The FCI's decision to split the Akita breed into two distinct breeds which will be classified in two different groups has many of us confused. 
   Whilst accepting that in foreign lands, notably the United States, the Japanese Akita has been developed along rather different lines than in its native land, I cannot see that the two distinct types which have emerged (the Japanese, a lighter-built animal with no black mark and self coloured body, the "American" version being more bulky and with black mask and pinto markings proving very popular) exhibit any more type differences than can be found in many other breeds. In several breeds the British breed standard accommodates colours which are considered disqualifying faults by the FCI (Italian Greyhounds and Schipperkes spring to mind), but this has not necessitated forming two different breeds. It simply means that when British judges officiate in FCI Countries they have to judge to the Breed Standard in force, and that does not result in any major problems. 
   I remember some years ago judging French Bulldogs in Italy and being presented with a fawn dog which had apparently travelled from Switzerland. At that time fawns were not allowed in the FCI Standard, so I gave the dog the required detailed critique, including the fact that, had I been judging in Britain, the dog would have been of clear Championship Standard, but awarded the dog a Zero for obvious reasons. To my surprise, the exhibitor was amazingly philosophical about it, accepted his critique with good grace and told me that he was well aware of the situation, but merely wanted a critique on his dog from a British judges. 
   We have seen many examples of British judges travelling overseas (and Americans too) and awarding top honours to Akitas of the FCI Japanese type. Any experienced judge, given study of a breed standard, and a ringfull of dogs, can adjust their eye and bring in the "When in Rome" philosophy. Some Akita breeders have in fact mixed dogs of both types to good effect and produced dogs which are mid-way between the two extremes often seen. 
    The split will inevitably cause anxiety to many people, especially breeders who now have to have their dogs assessed as one thing or the other. I find the question of the two new names rather perplexing. It strikes me as rather pompous of the Japanese (I assume they have been in the FCI driving seat on this one) to, on the one hand, rob the "American" type of the right to use Akita in its name, but impose on it the unwieldy mouthful of "Great Japanese Dog." If ever there was a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it, this must be it. What will the British and American Kennel Clubs do with their Akitas? Given that the majority in both countries are of the non-Japanese type, will they automatically be re-registered as Great Japanese Dogs? And will these then become abbreviated to GJDS? 
   There is a further worry where health is concerned. Should some unsus- pected hereditary problem appear in one type, the opportunity to utilise dogs from a wider gene pool will now be taken away. There may be troubles ahead. 
   As for the decision to place the Akita (Japanese type) in the FCI Group 5 - the Spitz and "Primitive" Group - whilst the Great Japanese Dog (American type) is to be classified in Group 2 - the varied Group which includes Molossers, Schnauzers, Pinschers etc. - beggars belief. What is the reasoning behind this? The Akita - whether it be Japanese or American - is very definitely a Spitz breed with one common ancestry. The Alaskan Malamute remains in the Spitz Group but the new GJD will be shunted into a group where it will look like a fish out of water? Were the Japanese lobbyists con-cerned that the flashy American style dogs might just stand a better chance in the Spitz Group than their slightly plainer cousins? 
   The unification of Standards is all well and good, but the beauty of Breed Standards is that they are generally sufficiently generous in their parameters to allow different types to exist within the same breed. For this to be the case is indeed healthy. Whilst we all have our idea of perfection in any breed, none of us would want to see a situation where our breed rings are full of clones with the same virtues and the same faults. 
   At the end of the day one cannot help wondering how thoroughly the breeders of Akitas have been canvassed on this question, and whether or not bureaucracy has been responsible for a decision which will have long-term consequences and which may not be for the good of the breed. 

CONTACT US?  Click here if you have questions or comments.

copyright@1999, One Akita
Updated 2/17/00
http://bigfoot.com/~oneakita