History of the NI Q&A and Facts General Chat

The history of the NI still seems unclear to me, does anyone have any facts about the founder dogs,

I would like to know who were the founder breeders, and which dogs were 'allegedly' wolf hybrids. Were any records kept for the wolf hybrids, did they have a society, pedigree register, use kennel names etc. and when did the name Northern Inuit start being used.

this is the official NIS history (written by J Kelham and S Sutton)

A Brief History of the Northern Inuit dog.


In the 1990,s, there was an increase in the amount of advertisements offering ‘wolf hybrid’ pups for sale. As the recent ‘Pit Bull’ horror stories from an over zealous tabloid press emerged, the RSPCA and other authorities grabbed the chance to try and have many people prosecuted and their dogs confiscated under the Dangerous wild animal act. Because of all the controversy surrounding any wolfy looking dogs, a group of people got together to try and safeguard the future of a particular line of these dogs.
The dogs were given the name ‘the Northern Inuit dog’ (which I shall hereafter refer to as the N.I.), due to the Northern breeds and Inuit type dogs that were used to create the breed. Two of these original Inuit types were imported to the UK from the USA as ‘wolf hybrid’ dogs, and there ensuing progeny were sold up and down the country as ‘wolf hybrids’, it is very dubious as to whether there was any actual wolf content in these dogs at all.
At the time of the N.I being established, one of the founder s of the breed, Julie Kelham, had the local authorities hammering at her door, trying to seize her dogs as dangerous wild animals. Although they went away empty handed, it resulted in a court case being brought against her, at the local magistrates court on the 20th of june 1998. At this time, the N.I was well established as a breed of dog and not as a wolf hybrid. The end result of the court case was a not guilty verdict due to the fact that it could not be proven that there was any wolf content in the breed.
The N.I has flourished since then and is rapidly gaining in popularity, therefore, the Northern Inuit society was formed to govern the breeding and well being of this wonderful dog, although, some members, in the past, were obviously not satisfied with the N.I as it was, and went on to cross their dogs with other breeds, which has resulted in several splits,and breeds such as the Utonagan, British Inuit, Tamaskan and ‘Inuit’ groups being formed. The N.I society believes that crossing the N.I with any other breed would only be detrimental to them and we are quite satisfied with the N.I as it is.
So, the question still remains ‘is there any wolf content in the N.I.’? this is a question many people ask, and the truthful answer is, it really is impossible to say, if there is, it is so far back that it would have been diluted to almost 0 percent, although some people would prefer that we steer well away from the wolf question, we are proud that our breed resemble the wolf in looks and of the unanswered question ‘IS THERE OR ISN’T THERE ?????????????’
Written by J. Kelham & S. Sutton.

There is a good article here : http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/gwd/wolfdogs/wolfdogs.pdf from a government study that will answer a fair few questions.

thanks for posting the link

I had already seen that document, it just adds to my confusion as it just says that the defendant was found not guilty because the local authority had no
opportunity to inspect the animals concerned, they were unable to present any evidence of the
animals alleged wolf content to the court. It doesn't say not guilty because the dogs were found to have no wolf content.


13.3 Newark and Sherwood Council –v- Julie Kelham 20/05/98
In July 1997 an attempt was made by Newark and Sherwood District Council to seize
suspected animals from the defendant in Newark, Nottingham. This was unsuccessful due to
the inadequate powers of entry provided by the Act, as perceived by the council (see later).
The only remaining course of action open to Newark and Sherwood District Council was to
prosecute for an offence under Section 1 of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (The
keeping of unlicensed animals). This was the first prosecution in British law involving an
alleged wolfdog in contravention of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act.

The case was based on the following evidence:
· Verbal admission by the owner that the animals contained a low percentage of wolf
· An advertisement in the local newspaper offering “wolf hybrid puppies” for sale
· The owners appearance on television and in the press on wolf hybrid issues
The case was heard at Newark Magistrates Court on 20 May 1998.
Three council officers gave evidence for the prosecution. The prosecution expert witness was
Dr. Michael Bruford, an expert geneticist, who argued (as at Rotherham) that any dog with
even 1% wolf genes could not be classified as Canis familiaris and would therefore fall
within the scope of the Act.
The council were unable to have experts examine the animals as it was their understanding
that the Act did not make provision for custody, since no application had ever been made for a
licence.The defence called two experts, Dr. Roger Mugford, a “leading animal psychologist”, and
Trevor Turner MRCVS, an “eminent veterinary surgeon”. Both had examined the animals
and had found no trace of wolf-like behaviour. The defendant claimed in court that none of
her dogs contained recent wolf genes, but that they had been bred from “Nordic breeds”
supposedly closer to wolves genetically than most dogs. She also denied that the dogs
advertised were hers, saying that they belonged to a friend who was using her telephone
number.
As this was a criminal case, the prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
animals were wolf hybrids within the meaning of the Act. Since the local authority had no
opportunity to inspect the animals concerned, they were unable to present any evidence of the
animals alleged wolf content to the court. Consequently the court found the defendant not
guilty (Kerr, D. 1998.).

I think the conclusion was that there is no hard evidence to suggest that there are anymore than 1 or 2 'true' wolf hybrids in this country.

Personally, unless all the dogs are DNA'd I don't think any answers will be found, and I doubt we will ever know the true make-up of the original. Additionally there have been so many additions along the way, how much of the originals are left in today's dogs?

Yes, I'd read those, looks like there was an unfortunate choice in name. I do wonder why the original breeders picked that one? I would have though something more wolfy would have been better like Lupus.

Does anyone know Exactly when JK..started breeding these dogs?..

You may be right, there's certainly a few who agree. I thought Lupus was Latin fro wolf, that's why I suggested it, but there must be lots more of more appropriate names they could have picked.

have to agree with you there, if the wolf hybrids had no wolf in them and if the NI had no Inuit dogs in them.

I always wondered where the 'Inuit' bit came from?

The Northern I get, sort of..... as was supposed to be from Northern breeds.... even though I'm still confused as to what was used. Mals/Sibes/GSDs or just some imported wolfie looking dogs?

As for the Inuit part, lots of the dogs' names tend to come from the North American Indians.... nothing to do with the Inuits.... so again confued!

I also know 'Mahlek Call of the Wild' was one of the founder dogs, and yet I his parents are on pedigrees so aren't they the founder dogs?

Edited to add I can see why the Inuit's are very upset at their name being used. My son has Cherokee Indian in his blood and they too would not find anyone taking or using their name like this amusing..... and it's not all political correctness gone wrong, it is protecting their heritage.

Doesn't Inuit mean fish-eater. I know kopek loves slamon & tuna

In their language Inukitut, Inuit means 'the people'.... but I still don't get why that was used. Unless it was just an uneducated guess at what would appeal to a mass market.... again which I can see why anyone genuinely Inuit or Inuit Sled Dog would be a wee bit miffed about.

Or given the amounts of problems maybe that would have been a PERFECT name!!

I am beginning to think there wasn't even any husky or Mal in them at the beginning..

ANd as for the WOLF HYBRID..well we KNOW there was a registry of sorts as we have seen the pedigrees relating to that..(whether the dogs were what they were stated is anyones guess...personally I don't think there is any wolf in them at all)

Yes I am sure I saw something somewhere about a wolf hybrid pedigree, but coudn't remember what it was, or where I had seen it.

Someone has emailed a wolf hybrid pedigree to me (with the owners name removed) so this has answered some of my questions about the hybrids. (Pedigree, Affix, Society)




so what I would like to know now is when the NIS was formed, when the dogs we know as NI were bred, and which were the founder dogs.

Interesting topic - not sure anything new will come out of it though.

well I have been trying for ages to get facts about the history of the NI dog. I have tried asking on the official forum but didn't get answers, so now I am asking on here.

I know - it would be interesting to know where those 3/4 imported(?) dogs came from and what their make-up was, but I get the impression that those who know (if they know) won't be telling the rest of us anytime soon, that's all I meant.

:-( well it appears that no one has any facts to share :-(


The two NI groups have completely different conflicting versions, so the confusion goes on