof system by any means.
I guess it's up to the owners/breeders as custodians of the breed to decide what is and is not worth breeding from. But I don't see how constricting a tiny population helps much, when it seems like most of the Shikoku I've heard about have some wonky traits? I suppose most dogs in general do, but especially in a breed with such a small population. I would think it would be ideal (in a small population) to breed cautiously from such dogs (with full disclosure to puppy buyers) and keep all possible pups intact at least until maturity in order to select the best options to breed from further? I really don't know, though...
One of the reasons I'm pretty sure my first NK will be a Kai and not a Shikoku is because Shikoku health scares me a bit. If the concern was mild dysplasia... well, that's a risk you take with a lot of medium to large breeds. It's a risk I would be reasonably willing to deal with. But neurological issues like Fate's? That's absolutely heartbreaking, far beyond a case of mild dysplasia that's probably unlikely to even cause lameness in a pet lifestyle.
Maybe @ayk can explain about SNPs and population fitness?
Once the genes are gone, they are gone for good, so that is why in very threatened populations like Shikoku, every member is valuable, and their genes are worth preserving even if they carry non lethal physical defects like HD, IMO.
Third paragraph... "[...] This limitation can be quite dramatic in breeds, such as the German Shepherd Dog, in which a limited number of very popular stud dogs account for a large proportion of the litters born to a large population of brood bitches. As a rule of thumb, the effective breeding population cannot exceed four times the number of sires in use. In the case of the GSD, a breed which surely must number in the hundreds of thousands of individual animals worldwide, the effective breeding population has been calculated to be something like six hundred, due to the persist overuse of popular stud dogs generation after generation."
Based the above, and looking at the the Shikoku data base, including Shogun, (and I realize Peggy's dogs are not in the DB yet) there is a total of 6 studs in North America. That brings the North American Shikoku Ken breeding population down to a very very scary 24 Shikoku.
At the risk of being annoying, here' s another one to read...
"IN THE CROSS FIRE In some breeds, no COO [country of origin] stock exists, or that which does exist shares the same problems as the AKC stock. In such cases, crosses to other breeds may be the only way to introduce new genes. Early in the creation of breeds, such crosses were commonplace. For example, although the Shih Tzu is an ancient breed, at the beginning of this century the breed is thought to have become extinct in China. Modern Shih Tzu descend from seven dogs and seven bitches, one of which was not a Shih Tzu, but a Pekingese. This cross occurred in 1952, long before AKC recognition of the breed. While the early registration bodies sometimes sanctioned crosses to other breeds, after a breed was established, they allowed crosses only in the rarest of circumstances." http://dogdimension.org/DiversitySite/thorp-vargas05.shtml
Comments
As for my own two cents on the Shikoku, I know this might be unpopular but given that the population seems to be so small and there's a worry about losing diversity if you cut dogs with health problems, it seems to me that the breed needs to be outcrossed to preserve it and really get it back on track. I know that doing that could make it even harder to get back to standard than using dogs with poor conformation and good health, but frankly it seems like the breed is in pretty sorry shape given the numbers overall and I just can't abide the idea of breeding dogs with health problems. If that's looking like a problem, to me you preserve diversity with an outcross rather than risking bringing puppies into the world that are unhealthy. I place trying to have the healthiest puppies possible over keeping the Shikoku pure Shikoku.
I wonder what the younger breeders' opinions are on health and testing. What does @TheWalrus think about this topic?
Why is it unacceptable to ask about health though? Are breeder relationships that fragile? Wouldn't it be more embarrassing for a prideful breeder to produce a faulty product and have it represent his line? If all it takes is a friend on the inside, that sounds like a good start!
I was looking at some other threads here, in particular http://www.nihonken.org/forum/index.php?p=/discussion/7059/a-thought-on-the-shikoku039s-decline-in-japan-, and @EdK's ideas from a preservation standpoint were interesting. The link about outcrossing Basset hounds and Dalmatians was good. http://retrieverman.net/2011/01/15/the-outcross-that-saved-the-basset-hound/
However, I do have some thoughts on breeders who breed before health tests are in, or who don't inform people of potential health risks, because been there, done that. While yes, I absolutely believe buyers should check into the health tests done, that doesn't for one minute excuse the breeders who don't do health tests, or who breed before the tests are done, or who are simply not entirely forthcoming about their breeding program.
I bought an Akita after much, much agonizing. I did everything right, except for one thing: I looked up OFA records and only saw a preliminary hip test on the sire, because he had only just turned two. His preliminary hip test was excellent, so I figured he was ok, and honestly, I don't think there are hip problems in my dog. However, when, I asked the breeder about it, she dismissed my concerns and said it wasn't that big of a deal, she was breeding him at two, etc.
Turns out, he had already been bred, well before his hip test came in. She never did the second test as far as I know. And when I discovered he had micropthalmia, she didn't believe me even with a letter from the opthamalagist, and said "it wasn't a problem." She also repeated the breeding I believe, and then sold this dog as a stud to someone in Ireland who is likely to use him in their breeding program though he carries micro. When Oskar had other health problems, including serious issues in his spine, she simply stopped talking to me entirely.
What did I do wrong? Not actually demanding a later OFA test, I guess, but the way I was treated by that breeder, and the fact that she did things that I find unethical for a breeder was really a problem. It was not my fault that I got an unhealthy dog. And so, while I'm not a breeder, and perhaps am not looking at this from the perspective of someone who breeds a rare breed, to me, taking big risks (breeding without health tests) is really a problem. It's passing on a potential problem and a hell of lot of heartbreak to someone else, and I, frankly, find that unethical.
I don't know the specifics about this dog, or this situation. But to me, there were some bad choices made that were compounded by the lack of communication. In my case, I would have been a lot more forgiving of my breeder if she had simply talked to me, had said she was sorry for Oskar's bad health, and had maybe explained her choices, or talked about the health of the parents. But instead she totally ignored me. The thing is, taking risks with breeding dogs might be ok if a breeder is very clear about what they are doing and tells potential buyers, but taking risks and not telling anyone, and then letting the buyer find out when their dog has serious health issues? (And I'm not speaking of this situation particularly, I'm speaking in general). Well, really, is that any better than what the mills do? I don't see how.
And for people to have to find about a health problem on this forum rather than from their breeder? Totally unacceptable.
One can assume that some of these Shikoku breeders are looking for preservation of the breed through preservation of their own lines (i.e. line-breeding). This is why our imports run the risk of having the issues we have. Over here, we are trying to breed for preservation of the breed through health via diversity.
I won't make any bones about it, I co-own Kurenai and I brought it up to the forum a year ago that it was very possible she has mild HD (turned into reality). Despite that, everything about her was quintessential Shikoku. This is where the impasse began with regards to considering her to be bred. At that time, many of the forum members here felt that the genepool in the U.S. was too thin to cull her from a breeding program and encouraged her to be bred to a male with good hips (Kaiju). I spoke to Corina and she made sure the future owners of the puppies were informed regarding the conditions of the breeding. As soon as I found out she had Fair/Mild HD, I put her on Non-Steroidal Anti Inflammatory Drugs (NSAID). Mainly she takes a ground up velvet elk antler tablet once daily. I've kept her weight down, her movement is great, and like @lizzysilvertongue said, she was able to convince a NIPPO judge to let her win this year ;-).
I'm not saying this to justify or rationalize any actions other than my own personal experiences about the health of the breed. What I said above is the reality any Shikoku owner/breeder faces. North American breeders are at ground zero of re-diversifying the breed in the U.S. We, as a community of owners and breeders, have an uphill battle. It will be years/decades until we can turn the corner on our preservation efforts. I encourage future owners to read the posts I've linked. Contemplate on the context and what this NK community represents for the Shikoku breed.
Jesse
We have a small sampling of these populations here in North America, but there is nothing to say they statistically represent the whole. After all, breeders in North America do not have access to select their imported stock from the entire population. They are limited to the Japanese breeders they have connections with, generally who use computers and the Internet or from word of mouth and a friend actually located in the country. The most well connected breeder in US probably has significantly fewer options than a "good ol' boy" in Japan.
There too is the selection process of those who import, and perhaps even more so than breeding dogs here in NA, shape the future of the breed. Each individual importer's goals and ideals, structure of breeding program, and preconceived notions about certain lines determines the dogs that get brought over. The dogs brought from Japan therefor are definitely NOT a random cross-section of the breed. There is a selection process in play that skews our gene pool away from the country of origin. This will always be the case and is true even within larger breeds; a Laborador Retriever from Utah looks much different than one from Maryland. So the only averages we can know about are those in our own dogs, through open communication between the North American breeders.
There aren't many breeding Shikoku, and two in this thread have been bred that are mildly dysplastic. Is mild dysplasia above, equal, or below average in the North American Shikoku population? That is the question to consider. It is not simply a cut and dry answer that one should never breed a dysplastic dog. Consider if the average for the breed was to be moderately or severely dysplastic, as was the case with GSDs at one point in time. In such a situation, a mildly dysplastic dog looks like a good prospect. The status of the available breeding population must be known in order to make a good breeding decision.
There is as well another situation when one might consider breeding a dog with a very undesirable trait. That is when the average is so very high that odds are good that the offspring will not be affected, and if they are, it's easy to breed out with other crosses in the next generation. This scenario is best reserved for individuals who have something else significant to contribute to the breed. It doesn't need to be one trait -- in fact, it should not be just one -- but an overall very good specimen of the breed but for this one undesirable thing.
The larger the population, the easier it is to find a specimen that lacks the undesirable trait. In such a case, when there are better specimens readily available, the selection process needs be significantly stricter. A large population is less prone to shifts in its gene pool by irresponsible breeding compared to a smaller population, but the breeder has little moral or ethical excuse to produce poorly bred dogs when he has so many more options to choose from. So I do believe the rules are different for Laborador and Pit Bull breeders compared to our own tiny populations. Even the American Akita population is huge by comparison to the rest (except maybe the Shiba).
Above all else, though, remember that breeders are people with expenses and lives, just like everyone else. Nobody is doing this as a full time job or supporting themselves by breeding Nihon Ken. Most are losing money at this hobby. Some animals should not be bred, but there is a whole spectrum of possibilities between a cull and a grand champion. Not everyone -- or anyone -- can afford the absolute best of the best or be expected to start over from scratch each time a prospect turns out "just okay." Sometimes they have to play with the hand they were dealt or not play at all. If enough people quit playing, then we're left with nothing.
1. No health tests are done.
2. There are many Shiba kennels that are run as businesses, and some Akita, but almost no for profit kennels breeding the medium sized breeds.
3. Dogs are generally not socialized, not trained, and are kept kenneled outdoors. Many are not walked at all.
4. Some kennels take a lot of time to prepare food for their dogs, but the majority are fed the cheapest kibble available.
5. The breeds are dying out with the older generation, as they are very few young people interested in getting involved. The ones that do, are still not aware of genetic issues etc, and are not trying to change the way things are, because general awareness regarding these issues is extremely low within the country as a whole.
To clarify each point...
1. There is a lack of awareness regarding genetic issues. When they do come up (like HD, LP etc) many kennels don't recognize it as a genetic issue, aren't aware of the issues, or worse yet, just ignore it. There is also a lot of incorrect anecdotal information that is passed on by word of mouth. Many animal hospitals (even one of the ones that I use) have never taken x-rays of joints etc, or done thyroid/eye/patella testing. Many of the adult Shiba going overseas to Europe now are getting tested before going, as the kennels buying them are requiring it. This works because there is a lot more money involved, I'm talking 3-5 times the amount it costs to import a medium size NK.
2. When you are not making money off breeding dogs (it's actually something most kennels just spend money on as a hobby), and you're not even selling dogs for profit, you are not going to be very inclined to get all your dogs tested, when there is no awareness regarding genetic issues among kennels, or the general populace. It's just seen as something that picky foreigners who meddle too much with, and are overly sensitive about perfection in their dogs, are interested in, when what they should be interested in is preserving the breeds' 'honshitsu'. Someone asking a kennel for a dog is at a disadvantage as you are very politely asking for the privilege of being entrusted with one of their dogs. If you are offensive in any way, or are just asking too much of them, they couldn't be bothered to place a dog with you. This is why many kennels couldn't be bothered to send dogs overseas.
3. You are not going to notice too many issues in the movement of your dogs if they are never walked. Of course many kennels walk all their dogs, or at least let them out into a run to defecate, but there are many that only exercise the ones that are being shown. I know a tiny handful of dogs that are kept indoors. The dogs are kept to breed and show, and that's pretty much it. There are very few working kennels left.
4. When a kennel in Japan says with pride that they feed their dogs good kibble, they're usually talking about Iams or Purina. That's the level of awareness regarding kibble in Japan.
This is what you're wading into when you decide to import a dog from Japan, or start breeding the Nihon Ken. Importing costs are high to begin with, it takes a lot of time, effort, and patience to find an available dog of good quality, and from a kennel that maintains their dogs at a decent level. Costs of buying Nihon Ken overseas are high because of the import costs, and the fact that many pups end up being culled from programs due to health/temperament issues. I've sent Brad a lot of dogs, and for all our due diligence trying to pick the best dogs possible, we've had our share of disappointments.
Regarding Shogun, he was a quality pick pup, from the most famous Shikoku kennel in Japan. He was only available because Yano-san is fighting cancer. He has been very helpful in trying to keep quality dogs going overseas so that the breed does not become too inbred, and type is not lost. It is a sad situation for Yano-san, since he was very happy with this pup, for the kennels who imported him, and for myself, since I sent him overseas.
This is definitely not an isolated case, as health issues within the Nihon Ken generally only become apparent once they are overseas. While some kennels will be honest with me about issues they have seen, this is only because of the relationship that I have with them. In most cases it's not something they will publicize.
You mentioned that dogs exported to Europe are tested (and more expensive because of it). Interesting that the Europeans are more willing to make that kind of deal. Also interesting that with enough money, the kennels will do what is necessary to please the "picky foreigners" even if they find it offensive! Has that requirement made any difference in the quality of European Shikokus vs North America?
Edited for auto-correct!
From what I've heard, in Europe the shiba is in a pretty sorry state compared to the US. Many are of poor show quality with bad form and missing teeth, and I think they do have their share of health issues. They are trying what they can to improve their breeding stock, while not also adding in more problems. Heck, some of the US breeders are even being asked and offered lots of money to send over some pups.
Probably due to their popularity Shiba and Akita kennels overseas seem to be more professional, with kennel set ups, and they have no qualms about importing adult dogs from Japan that have been kenneled their entire lives. Most all of the parties that have contacted me up to this point regarding Shikoku are looking to keep their dogs in a pet environment, and so choose puppies over unsocialized adults.
Because of the demand for the Shiba and Akita, and lack of knowledge about them and the situation in Japan at the time they first started becoming popular, a lot of low quality dogs were (and are) unloaded overseas. It became a very monetized environment, which is why the market for Shiba/Akita going overseas is so much higher than for the medium sized breeds.
In backlash to the decline in quality and the prevalent health issues, importers, especially from northern Europe, are starting to ask for testing on hips/elbows, before importing Shiba/Akita.
Edited to add that...
@zandrame it's not so much a numbers issue, as it is the fact that these kennels are often buying from for-profit kennels. Even if they're not buying from a professional kennel, the kennels here know that they can make money selling Shiba/Akita overseas, so the dogs that become available are often from people looking to make a bit of profit. This means they are willing to go out of their way to make that sale happen (and the big numbers help), whereas with the medium size breeds, kennels still take pride in not breeding for profit, and anyone looking to make a buck off of them is looked down on a little bit. Amateurism is part of NIPPO's mission statement.
Also, I'm kinda surprised there's no demand for the midsize NKs. But that's beyond this topic.
When it comes to structure and fertility/testicles, puppies are always going to be a gamble when importing. It's a gamble even with domestic dogs...
If a person wants or expects more certainty, they need to import an adult that has proven itself as fertile.
Don't know about costs of a puppy vs. a proven adult for a medium-sized NK, but it can be quite astronomical in other breeds. About 5-10x the cost of a puppy for a quality adult. That is what could happen if the medium-sized NK adopts a business model.
The only "discount" I've seen in my breed might be a senior stud dog with a rumored health issue (untestable allergies, fertile but not tieing, heartworm damaged, etc.), or if you happen to catch a kennel reducing their numbers or retiring.
It's better when dealing with Japanese friends/contacts who are going to share the rumors and advocate for you among other breeders. Pushing and insulting them isn't going to make friends...
Way I see it, the rarer medium size breeds are in a bit of catch 22 with numbers and demand.
@poeticdragon - I think that you have an excellent point about the difficulties in making breeding decisions in a limited genetic pool. There are a ton of variables. For those reading who might be newer to the forum, here is an interesting older discussion of breeding.
http://www.nihonken.org/forum/index.php?p=/discussion/5852/0#Form_Comment
Here are some older discussions about the issues facing shikoku.
http://www.nihonken.org/forum/index.php?p=/discussion/7059/a-thought-on-the-shikoku039s-decline-in-japan-#Item_71
http://www.nihonken.org/forum/index.php?p=/discussion/6932/shikoku-how-long-till-the-inevitable#Item_48
Health
http://www.nihonken.org/forum/index.php?p=/discussion/7195/known-medical-problems-with-shikoku#Item_30
FWIW - I'm well aware of the difficulties of breed preservation of limited populations. However, when the original breeder of the litter has demonstrated bad faith in failing to inform the new puppy owners like @twobirds and @ryananthony, it makes it that much more difficult to presume good faith when looking at their decision to breed before health tests. This is a reflection strictly on the breeder of the litter, and not the breeder nor co-owner of the sire, who have either directly or by proxy, been much more forthcoming.
----
I've been biting my tongue on this topic because it's too dynamic of a discussion to really be able to conclude, and without the Shikoku breeders being part of it, it's a fruitless effort ( excluding @Edgewood ).
The reality in this breed (the Shikoku Ken) is that the breeders hold everything tight to their chest, a few of them may work together on some scale (co-owning a few dogs) but that's as far as it goes - at least as far as I can tell.
When it really comes down to building a Shikoku community, educating others (outside of trying to sell puppies), or preserving the breed, little to nothing is done. This can bee seen clear-as-day when you look at the Shikoku Club and the resentment and unwillingness to collaborate of some of the Shikoku breeders, importers, and owners.
The community lacks the type of collaboration, plan, and focus that it needs to save the breed.
----
I think we need to add a little perspective on the Shikoku's population size in North America to this discussion before we all jump on the everyone-must-OFA and hyper-select-for-nitpicky-health-issues bandwagon.
The majority of the Shikoku in North America are related.
Shogun is related to the majority of the Shikoku in the North American breeding pool. Looking at the database, all but 3 of the Shikoku listed as breeders in North America are related (Katja's Kuma and the two girls from Iwahori-san are not related).
Shogun: http://www.shikoku-pedigree.com/details.php?id=63298
All these dogs are related to him in just a 3 generation pedigree...
http://www.shikoku-pedigree.com/details.php?id=63330
http://www.shikoku-pedigree.com/details.php?id=63323
http://www.shikoku-pedigree.com/details.php?id=63227
http://www.shikoku-pedigree.com/details.php?id=63351
http://www.shikoku-pedigree.com/details.php?id=63239
http://www.shikoku-pedigree.com/details.php?id=63378
http://www.shikoku-pedigree.com/details.php?id=63323
http://www.shikoku-pedigree.com/details.php?id=63315 (even Kaiju)
Even Kimi, the dam of the Shogun litter, is realted to Shogun in a 3 gen pedigree: http://www.shikoku-pedigree.com/details.php?id=63263
So, pretty much the majority of the Shikoku on this forum are related to Shogun. That's a VERY small population. If we're gonna freak out and worry about Shogun's MILD HD, then EVERY Shikoku owner on here should be doing the same (whether they are Shogun offspring or not).
In dog breeding, as we select for specific traits within a population, and select away from other traits, we end up eliminating breeding options from the population - this shrinks the population and forces breeders to breed more closely (inbreed).
When you inbreed you are increasing the chances of traits possessed by the sire and dam being passed to the puppies (this is called Tandem Repeat).
Hyper-selecting for ANYTHING (including health) in a very small population (like the Shikoku) creates what is called the "Bottleneck Effect" (population undergoes a drastic reduction in size as a result of chance events. A cause of genetic drift.).
When this happens on a breed-wide scale, as it has in Shikoku and Kai, this is called "artificial drift" - the artificial selection for specific traits in a closed population pushes the population to "drift" in a certain direction.
So... the irony of culling Shogun from the breeding population over a MILD HD is that, by culling him to reduce risk of passing on HD, the breeding population shrinks and inbreeding increases (CORs rise), and the risk of future generations being born unhealthy is increased.
In other words - by removing Shogun from the population due to his mild HD, the breeders are increasing the chances of future generations GETTING HD.
Tools like OFA and PennHIP are nice to have and, in theory, should work to eliminate some health issues (tho there is no documented proof of that), but they aren't the answer for every situation (anyone that knows me well knows I hate the OFA, but I'm putting my feelings aside here).
In a LARGE population rich with diversity the effects of using a tool like OFA or PennHIP for removing unhealthy specimens from the breeding pool should result in the reduction of that health issues - it still results in drift, but the population is large enough to where the drift has a positive effect.
But that's not the the case for the Shikoku Ken. The population is small, and ANY form of selection within the breed can cause a bottleneck, and the resulting drift can have some major negative effects and/or lead to the extinction of the breed.
Fortunately for the Kai Ken, we have a (very slowly) growing population in Japan that we can import from. We have a much more diverse population we can use to increase the diversity of our smaller population here in North America - this has been Yamabushi's focus from day one.
The Shikoku, on the other hand, has the opposite issues. The population here in North America has no diverse, growing, population to import from - the population in Japan is SHRINKING.
Hyper-selecting for ANYTHING (including HD) in the North American Shikoku population is a bad idea. Simply put: this everyone-must-OFA mindset will be the nail in the coffin for the Shikoku breed.
Then we point out dewclaws and extra toes in the breed as an issue... REALLY? Shrink this tiny population even more for an extra toe? That's silly talk.
----
My only issue with Shogun is that he is being culled at all.
This to me shows how little direction the Shikoku breeding community has. Why cull a dog who has already produced puppies before you know if the trait you're culling for has been passed onto his pups? Especially when the trait is MILD - and based on results from a panel-based opinion like the OFA.
There have been other recent imports who have produced HD in their offspring, but those imports have not been culled. Yet, here we are culling Shogun w/o even knowing what issues he produces?
Furthermore, to reinforce my opinion on how the Shikoku breeding community has no clear plan or direction, Kuma, another import (who is not closely related to Shogun and all the other dogs listed above) has produced known health issues in offspring, that are MUCH more severe than mild HD, but we don't cull him. (???)
I repeat: Kuma, produced 2 pups, one of which is Osy's ( @Sangmort ), who have a severe neurological issues - yet Kuma is not culled from the breeding pool? But Shogun is for mild HD?
Plus, I'd be willing to bet the pups with those neurological issues have a dam that is related to Shogun and is still being used.
Also, I know that at least one of Kuma's offspring is part of the current Shikoku breeding population - seems a lot more risky to me than keeping Shogun in the breeding population.
I'm not saying any of these dogs should be culled from the population, as that would go against my points above on population diversity, I'm just pointing out the lack of logic and direction that exists in the shikoku breeding community - and with a dead club and very little cooperation... Well, it's very sad for the breed.
----
And any which way, it is almost damned if you damned if you don't. As you can see on this thread, there are those vilifying the use of Shogun and others who say he should have been kept in the population because it is so small. It is a sad situation and I know I try to do the best that I can, but certainly it will not please everyone.
And finally, I own, and want to breed, shikoku, because I love their temperament and personality. Looks are a bonus too, but I just love their character.
Thanks Kris, I wasn't sure if there was anything more I could do on my end than just have Shigeru do the leg work. I feel like that would be lazy on my part. :-<
And, again, with such a small population, if diversity is really the goal or something we need (and I do think it is because there are so many problems with the population we have---and serious ones rather than just cosmetic ones like extra toes), then it does really seem that outcrossing is the way to go. We won't ever get more diversity out of the population we have then there is currently if we stick to just that population.
And as for everyone doing OFA, I do think that's a good idea even if you're working in a population where breeding mild dysplasia can be acceptable. At least the you know what you've got and so will puppy buyers. More information is always good, in my opinion, because then you can make informed choices. If it's necessary to breed dysplasia then its necessary but that doesn't mean you hide from the information. After all, isn't the way you breed dogs with bad hips breeding them to dogs with good hips? How will we actually know what we're working with if we don't go out and gather the information?
High genetic diversity is also essential for a species to evolve. Species that have less genetic variation are at a greater risk. With very little gene variation within the species, healthy reproduction becomes increasingly difficult, and offspring are more likely to deal with problems such as inbreeding.[8] The vulnerability of a population to certain types of diseases can also increase with reduction in genetic diversity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity#Survival_and_adaptation
As seen in the Cheetah, which has a small number, as a population's diversity shrinks sperm count decreases and reproductive issues emerge - this has already been seen in the Shikoku breed.
Due to this, it's nearly impossible to achieve what you are suggesting.
The purification of the population, removing the unhealthy dogs, shrinks the population pool and increases the chances of reproductive issues emerging, those animals with reproductive issues are then seen as "unhealthy", and culled, which shrinks the population even more. This will happen exponentially until the breed has become extinct.
Yes, the OFA can be used to give a breeder more information, but there are much better tools out there for gaining data. Also, OFA is useful for one health issues - there are millions of health issues. In dogdom the OFA has been the primary focus for whether a breeders does "health checks" or not, which pushes the community's eye away from more important health issues like hearts, seizures, bloat, and... diversity (and extinction)!
Remember, hips can be fixed, a neurologic issue, or a bad heart, cannot (usually).
I guess it's up to the owners/breeders as custodians of the breed to decide what is and is not worth breeding from. But I don't see how constricting a tiny population helps much, when it seems like most of the Shikoku I've heard about have some wonky traits? I suppose most dogs in general do, but especially in a breed with such a small population. I would think it would be ideal (in a small population) to breed cautiously from such dogs (with full disclosure to puppy buyers) and keep all possible pups intact at least until maturity in order to select the best options to breed from further? I really don't know, though...
One of the reasons I'm pretty sure my first NK will be a Kai and not a Shikoku is because Shikoku health scares me a bit. If the concern was mild dysplasia... well, that's a risk you take with a lot of medium to large breeds. It's a risk I would be reasonably willing to deal with. But neurological issues like Fate's? That's absolutely heartbreaking, far beyond a case of mild dysplasia that's probably unlikely to even cause lameness in a pet lifestyle.
Once the genes are gone, they are gone for good, so that is why in very threatened populations like Shikoku, every member is valuable, and their genes are worth preserving even if they carry non lethal physical defects like HD, IMO.
"Random Genetic Drift -- The Breeder's Hidden Enemy"
http://dogdimension.org/DiversitySite/randomgeneticdrift.shtml
Third paragraph...
"[...] This limitation can be quite dramatic in breeds, such as the German Shepherd Dog, in which a limited number of very popular stud dogs account for a large proportion of the litters born to a large population of brood bitches. As a rule of thumb, the effective breeding population cannot exceed four times the number of sires in use. In the case of the GSD, a breed which surely must number in the hundreds of thousands of individual animals worldwide, the effective breeding population has been calculated to be something like six hundred, due to the persist overuse of popular stud dogs generation after generation."
Based the above, and looking at the the Shikoku data base, including Shogun, (and I realize Peggy's dogs are not in the DB yet) there is a total of 6 studs in North America. That brings the North American Shikoku Ken breeding population down to a very very scary 24 Shikoku.
"IN THE CROSS FIRE
In some breeds, no COO [country of origin] stock exists, or that which does exist shares the same problems as the AKC stock. In such cases, crosses to other breeds may be the only way to introduce new genes. Early in the creation of breeds, such crosses were commonplace. For example, although the Shih Tzu is an ancient breed, at the beginning of this century the breed is thought to have become extinct in China. Modern Shih Tzu descend from seven dogs and seven bitches, one of which was not a Shih Tzu, but a Pekingese. This cross occurred in 1952, long before AKC recognition of the breed. While the early registration bodies sometimes sanctioned crosses to other breeds, after a breed was established, they allowed crosses only in the rarest of circumstances."
http://dogdimension.org/DiversitySite/thorp-vargas05.shtml