# Miniature Australian Shepherds and the AKC



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

OK SO I figured I would start my own thread.

FYI-
*USASA=*United States Australian Shepherd Association (The AKC Parent club for the Australian Shepherd)
*ASCA=* Australian Shepherd Club of America (The National Breed club for the Australian Shepherd, a stand alone entity)
*NAMASCUSA=* North American Miniature Australian Shepherd Club of the United States of America
*AKC=* American Kennel Club
*FSS=* Foundation Stock Service


USASA approached NAMASCUSA last year concerning AKC FSS acceptance of their breed or variety or whatever it is (so confusing). NAMASCUSA was not actively seeking AKC recognition at the time. Talks were made between the organizations. NAMASCUSA has a Q & A for the USASA membership to fill out concerning their breed/variety.

A few of the questions concern open studbooks,and variety status vs. breed status.

One source I read says USASA has no intention of accepting the dogs of NAMASCUSA as a variety. This confuses me also and I'm sure it's only because I don't have the full story.

This has nothing to do with ASCA except for the fact that many Aussies (including my Hawkeye) are duel registered with both the AKC and ASCA. If the USASA ever does accept the dogs of NAMASCUSA as a variety with open stud book it would be interesting to see how ASCA would handle it.

Please feel free to discus, I find this all very fascinating.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

I just found this letter dated from last year by the USASA President


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

In general, I am not in favor of miniaturizing breeds. Particularly in modern times. I find that it is generally motivated by the desire to have a lap/house/apartment pet that looks the same as a "striking" larger breed, such as Aussies, with no attention given to temperament. They don't particularly care how the dog acts, as long as it looks small and cute.

That said, I know there are North America Shepherd breeders that are trying to do right by their dogs. And, it seems like they are seeking AKC recognition. The letter you posted raises a lot of valid points; this is a weird situation. 

Honestly, the simplest solution seems to me to just call them a variety, like beagles are divided by height. Or get rid of the height requirements at all, like in ASCA (I believe, from what I remember of you posting previously). However, it also seems to me that this isn't really a solution that the NAS breeders want. 

So, the only thing I know for certain is that I am having a lot of fun trying to sound out some of these acronyms


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> Honestly, the simplest solution seems to me to just call them a variety, like beagles are divided by height. *Or get rid of the height requirements at all, like in ASCA (I believe, from what I remember of you posting previously). *However, it also seems to me that this isn't really a solution that the NAS breeders want.


both ASCA and AKC state the "Preferred height at the withers for males is 20 to 23 inches; that for females is 18 to 21 inches, however, quality is not to be sacrificed in favor of size." a smaller or larger than preferred individual is perfectly acceptable as long as it is of good quality. There is no hieght disqualifications. 

However I think most people would draw the line at aussies under 10 inches, can you imagin a 10 inch dog heeling cattle for 30 miles a day? thats a stretch of the imagination. and yes "Toy" australian Shepherd breeders have tryed to convince me that their dogs are bred with the breeds original purpose in mind, Um......


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Oh, I didn't know AKC had the same line. 

I guess my next concern is that the USASA wants to "[cement] a gene pool that no longer includes the Australian Shepherd." While I totally understand the sentiment, I am unsure what ramifications the restrictions might have. I mean, the gene pool for these dogs cannot be large. If the gene pool is not to include Aussies, what is it to include then? Strictly NAS? I feel like (and this is pure impression, I have no data to back this up) there is a trend to starting breeds from a very small population. I don't think this is a good thing. This is supposed to be the age of infinite information. Let's put some of it to use and not screw over some dogs, eh?


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

Keechak said:


> both ASCA and AKC state the "Preferred height at the withers for males is 20 to 23 inches; that for females is 18 to 21 inches, however, quality is not to be sacrificed in favor of size." a smaller or larger than preferred individual is perfectly acceptable as long as it is of good quality. There is no hieght disqualifications.
> 
> However I think most people would draw the line at aussies under 10 inches, can you imagin a 10 inch dog heeling cattle for 30 miles a day? thats a stretch of the imagination. and yes "Toy" australian Shepherd breeders have tryed to convince me that their dogs are bred with the breeds original purpose in mind, Um......


The only dog Cherokee has played TOO ROUGH with is a mini aussie who ran at him just the same way as his full-sized aussie friends. So, Cherokee rolled him and the dog squealed. (His regular-sized aussie friends would never allow themselves to be rolled, they are some wild, happy dogs). I was worried that the dog was broken. The dog was OK but, to have that personality in a frail-sized body is just asking for trouble, if you ask me..........


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

The thing I find interesting is that IF by any chance the "Miniature Australian Shepherd" is accepted into the AKC as a size variety it will set a precedent for other breeds to also accept miniaturization. As you read in the letter the AKC has a rule against allowing the miniaturization of existing AKC recognized breeds. which means that if the NAMASCUSA dogs would have to be recognized as a separate breed called the "North American Shepherd"


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

Keechak said:


> However I think most people would draw the line at aussies under 10 inches, can you imagin a 10 inch dog heeling cattle for 30 miles a day? thats a stretch of the imagination. and yes "Toy" australian Shepherd breeders have tryed to convince me that their dogs are bred with the breeds original purpose in mind, Um......


I agree. As I mentioned there is a breeder near me working hard, and being mostly successful, as breeding "teacup" aussies. They are bug eyes & ugly as all get out, they don't look healthy or solid. I find it wrong that her goal is to get them down to the size of a pop can, which she has already. There are many breeds as toy, mini & standard that are recognized, such as my eskie. I don't personally have a problem with various sizes included as acceptable then again I don't show or compete with my dogs so I probably have a more relaxed, lienient view of all of this.

I don't think pets should be breed for a design but as was mentioned aussies were smaller dogs but breed up over time. I don't think health & temperment should be ignored in favor of size & fad. But I also don't think mini aussies should be discredited either. I do wish it were more regulated for a standard size in hopes of having fewer folks breeding down for deisgner. 

When we chose our mini aussie we looked for health, good bone structure, well balance dog by way of body vs skull size. We didn't just do 'ahhhh cute puppy'. We watched his mom for about an hour to get an idea of her temperment as well before we were solid in our choice of pup. 

Never should a dog's health be compramised for a fad...so wrong.


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

At this point, splitting the NAS off as a separate breed seems like the least bad option, but, as RaeganW noted, it necessarily means a reduced gene pool for two breeds. The best answer might be to split the breeds while opening the registry for a few generations to diversify the gene pool, but there's no way that's ever going to happen. 

One small thing that bothers me is why they are even calling the new breed a *Shepherd* when it's obvious that the breeders have no intention of making this a working dog. This is a pet-sized dog that _looks like_ an Australian Shepherd. And since it's meant to be a companion dog rather than a working dog, all of the working instincts will eventually be selected out to make a better pet*. 

This is what happens to working breeds when they join the AKC. This exactly the kind of thing that the Border Collie and JRT people feared. Within a few generations, the NAS is going to be about as effective a shepherd as a modern Yorkie is as a terrier. 

*Not that there's anything wrong with that. A long while ago, I stirred some controversy here by advocating some dogs be bred specifically as pets (including the various poodle mixes). I just think that working dogs are very distinct from pet/companion dogs, and should be treated as such; I really dislike the pretense that these modern variants have anything to do with their original purpose.


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

Keechak said:


> The thing I find interesting is that IF by any chance the "Miniature Australian Shepherd" is accepted into the AKC as a size variety it will set a precedent for other breeds to also accept miniaturization. As you read in the letter the AKC has a rule against allowing the miniaturization of existing AKC recognized breeds. which means that if the NAMASCUSA dogs would have to be recognized as a separate breed called the "North American Shepherd"


How would this be different from Toy, MIni, Standard American Eskimo dogs, mini & standard schnauzer, toy, mini & standard poodle....? 

And aussies used to be smaller than the recognized standard they are now so why is it bad to breed down (and I do not mean these cutesy little pocket pets but 12-18" range) when they were breed up?


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

luv2byte said:


> How would this be different from Toy, MIni, Standard American Eskimo dogs, mini & standard schnauzer, toy, mini & standard poodle....?
> 
> And aussies used to be smaller than the recognized standard they are now so why is it bad to breed down (and I do not mean these cutesy little pocket pets but 12-18" range) when they were breed up?


Because poodles and Eskies an Schnauzers were already different size varieties BEFORE AKC recognition. 


and there are still MANY Australian Shepherds that are the same size as they used to be Check out the old videos and photographs of Jay sisler his dogs are around the same size as Kechara and they were the "little blue dogs" the trend towards larger aussies is ONLY in the conformation rings (and I don't agree with that ether). If you look at aussies bred for stock they have a GREAT size range. Go to an ASCA stock dog trial once and you will see aussies mostly between 16 and 22 inches if you go to an AKC breed show you will see aussies mostly between 19 and 24 inches.


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

luv2byte said:


> And aussies used to be smaller than the recognized standard they are now so why is it bad to breed down (and I do not mean these cutesy little pocket pets but 12-18" range) when they were breed up?


I'm not an expert, so take this with a grain of salt, but as I understood it, Aussies weren't so much bred 'up' for the show ring as they were for the fact that the US is a lot colder than Australia, and the heavier dogs tended to be favored as a result. 

You could make a pretty good case that it's the Australian Shepherd that should be re-named the North American Shepherd, as geographic isolation has no doubt created a breed distinct from its Australian progenitors. On the other hand, they probably shouldn't have been named that anyway as they're not actually from Australia, but from Spain; they only came to the US from Australia, where I believe they were originally called Basque dogs. Then again, I still don't understand how Great Danes and American Eskimos got their names when they're both from Germany. 

In case you couldn't tell, I work in IT, I get very, very annoyed with bad comment lines and poorly named subroutines. Reading breed histories makes my brain hurt, yet I can't stop myself...


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Independent George said:


> I'm not an expert, so take this with a grain of salt, but as I understood it, Aussies weren't so much bred 'up' for the show ring as they were for the fact that the US is a lot colder than Australia, and the heavier dogs tended to be favored as a result.
> 
> You could make a pretty good case that it's the Australian Shepherd that should be re-named the North American Shepherd, as geographic isolation has no doubt created a breed distinct from its Australian progenitors. On the other hand, they probably shouldn't have been named that anyway as they're not actually from Australia, but from Spain; they only came to the US from Australia, where I believe they were originally called Basque dogs. Then again, I still don't understand how Great Danes and American Eskimos got their names when they're both from Germany.
> 
> In case you couldn't tell, I work in IT, I get very, very annoyed with bad comment lines and poorly named subroutines. Reading breed histories makes my brain hurt, yet I can't stop myself...


If they were bred up in size it was likely to handle herding Cattle instead of sheep, these were very much working dogs. The best explanation I can see.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Keechak said:


> The thing I find interesting is that IF by any chance the "Miniature Australian Shepherd" is accepted into the AKC as a size variety it will set a precedent for other breeds to also accept miniaturization. As you read in the letter the AKC has a rule against allowing the miniaturization of existing AKC recognized breeds. which means that if the NAMASCUSA dogs would have to be recognized as a separate breed called the "North American Shepherd"


The AKC also has a precedent of doing whatever the heck it wants in regards to recognizing breeds.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Independent George said:


> I'm not an expert, so take this with a grain of salt, but as I understood it, Aussies weren't so much bred 'up' for the show ring as they were for the fact that the US is a lot colder than Australia, and the heavier dogs tended to be favored as a result.
> 
> You could make a pretty good case that it's the Australian Shepherd that should be re-named the North American Shepherd, as geographic isolation has no doubt created a breed distinct from its Australian progenitors. On the other hand, they probably shouldn't have been named that anyway as they're not actually from Australia, but from Spain; they only came to the US from Australia, where I believe they were originally called Basque dogs. Then again, I still don't understand how Great Danes and American Eskimos got their names when they're both from Germany.
> 
> In case you couldn't tell, I work in IT, I get very, very annoyed with bad comment lines and poorly named subroutines. Reading breed histories makes my brain hurt, yet I can't stop myself...


Australian shepherds are not from Australia, they decended from the spanish Basque Shepherds. The theory behind their name being"AUSTRALIAN Shepherd" is that they were used on sheep farms with sheep that were imported from Australia. But they are 100% made in America. SO there is something else to make your brain hurt lol.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> The AKC also has a precedent of doing whatever the heck it wants in regards to recognizing breeds.


please elaborate. I'm not saying your wrong I just have no idea what your eluding to.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

I'm mainly refering to Border Collies and Russell terriers.

The Border Collie is an interesting parallel, because one thing I've heard is that most BC people don't object to there being black and white collie-style dogs in the AKC, they just don't want them called Border Collies. It doesn't seem like that's really an issue here, with the AKC not wanting "miniaturizations," calling these dogs "Miniature Australian Shepherds" doesn't seem like a real possibility. Sure, it's all but just a semantic thing, but there doesn't seem to be any group really lobbying for that name. "North American Shepherds," while I agree with IG is a much more apt name for the breed of dogs you [Keechak] have, seems to be the agreed upon name for the smaller dogs.

Similarly, the Russell terriers. I know less about this one, but again it's not really the same thing. I don't know that NAS are being bred _as working dogs_. Mainly they're just Aussie-shaped companion dogs. Take M^3's story about Cherokee and the Mini Aussie. I still can't get over the fact that this seems like a monumentally stupid idea. So unlike the terriers and BC's, it's not really a case of "the AKC will take and ruin our working dogs."

What group do they propose to be in? If these dogs are not being bred to herd, should they be in the herding group? Compare Shelties and Corgis, they're about the same size, maybe smaller. But if they're Aussie-shaped companions, should they be in the Toy group? Non-sporting?


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

Keechak said:


> Australian shepherds are not from Australia, they decended from the spanish Basque Shepherds. The theory behind their name being"AUSTRALIAN Shepherd" is that they were used on sheep farms with sheep that were imported from Australia. But they are 100% made in America. SO there is something else to make your brain hurt lol.


Aaaaggghhh! I can't find a straight answer anywhere! 

I've heard that theory behind the name, but have also read that they were actually imported to the US from Australia after being originally being imported from Spain (the aforementioned Spanish Basque dogs). 

The bulk of my extended family actually lives in Australia. I first took an interest in the breed when I asked one of my cousins about Australian Shepherds, and she just looked confused.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> I'm mainly refering to Border Collies and Russell terriers.
> 
> The Border Collie is an interesting parallel, because one thing I've heard is that most BC people don't object to there being black and white collie-style dogs in the AKC, they just don't want them called Border Collies. It doesn't seem like that's really an issue here, with the AKC not wanting "miniaturizations," calling these dogs "Miniature Australian Shepherds" doesn't seem like a real possibility. Sure, it's all but just a semantic thing, but there doesn't seem to be any group really lobbying for that name. "North American Shepherds," while I agree with IG is a much more apt name for the breed of dogs you [Keechak] have, seems to be the agreed upon name for the smaller dogs.
> 
> ...


There are groups promoting the NAS and the one major group NASA is activly seeking UKC recognition as the NAS in the Herding group.
I have seen a NAS do herding there is one around here that enters every ASCA stockdog trial I go to. But the only breeders of NAS(aka Minis) that i have met do not practice what they preach, I'm sure there are some out there that do do a lot of herding trials with their dogs but I have never met them. They say "Our dogs are bred to preserve the original australian shepherd", but then they don't do any herding or conformation to prove that their dogs are of sound structure and good instinct. now I KNOW there are some GREAT NAS breeders out there who ARE doing everything to preserve the breed but it doesn't seem like it's the majority of NAMASCUSA breeders which is sad.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Independent George said:


> Aaaaggghhh! I can't find a straight answer anywhere!
> 
> I've heard that theory behind the name, but have also read that they were actually imported to the US from Australia after being originally being imported from Spain (the aforementioned Spanish Basque dogs).
> 
> The bulk of my extended family actually lives in Australia. I first took an interest in the breed when I asked one of my cousins about Australian Shepherds, and she just looked confused.


If you have a strong interest in the breed I HIGHLY suggest renting the book "All About Aussies" by Jeanne Joy Hartnagle-Taylor. It is considered the most accurate and concise book on the history of the Australian shepherd breed. It contains lots of 1800's photographs of working "old west stock dogs" and "little blue dogs" and it discusses the founding of the breed.


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

Keechak said:


> If you have a strong interest in the breed I HIGHLY suggest renting the book "All About Aussies" by Jeanne Joy Hartnagle-Taylor. It is considered the most accurate and concise book on the history of the Australian shepherd breed. It contains lots of 1800's photographs of working "old west stock dogs" and "little blue dogs" and it discusses the founding of the breed.


It's actually already on my shopping cart. I just can't bring myself to plunk down $35 on it, and I doubt it's in the library.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> I'm mainly refering to Border Collies and Russell terriers.
> 
> The Border Collie is an interesting parallel, because one thing I've heard is that most BC people don't object to there being black and white collie-style dogs in the AKC, they just don't want them called Border Collies.


as far as the border collie thing goes you have to understand thats not entirly an AKC problem. A group of breeders broke away from the ABCA because they wanted to breed to a standard and the ABCA did not beleive in a physical standard. That break away group created the BCSA and they decided to seek out AKC recognition and they wrote a standard for their breed. the ABCA said "Fine, but if any of your dogs who are duel registered with us get a CH title we will delete their registration from our database. So it's more of an argument between the two groups of border collie owners.

Imagin this, lets say you HATE Walmart and you don't want your family buying anything from Walmart. But your family decides they like Walmart and they buy from them. It's not WalMarts fault that your beleifs arn't being followed, so you say "Fine! you can shop at WalMart but if you EVER get a job there I am never talking to you again!" Thats kinda like the relationship with the ABCA and the BCSA


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

YoSaffBridge said:


> I saw a lady with a toy Australian Shepherd the other day. It really looked like a merle papillon, so I told her that her papillon mix was really cute. She then informed me in a haughty voice that it was a toy Aussie. So then I asked "What does it herd? Mice?" She did not appreciate that at all. Lol.


What, you never heard the expression 'herding cats'? It is an honorable profession with a long history in the American West.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I actually really like the idea of a mini aussie. I think there is a niche there too. I would LOVE a sheltie sized dog with more drive and intensity. Yeah I know, they're called pyr sheps but I still like Aussies better in both looks and temperament. And yeah you could argue shelties are similar too but they're still not quite up there with Aussies and have a different kind of temperament. If you could truly miniaturize the aussie I'd be all up in there. 

Would they be TRUE working dogs? No, probably just sport and pet dogs. Then again MOST dogs even herding breeds are not real working dogs anymore. Even many of the 'working bc' folk only play at herding trials, they don't do day to day work for a living. So I don't see this as a problem. Then again I define 'work' differently than most people. To me herding trials aren't work they're another type of sport but I digress...

I see two very different kinds of mini aussies around town. The overly frail, strange looking ones and then ones that really do look like 25- 30 lb Aussies. I was admiring one red tri at the park the other day. It was outdoing the full sized aussies and border collies in drive. It was a neat dog and in no way fragile at all. And it came in a package I would rather have. (I like 20-30 lb dogs the best)

Then again I do contemplate a 'giant papillon' every now and then lol.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

it will be very interesting to see how this evolves. I wonder, if they agree to change the name to the NAS if there will continue to be breeders that still call them "miniature aussies". I think it would be neat to have them accepted as either a variety OR a seperate breed. But if they are a veriety they should be able to be interbred. If I had a standard bitch someday in the far off future that was an ideal example of her breed I would like to be able to breed her with a miniature stud dog if he's the best dog to complement her in genetics, structure, and instinct.


----------



## sablegsd (Jan 24, 2010)

Independent George said:


> It's actually already on my shopping cart. I just can't bring myself to plunk down $35 on it, and I doubt it's in the library.


You might check with your library and see if they do inter-library loans.
I get a lot of books that way.


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> I actually really like the idea of a mini aussie. I think there is a niche there too.


How could you not love this face!


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

I have to admit - my tastes run in the exact opposite direction. When I see a dog like, say, a Havanese, I'd much rather have the 100-lb. version.


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

Independent George said:


> I have to admit - my tastes run in the exact opposite direction. When I see a dog like, say, a Havanese, I'd much rather have the 100-lb. version.


Wouldn't that be similar to an old english sheepdog or even a great pyrenees?


----------



## railNtrailcowgrl (Jul 24, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> I actually really like the idea of a mini aussie. I think there is a niche there too. I would LOVE a sheltie sized dog with more drive and intensity. Yeah I know, they're called pyr sheps but I still like Aussies better in both looks and temperament. And yeah you could argue shelties are similar too but they're still not quite up there with Aussies and have a different kind of temperament. If you could truly miniaturize the aussie I'd be all up in there.
> 
> Would they be TRUE working dogs? No, probably just sport and pet dogs. Then again MOST dogs even herding breeds are not real working dogs anymore. Even many of the 'working bc' folk only play at herding trials, they don't do day to day work for a living. So I don't see this as a problem. Then again I define 'work' differently than most people. To me herding trials aren't work they're another type of sport but I digress...
> 
> ...


This is why my mother is on her second 'mini'. We had a full size Aussie who was a wonderful dog all 60 muscular lbs of her. (Which is the 'standard size' in our area.) After we lost Zoey Mom decided she wanted another but in a smaller more 'house' friendly size. Our second had just as much drive and intensity as the first but she was 35-40lbs, now on the third she is 25-30lbs. Still all the same drive and tenacity as the first but much easier to haul along to a horse show or load up to go to a relatives house.

Though I must say that I don't agree with "toys" or "tea cups" ever single one I've ever seen has been a Aussie/Pap, Pom, Sheltie mix. I think that the two should be treated as just a size difference like 13" and 15" beagles. Which is how both of the breeders we've gotten out minis from treated it, They made no size guarantees and since they used larger females, ect... and warned us that we may get a 'throwback' and could possible be larger than anticipated. Which was the case with our first Maddie, she was supposed to be 30lbs tops but ended up around 35/40 if I remember right. I think that it would be the best for both 'breeds'.

My next dog, when the time comes will be a "Wiggle Butt". One of the best breeders in my area standard or mini. They test OFA, CERF, MDR1, Cataracts, Elbows/Patellas, and COI. I wish all mini breeders put this much time and effort into their dogs.


----------



## upendi'smommy (Nov 12, 2008)

luv2byte said:


> Wouldn't that be similar to an old english sheepdog or even a great pyrenees?


Not in temperament. 

I think that if the NAS people really want to be accepted as a separate breed, they should wait a bit longer and expand their gene pool and then seek recognition as a breed. If they were accepted as a variety though that wouldn't really be a problem.

I know a lady with a NAS and she's a great little dog. Not overly frail and in no way fragile. She's also all aussie in temperament, so I'm not terribly opposed to the idea of them being a variety as long as the breeding is done in the right way and the dogs truly are just a size variety with the temperament remaining.


----------



## lauren17 (Apr 14, 2009)

railNtrailcowgrl said:


> My next dog, when the time comes will be a "Wiggle Butt". One of the best breeders in my area standard or mini. They test OFA, CERF, MDR1, Cataracts, Elbows/Patellas, and COI. I wish all mini breeders put this much time and effort into their dogs.


I love this breeders dogs! I rarely see a mini that really looks like a smaller version of the australian shepherd but I found their site a while back and have been drooling over some of their dogs. What I really like about them is that they arent breeding just for size. 

I spent the weekend working at a horse show and the people I was working for have a mini aussie and a toy aussie. The mini was a red merle puppy so I'm interested to see what she turns out to look like. The toy looked like he had some chi in him. He was a very nervous dog and was shaking the whole evening. He was cute but nothing at all like an aussie. Toys and minis are really popular around here.

I'm interested to see what happens with this though. I too would like to see them as a height variety though (leaving the toys out though)


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

upendi'smommy said:


> Not in temperament.
> 
> .


I just meant in appearance & was really just said in jest, I didn't mean for it to be taken so literally.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Independent George said:


> I have to admit - my tastes run in the exact opposite direction. When I see a dog like, say, a Havanese, I'd much rather have the 100-lb. version.


I tend to want those boring medium sized dogs lol.


----------



## cherryhill (Aug 21, 2009)

i was debating on whether or not to post my opinion on this topic or not, But this is what i believe.


> ASCA
> The Miniature Australian Shepherd, North American Shepherd, North American Miniature Australian Shepherd, and/or Toy Australian Shepherd breeds are not recognized as a variety of Australian Shepherd by ASCA. The club considers such dogs to be a distinct and separate breed and will not accept them into its registry.
> 
> "Our bylaws state that ASCA's purpose is: _'To encourage members and breeders to accept one breed standard for the Australian Shepherd as approved by the Club as the only standard of excellence by which Australian Shepherds shall be judged.' It is the mission of this club ASCA and the mission of its members to preserve the breed rather than change it_."


i have no problem with mini aussies as long as the are recognized as a distinct and separte breed, the mini aussies that i seen were very poor in structure and temperment. i am not trying to offend anyone by this post i know sometimes post can be taken the wrong way. JMO on this topic

/Amanda


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

that wigglebutts has NICE dogs. There bitches could win in the ASCA breed ring easily.


----------



## cherryhill (Aug 21, 2009)

the wiggle butt kennel has the nicest mini aussies i have seen.

/Amanda


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

Amanda - as an owner of a mini aussie I do not take offense to it. You can have an opinion and not be offensive or mean. Everyone has their own reasons for things & their own preferences, I think that is ok. For us our mini aussie is perfect, he fits well with our life, he works for us but that is us, not everyone. Just like I would never own a pit, dobie, bulldog and various other breeds whether it be looks, temperment, reputation, whatever, just as there are those that live and die by their labradoodle (or whatever + poodle). 

For as much of a hot topic as mini aussies can be I don't find any of this whole thread offensive, I think its simply a good conversation.


----------



## cherryhill (Aug 21, 2009)

luv2byte said:


> Amanda - as an owner of a mini aussie I do not take offense to it. You can have an opinion and not be offensive or mean. Everyone has their own reasons for things & their own preferences, I think that is ok. For us our mini aussie is perfect, he fits well with our life, he works for us but that is us, not everyone. Just like I would never own a pit, dobie, bulldog and various other breeds whether it be looks, temperment, reputation, whatever, just as there are those that live and die by their labradoodle (or whatever + poodle).
> 
> For as much of a hot topic as mini aussies can be I don't find any of this whole thread offensive, I think its simply a good conversation.



ok good i would never want to put down someones dog, as i have been put down for one of my dogs, Strongly opinionated person eager to share coments that were not every nice and hurt  
Like i said i have no prblems with mini aussies, and thats great that you love your mini


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

Wow! Wiggle Butts have BEAUTIFUL dogs - what a great example for mini aussies.


----------



## sheltiemom (Mar 13, 2007)

I have to say I have no idea where I stand on this topic. I used to be against miniaturizing the australian shepherd, I had seen mostly bug eyed or wall eyed dogs that just looked odd and I figured it to be one of those fads...but now I own a mini aussie, a lucky find at a rural shelter, and she's an awesome dog. I can see the draw, like laurelin was saying, of a more medium sized herding breed, but less barkiness and less coat care than a sheltie, and more drive. I can also really see a problem developing though with people getting more dog than they bargained for, my girl is definitely alot of dog...more drive and energy than my border collie even.

Obligatory pic, complete with crazy prick ears....


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

MegaMuttMom said:


> The only dog Cherokee has played TOO ROUGH with is a mini aussie who ran at him just the same way as his full-sized aussie friends. So, Cherokee rolled him and the dog squealed. (His regular-sized aussie friends would never allow themselves to be rolled, they are some wild, happy dogs). I was worried that the dog was broken. The dog was OK but, to have that personality in a frail-sized body is just asking for trouble, if you ask me..........


Aren't there other small breeds with equally energetic personalities? Papillons and JRTs for example? I think part of breeding a good dog is breeding a sturdy dog, and size doesn't necessarily mean that a dog isn't going to be able to handle rough play. The dog you're referring to may have squealed because he has something like hip dysplasia, which can effect 200 lb dogs, too. Honestly I have a hard time seeing how size alone can make a dog "frail," until you start getting down into some single digit weights or something. A 20-30lb dog shouldn't "break" just because he's not 60 lbs. 



Keechak said:


> The thing I find interesting is that IF by any chance the "Miniature Australian Shepherd" is accepted into the AKC as a size variety it will set a precedent for other breeds to also accept miniaturization. As you read in the letter the AKC has a rule against allowing the miniaturization of existing AKC recognized breeds. which means that if the NAMASCUSA dogs would have to be recognized as a separate breed called the "North American Shepherd"


Would this even count as "miniaturization?" It's been well established that the breed started out small and got bigger at one point. It's not like someone's trying to pass off mini Malamutes as a legitimate breed or variety. Technically both "varieties" of aussies have been around long before AKC recognition anyways, so it's not like we're suddenly up and changing a breed just because we feel like it.

Honestly, I don't like the idea of creating a completely seperate breed. I much prefer the idea of an additional variety. They're both practically the same breed, they follow the same standard save for one detail. There are lots of mini aussie breeders that use standard size aussies in their breeding stock to keep them looking like Australian Shepherds, and if they were made into seperate breeds than you would limit the gene pool quite a bit. It would be like saying you can't breed Papillons to Phalenes, it just wouldn't be a good idea, nor would it make any sense. Maybe if the mini aussie became a lot more numerous, and they changed so much that they no longer resembled the aussie, then it would make more sense to make them a seperate breed. But they are essentially still Australian Shepherds, just a different size.

Personally, though, I don't really like the idea of suddenly requiring a set size range for the breed, because that's not what aussies are about. I'm not sure how a different size variety would work, though. I still think they should be recognized as a different type of the same breed, as to preserve mini aussie breeders' efforts to keep their dogs in a range that they prefer. I'm just not sure how that would work, yet. Maybe just give them a different name but keep them in the same breed, like Papillons and Phalenes? That way they could be North American Shepherds and still be welcomed to interbreed with Australian Shepherds? I don't know, maybe.



TxRider said:


> If they were bred up in size it was likely to handle herding Cattle instead of sheep, these were very much working dogs. The best explanation I can see.


This explanation doesn't make any sense at all to me... Aren't Cattle dogs and Corgis meant to herd cattle, and Collies and GSDs meant to herd sheep? These breeds have apparently gotten their sizes "backwards," right? Personally, I don't think size applies TOO much when it comes to herding. It's all a mental game between the dog and the livestock, and a larger dog isn't going to necessarily intimidate the livestock any more just because he's bigger. I've even actually seen Papillons successfully herd sheep. In a lot of cases, smaller dogs actually end up being more nimble and agile, and don't take a lot of time building momentum like a larger dog such as a Great Dane. Plus, a kick to the head from a cow's hoof can kill a dog, and shorter dogs can duck out of the way a lot more easily than a dog whose face is right at kick-level (This is why Corgis have short legs, IIRC). In regards to aussies needing to be bigger to herd bigger livestock, I've actually seen several mini aussie breeders who have cattle ranches, and they prefer the mini sized dogs because of their nimbleness.

In regards to "Toy" Aussies, I'm not sure what to think about them. If they're going to stick with calling themselves "aussies," than they need to be able to herd. Which doesn't seem impossible, again, I've seen Papillons herd, and dogs like Shelties can get pretty small and still herd. But the major trend with toy aussies is that they've been bred down (and possibly mixed) to become little merle lap dogs. In this case, I don't think they should call themselves aussies anymore. I don't really have any qualms with people who develop new breeds, even if the breed serves no purpose other than being a lap dog. However, if it's going to be called an aussie, it has to be able to behave like an aussie. And of course, they need to be breeding ethically and responsibly, not just shove a bunch of toy dogs in a room and sell the results for $$$.


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

'Wigglebutt' has to be the best name for a dog breeder, ever.


----------

