yukidomari, I have the same opinions as you. It's hard to not 'conform' to thinking that toy designer breeds are bad since they are created purely for money. But mixes have to start somewhere you know?
On the one hand, most toy breeders do it for the money. On the other hand, there are also breeders who wants to create a breed that's healthy and have certain traits. Is the latter consider bad because they are essentially playing God with dogs? Well, then you can say that breeders who only breed certain dogs for health, aesthetics, and 'personality' is also playing God. Who gets to decide what is pretty, a good personality, and level of healthiness? AKC? Other dog-related organizations?
What about reputable breeders who want a puppy from champion lines for showing purposes? Do they wait until they get buyers for each puppy before breeding the dogs? Would they be consider irresponsible for not doing so? Though most reputable breeders do keep pups if they are not able to find a good home but is that wise?
What about AKC dog shows as well? From what I've seen on TV, they check for physical appearances and first impressions of the dog with the handler (I may be wrong, so pleaseeee correct me and inform me). Do we test prey drive, friendliness with kids, and other 'good' qualities of a dog particular to that breed?
I feel like a lot of the questions I am asking is moral and ethical questions. It varies in opinion and it's hard to pick one that's 'right'.
The problem with most of the people wanting to change breeds, is only that they are doing it for novelty and money, not because they care for the dog's health or future. People don't necessarily need to 'create mutts' to do this. Just like "toy" Shiba and albino Doberman.. they are purebred.. if that means anything. On one hand if it's possible to create healthy little Shiba, then I see no problem doing so. However, when a breeder is motivated by money, it's always health and temperament that take a back seat. If a breeder actually cares about the dogs, and there is a whole concerted effort in the same vein, to me there is no problem in changing or creating a new breed. The whole "go back to the rustic look" or "back to how it was" is also IMO the same as trying to change it in any other way. Again I know this is a Japanese spitze forum, but take for example the Cav. King Charles Spaniel. This dog as it exist today, is a recreation of a breed that once existed and no longer does. There's a reason why Shiba or any other Japanese spitze, or any other dog for that matter, don't look or quite act the same as they once did originally for better or worse. I call it directed evolution. If we ever do hunt with the Japanese spitze, or dog-fight them on a large scale again, I'm sure they will similarly change. I would just like to note that "Old" is not always "better" or "good".
About the AKC et al - the shows you see on TV are likely conformation - which means that they are judging mostly on the dog's gait, a little bit of temperament with handler, and above all, looks as it applies to standards.
There are other events less broadcasted like earth dog trials, sporting dog trials, dock jumping, etc that do test a dog's 'purpose'.
As I see it, all -good- breeders want to breed towards a certain goal. If for every litter they bred, they had a single puppy that also happened to meet this goal, to me, that is the ultimate success. The breeder would then either keep this dog/bitch for the genetic pool for him or herself, or only rehome it with another breeder who will do the same. Unfortunately, that's not the way mother nature is. In a litter you may get none of what you wanted - be it performance or conformation. In essence, these "failed" puppies are what should ideally become "pet quality puppies" and sold to pet homes. In taking a waiting list for potential pet homes, a breeder is essentially realizing that his or her litter-to-be will have puppies that fail whatever it is s/he is looking for.
So is it morally ethical for a breeder to breed when the possibilities of that one awesome puppy to be very low? Are "Pet quality puppies" no different from the puppy stores if you consider the reasoning behind it? One is for the money, while the other is the 'perfect' performing dog. Granted, if a breeder doesn't take the chances to breed champion lines, the 'good' genes will die out.
We genetically alter plants and vegetable to make it better all the time. We try to find the correct formula to make living easier. I still remember a particular definition of technology: to make the quality of human life better and easier. Dogs were/are bred to make our lives easier. They have hunting, protecting, alarming and other abilities to benefit the human. So is it wrong to breed a dog that conforms to a human?
I guess it is more of an argument with myself. I'm still on the fence of designer breeds and I can't really decide what is morally correct. I myself would never want a tiny pup but that's just my preference. Though, after being around so many different size dogs at my previous work, it's hard to discriminate!
I agree with you Jenny. Then again, those 'pet quality' ones bred by breeders on the search for an "awesome" pup will have also come from parents hopefully throughly health and genetically tested, as well as temperamentally sound. It's not quite the same as a pet store pup.
It is sad that people that dont like our beloved dogs as they are and feel they need to be changed. It is true that they are not the same dogs they once were. No dog is. No dog was originally a dog. It was a wolf. Time will alter all things on its own. If no one bred dogs for selective attributes and looks there would be no individual breeds. Its true that nihonken are not the perfect dog for everyone. But there are people they are perfect for. Should the goal of altering any breed be for no other reason than to make them more marketable to the masses as house pets? Is it really that bad that a Shiba is not a good dog for some? Any one defending a Kai because of their personalities cannot honestly say that one breed is fine the way it and then believe another has issues it needs changed because the majority could not handle them. Just because the Shiba and Akita are more popular than the Kai and Shikoku doesnt mean they should be degraded in character to the state of a Lab. It will happen to the Shikoku and Kai one day. They will gain popularity solely because of looks and then someone will think I can make them better housepets. They are not immune, it will happen, it will just be a while. Do they absolutely need to be better housepets? If anyone says yes then every dog breed should make a good companion and should be changed to fit that idea. If you can argue that some people need livestock gaurdians then I argue that I need a small, snotty, bitchy, strong willed little dog to complete my life and make me whole.
My big question is Why? why do they need to be smaller? I think I would get less twisted about it if they just came up with a diffrent name, and didn't use Shiba.
I don't think much harm is done when there will still be Shiba, and then separately, there be mini-Shiba. You can still have the dogs you want, and others, the dogs they want. I wish people would stop using non-japanese spitze dogs as a point of comparison for "degeneration", pointedly other toy dogs, or dogs such as Labs. Toy dogs and Labs do have their purpose, and it's mistaken to think that Labs are all nice perfect housepets to begin with. You all may have your favorite dogs that are Japanese spitze, but that's no reason to consider all other dogs stupid, non-purposeful, frou-frou, or otherwise.. and I've seen a lot of these implications on this board.
Anyway, if there isn't a need for flock guardians to guard flocks anymore, nothing wrong with making them more into a housepet. Conversely, if there's a need for a hunting Shiba, then, so be it. It is my opinion that breeding to make a Shiba, or ANY dog, more housepet friendly does not always entail curbing them of their characteristic quirks, likes, dislikes, "bitchiness" or otherwise. A Shih-Tzu is widely considered a companion dog, and so is a Pomeranian. Both of these dogs can have very "bitchy" traits despite having been bred as companion animals from the beginning. And fanciers like that, too.
Personally, I have no problem with the shiba the way it currently is. I love my Kiba and I think he is perfect. But I wanted to understand why breeding mame shiba is considered so terrible when there are jomon shiba being bred that people praise. Both dogs are aesthetically strayed from the Shiba Inu form.
brada1878 "they are selecting that breed for a higher drive tho - to perform hunting and tracking role"
From this, I am assuming (please correct me if I am wrong) I will take it that there is a need for Shiba Inu's to have more drive in order to be a better hunter, and thus the Jomon-shiba breed is being created in order to fill that need. Following along with yukidomari's train of thought, then it is not very fair to tell people to get a chihuahua or yorkie instead if they want an ethically bred mame. Why don't these Jomon-shiba breeders stop what they are doing and start using an established breed with more drive, great hunting ,and tracking skills such as beagles or coonhounds?
Why is companionship not a valid reason to breed healthy mame? The mame's I have seen are not teacup chihuahua size. The females are around 10lbs and males 12-13. While this is a size decrease by almost half, I don't want people imagining shaking little shiba's cupped in someone's hand. While this standard is kept for the certain breeder I met, I do understand that other's might not hold the same standard should the breed get popularized.
I am not for breeding mame's nor am I for breeding jomon-shiba, I just don't understand why there seems to be a double standard...It makes it almost a ghastly decision to purchase a mame shiba even if it is bred with health and saftey in mind by the breeder. The only valid argument I see for this is staticnfuzz's argument that generally trying to toy down a dog can lead to health problems. Based on pictures (which is very inaccurate) the jomon seems to be bigger than the shiba, upsizing the shiba to a jomon size, could also lead to health problem could it not?
Ah but Jin, we're not speaking about make them more "housefriendly" temperament wise. We're talking about miniaturizing them to make them PHYSICALLY more house friendly. Which results in health issues no matter HOW much you try not to. As I said, just look at small breed dogs like the pomeranian.
If you want an LGD but don't have the space for one DON'T get an LGD. Either save up & make the space for one, but don't change the breed resulting in health problems just so they can fit into the home.
It's one thing to change temperment, it's another to change the physicality of the dog that can lead to health problems. ~
I agree, it's a double standard. After I wrote that I kinda felt the same way.
With the Jomon tho, they are working to recreate the aboriginal Shiba - a dog that existed in Japan before the other breeds where formed.
In the mame shiba's case, they are just breeding a smaller dog because they want a smaller dog. There is no historical relevance to the mame shiba as there is with the Jomon.
So is it sentimentality towards the past? One that no longer exists? Is that a worthy reason?
Sangmort, any size change, including making dogs as big as mastiffs and others will make them physically prone to more problems. This includes anything from Cane Corsos and on. Should we not have been breeding Great Danes, Cane Corsos, or any of the large Molosser types? I think there's always a give-and-take between what you want (even if that's size) and what is acceptable. Are French Bulldogs acceptable, even when they can no longer tie naturally and always require C-sections for birth? Even non-tiny dogs suffer from all sorts of problems having to do with size, including hip dysplasia, arthritis, elbow dysplasia, et al. In fact some tiny dogs (Reference Minpins, Maltese) have pretty rare problems with physical size (low incidence of open fontanels low incidence of LP) in good stock, while some "regular" sized dogs (Labs, GSDs, Dobes, - breeds I'm more familiar with-) have higher incidences of HP and other problems - even in good stock things such as merely "decent" hip scores .. depending if you use PennHip or OFAs.
As far as I'm concerned, a dog being physically house friendly is just as important as being temperamentally house friendly. If a person is physically impaired, very old, or has some infirmity, even if a pittie was the best ever possible temperament match, a young pittie is just not what is for them. ... size is indeed important when it comes to selecting the type and breed of dog you want. It's just a given fact that the smaller a dog, the smaller the possibility of doggy problems.. from chewing, to pulling, not listening, scaring the neighbors.
Again, I hope you understand that I'm not for miniaturizing all dogs. Nor am I for changing, or making bigger all dogs. I'm partially playing devil's advocate, partially trying to think more openly than I have in the past. I hope no offense is taken from anything I have written.
Firstly, I agree some dog breeds should not have been created in the first place. When I learned French Bulldogs could only give birth through C-Section...ye God! How HORRIBLE for us to create a dog who can, quite literally, DIE without human aid! Imagine a stray french bulldog female [ unspayed ] get's pregnant...she can't possibly give birth! It's like, condemning her to death in a slow & painful fashion! It is incredibly cruel. And at the same time I wonder how many of those poor dogs had to die that way when the breed first came about and no one realized it needed a c-section to give birth. How many start up BYB or owners playing "breeder" don't know this & whose dogs die the same way still TODAY. It is just horrible.
Likewise, every single dog breed suffers from some form of health issue or another. & It is my firmest belief that any dog that is to be bred get's continually genetically tested. If you can't afford to do the tests, don't breed the dog. Plain & Simple.
So my question to you is...the Shiba already has genetic defects. [ Thyroid Problems, LP, HD, etc. ] Why add more by shrinking it? [ or making it larger for that matter? ] Shouldn't we, instead, try to breed out these defects first & foremost as much as we can BEFORE we even think about shrinking the dog?
---
Also, I do believe there is a dog for each & every person. & for the most part, living space, has very little do with it. For example, you CAN keep a shiba in a small apartment IF it receives adequate exercise. Same thing for an Akita, GSD, Pomeranian, Shikoku, Kai, etc. An LGD however, can not to do this, but shiba can be kept in small apartments. [ so the dogs who living space is super important, tend to be in the minority ]
I see shrinking them as only a means for profit.
People want "shiba" but don't want to have to walk it 3x time a day. So, essentially, they want something that LOOKS like a shiba, but doesn't require the care a shiba does. So...what does the market do? It shrinks shibas, "It still looks like a shiba, but you don't have to walk it!" It's like a marketing ploy.
Why get a shiba, if you can't love it for what it is? I love shibas, BUT I like "bigger" dogs. Instead of super-sizing the shiba, I'm looking for a bigger dog breed instead. I love Border Collies, however, they are FAR TOO hyper / energetic to keep [ for me personally ] so I don't get a BC.
Ultimately, it is about being responsible for the dogs we want to bring into our lives. Doing research so that the dog fits our lifestyle. If we can not take care of the dog, the way IT needs to be taken care of, then we must find a dog breed that is more suitable to our needs, or not get one until we CAN meet those needs.
Here's an interesting question: Why are shibas so tolerable in small spaces? Is it perhaps that it was a quality that was enhanced by breeding? Is there a difference between breeding for mental qualities or physical qualities purely to make the human life easier?
Araks - THe size of the puppies head's is too big for the mother to push out naturally. Furthermore, most can not breed naturally either so bitches have to be artificially inseminated. ~
ooooooooooohhhhhhhhh, so thats it. I always thought that there was something wrong with the breed's body shape or something along those lines :P THANKS OSY!
On a semi realted note. I have a huge head. Like seriously huge. My mom is about 4 11, and maybe 100 lbs. She popped my big oversized baby head out. I did have a football head for a few days though. Not really sure what that has to do with anything, except that my mom is cooler than a french bulldog! Go MOM!
My mom owned a mini shnauzer when I was a young boy. You are wrong about them - there is nothing different between them and full-size ones except the size. If there was, he was completely unaware of it! My parents took him to the county fair once and he was rude to a Clydesdale, thinking he was a full-sized shnauzer. We finally caught up him two miles away in the woods.
I don't mean to generalize, but in my experience, mini versions of dogs seem to have all of the "energectic" personality characteristics, and none of the mellower, mitigating personality quirks. I've got a neighbor behind me with two minipins. When she lets them out, one of them barks 100% of the time. It is a loud, alarm bark. I went walking over there the other week to see if somebody was getting murdered or something.
I cannot imagine the consequences of breeding a shiba down in size.
On the subject in general of new breeds. Thought experiment. What if breeders took a certain stock - not spitz, maybe retriever (although what is that one long-haired spitz breed that was bred to be a family dog?) and developed a breed that was meant to be the ultimate American suburban family dog? It would be reliable off-leash, good with kids. Maybe we could do some advanced genetic engineering on it to make it entirely mellow except when there is a real threat like a robber or something, and then it becomes a brutal killing machine. Also, the dog would never have sex unless you exposed it to some pheromone, to prevent accidents and backyard breeding. Okay that's very silly.
Basically my point is, most dog owners don't need dog breeds for what they are bred for, particularly working breeds. I remember brad pointing out months ago that livestock guard dogs are often mutts anyways.
Kenshi, are you talking about a giant schnauzer vs miniature? Or a standard? I'm talking about a giant v miniature.. ;)
I know a person with both.. with years of exp. with breeders in giants.. I don't think they are the same at all.. they've had different breeds to get them "up" and "down" from standard in them, too.
Exactly. If anything, I like the larger shiba. Mine are all at the high end of the standard or above standard which
is what I wanted. They are more rugged and hold up better when working. That is just my personal preference for
a more active pet though. The size standard should not be reduced.
Keshi: Your omment about unleashing mini-shibas on the world brought up a great image in my mind. In the new movie, "The day the Earth stood still" when Gort turned into all the nibbling bugs devouring the earth...I could see an orange/tan blur doing the same thing to all wooden furniture in the world. Just a whir of tiny teeth and poofy fur.
Comments
On the one hand, most toy breeders do it for the money. On the other hand, there are also breeders who wants to create a breed that's healthy and have certain traits. Is the latter consider bad because they are essentially playing God with dogs? Well, then you can say that breeders who only breed certain dogs for health, aesthetics, and 'personality' is also playing God. Who gets to decide what is pretty, a good personality, and level of healthiness? AKC? Other dog-related organizations?
What about reputable breeders who want a puppy from champion lines for showing purposes? Do they wait until they get buyers for each puppy before breeding the dogs? Would they be consider irresponsible for not doing so? Though most reputable breeders do keep pups if they are not able to find a good home but is that wise?
What about AKC dog shows as well? From what I've seen on TV, they check for physical appearances and first impressions of the dog with the handler (I may be wrong, so pleaseeee correct me and inform me). Do we test prey drive, friendliness with kids, and other 'good' qualities of a dog particular to that breed?
I feel like a lot of the questions I am asking is moral and ethical questions. It varies in opinion and it's hard to pick one that's 'right'.
About the AKC et al - the shows you see on TV are likely conformation - which means that they are judging mostly on the dog's gait, a little bit of temperament with handler, and above all, looks as it applies to standards.
There are other events less broadcasted like earth dog trials, sporting dog trials, dock jumping, etc that do test a dog's 'purpose'.
As I see it, all -good- breeders want to breed towards a certain goal. If for every litter they bred, they had a single puppy that also happened to meet this goal, to me, that is the ultimate success. The breeder would then either keep this dog/bitch for the genetic pool for him or herself, or only rehome it with another breeder who will do the same. Unfortunately, that's not the way mother nature is. In a litter you may get none of what you wanted - be it performance or conformation. In essence, these "failed" puppies are what should ideally become "pet quality puppies" and sold to pet homes. In taking a waiting list for potential pet homes, a breeder is essentially realizing that his or her litter-to-be will have puppies that fail whatever it is s/he is looking for.
We genetically alter plants and vegetable to make it better all the time. We try to find the correct formula to make living easier. I still remember a particular definition of technology: to make the quality of human life better and easier. Dogs were/are bred to make our lives easier. They have hunting, protecting, alarming and other abilities to benefit the human. So is it wrong to breed a dog that conforms to a human?
I guess it is more of an argument with myself. I'm still on the fence of designer breeds and I can't really decide what is morally correct. I myself would never want a tiny pup but that's just my preference. Though, after being around so many different size dogs at my previous work, it's hard to discriminate!
It is true that they are not the same dogs they once were. No dog is. No dog was originally a dog. It was a wolf. Time will alter all things on its own.
If no one bred dogs for selective attributes and looks there would be no individual breeds.
Its true that nihonken are not the perfect dog for everyone. But there are people they are perfect for. Should the goal of altering any breed be for no other reason than to make them more marketable to the masses as house pets? Is it really that bad that a Shiba is not a good dog for some? Any one defending a Kai because of their personalities cannot honestly say that one breed is fine the way it and then believe another has issues it needs changed because the majority could not handle them. Just because the Shiba and Akita are more popular than the Kai and Shikoku doesnt mean they should be degraded in character to the state of a Lab. It will happen to the Shikoku and Kai one day. They will gain popularity solely because of looks and then someone will think I can make them better housepets. They are not immune, it will happen, it will just be a while. Do they absolutely need to be better housepets? If anyone says yes then every dog breed should make a good companion and should be changed to fit that idea. If you can argue that some people need livestock gaurdians then I argue that I need a small, snotty, bitchy, strong willed little dog to complete my life and make me whole.
My big question is Why? why do they need to be smaller? I think I would get less twisted about it if they just came up with a diffrent name, and didn't use Shiba.
Like Alaskan Klee Kai.
Anyway, if there isn't a need for flock guardians to guard flocks anymore, nothing wrong with making them more into a housepet. Conversely, if there's a need for a hunting Shiba, then, so be it. It is my opinion that breeding to make a Shiba, or ANY dog, more housepet friendly does not always entail curbing them of their characteristic quirks, likes, dislikes, "bitchiness" or otherwise. A Shih-Tzu is widely considered a companion dog, and so is a Pomeranian. Both of these dogs can have very "bitchy" traits despite having been bred as companion animals from the beginning. And fanciers like that, too.
brada1878
"they are selecting that breed for a higher drive tho - to perform hunting and tracking role"
From this, I am assuming (please correct me if I am wrong) I will take it that there is a need for Shiba Inu's to have more drive in order to be a better hunter, and thus the Jomon-shiba breed is being created in order to fill that need. Following along with yukidomari's train of thought, then it is not very fair to tell people to get a chihuahua or yorkie instead if they want an ethically bred mame. Why don't these Jomon-shiba breeders stop what they are doing and start using an established breed with more drive, great hunting ,and tracking skills such as beagles or coonhounds?
Why is companionship not a valid reason to breed healthy mame? The mame's I have seen are not teacup chihuahua size. The females are around 10lbs and males 12-13. While this is a size decrease by almost half, I don't want people imagining shaking little shiba's cupped in someone's hand. While this standard is kept for the certain breeder I met, I do understand that other's might not hold the same standard should the breed get popularized.
I am not for breeding mame's nor am I for breeding jomon-shiba, I just don't understand why there seems to be a double standard...It makes it almost a ghastly decision to purchase a mame shiba even if it is bred with health and saftey in mind by the breeder. The only valid argument I see for this is staticnfuzz's argument that generally trying to toy down a dog can lead to health problems. Based on pictures (which is very inaccurate) the jomon seems to be bigger than the shiba, upsizing the shiba to a jomon size, could also lead to health problem could it not?
If you want an LGD but don't have the space for one DON'T get an LGD. Either save up & make the space for one, but don't change the breed resulting in health problems just so they can fit into the home.
It's one thing to change temperment, it's another to change the physicality of the dog that can lead to health problems. ~
With the Jomon tho, they are working to recreate the aboriginal Shiba - a dog that existed in Japan before the other breeds where formed.
In the mame shiba's case, they are just breeding a smaller dog because they want a smaller dog. There is no historical relevance to the mame shiba as there is with the Jomon.
----
Sangmort, any size change, including making dogs as big as mastiffs and others will make them physically prone to more problems. This includes anything from Cane Corsos and on. Should we not have been breeding Great Danes, Cane Corsos, or any of the large Molosser types? I think there's always a give-and-take between what you want (even if that's size) and what is acceptable. Are French Bulldogs acceptable, even when they can no longer tie naturally and always require C-sections for birth? Even non-tiny dogs suffer from all sorts of problems having to do with size, including hip dysplasia, arthritis, elbow dysplasia, et al. In fact some tiny dogs (Reference Minpins, Maltese) have pretty rare problems with physical size (low incidence of open fontanels low incidence of LP) in good stock, while some "regular" sized dogs (Labs, GSDs, Dobes, - breeds I'm more familiar with-) have higher incidences of HP and other problems - even in good stock things such as merely "decent" hip scores .. depending if you use PennHip or OFAs.
As far as I'm concerned, a dog being physically house friendly is just as important as being temperamentally house friendly. If a person is physically impaired, very old, or has some infirmity, even if a pittie was the best ever possible temperament match, a young pittie is just not what is for them. ... size is indeed important when it comes to selecting the type and breed of dog you want. It's just a given fact that the smaller a dog, the smaller the possibility of doggy problems.. from chewing, to pulling, not listening, scaring the neighbors.
Again, I hope you understand that I'm not for miniaturizing all dogs. Nor am I for changing, or making bigger all dogs. I'm partially playing devil's advocate, partially trying to think more openly than I have in the past. I hope no offense is taken from anything I have written.
Firstly, I agree some dog breeds should not have been created in the first place. When I learned French Bulldogs could only give birth through C-Section...ye God! How HORRIBLE for us to create a dog who can, quite literally, DIE without human aid! Imagine a stray french bulldog female [ unspayed ] get's pregnant...she can't possibly give birth! It's like, condemning her to death in a slow & painful fashion! It is incredibly cruel. And at the same time I wonder how many of those poor dogs had to die that way when the breed first came about and no one realized it needed a c-section to give birth. How many start up BYB or owners playing "breeder" don't know this & whose dogs die the same way still TODAY. It is just horrible.
Likewise, every single dog breed suffers from some form of health issue or another. & It is my firmest belief that any dog that is to be bred get's continually genetically tested. If you can't afford to do the tests, don't breed the dog. Plain & Simple.
So my question to you is...the Shiba already has genetic defects. [ Thyroid Problems, LP, HD, etc. ] Why add more by shrinking it? [ or making it larger for that matter? ] Shouldn't we, instead, try to breed out these defects first & foremost as much as we can BEFORE we even think about shrinking the dog?
---
Also, I do believe there is a dog for each & every person. & for the most part, living space, has very little do with it. For example, you CAN keep a shiba in a small apartment IF it receives adequate exercise. Same thing for an Akita, GSD, Pomeranian, Shikoku, Kai, etc. An LGD however, can not to do this, but shiba can be kept in small apartments. [ so the dogs who living space is super important, tend to be in the minority ]
I see shrinking them as only a means for profit.
People want "shiba" but don't want to have to walk it 3x time a day. So, essentially, they want something that LOOKS like a shiba, but doesn't require the care a shiba does. So...what does the market do? It shrinks shibas, "It still looks like a shiba, but you don't have to walk it!" It's like a marketing ploy.
Why get a shiba, if you can't love it for what it is? I love shibas, BUT I like "bigger" dogs. Instead of super-sizing the shiba, I'm looking for a bigger dog breed instead. I love Border Collies, however, they are FAR TOO hyper / energetic to keep [ for me personally ] so I don't get a BC.
Ultimately, it is about being responsible for the dogs we want to bring into our lives. Doing research so that the dog fits our lifestyle. If we can not take care of the dog, the way IT needs to be taken care of, then we must find a dog breed that is more suitable to our needs, or not get one until we CAN meet those needs.
Hope that makes sense
I don't mean to generalize, but in my experience, mini versions of dogs seem to have all of the "energectic" personality characteristics, and none of the mellower, mitigating personality quirks. I've got a neighbor behind me with two minipins. When she lets them out, one of them barks 100% of the time. It is a loud, alarm bark. I went walking over there the other week to see if somebody was getting murdered or something.
I cannot imagine the consequences of breeding a shiba down in size.
On the subject in general of new breeds. Thought experiment. What if breeders took a certain stock - not spitz, maybe retriever (although what is that one long-haired spitz breed that was bred to be a family dog?) and developed a breed that was meant to be the ultimate American suburban family dog? It would be reliable off-leash, good with kids. Maybe we could do some advanced genetic engineering on it to make it entirely mellow except when there is a real threat like a robber or something, and then it becomes a brutal killing machine. Also, the dog would never have sex unless you exposed it to some pheromone, to prevent accidents and backyard breeding. Okay that's very silly.
Basically my point is, most dog owners don't need dog breeds for what they are bred for, particularly working breeds. I remember brad pointing out months ago that livestock guard dogs are often mutts anyways.
I know a person with both.. with years of exp. with breeders in giants.. I don't think they are the same at all.. they've had different breeds to get them "up" and "down" from standard in them, too.
is what I wanted. They are more rugged and hold up better when working. That is just my personal preference for
a more active pet though. The size standard should not be reduced.