Thanks, this is all very interesting.
One reason the KC representative cited for not wanting to impose more strict testing requirements and requiring dogs to breed later is that he didn't want to "alienate" breeders – and send them to other kennel clubs?
I don't know if that's even a really viable option in the UK.
I know in the US we have the UKC, CKC, and APRI (the last of which I thought didn't actually host shows?). It seems like the UKC has limited cachet amongst certain breeds because they'll register breeds that the AKC doesn't recognize -- American Pit Bull Terriers, Klee Kai, I don't know what else. The Dalmatian's case adds something to my understanding of the UKC now. Goes to show that it's hard to see the whole picture even when you're looking down from the top level. More of the interesting stuff seems to be happening at the breed-specific level.
The CKC in the US is the Continental Kennel Club-a non reputable registry. APRI does hold dog shows and has for several years. APRI also advertises at the dog auction and has a table if that tells you anything! Another registry in the US is ACA-American Canine Association. I found out that the ACA now holds dog shows!
Jennifer
Curlytails - there are no other official registration bodies in the UK apart from the Kennel Club. There are a couple of unofficial ones but mainly for breeds which are not recognised by the KC
I forgot one other registry in the US that is sometimes used and that is UABR-United All Breed Registry. There are too many registries to keep track of!
Jennifer
Well, looks like the blog is ready to address Basenjis already. Here is an excerpt from her latest post, which was apparently originally published in the July issue of Dogs Today Magazine:
The story is repeated in many other breeds – with many top dogs siring hundreds and hundreds of puppies, blithely passing on horrific problems down the line. In fact, it’s happened no less than three times in the blighted Basenji – a breed that began with only a handful of founders (despite there being thousands of them in their native Africa). Of those, some were used far more heavily than the others and within a few years basenjis were dying from a horrible condition called haemolytic anaemia (also known as PKD). Fortunately, a DNA test was quickly developed. Unfortunately, breeders were so intent on cleansing the condition from the breed that they didn’t just stop breeding from affected dogs – they refused to breed from carriers too (which could have been bred safely to ‘clears’), rendering an already too-small gene pool even smaller. One of these dogs became a top AKC champion and had hundreds of puppies – only to be diagnosed when he was about eight years old with Fanconi Syndrome, a kidney condition that can be life-threatening. By then, Fanconi’s was widespread.
The same has happened with Progressive Retinal Atophy (PRA), too – a once rare, and blinding, condition now not so rare in the breed. In fact, the health problems in Basenjis have been so severe that the American Kennel Cub has sanctioned the import of a few more native dogs from Africa. Sadly, they have not been universally welcomed, especially by the breed purists who view the imports as mongrels.
In the Congo, the breed’s name translates as “village dog”. Doesn’t sound quite so grand now, does it? Although it many ways it should – the native Basenji is a triumph, a true survivor. And there’s a big lesson to be learned from them: the native Basenji is instantly recognisable and it breeds true – as is the case with other landraces, such as salukis, who have existed for hundreds and in some instances, thousands of years without help nor hindrance from kennel clubs or the show-ring.
Any thoughts? Responses? Does she have her facts straight? I'm especially curious about this insinuation that Basenjis are running all over the place in Africa, a dime a dozen, if you will…
I would encourage knowledgable folks to direct your comments to her on her blog as well, as it appears that she takes an active role in responding to information, keeping a discussion going.
I don't know if she has her facts straight, but I do agree with her when she says that it wasn't wise to only use HA clear dogs in such a small population. It would also be wrong to only use Fanconi clear dogs now. Last thing we should do is make the population even smaller and the inbreeding coefficient higher. A high inbreeding coefficient gives a higher chance for a recessive illness to come out and it is proven that a high inbreeding coefficient lowers the vitality and fertility of a breed. This is why I don't believe in strict linebreeding. Same for using popular sires over and over again. Just wrong. I would vote for a limit.
Testing is of course important, but even more important is honesty and openess. Publishing test results, but also causes of death, if known, would be helpful. And with deseases that show later in life it would be good to not only test before breeding, but also when the dog is older. And not only breeding stock, but also siblings. It gives valuable information for next generations. I think using breeding animals too young is another mistake. It would be wise to wait a couple of years before using both male and female dogs in breeding programs.
I don't know if there are that many Basenji's in Africa, but I do think we shouldn't stop importing new blood. They don't all have to be perfect in looks.. Our goal shouldn't be to breed the most perfect looking Basenji.. It should be to keep the breed strong and healthy, so they will still be around and live long lifes in, lets say, 200 years. If necessary, I wouldn't even mind mixing in a different breed once in a while..
I don't think you can blame the shows, but it wouldn't be wrong to maybe think about changing the concept.. It looks like titles blind people for making good choices.. maybe we should stop the competitive element and only judge the dogs, without placements and titles… Only written judge reports, so you know the strong and weak points of your dog..
I agree with you Janneke about HA, that was a really, really big mistake that knowing it was a recessive gene and then only use clears. If we did that with Fanconi we would find ourselves with the exact same problems. Of course there is alot more known about genetics now then back in the HA days, but still IMO, it was a mistake to only breed clears and throw out the carriers and affecteds.
There are only a few places left in Africia were you can really find Basenji "type" and I think that the ones that have recently been accepted into the stud books are fine examples of Basenji Breed Type. IMO, we should continue to look for those types and if found try to bring them into the breed. The stud books for AKC are only open for 5yrs and a few of those years are now passed. So I totally disagree with her statement about "hundreds of Basenjis running around Africia"… not true... there are many "village dogs" running around, but they are NOT Basenji type, IMO
I also agree that we use dogs too young, on the other hand, you can't wait that long to use a bitch (my preference is no younger then 3yrs with a bitch). With stud dogs, if you have a young dog with a long history of older living healthly, tested dogs in the pedigree and also siblings/offspring then I don't really has as much of a problem using those dogs at a young age.
Regarding PRA, I disagree with her assessment that implies that this is "running" out of control. Yes, it is a genetic concern and late onset. We do not at this time have a marker for testing. It is on the list (I believe at the top) as the next genetic concern the BCOA wants to address. Again, as said, testing is important and more important to have results published on a public database so that everyone has access to review. As they say, you can stick your head in the sand and say "not in my Basenjis", but if you don't test, you do not know.
Well, these "facts" are not quite correct and if you talk with the breeders who actually lived it, they will give a very different perspective.
First of all, it is important to realize that the first test for HA was NOT a gene test. It was a blood test that determined the production of red blood cells and then classified dogs as carriers and clear though there was overlap in the range of clear and carrier so dogs in that range were often treated as carriers "to be safe". This margin of error is one reason that breeders opted to only use dogs that were in the upper range and therefore a higher likelihood of Clear. When the actual DNA test was actually released many carriers had already been culled from the genepool based on the blood test.
Most long time breeders feel that air travel making it possible to ship bitches much easier was a much larger contributing to factor to the shrinking genepool since popular sire syndrome reached all time highs.
Secondly, about there being thousands of basenjis in Africa, I don't think there is any data support that number. It also does not take into account the difficulty of actually obtaining dogs from remote, genetically isolated regions in politically unsettled nations.
I think that basenjis can be an easy target for people trying to make a point because basenji breeders are open about issues because they have a real desire to do the best for the breed.
She actually talks as though at the time the original few were imported that there were thousands then - at that time nobody but nobody had any idea of numbers of Basenjis - they couldn't possibly as so much of the Congo then had not been opened up. There are so many false statistic and so-called 'facts' about our breed it can be difficult for the uninformed to get to the 'truth' about the breed.
I agree with Ivoss - they have become an easy target and there doesn't seem to be a lot of credit given to those who try their best for the Basenji.
Clearly I haven't got stats on Basenjis in Congo, but my colleague has just come back from Basankusu (where the mentioned recently-imported dogs were found, unless I'm mistaken) and she has several photos of at least three separate packs of 6-8 dogs. Who all look much more like Basenjis than Delta ever does 
