I think this has degenerated to the point of pointless childish name calling. None of us have any information that is accurate, well informed, or knowledgable about this person or breed. From what limited info I see on the website her dogs appear well cared for. Not enough for me to shell out money for a dog but certainly enough for me to say probably not a puppymill and the pics look ok.

As far as I know it could be a hoax, or it could be authentic and as far as anything else we all have different points of view on how to raise dogs. I'm sure similar things are said on other boards about people who use prong collars, don't believe in vaccinations, and feed raw. After all everyone's child and dog rearing techniques are wrong... except for yours.

 Quote: Melissa Thom

... After all everyone's child and dog rearing techniques are wrong... except for yours.

I think this is the most important thing to take away from this thread. Everyone's child and dog rearing techniques are wrong except for mine.

I'm just really glad someone finally said this, because I've been meaning to bring it up for a while, but I didn't want to seem unappreciative.

If you guys need advice, just let me know. I'm always here for you.

 Quote: Melissa Thom

I think this has degenerated to the point of pointless childish name calling. None of us have any information that is accurate, well informed, or knowledgable about this person or breed. From what limited info I see on the website her dogs appear well cared for. Not enough for me to shell out money for a dog but certainly enough for me to say probably not a puppymill and the pics look ok.

As far as I know it could be a hoax, or it could be authentic and as far as anything else we all have different points of view on how to raise dogs. I'm sure similar things are said on other boards about people who use prong collars, don't believe in vaccinations, and feed raw. After all everyone's child and dog rearing techniques are wrong... except for yours.

I have actually done some research into this breed and came across lots of inconsistencies, some sort of weird fued going on hence there being native american indian dogs, and native american dogs, and lots of creative licsense with histories and facts regarding the Native American tribes.

Also considering the widespread nature of the North American continent I would guess that different geographical areas of tribes would have different dogs for different purposes....you wouldnt find the Cherokee tribe in alabama and florida raising and bredding Siberian huskies to pull sleds.

Your are correct that she doesnt seem to be running any sort of puppy mill, and im sure the dogs are well cared for. But i do wonder about using the native american culture and history as a seeming selling point for a breed? of dog
I also really was given to a fit of giggles about free feeding a pup as much as it can eat stopping it from chewing on things

i think it got away from the original inquiry, i am still curious if these are just glorified wolf hybrids or not.

Mallory, since you obviously have internet (being as how you are posting here), you may have to do some research of your own.
It sounds like nobody here knows any more than you do about NAID's.
What everyone is saying so far is that the info they are finding is so sketchy and contradictory that there is no way to know if the dogs are wolf/dog hybrids or not.
Since this is a working dog site, and apparently Native American Indian Dogs are mostly bred as companion animals, probably nobody here has anymore experience with them than you do.
Why don't you go look it up and then let us know what you find out?

Edited by Janice Jarman (01/08/2008 12:48 PM)
Edit reason: NATIVE American, not NORTH American

 Quote: Mallory Kwiatkowski

i think it got away from the original inquiry, i am still curious if these are just glorified wolf hybrids or not.

I am with Janice, google it.
Did you see the other thread that was started about some Shepherd type glorified hybrid? Probably about the same thing IMHO. But I have not looked it up either.

Interesting thread so far!

I would just like to add my 2 cents here. To me, this is an attempt at makign profit from "the old west." Tribes did have certain traits that became predominant as the dogs in the camp interbred, but as stated other blood was introduced from other tribes. There is not one certain type that "is" the Native American Indian Dog. Blood from everywhere was added as Native Americans ketp wolves, coyotes, foxes, etc and still do. Not to mention dogs that were taken from settlers or that ran away from everybody invading North America. You likely have the blood of most of the breeds that originally came overseas all put into dogs that follow the camp and are used by the Native Americans.

Much the same as wild mustangs in this country, the blood of every breed of horse that got loose or whose owners were killed or that survived shipwrecks, etc is all mixed in and tribes would often have horses varying in size from the traditional large pony type to larger draft mixes and thoroughbreds. Certain tribes preferred certain types such as the Nez Perce with the Appaloosa, and many tribes with palominos/cremellos and paints etc. Same thing with the dogs, but not as much attention was paid to the breeding of dogs, it was primarily unplanned, and the appearance mattered far less than the fact that these dogs carried packs, drug poles and small logs etc.

To me, the NAID as pictured and described is not the original NAID and was created from a mishmash of various mutts. Unless it is owned and has been kept by or is from dogs kept by Native Americans, then it is not the "original native american indian dog." There was no "original" NAID.

In regards to the Carolina Dog - that is likely what a fair amount of actual NAIDs looked like, but again it would vary tribe by tribe and region by region.