The Basenji Klub Deutschland has a website - otherwise, email me privately for some addresses. You could be too late for this season's crop though you can get on a list for next winter.
For Sale: Basenji pups For Sale in Nampa ID
-
I think this BCOA/AKC process will get some new blood into the basenji lines, and help our breed. Back to this thread. Anyone who breeds "african's" who have not been accepted into BCOA are just breeding mixes. They might "catch" the uninformed re selling puppies, but the folks who love and know our breed will just see this as a way to
make some $$ on the backs of dogs. Yes, I said dogs, not basenjis.Several Africans that are now accepted in the studbook were bred before they were voted in and had their AKC registrations. I get your point but not everyone who has done this in the past is trying to be deceptive.
-
Ok, but if you go through the process first, doesn't that make it easier to tell who is legit and who isn't? just a question…breeding isn't my venue, so I don't know
-
Yes, it would make it easier. (I don't breed either.) I was just getting to the intentions. I think it's okay to breed an un-registered import if, for instance, you want to get an idea of what it will produce before pursuing entrance to the studbook. Of course, what you call those "dogs" until they are registered could be up for debate. I would hope the breeder who does this type of breeding would explain to their puppy buyers the situation so they are informed. But I think this, like the current posting, would be a relatively uncommon situation.
-
Here are my thoughts.
The original "basenji" was nothing more than a village dog that had similar type. Only the western world has "made" them what they are today where they can produce rather uniformly.
Every founder basenji - past and present - have come from areas that had dogs that were not what the founder thought were typical. Historical (and current) records show dogs that barked, had "funny" colors, had sickle tails, longer coat lengths, etc. What does this mean? It means our founder dogs were picked solely based on their phenotype as genotype would not be known until bred. Why would it be any different for people in the late 30's, early 40's then it would be for us now? IMO it would not be - we would still need to be picking foundation stock based on phenotype - trying to pick the closest that conforms to our man made breed standard - which can be rather hard when picking puppies; some of our original founders were I believe adults when chosen making a bit easier to see what you are going to get. This means I am not so quick to write off native dogs that do not 100% conform to the breed standard - esp. since I feel the breed standard was based more on our human founders preferences vs. reality. I mean if only 1 out of 10 native dog has a short back - what is the reality?
Until the stud books close and certain groups of dogs are either not presented and/or accepted the implication that there is something "wrong with them" is not kosher, IMO. Each group has done their own thing - some heavily health tested and bred to domestics, some heavily heath tested and bred only to others in their group, some have done bare minimum testing (from what I can see on OFA no eyes or hips on the parents) and have bred to their own group and some have done a bit of everything, and some are perhaps taking their time before presenting them to the BCOA for inclusion. I don;t really know so can not presume to speak for them.
In a world according to me - I think it would be a good thing to leave the stud book open indefinitely for native stock making sure that we have things in place - such as our current protocol - to make sure that not every dog born in Africa gets in. Due to conflict and strife in their native land it has been difficult if not downright dangerous to go back to get more native stock therefore our window of opportunity with regards to the AKC is closing rapidly!
As for Manu being an expert - can anyone show/list for me her credentials saying as much as I can not find anything on the 'net. As far as I know she is no more of an expert then Rose Marie - as both have been to Africa and both own Native dogs from a similar region. As always - I like to have as many facts as possible before leaping to a conclusion. Thanks.
-
I agree the stud book should be left open indefinitely. Anyway that will happen?
-
I agree the stud book should be left open indefinitely. Anyway that will happen?
Not unless BCOA petition's AKC to do so, but I seriously doubt that they would anyway… just my opinion, as it is my opinion that they should not be left open
-
AKC's communicated maximum length of time for the studbooks to remain open was 5 years, that is why that number was in the petition.
-
As a first step it would be great if more people were open about health testing results and actually did all of the health testing suggested. People can make more informed breeding decisions that way and possibly head off health issues down the road. More proactive and encompassing breeders education would be helpful too. If we don't improve issues like that and others, an indefinite influx of imports won't help a lot in the long run.
-
As for Manu being an expert - can anyone show/list for me her credentials saying as much as I can not find anything on the 'net. As far as I know she is no more of an expert then Rose Marie - as both have been to Africa and both own Native dogs from a similar region. As always - I like to have as many facts as possible before leaping to a conclusion.
Good grief. Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. You did in fact jump to a conclusion and posted without any information.
Your comment is a gross untruth of Manu (her given name is Emmanuelle Occansey).
Manu's ancestry comes from the land that is the origin of the Avuvi breed. Her father was from Togo and that is where she was born and raised. As a native African woman, she has also lived in Senegal, Ghana, Cameroon and now is back living in Ghana.
She is an extremely astute and studious woman with a lifelong (nearly 40 years) interest in and study of the dogs of her homeland.
She has always been recognized as one of the preeminent experts on West African dogs and is known around the world as an expert. Why do you think that you can belittle her authority?
In fact, if you had taken a moment to think before you posted, you might remember that it was Manu who Robert Dean emulated when the Avuvi Project was first developed (as a an effort to conserve the distinct dog breed / type found in Liberia, C?te D'Ivoire, Ghana, Togo, Burkina Faso, Benin and Nigeria; corresponding to the people who speak the Gb? languages: Mina, Aja, Fon and ?w?).
Manu was critical to the original design and execution of the Avuvi imports of 2004. She was acknowledged by Robert Dean (for example, see THE YODELER - Mid Atlantic Basenji Club NEWSLETTER June/July 2005).When the original Avuvi Project was designed around the aboriginal dogs of that discreet region, the original website (now defunct) included the attached article written by Emmanuelle Occansey (Manu) in 2003.
Additionally, recognizing her as an expert, she was enlisted in 2006 to facilitate the importation of Jengi dogs from Cameroon, generously boarding the eight puppies in her Buea, Cameroon home.Your statement is an insult to Africans and nothing more than propaganda to promote your own agenda.
Jo
attachment_p_125852_0_avuvi-breed-emmanuelle-occansey-2003.pdf -
It seems that there is quite a dispute in the USA about these Avuvi dogs and I apologise for bringing it up - I was rather puzzled I must say.
Linda, I called Manou an expert as I found her extremely knowledgeable about the Avuvi in it's native land, she didn't claim to be so. I don't know and have never spoken to the other lady you mentioned but I'm sure she is knowledgeable too.
Linda, when the original basenjis were brought in to the UK, they were brought in by people who had Basenjis in the Congo. At that time most came from areas where only the so called Basenji lived and had done so 'for ever'. Obviously they brought Basenjis in that appealed to them for various reasons. The original standard was drawn up with the help of a small group of people who had known Basenjis in their native habitat. Yes there was a measure of culling but mainly for colours that were not considered acceptable I didn't and don't agree with that. Basenjis bred that didn't appeal went as pets and weren't shown. I can assure you that loose tails do still appear (I have one, but that doesn't take her outside the standard.
Janneke, I do not agree that any Basenji like dog, if healthy should be thrown into the gene pool, Cross breeds and mongrels would be then created. Why have a Basenji and then alter it? If people want to change a breed why pick such an ancient one? That's my opinion anyhow and I have spent most of my life endeavouring to breed an original type, which meant good temperament, character and intelligence. To each it's own, I agree.
There was talk of them having bad temperaments but this wasn't really true. The trouble was that people who owned them and had not known them in their native habitat didn't have the first idea of how a Basenji should be reared but tried to treat them as other dogs they'd bred or owned.
Ivoss, I assume there is a DNA test to prove whether Basenjis are pure bred or not? Why is it that it isn't used for dogs under dispute?
-
My previous post was made at the same time as the one before.
I now see that, as my original impression of her that Manou is indeed an expert!
-
This means I am not so quick to write off native dogs that do not 100% conform to the breed standard - esp. since I feel the breed standard was based more on our human founders preferences vs. reality. I mean if only 1 out of 10 native dog has a short back - what is the reality?
I think that if you go back and look at the ones that have been accepted, they are all missing something in the Breed Standard…. and add to the all the American lines, Aussie lines, Europe Lines, etc.... since the breed standard represents the "perfect" Basenji. I think the word that most use is Breed Type, not the Breed Standard
-
@JoT:
Good grief. Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. You did in fact jump to a conclusion and posted without any information.
what conclusion did the OP jump to? didn't he/she simply ask a question?
@JoT:
Your statement is an insult to Africans and nothing more than propaganda to promote your own agenda.
Jowhich statement was an insult to Africans? what is his/her agenda?
-
Ivoss, I assume there is a DNA test to prove whether Basenjis are pure bred or not? Why is it that it isn't used for dogs under dispute?
There is no such test.
-
It seems that there is quite a dispute in the USA about these Avuvi dogs and I apologise for bringing it up - I was rather puzzled I must say.
Janneke, I do not agree that any Basenji like dog, if healthy should be thrown into the gene pool, Cross breeds and mongrels would be then created. Why have a Basenji and then alter it?
Ivoss, I assume there is a DNA test to prove whether Basenjis are pure bred or not? Why is it that it isn't used for dogs under dispute?
Why should you apologize for asking a question that is educational and valid?
Um.. all breeds of dogs developed from "mongrels" through selective breeding. Only with the creation of stud books did breeds really come about. On closed systems (ie island and isolated areas) you got certain characteristics even in ancient times, but that didn't mean other dogs didn't breed with them, or even an occasional wild canine. In reality, the concept of purebred is a man-made one and most breeds in FCI and AKC measure their existence in a hundred or couple of hundred years, not thousands of years.
Not Ivoss… but DNA can help pinpoint if mostly basenji... but I would suspect many wild african dogs share many similar genes making it at best hard if not impossible to really eliminate dogs that way YET.
@JoT:
Good grief. Once again you have no idea what you are talking about.
Your statement is an insult to Africans and nothing more than propaganda to promote your own agenda.
JoYou are the one who posted without thinking and your post is a personal attack and insult. Questioning and having an opinion doesn't make it propaganda or an insult to anyone. Your abusive post to her, not so clean. Wipe the spittle off your face before it ruins your keyboard and attempt to post facts and information without the attacks.
Here are my thoughts.
The original "basenji" was nothing more than a village dog that had similar type. Only the western world has "made" them what they are today where they can produce rather uniformly. …
In a world according to me - I think it would be a good thing to leave the stud book open indefinitely for native stock making sure that we have things in place...
Ditto on breed development… but I don't care who is the expert. The only issue to me is truth in lending (or selling) as it were. Had she posted truth... that these are African dogs who might never make it into the stud books, who are not certified basenjis and that have not had testing on, I'd have no issue. It was the disingenuous posting, hemming and hawing, abuse of anyone questioning and avoidance of answers that bother me. If she wants to work on those dogs, hell develop her own breed, I don't care. But don't call them basenjis, don't try to pretend you have done health testing when you haven't, and don't insult people for asking questions when you don't give straight information.
-
@JoT:
Good grief. Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. You did in fact jump to a conclusion and posted without any information.
Your comment is a gross untruth of Manu (her given name is Emmanuelle Occansey).
Manu's ancestry comes from the land that is the origin of the Avuvi breed. Her father was from Togo and that is where she was born and raised. As a native African woman, she has also lived in Senegal, Ghana, Cameroon and now is back living in Ghana.
She is an extremely astute and studious woman with a lifelong (nearly 40 years) interest in and study of the dogs of her homeland.
She has always been recognized as one of the preeminent experts on West African dogs and is known around the world as an expert. **Why do you think that you can belittle her authority?**In fact, if you had taken a moment to think before you posted, you might remember that it was Manu who Robert Dean emulated when the Avuvi Project was first developed (as a an effort to conserve the distinct dog breed / type found in Liberia, C?te D'Ivoire, Ghana, Togo, Burkina Faso, Benin and Nigeria; corresponding to the people who speak the Gb? languages: Mina, Aja, Fon and ?w?).
Manu was critical to the original design and execution of the Avuvi imports of 2004. She was acknowledged by Robert Dean (for example, see THE YODELER - Mid Atlantic Basenji Club NEWSLETTER June/July 2005).When the original Avuvi Project was designed around the aboriginal dogs of that discreet region, the original website (now defunct) included the attached article written by Emmanuelle Occansey (Manu) in 2003.
Additionally, recognizing her as an expert, she was enlisted in 2006 to facilitate the importation of Jengi dogs from Cameroon, generously boarding the eight puppies in her Buea, Cameroon home.Your statement is an insult to Africans and nothing more than propaganda to promote your own agenda.
JoUh- RUDE.
She simply asked for help finding info, and to be educated. She didnt belittle anyone. Get over yourself.
-
JoT:
Since you presume to know me as you state "Once again…" and I do not know of any Jo's in the DRC, nor have had any conversations with any person who lives in the DRC I can only presume this is Jo Thompson from Ohio?
Regardless, I would have you please re-read what I wrote before the public flogging; I specifically asked for credentials and stated "as far as I know..." so of course I do not know since I admitted as much. :O)
Sorry, but I did not jump to any conclusions. Asking for more information is not jumping to conclusions - it is seeking more information in order to come to a conclusion, any conclusion. And since I have not studied the Avuvi to the degree you apparently have, I have little knowledge in who did what, and when and where, so I do appreciate the history lesson.
Now then - I would love to hear what my agenda is if you would be so kind since I have no native dogs needing inclusion and do not plan to have any in the foreseeable future.
Thanks.
-
Well, we all have to start at Post #1. And I say that respectfully to all newcomers here.
What I don't "get" is when a new poster shows up, leaves an inflammatory statement, and then settles into the background. ??? I mean, if you want to join the conversation and debate with heartfelt emotions, that is great! But if there are no follow up postings, how can we "WELCOME" you to the forum?
But alas, when I think of the different shades of blue… royal blue, turquoise, meadow blue, sky blue, cornflower, baby blue... there are many names for it. Miss Robyn... what are the other names for shades of gray? Grey? lol...
Cheers! Marie, have you re-homed any pups yet, lol????? 
-
People here also need to keep in mind that lots of us know each other from different lists, and real life situations…and some people have a history of stirring up trouble, or what have you in other "places"; some topics just push all the wrong buttons for people; something that seems like an innocent question, may be a pointed accusation....Just because something doesn't make sense, or seems out of the blue to you, doesn't mean that it is.
Although, I have to admit that I am not sure what Linda's agenda is...
-
Andrea, I do not want to assume here.
- Are you saying I have the history of stirring up trouble? If yes, could you elaborate - here or privately - whichever works for you as I have nothing to hide. I think folks can go back and read my whopping 157 posts to this forum in 4 1/2 years and find I have not stirred up any kind of trouble that I can recall.
Yes - while I have differing opinions or ask some hard questions on various other lists - it is hardly troublemaking - it is just differing of opinions/asking questions and I have always been open, honest and very civil in all of my exchanges public and private-again hardly troublemaking. - Did you really read my post as an accusation? Have you ever known me to not just say what I mean and mean what I say in what I hope is a very clear and conscise manner? If I meant to accuse anyone of anything in my recent posts, I would not have minced words about.
- Are you saying you feel as though I have an agenda but do not know what it is or are you saying you don't feel as though I have an agenda therefore you do not know what it is?
If you feel I have an agenda - could you (or Jo or anyone else who is privvy to it) please elaborate what I could possibly have an agenda about. I mean I do not have any native stock therefore I have no vested interest at all so what is exactly is my motive for this perceived agenda?
I am truly at a loss here. :O)
Thanks.
- Are you saying I have the history of stirring up trouble? If yes, could you elaborate - here or privately - whichever works for you as I have nothing to hide. I think folks can go back and read my whopping 157 posts to this forum in 4 1/2 years and find I have not stirred up any kind of trouble that I can recall.
