I was angry and wrote a book, so going to edit down to essentials…
I just clicked on your profile, and yeah it says where you are from. I am sorry, but why presume others KNOW who you are, that no other person from DRC might use "JoT" than the great Dr Thompson. Why not just say who you are? Frankly I wouldn't have suspected that the person making that post was the same one whose work I have so admired.
Your indication that living in the DCR is proof of Manu's (or your) ultimate knowledge of Basenjis before... now you give me a reason to laugh. With a population of over 4 million, do you think that living there makes all those 4 million experts? Really? And even if in a group of 5 "experts," do you think you would get agreement? Really?
Stating what you DID while there, yeah that has validity. But even your involvement in the Lukuru project doesn't make you RIGHT or the ultimate expert on what is right for the breed. People get to have opinions that differ from yours even if you single handedly found, brought every single dog here and funded it down to the penny (which you didn't). It is one thing to acknowledge contribution, however considerable, and another to assume those contributions mean you get to shut down and treat others with disrespect for different views. Nor does involvement in any number of projects, or considered an expert doesn't mean they are always right, doesn't mean they are really knowledgeable, doesn't mean they aren't driving their own "agenda" or "propaganda."
Many ideas have been deemed wrong or stupid by vast majority of "experts," then proven that the majority was utterly WRONG and the stupid idea right. She didn't state facts, she stated her OPINION, to which she has as much right as you do.
Had you simply stated who you were, your experiences and hers, discussed your VIEWS, great. But to indicate that just being FROM the Congo makes you experts and saying someone who disagrees with someone FROM there is INSULTING is ridiculous.
The attack on Linda was unprofessional, uncalled for. You may have many valid views, sadly the attack blurred any valuable info.
Btw, I thought her pretending to not be sure who you were was either diplomatic and giving you a nudge to introduce yourself or perhaps a jab at your ego since I am sure she knows most here who are not breeders didn't have a clue and your presumption EVERYONE DID was poke worthy.
Sorry Debra…you are wrong here...completely wrong.
Perhaps your reply was sent a bit hastily Pat, and subsequently is not quite accurate. In a direct quote from Jo Thompson http://lukurubasenjiconservateurs.com/home a currently active website, <> Credit must be given to the other members of the conservancy group, namely Karla Schreiber, Parry Tallmadge, Kevin and Terese Leimbeck, all of whom have been active with basenjis for more than 3 years. It is a well presented site, with attractive current photos(at least up to 11/09/10) with the cute litter of puppies sired by Lukuru Amisi who was accepted into the AKC via the open stud book application approved by the BCOA last year.
In the JoT of the DRC post, I did not see anything about typiness of any imports, hers or any others.
Katy Scott
Katy, Dr Jo (who can obviously speak for herself) in that post was speaking about breeding her Lukuru Basenjis and the help she has received from Karla, Parry, and the Leimbacks (Kevin and Therese). While they may have assisted with "instructing" about basenji type and conformation, it
Dr Jo was the one who "found" and picked out and "brought" back the Lukuru Dogs and she alone... so in fact, as far as I am concerned, the Lukuru Project is hers and hers alone. Now to bring that line further forward she had enlisted the assistance of known Basenji people, owners, Breeders, etc with Karla, Parry and the Leimbscks (Kevin and Therese) along with presenting her Lukuru Basenjis for approval into the AKC stud books.
So, no I did not reply too hastily.
Pat,
Is there somewhere to view the last imports? Are you talking about imports that were accepted into the AKC, or those not accepted or not applied for acceptance? I would love to see pictures and hear what you think is lacking … especially for any accepted. If not correct breed type, why were they accepted, or did the committee disagree and think they were okay?
While I might have seen pictures of some or seen some in person that have never applied for acceptance, I really can't or would not comment on their merits (good or bad).
So I am only speaking of the ones that have been accepted and yes I do think they have Basenji Type and good conformation… and as with every Basenji they have faults. I think that if you read the evaluations they are pretty right on about the conformation of these Basenjis.
By the way, there is no link to ones that did not make it, as only the ones that passed the evaluations were put up to BCOA members for vote.
Thank you for the link. I had actually seen those before but forgot. I remember thinking a few looked far from what I would have selected… but then I also was taken aback a bit by a couple of them that actual breeders probably agree look fine. I do remember about 7 or 8 yrs ago seeing some dogs the breeders told me were African imports at a dog show and I was well, underwhelmed with looks and frankly the huge sizes and ahem... the obesity of a couple of them. But I am NOT a breeder, will never be. I wish someone would start a new thread in the breeding section and link and critique each of the new imports (ie since 2006) so those of us who are not breeders can get an idea about what you all see and different views.
I don't guess there is a link to dogs submitted who didn't make it?
On the open registry.. again not a Basenji breeder and I do believe such decisions should be from you folks only. But health wise, with such a small gene pool in the US, perhaps another option would be to open 5 yrs, close 10 while you solidify the dogs brought in, see what they produce, see what is needed? Is that an option with BCOA? I didn't think AKC would allow extended open stud book no matter what the club wanted but have never looked up the regs.
I don't know if there have been any dogs submitted that didn't make it? Maybe someone with more knowledge can answer? Most of the people doing the submitting have a good idea whether or not the dog will meet the criteria. And if they don't, the people doing the evaluations would let them know if there was a signficiant problem. I believe you get all your evaluations together first and THEN submit to the BCOA.
IMO the dogs that are not being considered for the stock project, but bred from none the less, have some significant phenotypic deviations from the standard…namely significantly different coloration and bushy/shaggy hair. You will hear lots of reasons, and excuses of why this is...but in reality, everybody needs to make up their own mind about what is a basenji...it isn't always an easy determination....and we don't all have to agree. But everyone who is a member of the BCOA and anybody who considers themselves a basenji fancier, needs to educate themselves about the issues.
Also, IMO...some of the original Avuvis should have been submitted for inclusion, including Honey, Macho...and at least one of Anne Humphries' dogs (can't remember the names)...but for whatever reason, they weren't/aren't.
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. .
Well….I guess so...if open, honest and very civil includes written words DRIPPING with sarcasm.
Thanks for the clarification Pat. It is your opinion, not Jo Thompson's, that she alone represents a Lukuru Project, not the "Lukuru Basenji Conservateurs" as posted on the current website. It is quite clear from everything on the Conservateur's site that is not her opinion, unless she wishes to clarify that here and on the website 
Your next to last statement is misleading, implying the Lukuru Basenjis, i.e., more than one, has been presented, and subsequently accepted into the AKC stud book. Lukuru Amisi is the only one so far, presented and accepted in 2009. Mopaya, the dam of the litter on the website has not yet been accepted, nor the two other bitches. Where they stand in the application process as to when and/or if they are presented is of course the business of the Conservateur group as a whole.
Again, nothing JoT wrote in that post addressed the typiness of her imports or any others. If she wishes to share her opinion publically, she certainly is welcome to do so, here, or in any other discussion group.
If you wish to discuss the typiness of specific imports, please specify the dogs to which you refer. "Recent imports" is too vague, as many dogs from many regions have been imported. Perhaps this should be migrated to a new thread?
Katy
Thanks for the clarification Pat. It is your opinion, not Jo Thompson's, that she alone represents a Lukuru Project, not the "Lukuru Basenji Conservateurs" as posted on the current website. It is quite clear from everything on the Conservateur's site that is not her opinion, unless she wishes to clarify that here and on the website
Your next to last statement is misleading, implying the Lukuru Basenjis, i.e., more than one, has been presented, and subsequently accepted into the AKC stud book. Lukuru Amisi is the only one so far, presented and accepted in 2009. Mopaya, the dam of the litter on the website has not yet been accepted, nor the two other bitches. Where they stand in the application process as to when and/or if they are presented is of course the business of the Conservateur group as a whole.
Again, nothing JoT wrote in that post addressed the typiness of her imports or any others. If she wishes to share her opinion publically, she certainly is welcome to do so, here, or in any other discussion group.
If you wish to discuss the typiness of specific imports, please specify the dogs to which you refer. "Recent imports" is too vague, as many dogs from many regions have been imported. Perhaps this should be migrated to a new thread?
Katy
Katy,
That is incorrect. Several of the Lukuru dogs including Amisi have been accepted.
Lukuru Amisi (IND) {M} HP345409/01 Native 1 May 2007
Lukuru Lema (CL) {F} HP378883/01 Native 21 Jun 2007
Lukuru na Liboso Mopaya (CL) {F} HP378882/01 Native 1 Jan 2007
Thanks for the clarification Pat. It is your opinion, not Jo Thompson's, that she alone represents a Lukuru Project, not the "Lukuru Basenji Conservateurs" as posted on the current website. It is quite clear from everything on the Conservateur's site that is not her opinion, unless she wishes to clarify that here and on the website
Your next to last statement is misleading, implying the Lukuru Basenjis, i.e., more than one, has been presented, and subsequently accepted into the AKC stud book. Lukuru Amisi is the only one so far, presented and accepted in 2009. Mopaya, the dam of the litter on the website has not yet been accepted, nor the two other bitches. Where they stand in the application process as to when and/or if they are presented is of course the business of the Conservateur group as a whole.
Again, nothing JoT wrote in that post addressed the typiness of her imports or any others. If she wishes to share her opinion publically, she certainly is welcome to do so, here, or in any other discussion group.
If you wish to discuss the typiness of specific imports, please specify the dogs to which you refer. "Recent imports" is too vague, as many dogs from many regions have been imported. Perhaps this should be migrated to a new thread?
Katy
According to this webpage, your info is wrong. Not only does it say that Mopaya and Lema have been accepted, it lists their AKC numbers….
If were gonna be all honest and upfront, my question would be: Katy and Linda, do you have problems with Dr. Jo and Lukuru project? Because that is how it appears?
Thanks for the clarification Pat. It is your opinion, not Jo Thompson's, that she alone represents a Lukuru Project, not the "Lukuru Basenji Conservateurs" as posted on the current website. It is quite clear from everything on the Conservateur's site that is not her opinion, unless she wishes to clarify that here and on the website
And one last note, there is are other "Lukuru Projects" that Dr. Jo is involved with, just not basenji-focused.
Sorry Debra…you are wrong here...completely wrong.
Okay so in your opinion, since I am completely wrong, you think:
P1: She had no need to say who she was because, I guess, everyone on earth and especially who has owned or wanted to own a basenji (ie anyone, not just breeders) should know who she was and her backgrounds based on the name JoT?
I just clicked on your profile, and yeah it says where you are from. I am sorry, but why presume others KNOW who you are, that no other person from DRC might use "JoT" than the great Dr Thompson. Why not just say who you are? Frankly I wouldn't have suspected that the person making that post was the same one whose work I have so admired.
P2. Just coming from DCR is proof of expertise, she had no reason to explain to anyone the work/experiences in addition to just living there.
Your indication that living in the DCR is proof of Manu's (or your) ultimate knowledge of Basenjis before… now you give me a reason to laugh. With a population of over 4 million, do you think that living there makes all those 4 million experts? Really? And even if in a group of 5 "experts," do you think you would get agreement? Really?
P3: Because of her connection to the Lukuru project, she is the guardian and ultimate decision maker for the BREED and her and only her opinion deserves respect; and said experiences gives her the right to attack anyone and make disparaging comments and assign them some underhanded motives for daring have opposing opinions.
Stating what you DID while there, yeah that has validity. But even your involvement in the Lukuru project doesn't make you RIGHT or the ultimate expert on what is right for the breed. People get to have opinions that differ from yours even if you single handedly found, brought every single dog here and funded it down to the penny (which you didn't). It is one thing to acknowledge contribution, however considerable, and another to assume those contributions mean you get to shut down and treat others with disrespect for different views. Nor does involvement in any number of projects, or considered an expert doesn't mean they are always right, doesn't mean they are really knowledgeable, doesn't mean they aren't driving their own "agenda" or "propaganda."
P3: Okay so no one who is an expert is ever wrong; and Linda stated things as facts not her opinion.
Many ideas have been deemed wrong or stupid by vast majority of "experts," then proven that the majority was utterly WRONG and the stupid idea right. She didn't state facts, she stated her OPINION, to which she has as much right as you do.
P4: This entire discussion would have been so much less valuable had she introduced herself, given her opinions and been informative instead of slinging insults and what she did.
_Had you simply stated who you were, your experiences and hers, discussed your VIEWS, great. But to indicate that just being FROM the Congo makes you experts and saying someone who disagrees with someone FROM there is INSULTING is ridiculous.
The attack on Linda was unprofessional, uncalled for. You may have many valid views, sadly the attack blurred any valuable info._
Since this was my OPINION (although it appears you don't agree people have a right to one since I am TOTALLY wrong… I'll leave it.
Btw, I thought her pretending to not be sure who you were was either diplomatic and giving you a nudge to introduce yourself or perhaps a jab at your ego since I am sure she knows most here who are not breeders didn't have a clue and your presumption EVERYONE DID was poke worthy.
Here is a page with evaluations from dogs accepted in 2009: http://www.basenji.org/NativeStock/Applicants/List.htm
Again, thanks. I am generally good at finding things and wonder why people ask instead of google on their own, but I have a cold, headache and am just off my game. I will read those with pics to compare and look later!
Again, thanks. I am generally good at finding things and wonder why people ask instead of google on their own, but I have a cold, headache and am just off my game. I will read those with pics to compare and look later!
No problem 
Okay so in your opinion, since I am completely wrong, you think:
P1: She had no need to say who she was because, I guess, everyone on earth and especially who has owned or wanted to own a basenji (ie anyone, not just breeders) should know who she was and her backgrounds based on the name JoT?
P2. Just coming from DCR is proof of expertise, she had no reason to explain to anyone the work/experiences in addition to just living there.
P3: Because of her connection to the Lukuru project, she is the guardian and ultimate decision maker for the BREED and her and only her opinion deserves respect; and said experiences gives her the right to attack anyone and make disparaging comments and assign them some underhanded motives for daring have opposing opinions.
P3: Okay so no one who is an expert is ever wrong; and Linda stated things as facts not her opinion.
P4: This entire discussion would have been so much less valuable had she introduced herself, given her opinions and been informative instead of slinging insults and what she did.
Since this was my OPINION (although it appears you don't agree people have a right to one since I am TOTALLY wrong… I'll leave it.
Of course you have a right to your opinion…but you are nitpicking points to try win an argument. The exchange between Linda and JoT was regarding disrepsecting someone that JoT knows personally. Maybe the exchange between them wasn't really for your benefit.
You jump all over people here, without knowing any of the background story. Everybody has hot buttons...no reason for everybody to have a big drama attack because two individuals have some issues to hash out.
According to this webpage, your info is wrong. Not only does it say that Mopaya and Lema have been accepted, it lists their AKC numbers….
Okay so wow… Dr Jo brought the dogs, health checked, got them approved. HELLO OUT THERE ORIGINAL POSTER... this is how to do it (Yes, Andrea, that was mean with dripping sarcasm. I usually try not to ascribe a tone to others, but I'll certainly make sure no one is guessing with mine. )
Nice looking dogs. I am wondering about the very light coloring on Lukuru Lema. Someone mentioned color issues, but wouldn't this color be disfavored as it appears so very light, or is it simply not a good picture? (Okay and kudos to you folks with coat color genetics to learn. Thank goodness Rotties issues are oh yeah, black. Okay a bit more due to gum and marking colors but still...)
Thanks for the clarification Pat. It is your opinion, not Jo Thompson's, that she alone represents a Lukuru Project, not the "Lukuru Basenji Conservateurs" as posted on the current website. It is quite clear from everything on the Conservateur's site that is not her opinion, unless she wishes to clarify that here and on the website
Your next to last statement is misleading, implying the Lukuru Basenjis, i.e., more than one, has been presented, and subsequently accepted into the AKC stud book. Lukuru Amisi is the only one so far, presented and accepted in 2009. Mopaya, the dam of the litter on the website has not yet been accepted, nor the two other bitches. Where they stand in the application process as to when and/or if they are presented is of course the business of the Conservateur group as a whole.
Again, nothing JoT wrote in that post addressed the typiness of her imports or any others. If she wishes to share her opinion publically, she certainly is welcome to do so, here, or in any other discussion group.
If you wish to discuss the typiness of specific imports, please specify the dogs to which you refer. "Recent imports" is too vague, as many dogs from many regions have been imported. Perhaps this should be migrated to a new thread?
Katy
Well, as already pointed out you are incorrect about the number of Lukuru dogs accepted and further the litter that was bred IS eligible for AKC registration.
I don't think that the Lukuru Basenjis as far as type needs to be discussed as they have been accepted into the stud books, judged/evaluated by a panel of judges/breeders accepted, put up by BCOA for a membership vote and accepted.
Remember if you go back to the beginning of the thread (and yes it did get hi-jacked), it was about the dogs that Marie brought back and if those are of Basenji Type. And since I am afforded to have my opinion, I do not feel that they are….
Okay so wow… Dr Jo brought the dogs, health checked, got them approved. HELLO OUT THERE ORIGINAL POSTER... this is how to do it
Nice looking dogs. I am wondering about the very light coloring on Lukuru Lema. Someone mentioned color issues, but wouldn't this color be disfavored as it appears so very light, or is it simply not a good picture? (Okay and kudos to you folks with coat color genetics to learn. Thank goodness Rotties issues are oh yeah, black. Okay a bit more due to gum and marking colors but still...)
I mentioned color issues…and no, shade of red is not an issue....the color issues I was referring to are more like piebald (mostly white, with islands of color).
Okay so wow… Dr Jo brought the dogs, health checked, got them approved. HELLO OUT THERE ORIGINAL POSTER... this is how to do it
Nice looking dogs. I am wondering about the very light coloring on Lukuru Lema. Someone mentioned color issues, but wouldn't this color be disfavored as it appears so very light, or is it simply not a good picture? (Okay and kudos to you folks with coat color genetics to learn. Thank goodness Rotties issues are oh yeah, black. Okay a bit more due to gum and marking colors but still...)
I think she's genetically a normal sable, just as our normal R&W.. Maybe a bit light, but not too light, I think.
Okay so wow… Dr Jo brought the dogs, health checked, got them approved. HELLO OUT THERE ORIGINAL POSTER... this is how to do it
Nice looking dogs. I am wondering about the very light coloring on Lukuru Lema. Someone mentioned color issues, but wouldn't this color be disfavored as it appears so very light, or is it simply not a good picture? (Okay and kudos to you folks with coat color genetics to learn. Thank goodness Rotties issues are oh yeah, black. Okay a bit more due to gum and marking colors but still...)
Yes, they are a lighter red and that comment was even mentioned in the evaluations. However, according to the panel assembled to judge these dogs upon the sending in of the application to be admitted to AKC, this was not enough of a factor to over ride the other factors being considered. (hmmm that didn't make a lot of sense, but you all get the drift…)
And if you look around the country and many Basenjis from American Bred dogs, you will find a lot of different colors of red... and even some that are just as light....
Thank you Nemo and Andrea for the corrections! I really appreciate it being pointed out politely and quickly. I apologize for any confusion I caused.
Andrea, I cannot answer for Linda, you will have to ask her directly. Personally, I am impressed by the work the Lukuru Conservateurs are doing, and have absolutely no problem with their collective work.
Katy
