|
The Interim Years in Japan
During the years the breed’s popularity burgeoned in
North America, scholars and concerned breeders in Japan continued their
quest to learn more about their native breeds. AKIHO rose to ascendancy
in Akita affairs and is still by far the largest and most influential registering
body.
So few Akitas were left after the war, that the Japanese
had to work with with they had, which wasn't necessarily what they considered
ideal. To preserve the breed during the hard times of the war and
immediately afterwards, some crossbreedings, especially to German Shepherds,
had been done. Other native dogs were also used. After the war, the
Japanese breeders wanted to eradicate any sign of what they regarded as
its effects.
Eventually, two lines gained became the most prominent
in post-war Japan. Born about the same time in the Akita/Odate area
were Kongo-Go and Goromaru-Go.
Kongo-Go was quite a winner in the show ring and very
well advertised. He was what is called kurogoma or black sesame
in color, what we have come to describe here as a shaded black or black
with a brown undercoat. Dogs of this color frequently produced traits
that Japanese breeders felt had been introduced to the Akita through crossbreeding
for fighting dogs or the Shin Akita
Because so many Tosa Fighting Dogs and other European
mastiff-type dogs had been crossed with matagi inu during the heyday
of the dog-fighting craze from the middle of the 1800s to the early 1900s,
a very large dog of recognizable type had been produced. Breeders
called it the Kairyoinu or Shin Inu (improved dog), and many
had drop ears, loose skin, and wrinkles.
That these problems plagued the Kongo lines, and because
they were unable to eliminate their prevalence in the black sesame dogs,
Japanese breeders eventually abandoned them in favor of the Ichinoseki
lines which were founded on Goromaru Go. He was a red pinto with
a blaze and black mask. His descendants fit more of what they wanted--tight
tails; unwrinkled, tighter skin; and smaller ears--so Japanese breeders
moved forward in the decades after the war with dogs that steadily diverged
from those they promoted and sold for export immediately after the war.
The foundation dogs in America were from the Kongo
lines. Over the years before the stud book was closed, Ichinoseki
dogs also found their way to our shores. Many American breeders combined
the two. Akitas here are much more varied in color, size, and overall
appearance than those shown in Japan. As a result, American-bred
dogs from imports that came before the stud book was closed can closely
resemble Japanese imports coming into America today. However, between
the most extreme of the two, Japanese import and American bred, a considerable
difference in appearance can exist.
Modern Japanese Dog Clubs
For us, with one kennel club, one parent club and one standard,
the world of the Akita in Japan can be rather confusing. Three organizations
still exist to register Akitas. AKIHO is still the largest and most
influential body dealing with Akitas. AKIKYO was reorganized
in 1988 and is still active, but NIPPO focuses mainly on the medium and
small dogs. The Japan Kennel Club has assumed its functions regarding Akitas,
since it is an all-breed registry and has had reciprocal registration privileges
with the AKC and CKC since 1992, when importation of Akitas from Japan
to America began again.
Japanese vs. American Akitas
Problems between what has come to be called the American
type Akita and the "Japanese" Akita arose first in European and South and
Central American countries where the Akita is shown at shows governed by
the Federation Cynologie Internationale or FCI.
Since standards differ from one country to another,
FCI policy has been to accept the standard from the country of origin for
the breed unless none exists. In that case, they use the standard
from the country of patronage, that is the country that is recognized for
preserving the breed. For instance, Siberian Huskies no longer exist
in Russia. The breed was developed and preserved in the United States,
so the AKC standard used by the FCI since we are considered the country
of patronage.
Obviously, a country of origin exists for the Akita,
and their standard was used for the Akita. The AKIHO standard was
written in 1955 and can easily be construed to cover most American Akitas
within its parameters. The standard of the JKC, however, is much
more restrictive, and when the FCI adopted it in the early 1990s, problems
arose.
Until then, most of the Akitas imported into FCI countries
had been from the US and Canada. Many of these imports as well as
their offspring had achieved FCI championships. The FCI’s adoption
of the JKC standard for Akitas caused a great deal of controversy because
it lists black masks as a fault. Further, under pressure from the JKC, FCI instructs its judges that a dog with a black mask cannot be given
an excellent rating, which then makes the dog ineligible for a championship.
Suddenly people with Akitas imported from or descended
from American dogs were disenfranchised. Even their champion dogs
were unshowable. They were very upset by this turn of events and
began pressuring their FCI delegates to do something about the problems.
As a result, this year, the FCI has divided what is one breed in the English-speaking
countries of the United States, Canada, Australia, and Great Britain, into
two. The "Japanese Akita" is comprised of dogs imported from Japan
or dogs from stock that was recently imported. Stock that descends
from earlier exports primarily to the US and Canada is considered a "Great
Japanese Dog (formerly know as the American Akita)" The former are
governed by the JKC standard, while the latter fall under what is essentially
the AKC one.
The issue came before the membership of the Akita Club
of America in the form of a straw poll asking whether the membership wanted
to the ACA board to pursue splitting the breed. A sound majority
of the membership indicated they were not interested in considering a split.
While this issue has been debated, Japanese imports
have been arriving on American shores. Some of these dogs have been bred
to domestic stock; others have been bred only within the new import lines.
These dogs have entered the rings of the US and Canada in both breed and
obedience and have acquited themselves well considering how few dogs are
here. From 1992 to 1998, under a 100 imports have been registered
with the AKC although more dogs of pure-import stock exist because of breedings
since the original dogs arrived and because not all are registered with
AKC.
Currently, to accomplish this, an Akita has to be registered
with JKC before export. This requirement means that dogs of pure
AKIHO registration already in the US are not eligible for registration.
Certainly AKIHO is the largest registry. The web page for the JKC
reports only 573 Akitas registered with it to date. Many of these were
probably exported.
Despite the outcome of the ACA vote and the FCI split,
the issues surrounding them are hardly resolved. Many websites explore
both sides . To help understand the Japanese viewpoint, a book brought
by their delegation to the 1998 national presents their history of the
breed. The pictures of early dogs make it a valuable resource for
any Akita breeder. Copies are available from:
Jim Sjoberg
In explaining the different direction they have pursued
since the end of the war, the Japanese say that their goal is restoration
and preservation of the native Japanese dog, that new knowledge uncovered
through research is reflected in the revisions to their standard.
The JKC standard is more restrictive than either the American standards
or the AKIHO one, allowing only whites, brindles, and reds which must have
urajiro. White markings are not preferred.
On the other hand, in the AKIHO standard masking, either black or cream,
is not mentioned at all. Their standard lists pintos, gomas, and blacks
as acceptable, and this seems more correct historically. This photo
of an medieval scroll shows what is clearly a pinto spitz-type dog, and
it is not the only such reference source (courtesy of Lee Love).
Whether AKIHO standard stays as it has been or moves more into line with
both the choices of their judges as well as the JKC standard remains to
be seen.
REFERENCES
Bouyet, Barbara. Akita,
Treasure of Japan. Montecito, Ca: MIP Publishing, 1992.
Collcutt, Martin,.Marius Jansen,
and Isao Kumakura. A Cultural Atlas of Japan. New York: Facts on
File, Inc, 1988.
Hiraizumi, Ryanosuke,
personal communication to Tatsuo Kimura.
Kajiwara, Naoto, translated
by Tatsuo Kimura, My Thoughts on the Akita Dog (Tokyo: Shin
Journal-sha, 1975).
Kimura, Tatsuo, "Rambling
Through Japan, Fall, 1992," Akita World (l2:l, Jan/Feb., 1993).
Kuga, Koun, translated by
Tatsuo Kimura. "Japanese Dogs," Akita World (13:3, May/June, 1994)
Linderman, Joan M. and Virginia
Funk, The Complete Akita. New York: Howell Book House,
Inc, 1987.
Okada Mutsuo, translated
by Tatsuo Kimura, "A History of the Kongo Line," Akita World (13:
1, January/February, 1994)
Sanson, George,
A History
of Japan, 1334-1615. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1961).
Copyright 1998
by Sherry E. Wallis
Return to Page 1
Return to Page 2
Return to Top
09/18/08
- Last Update
DHTML JavaScript Menu Courtesy of Milonic.com
|
