It just seems to me, it is useless to drum about preserving the breed or utility when the environment which fosters the development is gone. People will always breed what they want regardless.
It is why squirrel-hunters in the United States actively cultivate habitats which benefit their desired game to generate a surplus. As long there are squirrels in large numbers, there will always be feists. Likewise, they are actively encouraging their young ones to go hunting too from the day they are born.
"So I guess for everyone who thinks that a dog who does not do its traditional work is now no longer representative of the breed, then what do you think should happen to all these hunting breeds?"
To be fair, most of the people I know who own hunting dogs would rather let them go extinct and or switch to a different breed rather than to let them fall in the hands of show or pet breeders. After all, to them, dogs are simply tools. They view people who keep unique breeds as stupid fetishizers.
Just something to think about: the motivation of breeders with dogs who lost their jobs; and motivation of people who are still working with dogs bred for function.
A breed could eventually fall prey to just being a show/companion breed, or it could go the way of many other breed where there is a show/working split. GSD, Siberian Huskies, Labs, and several other breeds have a both working and show lines where many key features are significantly different yet they are still considered the same breed.
Take Siberian Huskies for example, there is a show line and a racing line. Each line have significantly different temperaments and appearance, yet they are still considered the same breed and there are breeders who use dogs from both lines. I feel that not all dogs of a breed should be exclusively used for a specific task, but should be able to produce representatives that can exist as purely a companion to the right home. And just because some lines of a breed is bred purely as a companion, doesn't mean they lose all of the personality specific to the breed, it just may get watered down a little. Not everyone can handle a husky, and yet to the right person they can still make a great pet.
I also feel that the biggest issue with bay/catch hunting breeds is that not everyone knows that this type of hunting is still done. Until some of the hunting members joined the forum, I thought that bay/catch hunting had gone extinct, just something mentioned when talking about the history of a hunting breed.
Personally I feel that with many breeds, once a standard and rules have been put into place, it causes many factors to turn the idea of preservation back to just a concept or excuse. For example, the Shikoku temperament may have already been skewed from what it originally was. With the way they are kept in Japan and the style of showing (where the dogs "face off") it seems to be perpetuating a more dog-reactive dog. I know it was explained in another thread why this was done, but the dog is not being tested against a prey item, person, or something else but with another dog. Things like this makes me feel that many of what was meant to be preserved was already lost.
@shibamistress@brada1878 Concerning what you say about the Tosa, that's a breed only supported by the fighting associations in Japan. The JKC or any other organisation have no interest in the Tosa. The Tosa was called a watchdog/housepet on the standard because the JKC knew the West doesn't want to have anything to do with Tosa fights. In the 80's the standard still called the Tosa a fighting breed, in the 90's, when the breed got really popular, it was changed to watchdog/housepet. The thing that I really think is funny, every Western breeder has some kind of history of the Tosa on the website, with some Kanji letters and a picture of a Yokozuna. Everybody is attracted to a Tosa in ceremonial garb, with a Mawashi and traditional rope to go with. But what the dog had to do to get that Mawashi, we dislike. Maybe because we don't understand the tradition and rules in the Tosa breed, for many it's just a simple dogfight. But that is how it goes in the West, what we don't understand, we judge any how. Because in our modern and civilized society we always now better. Some people even talk about the breed as if they invented the breed themselves. For instance, when my dog was the first to get a working title, I got more respect from Japanese breeders as I did from people in the West. They called me stupid to work with a Tosa. But, as it always goes in the West, the Western breeders gladly will use my dog's performance for their own benefit. The Tosa is losing ground in Japan as a fighting dog. I really don't think that Japanese dogmen will use a high drive fighting dog as a watchdog or a housepet when the fighting days are over. @Calia...........about the different lines that you mentioned. I can take a working dog to a show, but could I take a showdog to work?
@kimputai - You said, "about the different lines that you mentioned. I can take a working dog to a show, but could I take a showdog to work?"
In short, the answer is yes you can take a show dog to work. But just because you show a working dog and work a show dog, doesn't mean that either would actually do well in it. With a Siberian Husky, most dogs from racing lines would do poorly in the show ring as their coat is generally too thin and their body too lanky/leggy. The show lines may not have as much running drive, speed, or stamina as a racing line husky so may not place as high in a competitive race. Some breeders do mix the two lines, creating dual purpose dogs that do well in both but still may not compete as well as those bred specifically for that task.
@calia..........isn't a Siberian Husky a working breed, a compact and strong sled dog? How can a showdog be a representitive of that? I mean no disrespect. But what I have noticed, nowadays the breed is being discussed more from the color of it's coat. If a working dog does it poorly in the show lines, that doesn't mean it's a bad representative of the breed. Dogs that could work made the breed in the first place.
@kimputai - I'm not saying that either are poor representatives of the breed, just that both versions have their own place. A show line Sibe can still perform the function it was originally intended for, it just won't be as good at it as the racing lines would. Also, the racing/working lines have also evolved in their own way to suit a recreational sport.
Back before the breed was officially a breed, dogs were used in Russia and imported into the US/Canada to help transport goods and it was a way of life. When survival no longer relied on dog transportation, the breed's job turned to something more recreational. With the focus more towards racing than survival, the racing lines had become more lanky and longer backed but these dogs still do wonderful in the job the breed was meant for. The show lines maintained the look of the foundation dogs, while the racing lines maintained the working attitude.
What I was originally going at is that a breed can become both a companion dog (through showing) and a working dog. Both can be considered preservation of the breed, but more different aspects of that preservation. One preserves the looks while the other preserve the working aspect.
Even the temperament has changed with the imported dogs.
Russian aboriginals did not need to be chained up, they could trust their dogs to stay near by otherwise they would be eaten by tigers and leopards; but working dogs in North America are chained because otherwise they will run off.
@souggy - It is not just the US dogs, but many of the sled dogs in Russia are on chain now. I don't think it's purely an aspect of the dogs temperament but more like an aspect of lifestyle. With loose dogs, many times they would get separated from the tribe and either die or find another tribe to integrate to. But also since the dogs are raised loose and taught that staying close to the tribe is beneficial from an early age, many don't go anywhere. Due to lifestyle circumstances now, having loose dogs can be considered a nuisance to those who don't want them around. So these dogs are raised on chains and not given the opportunity to learn that staying close is beneficial.
Just as if I were to take a pup who comes from a breed that is known for being good off-leash dogs, with the majority of its ancestors and close family are star examples of off leash etiquette, and raise it up only experiencing the outdoors on-leash it will wind up being bad off-leash due to lack of "practice". Sure it may show some potential with being an ok off-leash dog, but it would not do as well as a dog raised off-leash from day one.
Of course, most serious mushers don't use purebred dogs at all. They breed their own racing lines from a mix of different breeds to get good sprint dogs, or good Iditarod dogs, or whatever. I never saw a team of purebred dogs in Alaska, unless they came from somewhere else (I saw a team of Siberians a couple of times, but the musher was from Minnesota.
@Kimputai, so do you think breeders of Tosa (or Kai Ken or Akitas for that matter) shouldn't refer to the breed history if they are not using the dogs for the original purpose? I may be misunderstanding your post, but it looks like you're saying that if the dog isn't used for the original purpose that it really is another breed and thus the breeders shouldn't refer to the breed's history on their websites? That seems pretty extreme to me--just because they don't do the same task doesn't mean they aren't still the same breed.
Going back to NK and the issue of preservation, regarding my point about NIPPO hunt-tests and rigid standards. I don't really think a breeder working on/for "breed preservation" has to be focused on every aspect of a breed's preservation. I don't see why preservation can't have many many "specialist" breeders who are focusing on different aspects of the preservation effort.
As long as the breed club that heads the preservation effort encurages the breeders working on different aspects of the preservation effort to work together to improve the population's diversity and health (and prevent extremes), I don't see an issue with breeders focusing on one aspect, say work-ability, or show, of the preservation... As long as it is not taken to an extreme by either side.
That may be the only way all aspects of a breed's preservation (work, standard, confirmation, temp, health, population diversity...) can be focused on.
LoL, what Brad said is what I was trying to get at before going on a husky tangent. Many established, popular breeds still manage to maintain their working aspect and yet have a separate show aspect that works better as just a companion. Studying these breeds and taking what may be useful. This will help give a greater understanding of how a different breed can be preserved in all its aspects, and yet still be able to adapt to the change in human needs and desires.
Who is Beth? :-) @shibamistress I don't know much about other Japanese breeds. My opinion is based on the things I see. When Japanese TV came to film my dog, there was a Shiba present. A female, my dogs really like her. She chases rabbits, rats and all things that move. The dog has a great drive, she will never give up. One Japanese person asked the owner if he had breeding intentions. No, the owner said, she has a spot on her coat that makes her unsuitable for breeding. A spot. Shoot the dog. A friend of mine has 2 Akita's. One is 3 years old, and the other one is 11. The older dog can hardly walk anymore, but she is a proud dog, you can see that from her expression on her face. The younger one is just a dog. Even my own dogs respect the oldtimer. If my dog would jumped to her, she would never get up again. But both dogs are named Akita, but you don't have to be a dogexpert to see the difference in both dogs. To me, I see the difference in that in 10 years of breeding. Concerning the Tosa, the dog is still a fighting breed in Japan. It will always be. Japanese will always set the standards for the Tosa Ken, but performance is what really matters. Regardless if the dog has a spot on his coat or not. You know, in the seventies, when the Fila was getting popular, the judge took a chair with him if he wanted to approach a Fila. Not to sit on, but to protect himself if the Fila would attack him. Nowadays the judge also takes a chair with him, but the Fila sits on the chair so the judge can take a better look. But we call the dog a protection dog and still look at it as a dangerous dog. 30 years ago a Poodle chased ducks. Have you seen a Poodle lately? There are plenty on a dogshow. Ducks laugh at them and chase the Poodle. My point is, we change most breeds to much, just looking at the standard of a breed and create look a likes that can't perform in any way. Most breeds are a shadow of what they used to be. Of course there are people that call themselves dedicated to the Tosa and do illegal dogfights. But, if you don't know the tradition and rules for a Tosa fight, you are not dedicated, you just fight with your dogs. We all want social dogs to fit in our modern society, but in my opinion it isn't right to promote a dog and hate it's background.
@Yandharr the Karafuto went extinct because there was no more need for sled dogs, and the arrival in Hokkaido of Echinococcus. Many, many dogs were culled in an effort to reduce carriers. Of course the Hokkaido made it out of that okay, which I think speaks to the pet size issues in Japan. Big dogs are just really difficult to own over here.
@Saya the Hokkaido is faring about as well as the Kai at the moment. The Kawakami is in a whole different boat. They are not a NIPPO recognized breed, they are a 'breed' that was made up of a tiny handful of dogs from Kawakami village. They are actually considered a local strain of Shiba, and there are less than 300 in Japan.
As far as the original question goes, this is precisely why NIPPO was set up. The NK was dying out due to interbreeding, societal changes such as war, and the overall modernization of Japan. There was a huge shift of the population from the countryside to crammed metropolitan areas where keeping dogs was just not feasible for most people. And if they could own a dog, why did they need a hunting dog? The NK needed protection and preservation because it was in danger then, and many of them are once again in danger.
So why do we as humans feel the need to preserve pieces of the past? Why not just let go? I'm sure each individual has their own personal emotional reasons. In the case of the NK, I think they are amazing dogs. I love their temperament, I love the way they work, I love the way they look. I don't think they're obsolete, look at all the people worldwide who are just discovering the Japanese breeds and falling in love with them.
Do they need to be 'changed'? Are people falling in love with them just because of how they look? What does that say? Aren't most people taken by the character in the NK, something they don't see in other breeds that clicks with them?
With pretty much all dogs breeds evolving with at least some measure of human control, once there is no one that wants them, and there is no use for them, the breeds do die out. Look at the Karafuto and the Koshi-no Inu.
People have changed the NK, they've changed since NIPPO, but at least NIPPO's stated goal of preservation is clear. Whether or not changes need to be made is up for discussion.
I'm bringing this back up because I kept reading the new posts on my phone and now I'm finally in front of a real computer.
So, my first thought on why I care about preserving them is simply that I like them. I like them how they are and I'd like them to be around for a long time so other people can enjoy them and because my dogs aren't immortal.
The bigger preservation effort is more a question for breeders, I think, and I am an long-time aspiring breeder, so it is definitely something I've thought about. I think dogs should be capable of their original job, bearing in mind that their original job may be highly modified from when it was first practised. Hunting itself isn't the same now as it was back then, so the breed would undoubtedly have to adapt to that. Laws, landscape, and tools used by humans are all factors in that.
For instance, I really want to breed a line of hunting, working shiba inus and use them to hunt upland fowl. I don't live in the forests of Japan, though, I live in Canada. There are mountains and forests, but most upland bird hunting takes place in fields. I don't need a dog that trees a bird so I can go shoot it, and then just pick it up from under the tree. I need a flushing/retrieving dog. Many people may criticize me for wanting a shiba inu that hunts this way (more like a spaniel), but let's examine a few facts here: Shiba inu exist outside of Japan in large numbers. In and out of Japan, they are primarily companion dogs. In NA, all the breeders I'm aware of are show breeders, with some focusing also on dog sports like agility and flyball. Hunting pheasants in the prairies is at least closer to their original purpose than simply walking around a show ring, or even jumping agility hurdles (not that I find anything wrong with choosing to show dogs or compete in agility). For me, a breeder in NA, this is the best I can do at giving a nod to the original bird-hunting shibas in Japan.
There are also times when I think a certain trait is more a side-effect of the selection process than an actual necessary part of the breed's nature. I often think of how many Shikoku are very dog-reactive. I think they have to be reactive to their prey, but there are other NK breeds which are successful hunters which have much less of the dog-reactiveness. As far as I can tell, it doesn't actually help the Shikoku hunt to be fighting with other dogs. It's a by-product of a high-drive, tenacious dog. That being said, I think you could select away from dog-reactiveness and not really be compromising the integrity of the breed.
Another example is how kishu ken seem to have sparser coats than the other breeds. Is that really necessary? Or just a side effect of selecting for white dogs? I would say the latter.
We also don't really need dogs that don't come when they're called. That behaviour is a by-product of intelligent, independent-thinking dogs, but you can't really say that an obedient shiba inu is a poor example of the breed for that reason only. As long as they maintain their wits and decision-making skills, it's fine to have an obedient shiba. If the dog is insecure and constantly looking to the owner for directions, unable to think for itself, and not confident enough to wander off and find prey, then that's an issue. Frankly, a dog that heads for the hills never to be seen again isn't all that useful for hunting, either. In fact, I would say that in modern shibas, drive is not the issue. When I look for potential foundation stock for a hunting line of shiba, I have no problem finding dogs that will gladly hunt wild critters. I have a harder time finding a dog that I think I could actually take with me out into the field and expect some level of cooperation.
But, these are just my opinions. I'm just a person trying to enjoy the dogs I love and learn as much as I can about them. I respect other people's choices and opinions on preservation, too. I can't really say that my take is better than anyone else's, as long as no suffering occurs.
Comments
It is why squirrel-hunters in the United States actively cultivate habitats which benefit their desired game to generate a surplus. As long there are squirrels in large numbers, there will always be feists. Likewise, they are actively encouraging their young ones to go hunting too from the day they are born.
To be fair, most of the people I know who own hunting dogs would rather let them go extinct and or switch to a different breed rather than to let them fall in the hands of show or pet breeders. After all, to them, dogs are simply tools. They view people who keep unique breeds as stupid fetishizers.
Just something to think about: the motivation of breeders with dogs who lost their jobs; and motivation of people who are still working with dogs bred for function.
Take Siberian Huskies for example, there is a show line and a racing line. Each line have significantly different temperaments and appearance, yet they are still considered the same breed and there are breeders who use dogs from both lines. I feel that not all dogs of a breed should be exclusively used for a specific task, but should be able to produce representatives that can exist as purely a companion to the right home. And just because some lines of a breed is bred purely as a companion, doesn't mean they lose all of the personality specific to the breed, it just may get watered down a little. Not everyone can handle a husky, and yet to the right person they can still make a great pet.
I also feel that the biggest issue with bay/catch hunting breeds is that not everyone knows that this type of hunting is still done. Until some of the hunting members joined the forum, I thought that bay/catch hunting had gone extinct, just something mentioned when talking about the history of a hunting breed.
Personally I feel that with many breeds, once a standard and rules have been put into place, it causes many factors to turn the idea of preservation back to just a concept or excuse. For example, the Shikoku temperament may have already been skewed from what it originally was. With the way they are kept in Japan and the style of showing (where the dogs "face off") it seems to be perpetuating a more dog-reactive dog. I know it was explained in another thread why this was done, but the dog is not being tested against a prey item, person, or something else but with another dog. Things like this makes me feel that many of what was meant to be preserved was already lost.
For instance, when my dog was the first to get a working title, I got more respect from Japanese breeders as I did from people in the West. They called me stupid to work with a Tosa. But, as it always goes in the West, the Western breeders gladly will use my dog's performance for their own benefit. The Tosa is losing ground in Japan as a fighting dog. I really don't think that Japanese dogmen will use a high drive fighting dog as a watchdog or a housepet when the fighting days are over.
@Calia...........about the different lines that you mentioned. I can take a working dog to a show, but could I take a showdog to work?
In short, the answer is yes you can take a show dog to work. But just because you show a working dog and work a show dog, doesn't mean that either would actually do well in it. With a Siberian Husky, most dogs from racing lines would do poorly in the show ring as their coat is generally too thin and their body too lanky/leggy. The show lines may not have as much running drive, speed, or stamina as a racing line husky so may not place as high in a competitive race. Some breeders do mix the two lines, creating dual purpose dogs that do well in both but still may not compete as well as those bred specifically for that task.
I mean no disrespect. But what I have noticed, nowadays the breed is being discussed more from the color of it's coat. If a working dog does it poorly in the show lines, that doesn't mean it's a bad representative of the breed. Dogs that could work made the breed in the first place.
Back before the breed was officially a breed, dogs were used in Russia and imported into the US/Canada to help transport goods and it was a way of life. When survival no longer relied on dog transportation, the breed's job turned to something more recreational. With the focus more towards racing than survival, the racing lines had become more lanky and longer backed but these dogs still do wonderful in the job the breed was meant for. The show lines maintained the look of the foundation dogs, while the racing lines maintained the working attitude.
What I was originally going at is that a breed can become both a companion dog (through showing) and a working dog. Both can be considered preservation of the breed, but more different aspects of that preservation. One preserves the looks while the other preserve the working aspect.
Russian aboriginals did not need to be chained up, they could trust their dogs to stay near by otherwise they would be eaten by tigers and leopards; but working dogs in North America are chained because otherwise they will run off.
Just as if I were to take a pup who comes from a breed that is known for being good off-leash dogs, with the majority of its ancestors and close family are star examples of off leash etiquette, and raise it up only experiencing the outdoors on-leash it will wind up being bad off-leash due to lack of "practice". Sure it may show some potential with being an ok off-leash dog, but it would not do as well as a dog raised off-leash from day one.
@Kimputai, so do you think breeders of Tosa (or Kai Ken or Akitas for that matter) shouldn't refer to the breed history if they are not using the dogs for the original purpose? I may be misunderstanding your post, but it looks like you're saying that if the dog isn't used for the original purpose that it really is another breed and thus the breeders shouldn't refer to the breed's history on their websites? That seems pretty extreme to me--just because they don't do the same task doesn't mean they aren't still the same breed.
As long as the breed club that heads the preservation effort encurages the breeders working on different aspects of the preservation effort to work together to improve the population's diversity and health (and prevent extremes), I don't see an issue with breeders focusing on one aspect, say work-ability, or show, of the preservation... As long as it is not taken to an extreme by either side.
That may be the only way all aspects of a breed's preservation (work, standard, confirmation, temp, health, population diversity...) can be focused on.
----
@shibamistress I don't know much about other Japanese breeds. My opinion is based on the things I see. When Japanese TV came to film my dog, there was a Shiba present. A female, my dogs really like her. She chases rabbits, rats and all things that move. The dog has a great drive, she will never give up. One Japanese person asked the owner if he had breeding intentions. No, the owner said, she has a spot on her coat that makes her unsuitable for breeding. A spot. Shoot the dog. A friend of mine has 2 Akita's. One is 3 years old, and the other one is 11. The older dog can hardly walk anymore, but she is a proud dog, you can see that from her expression on her face. The younger one is just a dog. Even my own dogs respect the oldtimer. If my dog would jumped to her, she would never get up again. But both dogs are named Akita, but you don't have to be a dogexpert to see the difference in both dogs. To me, I see the difference in that in 10 years of breeding. Concerning the Tosa, the dog is still a fighting breed in Japan. It will always be. Japanese will always set the standards for the Tosa Ken, but performance is what really matters. Regardless if the dog has a spot on his coat or not. You know, in the seventies, when the Fila was getting popular, the judge took a chair with him if he wanted to approach a Fila. Not to sit on, but to protect himself if the Fila would attack him. Nowadays the judge also takes a chair with him, but the Fila sits on the chair so the judge can take a better look. But we call the dog a protection dog and still look at it as a dangerous dog. 30 years ago a Poodle chased ducks. Have you seen a Poodle lately? There are plenty on a dogshow. Ducks laugh at them and chase the Poodle. My point is, we change most breeds to much, just looking at the standard of a breed and create look a likes that can't perform in any way. Most breeds are a shadow of what they used to be. Of course there are people that call themselves dedicated to the Tosa and do illegal dogfights. But, if you don't know the tradition and rules for a Tosa fight, you are not dedicated, you just fight with your dogs. We all want social dogs to fit in our modern society, but in my opinion it isn't right to promote a dog and hate it's background.
@Saya the Hokkaido is faring about as well as the Kai at the moment. The Kawakami is in a whole different boat. They are not a NIPPO recognized breed, they are a 'breed' that was made up of a tiny handful of dogs from Kawakami village. They are actually considered a local strain of Shiba, and there are less than 300 in Japan.
As far as the original question goes, this is precisely why NIPPO was set up. The NK was dying out due to interbreeding, societal changes such as war, and the overall modernization of Japan. There was a huge shift of the population from the countryside to crammed metropolitan areas where keeping dogs was just not feasible for most people. And if they could own a dog, why did they need a hunting dog? The NK needed protection and preservation because it was in danger then, and many of them are once again in danger.
So why do we as humans feel the need to preserve pieces of the past? Why not just let go? I'm sure each individual has their own personal emotional reasons. In the case of the NK, I think they are amazing dogs. I love their temperament, I love the way they work, I love the way they look. I don't think they're obsolete, look at all the people worldwide who are just discovering the Japanese breeds and falling in love with them.
Do they need to be 'changed'? Are people falling in love with them just because of how they look? What does that say? Aren't most people taken by the character in the NK, something they don't see in other breeds that clicks with them?
With pretty much all dogs breeds evolving with at least some measure of human control, once there is no one that wants them, and there is no use for them, the breeds do die out. Look at the Karafuto and the Koshi-no Inu.
People have changed the NK, they've changed since NIPPO, but at least NIPPO's stated goal of preservation is clear. Whether or not changes need to be made is up for discussion.
So, my first thought on why I care about preserving them is simply that I like them. I like them how they are and I'd like them to be around for a long time so other people can enjoy them and because my dogs aren't immortal.
The bigger preservation effort is more a question for breeders, I think, and I am an long-time aspiring breeder, so it is definitely something I've thought about. I think dogs should be capable of their original job, bearing in mind that their original job may be highly modified from when it was first practised. Hunting itself isn't the same now as it was back then, so the breed would undoubtedly have to adapt to that. Laws, landscape, and tools used by humans are all factors in that.
For instance, I really want to breed a line of hunting, working shiba inus and use them to hunt upland fowl. I don't live in the forests of Japan, though, I live in Canada. There are mountains and forests, but most upland bird hunting takes place in fields. I don't need a dog that trees a bird so I can go shoot it, and then just pick it up from under the tree. I need a flushing/retrieving dog. Many people may criticize me for wanting a shiba inu that hunts this way (more like a spaniel), but let's examine a few facts here: Shiba inu exist outside of Japan in large numbers. In and out of Japan, they are primarily companion dogs. In NA, all the breeders I'm aware of are show breeders, with some focusing also on dog sports like agility and flyball. Hunting pheasants in the prairies is at least closer to their original purpose than simply walking around a show ring, or even jumping agility hurdles (not that I find anything wrong with choosing to show dogs or compete in agility). For me, a breeder in NA, this is the best I can do at giving a nod to the original bird-hunting shibas in Japan.
There are also times when I think a certain trait is more a side-effect of the selection process than an actual necessary part of the breed's nature. I often think of how many Shikoku are very dog-reactive. I think they have to be reactive to their prey, but there are other NK breeds which are successful hunters which have much less of the dog-reactiveness. As far as I can tell, it doesn't actually help the Shikoku hunt to be fighting with other dogs. It's a by-product of a high-drive, tenacious dog. That being said, I think you could select away from dog-reactiveness and not really be compromising the integrity of the breed.
Another example is how kishu ken seem to have sparser coats than the other breeds. Is that really necessary? Or just a side effect of selecting for white dogs? I would say the latter.
We also don't really need dogs that don't come when they're called. That behaviour is a by-product of intelligent, independent-thinking dogs, but you can't really say that an obedient shiba inu is a poor example of the breed for that reason only. As long as they maintain their wits and decision-making skills, it's fine to have an obedient shiba. If the dog is insecure and constantly looking to the owner for directions, unable to think for itself, and not confident enough to wander off and find prey, then that's an issue. Frankly, a dog that heads for the hills never to be seen again isn't all that useful for hunting, either. In fact, I would say that in modern shibas, drive is not the issue. When I look for potential foundation stock for a hunting line of shiba, I have no problem finding dogs that will gladly hunt wild critters. I have a harder time finding a dog that I think I could actually take with me out into the field and expect some level of cooperation.
But, these are just my opinions. I'm just a person trying to enjoy the dogs I love and learn as much as I can about them. I respect other people's choices and opinions on preservation, too. I can't really say that my take is better than anyone else's, as long as no suffering occurs.