I didn’t grow up in the dog world. We (as in my family) had a dog when I was younger, and I always dreamed of having multiple dogs that did different activities and were my best friends since I was eleven (I was either a really pathetic child or just a weirdo). I had no prior knowledge or experience of anything doggy besides what I read in books and imagined. At the age of 14 I felt the overwhelming desire to show dogs, as I believed the only reputable way to breed dogs was to show them first, then breed them. * I wouldn’t say I’m the smartest person out there, not even close. But I will say I thirst for the knowledge of things that I am interested in, and I get obsessive – I mean dedicated – very easily. I had to learn everything I could about the dog world through Google and good ole fashion books, as no one in my family raised, showed, or bred dogs. Everyone was very into mixed breeds and not buying dogs as there’s more than enough needing homes.
But I digress, when the show dog bug bit me it was in 2007 where the motto was very much ‘breed to improve/better the breed’. I went along with it; I mean nothing is perfect and anything can stand some improvement, ne? But the thought process shifted within the last, I’d say 5ish years. The new mantra was ‘preservation breeder’.
I mean, I’m no English scholar, but those sound rather contradictory to my hillbilly** self. Did we, as a collective whole, improve the breeds to the uttermost perfection in 12 years? Or did we realize there were no ‘real’ improvements to make?
I can see wanting to breed to improve health, especially in a breed that has many health issues (this statement is a general one and not about Shiba). You wouldn’t want to preserve life threatening issues in the name of the breed I would think (again, what do I know?). Breeding for improved temperament is also something I typically don’t have a problem with.*** And I think to an extent it needs to be done. I also support breeding to improve structure that allows the dog to, well dog, but when is it too much of a “good” thing? I personally believe breeding for type as an improvement runs into creating a breed that no longer resembles the breed it was intended to be and promotes hyper types that have no form or function except for being pleasing to the eye (beauty is in the eye of the beholder). Yes, we want all of our dogs to look nice, but give me a dog that can do its job or go hiking for 5 hours, still want to keep going and not break down over a cute little shell of a dog. I can breed a homely dog with good work ethic to a nice-looking dog to get nice dogs with a good work ethic.**** But you can’t breed pretty to pretty with 0 drive and expect a dog to be able to perform.
But preserving the breed as it was originally meant to be, while noble, seemed to have turned into an almost egotistical motive (hell, improving the breed is also egotistical as well). Preserving the breed should be about making sure a piece of history is able to out survive you for future generations to enjoy and embrace the cultural significance the breed bears. We shouldn’t be breeding to improve unless it directly correlates with providing the breed a better quality of life.
Then this is where things get hairy, there are some slight improvements that need to be made per individual dog, as no living organism is perfect, but typically as a whole does the breed need it? You might want to improve a dog’s front assembly so it moves more efficiently and can go hiking for 5 hours or be able to chase prey with better endurance. So, you plan a breeding with the hopes of improving that dog, or maybe in essence, that line to make a more ‘functional’ dog. Is it improving the breed overall?
Some might say, well yes Alexis, that is improving the breed as you fixed the problem in this new dog and this new dog will contribute to the gene pool. But how much will it contribute to the gene pool? If a dog, potentially more than a bitch, but is that individual dog really going to make that much of a difference? Will it be paired up with others that compliment and promote that improvement, affecting more than just a line?
With that train of thought, every time there is a deviation of the standard of said breed and that dog is being bred, is it ruining the breed as a whole or just damning that new dog/line? We dog people all know what happens with popular sire syndrome, there’s good and bad. From personal opinion I’ve seen breeders talk about improving their chosen breed. They have a picture in their mind of what is perfect, which honestly is understandable as standards are open to interpretation and I have found out that many people’s reading comprehension level isn’t where its suppose***** to be and opinions on what are moderate angles seem to differ between individuals, thus making an individual’s ideal/perfect dog differ from the other breeder – which leads to a lot of confusion. But what I find frustrating is the talk of preserving the breed as it was intended with no back up to said claim. Either the dogs don’t have the drive or they do not look like what the country of origin promotes. Last time I checked the Shiba does not belong to me, I did not write the standard. The Nihon Ken Hozonkai (NIPPO) did. What gives me the right to deviate from the standard they composed in order to preserve the native Japanese dogs in their truest form?
My goal, as a breeder (even though I have taken a huge step back for personal reasons), is to preserve the Shiba as it was intended to be, in both looks and in drive. I’m not erasing the almost 100 years of work****** that the NIPPO did. I’m not going to disregard the Japan’s clear wishes in promoting a dog that deviates from the original breeders’ and organization’s hard work. I want future generations to enjoy the Shiba and Kishu as I have, to understand the uniqueness of the breeds, and not turn them into generic dogs. I want to keep this living piece of history alive and functioning as long as I can. Is it egotistical? Maybe, but I feel like I’m doing this out of love and a fear of Japan losing some part of its cultural heritage.
*Oh my, how that has changed, but again, a topic for another time.
** I’m totally not a hillbilly, as I am not from a mountainous backwoods region. Plus, as it was pointed out my accent is a “store brand fabricated twang”.
*** When I say breeding to improve or better a temperament, I’m talking about creating stable temperaments as a majority of puppies will go to pet owners who may not have the means to handle a difficult dog. It is our duty as responsible breeders to produce sound dogs that will be able to live safely with their owner and in society. Do not agree with watering down temperaments to where anyone can own a dog, as you lose that uniqueness of the breed and just have a generic dog wearing said breed clothing. Unfortunately, it is a very fine line and very few people understand it, it seems. There needs to be a happy medium. Once again, a whole other topic for a different post.
****I know that isn’t exactly how genetics work, but its more of a best case/hope for the best scenario. I would expect some drive put back into the gene pool with this kind of breeding truthfully. But I’m just a young woman with a computer and a passion for words, what can I possibly know?
***** Wow I’m sounding really mean…
****** The Shiba Inu along with the other native Nihon Ken are NOT thousands of years old. They are NOT from the Jomen period, but their ancestors were. There were no breeds, there were not standards, just landrace hunting dogs secluded by geography in different areas of Japan. You cannot have a breed without a written standard. I promise you thousands of years ago there were no written standards for the dogs. The standards of these breeds were written from 1934 – 1936, the founders of the breeders were hunting dogs from the mountains. They were designated by size, small, medium, and large, and later became refined due to the standards set forth by NIPPO.
Boomlay Shiba Inu 