A BREED SPLIT WILL CREATE DIFFICULTIES FOR ALL AKITAS

Maintaining our current status ensures that Akitas of every color and pattern can compete on their merits rather than on perceptions of their origins.  Continuing as one breed doesn’t prevent us from revisiting the issue of a split several years down the road but splitting the breed is virtually irrevocable.

A breed split in the US will affect all Akitas, not just imports.  For convenience, we tend to associate black masks with domestic Akitas, and urajiro with the imports.  Judges will be even more likely to do so.  Should we split, they may decide color is really a distinguishing difference and consider quality American Akitas with urajiro too similar to the new breed to reward them despite their acceptability under our standard. 

If a split occurs, the new breed will be composed of imports and will move into the Miscellaneous group until they meet the AKC requirements for full registration status.  The letters from Mr. Jim Crowley, AKC Vice President, addressing these requirements are in the Members Section of the ACA website (http://www.akitaclub.org) and were published in the Supplemental.  We urge you to read them. 

How long the new breed would remain in Miscellaneous depends on AKC policies stated in Mr. Crowley’s letters.  He writes:  “In the most recent cases the Board has required a foundation stock in the mid-hundreds, with a good geographic distribution of owners and breeders with several different lines to ensure a sufficient gene pool.  I deliberately did not give absolute minimums on any of these items, as we try to be as flexible as possible in evaluating each case fairly and reasonably.” 

Information from AKC about import Akitas in the US puts their numbers at less than a hundred in 1998.  They are concentrated in a few areas of the country.  While AKC wants breeds in the Miscellaneous group to obtain full registration privileges, meeting the AKC’s minimum requirements for regular status probably will take more than just a year.  While in Miscellaneous, the new breed could be shown, but no dogs could become champions.  Imports that are already champions would retain their titles but for a breed they no longer represent.  What would happen to dogs with championship points is unclear. 

The need for two acceptable breed standards is an even bigger problem.  In his October, 1998, letter, Mr. Crowley says, “In the case of a split, the original Parent Club would have the responsibility of preparing a standard ‘to define precisely the true type of the breed of purebred dogs.’  Each breed should have something in its type that distinguishes it from any other breed.” 

His May 3, 1999, letter discusses the need for the ACA’s straw poll.  Mr. Crowley also says, "The ballot should make it clear that the membership does or does not want to consider a split before the club goes to the time, expense, and effort of preparing and voting on club bylaw amendments and on amendments to the existing Akita standard (emphasis added) as well as the preparation of a new one for the new breed. " 

We will have to make changes to our existing standard and develop another standard for the new breed.  Mr. Crowley points out that breed splits historically have been based on some distinguishing characteristic, such as color, size, or opposite traits like drop and prick ears.  In the Akita, no such characteristics exist, which is why the FCI split is being done on pedigree and appearance. 

As it stands now, the Japanese style is clearly included in our standard.  Any criteria based on appearance can be applied to some Akitas of both domestic and import breeding,   The problem of overlapping type may be insoluble and may be why proponents of the split have failed to provide any differentiating points for a standard despite assertions that it can be done. 

Two AKC policies are very pertinent to the situation created by a split, because, as Mr. Crowley also points out, any proposals made by the ACA are subject to the rules of the AKC.  First, AKC registers dogs according to the breed of the parents.  In FCI countries, however, a dog can be registered in a breed based on appearance rather than parentage.  An FCI Akita born to Great Japanese Dog parents can be registered as an Akita and vice versa.  In the same situation here, AKC rules would require registration in the parents’ breed rather than in the new breed despite its appearance. 

Second, a split would mean that no import and domestic Akitas could ever be bred together again.  AKC does not consider crosses between two breeds as purebred.  They cannot be registered. We don’t think the Akita breed has so many quality dogs that we can afford to ignore those that aren’t from our original foundation stock.  Producing and keeping quality dogs in the breed has always been an important issue and will remain one far into the future.

Regardless of any other reasons for using imports with domestic stock, the breeders who have done so are broadening the genetic base of the breed in this country and providing us with new breeding alternatives.  We need to keep this door open into the future.