Whither the Tibetan Mastiff?
If you want to touch on a hot button in the dog world, find yourself a group of Tibetan Mastiff breeders, owners or fanciers anywhere in the world, and bring up the subject of type.
Is it a moderate Himalayan mountain dog, or the massive legendary dog of Tibet. Or both?
It seems to be a recurring theme and question wherever I go to judge or exhibit in the world today. Even the Chinese media is involved, still amazed by the nouveau phenomenon that has swept that country and the million-dollar prices they can garner for their dogs.
In China, where I was the first Westerner to ever judge the breed, eager television reporters invariably ask me to weigh in on where I stand. Through my translator, the question posed about how long I think the market will continue to thrive is usually followed by “Do you prefer the smaller lion long-haired type, or the larger, more wrinkled tiger type?”
My politically correct yet truthful answer is: “I prefer a giant lion or a hairy tiger.” You do the math.
What we have here is a culture clash. In Tibet, the land race is bred for consistency in function, not for the matching phenotypes prioritized in standards of the West, resulting in different looking dogs coming from geographically isolated regions within Tibet. In a commerce-driven China, diversity in type results in a diversity of what can be marketed, so there is incentive to keep types separate, and millions of dollars are often spent in elaborate kennel facilities and advertising... per kennel! Lion type, Tiger type, Snow (white) type, even the rare Bearded (Kyi Apso) type are the so-called “Zangao”/Tibetan Mastiffs readily found on Chinese web sites.
In the wild, wild West of AKC and FCI, entire distinct breeds – and certainly separate varieties – are defined by those same distinct size, coat or color differences. And in Tibetan Mastiffs, you still have all these variables vying for preferred status and the single BOB nod from judges around the world. Judges, as things now stand, pick a size, color or coat variety... any size, color or coat variety!
In the U.S., a recent, highly contested and narrowly passed revision to the standard has put the breed out of sync with historic and native Tibetan standards, not to mention the rest of the world.
Meanwhile in FCI countries, a breed split is being discussed and may be inevitable. Former FCI vice president Christofer Habig even sent out a memorandum in mid-2011 appealing to the European Tibetan Mastiff community to be sure to preserve the “pure” Do-Khyi/mountain variety seen there while the “mixed” Zangao/Chinese version makes its way into the FCI.
My opinion is that it is the diverse and generic Himalayan Do-Khyi that is the “mixed” version of the breed, with pure, authentic native Zangao specimens seen aplenty from Tibetan breeders in Tibet and on the Sino Qinghai Plateau. And with China having annexed, acquired or assimilated Tibet (pick your politics), it makes China the official country of origin for the Tibetan Mastiff, and gives that parent country the right to write and manage the FCI standard for the breed. They may come in with two varieties, and if they do, breeders in FCI countries may have to choose which master they will serve, where their dogs best fit, and breed toward that particular standard.
There is likely a precedent already set for this type of thing, but even so, it will polarize and become a lightening rod of controversy for years to come. This will no doubt have an impact on the breed in the U.S. because of the AKC/FCI reciprocal relationship, impacting the American Tibetan Mastiff scene in like fashion, even forcing its hand.
My best advice? Fads will come and go, so hold on to your seats and keep the original Tibetan ideal in mind when you breed and judge.