KBDs in the US
This question has bothered me since I heard about the mixed Karelians via this forum. Could someone please tell me the reason why breeders mix Laikas and Karelians and why on Earth they get registered to be Karelian Bear Dogs? For me, as a native Finnish, this is the same thing as mixing some Nihon Ken with any spitz breed. I really don't understand why to some Americans it's cool to create their own (and better) version from some breeds and then have the nerve to register it under the name of original breed.
Comments
I don't like it because there is an obvious difference in appearance between the two and because it is recognized as two different breeds everywhere else in the world. It is like breeding a Chesapeake Bay Retriever with a Golden Retriever and still calling it either a Chesapeake Bay Retriever or a Golden Retriever.
It is really flawed breeding practice. The programs I have seen in Washington state, Montana and a few other places are basically backyard breeders and sell them at much cheaper prices. Their dogs are the ones that end up on PetFinder, in shelters or given to the Wind River Bear Institution.
Word is getting out about the situation, but there will probably always be a market for the crosses.
@MirkaM you could blame it on the American sense of entitlement.
Although, @dlroberts posted something about wirehaired pointing griffons where they outcrossed to a similar breed because there wasn't enough genetic diversity. That was in the Tahltan Bear Dog thread. Sometimes it may be necessary, but I really don't think that's the case with the KBD.
That being said, my opinion isn't worth much because I really don't have the knowledge to make any judgment.
What is this obvious difference?
Some of the things he's done (besides mixing) can be shocking at first, but then you end up asking, why is that taboo in the first place. At the very least, it sharpens and hones a person's position on dog matters. Helps refine the rebuttal.
First, there is the percentages of black to white. The crosses have far more white all over the body. While a KBD should have only white on the head, chest, belly, leg and neck. Secondly, the coat density. On many of the crosses there is a noticeably thin coat. This is really apparent on the neck. A KBD is robust while the crosses tend to be more leggy and less robust. Their snout and ears tend to be much longer and taller. Many of them don’t look like the standardized REL either, so me thinks other dogs were mixed in as well. This link is an example of a “KBD” that is obviously crossed, there is no thick dense coat, his ears and nose are off.
http://www.beardogs.org/kbds/breed.html
This link shows what KBDs should look like.
http://www.carelianbeardogs.com/MD_Gallery.html
My dislike about the situation is that many of the people who breed these dogs are backyard breeders. There are a handful here in Washington. Here is an example of one. http://www.countrykarelians.com/sire_dam.htm Then they end up on PetFinder, because the breeder didn’t care who they were selling to.
And why call it a KBD if it's not a KBD? And who said it was okay to mix two separate breeds recognized by the rest of the world and then still call it a KBD. I think it should be recognized for what it is, which is not a KBD. Were the original dogs not good enough that we had to make our own version-American Karelian?
That is just my opinion on the situation.
From what I understand, the initial mixing of the 2 breeds was done as a mistake (out of pure ignorance of the breeds and their standards) and not some planned action to "Americanize" or "improve" either of the breeds. Once the initial mix was made, the line between the 2 breeds were blurred in the American foundation stock and took a bit for breeders to realize the mistake had been made and to correct the issue. I know of several breeders (personally) who years ago were breeding mixes and didn't even know it, and they have now worked to correct the issues in their programs.
Not everything in American dogdom is premeditated and/or a conspiracy, some times people (breeders) simply make mistakes.
----
There is differences in REL and KBD. Karelians have sharper and Laikas have rounder tip of the ears. And there is also diffenrence in the colour. Karelians are always black and white but Laikas can also have "grey" and "salt and pepper" colouring. And Karelians eye colour should always be brown. And Laikas tend to be more slender as Karelians should be sturdy.
"Were the original dogs not good enough that we had to make our own version-American Karelian?" This is a legitimate question. I have never talked to a cross breeder. There maybe good reasons for their breeding program, since they are still breeding that way.
I don't think anyone thinks its conspiracy.
I think it's understandable for someone to be irritated when their dog, which is a national treasure in their country, is being misrepresented.
I don't even know KBDs very well, but the first link you posted was very obviously either a cross or a poorly bred KBD. The difference does seem obvious even to a casual observer. In the link from the person who is a backyard breeder, the dog that was before the slide (2 or 3rd photo) looked like it had thryoid problems from the condition of its tail.
Ann's right...it does, at least, help define the rebuttal. And I know Jessika's comment was a joke, but it does get to a sense of arrogance to a degree, because there are plenty of people out there who do think they "know better" and therefore can just make "improvements." (See the american bully thread under "WTF" that Brad started). I'm seeing this discussion on an Akita list I'm on, where someone actually suggested she was like Morie in Dog Man because she wants to breed her unregistered AAs, because they better represent the breed.
Overall...WTF??? I really dislike this (ie. breeding away from the original dog by mixing breeds). Though granted I wouldn't have the lovely (American) Akita I have if it weren't for the way the Akita had been changed as a breed, but I'm pretty firmly pro-split on Akitas, so perhaps it is a consistent view: I believe one the dogs are that different, they're more than just a "type" and should now be a different breed.
----
The mentality in mainstream US, though, is once a mix, always a mix.
Here is few pics from excellent Karelians (at least Finnish Spitz club says so
http://www.spj.fi/rodut/karjalankarhukoira/rotukuvaus/ulkonako/
And here is some champion Laikas:
http://www.laikajarjesto.fi/fi/valioesittelyt/79-velaika-valioesittely
Karelians are registered to Finnish Kennel club which means that they are FCI registered.
----
I wouldn't call the people who are breeding "faulty" Karelians as "backyard breeders" because it seems to be a slur used to discredit anyone, even a well-known show breeder. But, the consistency among these kennel programs it seems-- they seem to have a hard-on for dogs like Alaskan huskeys, which are purpose-bred dogs with an open registry.
If we want to compare why people think Russo-European Laikas and Karelian Bear Dogs are one and the same: look at the Karelo-Finnish Laika. Before they were separate breeds from the Finnish Spitz. Even though some of the kennel strains have as much as 30% difference from Finkies, and others are 100% the same, they are, nevertheless, considered as the same breed. In fact, two clubs signed a merger agreement in 2006:
The two strains have different build, different coat and some have a different head. See here for examples. In fact, some people refuse to use Karelo-Finnish blood; some of the hunting kennels in Russia refuse to acknowledge the merger and continue to call their dogs as Finnish-Karelian Laika instead of the new Finnish Spitz label. They don't want to lose the "duck-dog" and 'bear-dog" quality of their red laikas; they think the Finnish dogs are too specialized in grouses.
During my conversations during with the old hunters, they said the Finnish Spitz used to have block-heads like this Nenets Herding Laika, the aboriginal strain in which breed Samoyeds were contrived from, below:
via arcticphoto.co.uk [Image: Bryan & Cherry Alexander]
On papers, they were pure; even though people didn't think they were; but since the '80s, the dogs gained more fox-like snout in order to make them more distinct from the Norrbottenspitz. Ironically, the Norrbottenspitz were throwaways from the Finnish Spitz breeding programs. What's even more delicious? The Swedish Kennel Club used to register all Norrbottenspitz, Black Norwegian Elkhound and Finnish Spitz as one breed, the "Nordic Spitz," up until about 1906.
Now that being said, I can understand if a similar movement happens with Russo-European Laika and Karelian Bear Dog. i am not against such crossings, but I wouldn't do it-- because... um, I still want access to other people's breeding stocks, and I am not going to sacrifice the relationships I've built up with others just because politics clash with facts.
In either case, always ask for the pedigree history of the dogs.
People like to use Vladimir Beregovoy for their reasoning that REls and KBDs are the same exact dog.
I know of one KBD breeder in the US who used a mixed bear dog to start her kennel. Later after further research did she find out about the whole controversy. She went on to use FCI registered KBDs for her kennel. Many do not acknowledge the discrepancy and stick with their original stock. What is funny is that the US is the only country with this controversy. One annoying aspect is that many of the mixed bear dogs prominently show physical features that are found in neither a KBD or REL. Good KBD and REL stock from Finland and Russia look very similar, these American KBDs are way off the mark.
Now that being said, if one wants to get down to the grits, "Karelian Bear Dog" is just a name validated by its pedigree papers. The label has no bearing on the existence of the actual dog. Like I said, always ask for the pedigree history.
""Karelian Bear Dog" is just a name validated by its pedigree papers"
Unfortunately that is the name of the game in the dog world.
"The label has no bearing on the existence of the actual dog."
A dogs' breed name makes and breaks dogs everyday. Dogs "thrive" and suffer by breed name alone, E.g. American Pitbull.
"Like I said, always ask for the pedigree history."
Pedigree history is all about labels.
Most people don't fall into this category.
It is up to the buyers to decide if they actually value that information or not. You see this in Border Collies all the time; some are registered with the ISDS; some with the ABCA; some with the AKC; some are not even registered at all. Despite the huge variation in types, they are all still "Border Collies." Some people only want trialled ABCA collies; some don't.
Likewise, what people seem to be missing here is, these kennels only exist because there is a market for "Karelian Bear Dogs" regardless of the registry; if there is no market for them, then there would be no reason to supply the demand. No one wants to be stuck with a dozen puppies.
If you value FKC-registered Karelians, well, there are a few kennels already; and there are people overseas who are understanding and will send you FCI-approved Karelians. If you don't value FKC-registered Karelians, well, there are a number of people who already got breeding stocks. There are people in Finland and Russia who WILL sell you intact Karelians with a pedigree history, without registering with the FCI. Similarly, there are exporters who will sell you dogs with "cooked" pedigree as well; which happens a lot with imported West Siberian Laikas.
None of this has any bearing on the dogs; all of this is just politics which divide people into tribes. It's not going to change what people call their dogs. Because no one can even agree on what they are.
Really? Then these breeders dogs really arent't pure Karelians, at least in Finland. In Finland you have to register every pure bred puppy to Finnish Kennel Club and if you don't, then your dog is mutt. Even if the "breeder" gives you the pedigree history but how you can be sure that the puppy really is from those lines if you don't have real pedigree?
"The two strains have different build, different coat and some have a different head."
Where this info is from? They are exactly the same breed with same build, coat and head. I just check it from out Spitz association. The difference in this "laika" and Finnish spitz is that in Finland the breeding has progress with determination and Laikas breeding has been more "natural" and these ancestors to Finnish-Karelian Laika don't have pedigrees. And Finnish breeders has through decades brought these "laikas" to enrich our FS breeding stock.
Karelo-Finnish Laika have shorter, more dense, water-proof coat. More tightly curled plume for a tail. Generally, they have a lighter frame. Allowance for black tipped fur. More white was allowed on them than the Finnish standards allow. Karelo-Finnish are longer in the spine, while Finnish Spitz are more square. The snout is longer. The ears are more pointed and closer together. They are also much more variable in size and weight.
Not to mention the standards are a bit different. Here's one from 1981.
However there is one thing allow them to be integrated with the Finnish Spitz: it's called "breeding to type." Meaning you use the dog or bitch similar to the standards, breed it, pick the best of the litter, then breed that one back to another dog that fits the standard. It takes about three or four generations to eliminate the non-conformity.
This is why some breeds like Salukis have an open-book in some of the registries. However the offspring must have at least 3 known pedigreed generations behind it before it is registered as a purebred. How can you be SURE a registered dog is PURE? Pedigree frauds happen sometimes in the kennel clubs all around the world. What I means by pedigree fraud is, sometimes a popular sire is shooting blank-- so the handler . substitute another stud to stand in, then register all the puppies under the infertile sire. This sometimes happens if an accidental litter is close enogh to be conned as "pure. So don't play that game; two people can play it. I am just explaining how people think.
"Mutt" is just a word signifying the value of the dog. To some people who strongly believe in the registry, any dogs registered outside the club is a mutt. To others, they follow the "if it look like it, walk like it and act like it-- it must be a duck!"
In fact, Pitbull owners are quite conflicted about this issue. They argue: if it's not registered with an APBT association, i't's not a "Pitbull," it's a "mutt." Politicians don't care. Rescue workers don't care. Puppy buyers don't care. Hunters don't care. To people who don't really know about the APBT registry, or don't care for it, if it looks like a Pitbull, then it is a Pitbull. The sooner Pitbull owners realize this, that they are working against the majority, the sooner they can get their act together.
All of this is just politics. It's tribalism. If you believe in the kennel system, you go sit with these people in this camp. If you don't, and you buy into the whole landrace argument, you go sit with that people in the other camp. Dog world is rife with tribalism. People forget we all belong in one big camp: dog-lovers.
Now, I will tell you why I won't operate out the registry. If you are going to work outside the registry, it means you lose access to other people's breeding stocks. It means you can't participate in their events, or receive their newsletters. It also means anything one sends into research is not classified as "purebred;" just "mixed." When you split with the registry, and you own a rare breed, you are no longer contributing to the gene pool. In fact, blood only flows one way if one operates outside the registry.
Some people are willing to be independent, either because they have contacts that will allow them to add new blood to their program; or their program is too small to be taken seriously. Or there are enough dogs (see German Shepherd Dogs, Border Collies, Golden Retrievers, Labradours) outside the registry not to be affected by the inner politics.
Other people, like myself, are not willing to lose access to other people's dogs. We want those trial results. we want those show results. We want to be able to contribute to research on dog health. The breeds we own are not popular enough to stand on their own without needing to bury the hatchet.
"How can you be SURE a registered dog is PURE?"
Every dog who is used to breeding in Finland have to have identification which is tattoo or chip and that's why I can be quite sure that these dogs are pure
Some people even refuse to acknowledge the merger, and that's fine. They already have established kennels of their own. They can do what they want.
The people who do acknowledge the merger get access to fresh blood and lines that has been split for 20 to 80 years.
Haha, Finns are so jealous people that if you make one accidental litter your neighbour or hunting buddy sure will inform the breed club or FKC about it
They were bred by natural selection, then in the 1930s, the Soviets decided to formalize the breed. They used Karelians, Norrbottenspitz, Finnish Spitz and native laikas to jump-start their program. However the Nazis came and shot every dog they saw because the Soviets were using dogs as anti-tank bombs. In about 1951, there were only 24 dogs left and many of those were lost to rabies and distemper.
So what Soviets did was find a bunch of free-roaming dogs around Leningrad, imported Finnish Spitzes and started up the program again. They continued to import Finnish Spitz throughout the '70s and '80s to increase diversity.
From what I understand, in 2000s, the SPJ decided to do some genetic testings. They found the Russian dogs range from being 100% the same to being 75% the same, depending on the bloodline.
Regarding "fit for hunting." This area of debate is hilarious! Because... um, what I hear from the Russians is that the Finnish dogs are not good hunters. But the owners of the Finnish Spitz think their breed is the best hunting dog in the world. It just to show you people bickers and strongly believe in what they believe in.