What are we preserving them for?
Just playing devil's advocate here - bear with me.
Breeds can evolve to perform new jobs as their old ones fall by the wayside. An example of this is the Golden Retriever; while originally developed as a gun dog, they are now the most popular breed used as a service animal. But sometimes a breed's traditional work loses popularity or falls out of use completely and no new direction is given to the breed. Sometimes the breed itself dwindles in popularity, because its size, primitive nature, or native origin drives puppy buyers to seek another breed that will fit their lifestyle and has an exotic allure.
So tell me - if the humans who cultivated the breed no longer use or want it - what is the purpose of preserving it?
I understand preservation for preservation's sake when it comes to endangered species of wild animals. But a breed of dog is something that man created to fulfill a role and please him. If the dog can no longer do these things and serve its purpose, if man no longer desires the breed which he created, why not let it decline gracefully?
I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Breeds can evolve to perform new jobs as their old ones fall by the wayside. An example of this is the Golden Retriever; while originally developed as a gun dog, they are now the most popular breed used as a service animal. But sometimes a breed's traditional work loses popularity or falls out of use completely and no new direction is given to the breed. Sometimes the breed itself dwindles in popularity, because its size, primitive nature, or native origin drives puppy buyers to seek another breed that will fit their lifestyle and has an exotic allure.
So tell me - if the humans who cultivated the breed no longer use or want it - what is the purpose of preserving it?
I understand preservation for preservation's sake when it comes to endangered species of wild animals. But a breed of dog is something that man created to fulfill a role and please him. If the dog can no longer do these things and serve its purpose, if man no longer desires the breed which he created, why not let it decline gracefully?
I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Comments
I personally am unaware of any other coherent preservation efforts for other breeds. That being said, personally I think breed preservation is important from a historical record point of view. I don't see it as fundamentally different than preserving endangered species. In my mind, a breed of dog is defined by it's "type and temperament" and if you change those things, you have changed the breed. Preserving them is a way to stay connected to our history.
Take your Golden Retriever example. I don't think there is anything wrong with using Golden's as service dogs provided there remains (as there actually does) a population that is true to it's historical purpose. Fortunately, with yearly litter registrations in the 10s of thousands, Golden's aren't in a position where they are facing extinction.
When it comes to a rare breed, the situation becomes far more complicated. When the options are extinction, preservation, or adaption and focusing on preservation will likely lead to extinction, then adaption is something that should be considered seriously. The Shikoku is a perfect example of this. Their difficult temperament can make them less than desirable. In order to increase their popularity enough to ensure their survival, it may be necessary to soften them up and find a new purpose for them. If that is the case, I think it is vitally important to document what they were, the choice to change it, and what they become.
also, If tradition is a big deal, what happened to the karafuto? (was it ever explained in the other thread?)
Hokkaido is probably doing good especially with one being in a commercial and stuff..
Nice subject, but same can be said for a lot of breeds, but they're still around.
I know that some Shibas have been used in Japan as SAR dogs for rural SAR.
Dog breeds have always been created and manipulated by humans to fulfill certain tasks. If the original task is not needed any more, as is the case with a huge variety of dog breeds (how many people use terriers as ratters anymore, for example?), then dogs can fulfill another purpose, even if that is "just" being a companion animal. I see nothing wrong with that. To me, the breed history is interesting, and it is also useful in figuring out what a dog might enjoy doing, but I don't see that hunting breeds must be hunted with or whatever. The vast majority of dog breeds do something different then the breed did when they were developed, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
For people who want to keep a breed true to historical roots and work with them in that way, that's cool. But I don't actually think there is anything wrong with making changes to fit the breed to contemporary life. Even traditions evolve--they evolve, or they die out. So with dogs--the breeds evolve too, as they should in my opinion.
AAs are great dogs, for example. Really wonderful, but most of them are nothing like the Akitas that were used for hunting in Japan years ago. That's fine with me. They are now great companion dogs, and they don't need to be hunters anymore. I don't think the breed has lost anything through this change.
My position has, for a long time, been that a breed of dog is defined by a type and a temperament. If you change that, you have a new breed of dog, even if pedigrees tell you otherwise. In that way, I disagree with Lisa (@shibamistress). While I have no problem with breeding dogs to fill the current societal needs, I do take issue with leaving behind what has traditionally defined a breed. If you want to change it, that's fine. Change it. But don't say it still the same.
And yea, for sentimental values, I think it is important to preserve a breed, but what that breed historically did and presently does doesn't change the breed as long as the type and temperament are the same, objectivly anyway. I think it is okay for the breeds function to change along with man, since, after all, man created the breed for his own needs. And really, it might be okay too for the breed to change in type and temperament too if it suits man's needs on the basis of the last sentence I said.
On a subjective, closer look, one might not like the way the breed is evolving, but I think that is a different topic. On a bigger perspective, it's okay for a breed to change and not be preserved as long as it still serves a function to man.
If no one* wants to use them to hunt, and no one* wants them as a companion, what is the purpose of preservation?
* By "no one" I mean a very tiny, fairly insignificant number of people compared to even other rare breeds.
But I think if it is to that point, the numbers are going to be already really low, so that the small amount of people who are interested might want to preserve a small number of dogs just for themselves? I don't think dogs have to be preserved for the entire human population. On the other hand, It does kind of seem futile to preserve a breed for the 20 people in the world who liked that breed of dog. Maybe those people would have to believe that preserving the breed is in the best interest for all of humankind for "insert reason here".
On your original question (rephrased above) I guess I'd say that if no one hunts with them and no one wants them as a companion, then the breed could die out, and that would probably be ok, though sad. I was going to say it might be good to preserve them just for their inherent value as a breed (which is how I feel about endangered species) but we're talking about dogs here and breeds, and I believe that dog breeds also evolve (though technically I know their breeds are manipulated by humans, not true evolution) and if some disappear, that is probably ok. (Mostly I'm agreeing with Jellyfart, who posted as I was writing this).
On the other tangent, though, I would say that 1) there is nothing wrong with breeds being housepets, and in fact, I would argue that the vast majority ARE housepets first (and hunters or other working dogs second if they are working breeds), and that in fact probably most of us here put great value in the role of dogs as "housepet" and most of us don't thing dogs should be treated like livestock and left outside all the time (LGDs aside). I don't think there is anything wrong with that, and in fact, the vast majority of dogs, even dogs owned by people on this forum, are companion animals first. I don't see dogs' function in terms of a hierarchy: I don't believe a working dog is inherently better than a companion dog, which is the impression I sometimes get from the way "pet" is used, as if it is somehow lesser.
Most people here, for example, who have NKs do not use them for their traditional tasks. Most people don't hunt with them. Some dogs don't do their original work anymore, and that's good. Do we really want to use Tosa for dogfights? or some of the bully breeds for bull baiting?
And I think you can both preserve a breed and still not use it for the original task. While I don't think it matters that much if people end up breeding for a little softer temperament, for example, I do think there are people who would also prefer the sharpness of some dogs and still keep them primarily as companions. And I don't think, anyway, that some softening of temperament makes a breed suddenly so different that it is not the same breed. If someone knows that the vast majority of their dogs are now going to be companions rather than hunters, for example, I think it is a practical way of making sure that individual dogs end up suited for the work they now do--which may be different than what the breed originally did.
What I am getting at is that the medium NK, especially the shikoku, or any rare "primitive" breed that appears to no longer have a purpose, has yet to find its niche of people who would desire/not mind such features. I think it is not a case of no one wanting a breed, but more about how well the breed is "advertised". I'm betting that many people who would do well with preservation breeds have yet to discover their existence or have found them to be too difficult/pricey to obtain.
Since man created the breed, there was at one point enough people to want this breed to happen. If man no longer desires the breed, then it's kind of pointless to preserve. Sad, though
I disagree with that statement. It is exactly the opposite. I think it's exactly because they are falling out of favor that there is a need to preserve. If there was still a strong need for the breed as it was, there would be no reason to put any effort into preservation---the current breeding efforts to fullfil the existing need would function as a preservation effort. When a breed loses its job, that's when a preservation effort is needed. When there is no longer a large enough demand for the type and temperament that define the breed, that's when it is in danger of losing its identity (through selection for another type or temperament) or going extinct.
Preservation is not about filling a need. Breeding is about filling a need. Preservation is about keeping things the way they were and, more importantly, ensuring a sustainable future (that hopefully keeps things the way they were). Think about the American civil war, for example. Pick any random weekend over the summer, and somewhere in the country there are probably hundreds of people dressed up in blue or grey uniforms, sleeping in simple white tents, carrying replica muskets or early rifles, reenacting civil war battles. Warfare has gone on to become something very different. It has, as it should have, evolved into something more suitable for the times. But, the civil war is a very important part of American history. And by preserving those traditions and the culture of the time through reenactment, we are keeping a part of our history alive in a way that pictures and written passages can't.
So, in my mind, preservation of a breed is all about staying connected to its history in a way that oral or written history doesn't permit. And yes, to do it right, you still have to use a breed for its original purpose. Using a hunting breed in flyball and calling it preservation would be like using civil war uniforms in a vietnam war reenactment. It just doesn't fit.
---
That being said, I am in no way against people using any dog for any activity they want to use it for (provided they aren't forcing the dog to do something they don't enjoy). I just don't think it is accurate to "modernize" a breed, use it for something different, and call it preservation. It's not preservation. It is modernization. And it serves a purpose for a breed too. Just a different one than preservation does.
@dlroberts Using a hunting breed in flyball and calling it preservation would be like using civil war uniforms in a vietnam war reenactment. It just doesn't fit. I agree with you on this one. On the other hand, not everyone has options to hunt with a breed, because of rules and regulations in different countries. That's why I think it's really important to protect the "true breed".
If someone wants to do flyball or doggydance with a hunting breed, it's their own choice. But I wouldn't call it evolving...........
They already exist and are being being bred
I have seen a number Kishus with high prey drive cower away at even a medium size hog. So that being said I think there should be some sort of difference between a dog actually hunting and a dog having high prey drive. This where I like Nippo and their hunt tests they have. These tests really bring out the true colors of a dog.
I can't comment a whole lot on these topics cause I'm really biased and I ONLY like big game hunting NKs. To me a dog that doesn't hunt isn't a true representative of the breed no matter how good it looks.
-Cute, funny story about that elk head: The neighbor (Jeff) had held it in his hands while making roaring noises and started swaying it from side to side, to kind of see how the dogs would react. Tetsu disappeared and the Jeff's standard poodle would just bark at it from across the yard. Tikaani showed the most interest and would over-dramatically nip, dodge, circle, and bark. Tikaani seemed to know to avoid the antlers, and would often nip at the sides instead of the front. Well, he went a little too far to the side and nipped Jeff in the butt, causing him to jump about 5 feet and put down the head. Tikaani was all over that head the minute it was on the ground, and every time Jeff tried to continue playing with Tikaani and the head, Tikaani would consistently try to go for his butt. It really was quite funny to watch and I wish I had the camera on me at the time.
NK that are not "true representatives" who may not make the best hunting dogs still have a hugely important role in preservation and I don't think that makes them any less the breed that they are. If the owners are willing and able to get them out and put them on game, great, but if the homes on this forum are representative of what people want, then it seems like hunting is not a priority in preservation.
---
@lindsayt
"if only their dogs are bred because they are "true representatives", and mixing is not allowed"
-- I don't think that would be wise. Nor do I think anybody ever suggested it was. Narrow-minded selection is detrimental to a breed's overall health. Period. It doesn't matter what the goal in the selection is.
"Considering that this group of people is more likely to be most interested in hunting/pig catching or what not with their NK, and even then only 2 of them actually do use them on pigs, and only 1 on birds"
-- I think the takeaway here is that there just isn't much interest in preservation in the states. That's not to say that the effort to diversify the gene pool is not worthwhile or a good thing. Because it very clearly is. But I wouldn't call it preservation.
If people were truly interested in preservation, then they would start hunting with their dogs, or at least taking them to controlled training facilities. Once a month I take Diesel to a retriever training day. It's open to anybody that wants to come. One of the ladies that comes has poodles, and another GSPs. Neither has ever touched a gun in their life, nor do they have any desire to. Neither has ever had a hunting license, ever killed or eaten game, or thought for a second they may use their dogs as hunting companions. But they are out there most months training and working their dogs in simulated hunting situations with actual game (either frozen or live). Both put conformation titles on their dogs. Both put agility titles on their dogs. And both put working titles on their dogs.
So I'd say if this community is serious about true preservation, then they need to start doing things like training days if they aren't going to hunt.
"So I'd say if this community is serious about true preservation, then they need to start doing things like training days if they aren't going to hunt."
I totally agree, and those are good examples of ways to work with dogs. I know I have plans for my Kai, and it wasn't that hard to find things in my area. It was more difficult finding hunting coaches who want to work with a breed outside of the traditional breeds and with a green handler.
"So I'd say if this community is serious about true preservation, then they need to start doing things like training days if they aren't going to hunt."
I think the biggest issue with offering training days for NK is the animal rights aspect. It's kind of useless trying to get them to bay or catch frozen/dead prey, and not all states will allow for practicing on live animals. Unless we can get away with another type of substitute, like maybe a guy in a body suit or an RC robot covered in boar skin, many people would be SOL.
No one is going to buy a Finnish Spitz for hunting if the forestry industry has already chopped down all the old-growth forests necessary for sables and capercaillies to survive because the grouse-number is too low to do any form of practical hunting; everyone is going to switch to a moose-dog like Jämthunds because moose over-populate in an environment with rich source of spruce saplings and young brush.
Site about a guy who hunted copper pheasants with his shiba had this on the site.
"It may be that here in Japan shibas are kept mostly in the cities and such environment is the worst enemy for the future of shibas."
It means to me that it's worst enemy is for hunting shiba inu which not many hunt with anyways..
Sure shiba inu will still be around so many breeders and fans of the breed, but not many are being bred for right temperament too.
Coarse there are some who are being bred under good temperament too..
Doing things like agility, lure coursing is good because the dog has to be off leash in order to do these competitions most likely which listening off leash is important and of coarse doing off leash stuff on agility and lure coursing is not same as hunting because a shiba might fail under pressure or go after wrong game or just run off and have fun.
I'm not expert on hunting so I'll leave that talk to you.
I love shiba breed and it's too bad they're not used for their original purpose.
I'm still glad they're around though, Saya is such wonderful dog behaves well in the house and does well off leash. She's doing better with not getting excited over deer she wants to chase them even though they're bigger then her. She did chase one once, but came back once it was out of sight She has never seemed afraid of deer even when young.
She mostly interested in big birds like ducks, geese, turkey vultures birds of that size.. She hasn't came upon a pheasant since she was 1year old it flew off into neighbor's field and she stopped chase when I called her.
I don't want to hunt with her so, but I'm glad she is showing better listening skills now she is older and doesn't go after every bunny or big bird she sees. Having 16acres has been great she loves the room and does fine compared to most shiba I've seen which if allowed off leash would bolt and run off.
We are now talking about preserving the breeds that were created after NIPPO split them and defined a standard for them. So, at the point of creation of the NK breeds the old-world nihon ken was altered and changed from it's origin and purpose (it died).
I also have to wonder if it makes much sense for foreigners to be pushing to preserve a breed in it's historical role and capacity when the same is not being done by the majority of the breeders in Japan who are breeding for their main preservation society.
As I understand it, the NIPPO hunt tests are open to all the of the NK breeds, but you will rarely see a Shiba, Akita, Shikoku, or Kai at them. Typically the tests - as I understand it - are filled with Kishu Ken. Please correct me if I am wrong...
I tend to agree with Gen, I like the idea of these tests a lot for NIPPO, however I don't think they are required by NIPPO for the preservation of the breeds. Also, some of the other preservation societies (like the KKA) do not even have these types of test.
--Before I ask my question below please read this: I am in no way suggestion we shouldn't preserve the NK breeds--
So, my question is, if the breeds aren't being preserved to fit their original purpose, in their native country, under their government-sanctioned preservation society (NIPPO)...
Should we preserve the breeds in North America to a working standard that the breeds aren't held to even in Japan?
--
@shishiinu wrtoe: "This where I like Nippo and their hunt tests they have. These tests really bring out the true colors of a dog."
@dlroberts wrote: "I don't think that would be wise. Nor do I think anybody ever suggested it was. Narrow-minded selection is detrimental to a breed's overall health. Period. It doesn't matter what the goal in the selection is. "
I think we need to keep in mind that selection is selection. Hyper-selecting for any one trait, whether it be for work or for show, is still counter productive to preserving a population. A working dogs is not necessarily any more healthy than a show dog if they've both been hyper-selected for specific traits.
Also, on the topic of NIPPO and those hunt tests... Isn't that the dichotomy of NIPPO's preservation effort? NIPPO pushes for hyper-selection in the looks of the dogs, very rigid and specific selection... and then they run hunt-tests too.
We wonder why there are so few working NK that also meet the physical standards NIPPO looks for. I think it's clear why: it's a snipe-hunt.
Let's take the Kishu Ken for example. For sure if it's population as a whole met the rigid and evolving physical standards of NIPPO *and* the hunt tests the breed's population would be very very small - and would probably go extinct.
The hunting origin of the nihon ken, and the traits that made it possible for them to preform their working roles (that we now call part of breed history), came about via artificial selection for working qualities found in individuals - breed, looks, and standards were not part of the picture.
So these working traits that we want to preserve in the NK originated from a much larger population base, that was selected in a less rigid way, and was only segregated by the restrictions of geography and not registries and standards. Save for the difficulty of travel, nothing stopped a hunter in Akita from breeding his dog to hunting dog in Shikoku. When NIPPO split the NK into breeds it narrowed the history and population of each breed to a general geographic region.
ETA - The nihon ken before NIPPO was a "natural breed" or a "natural" land-race. Meaning, it's looks, type, and working qualities came about via artificial selection but without the premeditated standard-based selection we do today. Instead of selecting for specific predefined traits and qualities, the dogs were selected on an "as needed" basis. A hunter might like how 2 dogs hunted, and breed them together, keeping the pup that he felt would work best for him.
So preserving today's NIPPO breeds to our understanding of the roles of the nihon ken of the past (before NIPPO) seems almost impossible to me.
--
I like what Dave ( @souggy ) wrote a lot... but, does this mean we should bring back dog fighting to preserve the Tosa?
Unfortunately, the concept would break down for a lot of our breeds...
----
But I'm impatient with most arguments that espouse a rigid view of "tradition" and what it should do. Traditions change, (even hunting methods have changed!) and whether people think that is good or bad is a bit irrelevent, we live in a very different world now. Frankly, a lot of that change is good. I'm pretty happy with my car and my electricity, thank you very much. I'm happy that slavery is gone is most parts of the world (something often elided in the civil war enactments, for example--I have no nostalgia for this time period). The argument that traditions should not change is a very odd one indeed, and taken into a larger realm and don't without thought, it can be quite dangerous (think of any "fundamentalist" group that holds to a very narrow and rigid version of tradition and belief).
In some ways I think the discussion of tradition is really about nostalgia. It seems to me that people are nostalgic for a romanticized version of the breed quite often. I think we see this in Kimputai's example of people who blame a dog fight by their Akita on a dog fighting history that is quite long gone, and honestly, the "gladiator" dog concept is also nostalgia, for a function the breed no longer has (and in my mind should not have any more). I don't really understand, either, why it is not ok for the hunting breeds not to hunt anymore but it is ok for the Tosa to change so they are not fighting dogs?
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?
*And I just saw Brad's post, which clarifies a lot of the preservation issues. And yes, good question Brad: "Should we preserve the breeds in North America to a working standard that the breeds aren't held to even in Japan?"
I would say no. But I also, obviously, don't think that it changes the breed irrevocably to not use them for their original purpose.