Hi there, hunting with basenjis, visiting Nocturnal

[tanza]

My dogs are not in the house 22/7 nor are my litters raised in a kennel… nor are any of them crated during the day and they are not in wire runs or raised on concrete runs/pea gravel.... so before you throw out comments that indicate that is how I breed/raise puppies, best you find the facts. But then I am lucky that I can set up my home in a manner that does not include kennel runs or having to keep them in crates when we are at work.... nor do I want to. I only breed when I am going to keep a puppy in 99% of the cases... and they all live as family pets first, in the house with their humans.

And seriously? I am Bottlenecking the gene pool? How do you figure that? If you research their pedigrees, their breedings are to the same dogs over and over and crossed back on the same lines over and over. They breed at least 2 to 3 litters a year... how is that not "for profit"?

I think it is great that they at least DNA test for Fanconi... but what about other testing, take out hips... what about DNA testing for PRA? PRA is long known as a late onset problem in our breed that causes late onset blindness? And Thyroid issues has long been know also as a problem in Basenjis? "IF" there was a DNA test for hips, would you then say it should be done?

The intergrity of my gene pool is not in question... and I don't breed year after year after year. Has nothing to do with hatred of anyone it has to do with the breed and improving the breed, not just breeding to sell puppies.

By the way, this is not just a post about this particular kennel and their breeding practices, but it is a post to any/all kennels that breed in this manner. Has nothing to do with what are being charged for a puppy... there are any number of kennels that are not responsible IMO that charge way more then I do for my puppies... and please take into account the area of the country before claiming that our puppy price is outrageous... things are way more expensive on the West Coast compaired to NC... so I don't just look at the price... has way more to do with it than price.

[mixie]

@tanza:

My dogs are not in the house 22/7 nor are my litters raised in a kennel… nor are any of them crated during the day and they are not in wire runs or raised on concrete runs/pea gravel.... so before you throw out comments that indicate that is how I breed/raise puppies, best you find the facts.

Really? You mean the way you keep throwing out crappy comments about Sarah? You mean you don't like it when people who don't know you and have never seen your home make wild speculations about how you might keep your dogs? Huh. Imagine that.

But then I am lucky that I can set up my home in a manner that does not include kennel runs or having to keep them in crates when we are at work…. nor do I want to. I only breed when I am going to keep a puppy in 99% of the cases... and they all live as family pets first, in the house with their humans.

That's not "luck", that's a choice. Sarah works at home running a small, beautiful, biodiverse, homestead-type farm, specifically for genetic preservation of critically endangered domestic animals. She spends all day with her animals, while you are at work. Your dogs are a hobby when you have spare time for them. Hers are an integral part of her life.
What you do with your dogs is fine, I'm not knocking it for you and your puppy buyers. There is room for everyone and I firmly believe people should have a world of choice in dogs. But you're acting like your super-privileged Western life, where your few dogs exist as ornaments around your hobby-time schedule is the only humane, or even desirable option. And that you "only breed for yourself" is… what, supposed to be... admirable? So what? We have retailers posing as "rescue" groups importing puppies from second- and third-world nations, more than a quarter million a year at the CDC's last reporting, to fill the demand for pet dogs in this country. Why is it admirable that you hoard your dogs' genetics?

And seriously? I am Bottlenecking the gene pool? How do you figure that? If you research their pedigrees, their breedings are to the same dogs over and over and crossed back on the same lines over and over. They breed at least 2 to 3 litters a year… how is that not "for profit"?

Seriously. You are advocating removing healthy animals from your gene pool for reasons that are absolutely not genetically-linked. You also advocate removing sound animals from your gene pool because they're not the preferred color, even though they are authentic to the actual Congolese dogs and the standard does not prohibit them. That is an absolutely arbitrary choking of your available genetic material, and not wise.
Why not repeat successful breedings? What's wrong with reproducing lovely dogs? What's wrong with line-breeding to strengthen desired traits? Do you think African village dogs had semen flown in from other villages so they could be outcrossed to a dozen different lines? Her dogs are structurally correct, healthy, brainy, drivey, and beautifully socialized. They are great pets.
Do the math, tanza. If it costs you $900 per puppy to raise a puppy, and you sell your puppies for an average of $900, it doesn't matter whether you sell one puppy or ten thousand, you'll still be breaking even. And there you go with another arbitrary standard. Is three litters of papillons with three puppies each, more, or less scumbaggy than one litter of GSDs of fifteen pups?

And anyway, WHO CARES if anyone breeds "for profit"? What's wrong with a skilled practitioner getting paid for fine work? I would MUCH rather see someone turning a profit and be able to reserve money for emergencies and be able to continually reinvest in and improve their program, than see someone living like a martyr, constantly in the red, and sometimes having to cut corners to keep everyone fed. That "professionalism is a dirty word" mantra does NOTHING but feed the anti-dog-breeder rhetoric of the radical animal abolitionists who think you are ALL scum for exploiting your dogs.

I think it is great that they at least DNA test for Fanconi… but what about other testing, take out hips... what about DNA testing for PRA? PRA is long known as a late onset problem in our breed that causes late onset blindness? And Thyroid issues has long been know also as a problem in Basenjis? "IF" there was a DNA test for hips, would you then say it should be done?

WHEN there is a direct DNA test reasonably available, sure, though at the tiny percentage in which it exists in Basenjis, I still wouldn't call someone a scumbag for choosing not to, if in thirty years they'd never had a single complaint about hips. Her older dogs have all been screened for PRA, and none were affected. Considering that "late onset blindness", according to the BTCA is: "…if the dog lives long enough, ... can lead to blindness." and "most changes were characterized as PRA suspicious rather than PRA affected. Not all of those dogs have hereditary eye disease, as retinal changes may be acquired or may be due to other disorders."

"It is not currently known if Basenji PRA is one disease or more than one. Mode of inheritance is presently unknown."

"Basenjis can also have some unusual, but benign, forms of retinal pigmentation that can easily be confused with PRA or retinal degeneration. Both false positives and false negatives are common with Basenji PRA." Early onset symptoms are classified as either "rare" or "extremely rare" by the BTCA.

Got that? From the BTCA's website, you MIGHT see daytime affected symptoms IF THE DOG LIVES LONG ENOUGH. But there's currently no way to know if it's one of several types of PRA or maybe just normal retinal aging that all dogs everywhere experience. This is ANOTHER issue that you are blowing way out of proportion. You have no idea how many forms of PRA exist, or even if all the cases of extremely elderly dogs that have night blindness are "PRA", and false positives and negatives are common. Why EVER would you skewer someone for choosing to wait for further developments before using such a tool as a basis for culling their breeding program?

The intergrity of my gene pool is not in question… and I don't breed year after year after year. Has nothing to do with hatred of anyone it has to do with the breed and improving the breed, not just breeding to sell puppies.

AGAIN, what is wrong with "selling puppies", if those puppies are structurally correct, healthy, happy, typey, well-socialized animals? Should people not be able to buy puppies except scrambling for your precious few hobby cast-offs, once a decade, for which they will have to take time off work and an airplane ride?
And AGAIN with the self-aggrandizing. Improve the breed, huh? You are already selecting against traits exhibited by the Congolese dogs. How ever did they survive for 13,000+ years without you?

By the way, this is not just a post about this particular kennel and their breeding practices, but it is a post to any/all kennels that breed in this manner. Has nothing to do with what are being charged for a puppy… there are any number of kennels that are not responsible IMO that charge way more then I do for my puppies... and please take into account the area of the country before claiming that our puppy price is outrageous... things are way more expensive on the West Coast compaired to NC... so I don't just look at the price... has way more to do with it than price.

I didn't claim that your prices are "outrageous". I just said they're higher than what a lot of people would be able to pay for a family pet. Which is, of course, fine, since I'm pro-choice like that, but your bizarro contention that her charging less for her dogs means she's a profiteer (about the most bizarre backward logic I've seen yet) was very strange. If people want a good family pet, and don't want to pay for the overhead of costly dog hobby stuff and all the over-screening you do, they should know that there are plenty of choices out there for breeders who won't charge a full month's wages to support your occasional dabbling in hobby breeding. Sarah's been breeding great family pets for several decades, and has it down to an art and science. Her dogs are delightful. She's a pro.

[DebraDownSouth]

@mixie:

1 But the testing currently in use isn't genetic. It's qualitative and subjective.
2 I've seen breeders shop for vets in order to get great ratings on dogs with terrible hips. I've also seen, in person, a vet manipulate bad hips to get a good film.
3 I've seen dogs from long lines of well-rated and extremely athletic, functional, field-proven animals turn up dysplastic when fed and exercised incorrectly in a pet home… meaning dogs with excellent conformation and who is a more-than-sound mover with a long, long record of field functionality AND an excellent OFA rating may still carry the gene.
4 Just like "papers" are no guarantee of quality, an OFA score on the parents is no guarantee that your pup won't be dysplastic if you raise her with mediocre nutrition and conditioning.
5 Now, what I am concerned about, and what you are concerned about, may be two entirely different things. Some people are thrilled to pay thousands of dollars for a dog from breeding stock tested for everything under the sun, including conditions for which the breed is among the "least affected" among all dogs. For me, and my purposes, I know precisely what I want in a dog and what I expect of my breeder.

1. When you have 3 vets rate and their agreement is very much similar, it isn't that subjective.
When you have dogs that are not rated with CHD as puppies and who, not matter what they eat or do, are still not dysplastic at a rate over 95 percent as adults, it isn't subjective and it isn't CREATED by diet.
DIET can help with symptoms, but it does not make a dog have CHD.

2. Well all have, but fortunately they are the minority. Just because some people cheat doesn't make it bad for all. GOOD breeders test to know if they should breed.

3 & 4. I don't give a flying fig what you feed a dog… every research shows that.. OF COURSE NOT A GUARANTEE... but your chances for a dog who does not have CHD improves with testing of the parents and of the litter mates of the parents. When I look at a pedigree, I look at everything the sire and dam produced, especially the full liter mates of a potential stud/dam. I think you are confusing other orthopedic issues with CHD. No question that over eating, poor diets etc can affect joints and growth. That isn't CHD. No question good food can help a dog not have symptoms of CHD or at least less. But it doesn't cause or prevent actually having it. A dog from ofa clear parents can still have or NOT HAVE CHD, no matter what they are fed. Research has shown this over and over... chd is not caused by bad diet. There was a preliminary study once trying to see if maternal diet produced higher or lower chd in puppies, but it wasn't conclusive and I have yet to see another. Other studies hinted that overweight early might increase CHD... but yet they found they could actually tell as early as 4 wks so that in truth, being overweight wasn't the issue. Another study

Findings failed to support the hypothesis that heavy and fast growing dogs from four large sized breeds were at increased risk for development of CHD. << http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167587710002643

You do no damage and a great deal of good by good nutrition and keeping dogs at a good weight, but you won't make or stop them from having CHD OR passing it on to offspring.

4. And that gets me to the big issue with your post… I propose that what everyone should want from a breeder should include health testing. If you want less than that, you perhaps need to do some more research on the statistics.
Dogs who have heart clearances have lower rate of puppies with heart problems.
Dogs with passing hips have a better chance of producing puppies without chd.
Dogs who are testing for Fanconi and other genetic diseases can be bred to avoid affected puppies or simply not bred if carriers/affected.

Why on earth would any responsible breeder not do health testing so that they give their puppies the very best possible chance of being healthy? Yes, that to me is the basics of RESPONSIBLE breeding. Would I say a Rottweiler breeder should do Fanconi testing? Of course not. But would I say any Rottie breeder who fails to do hips, heart and elbows is not responsible? Damned straight. And while I don't think not testing for CHD is HORRIBLE for a basenji breeder, I sure do think that between someone who cares enough to test so they limit their chances of having a dog and producing dogs with it are a big step more toward the responsible caring type of breeder I want to deal with.

And you want to know WHY? Because breed after breed that claims "our dogs don't have that"... when more breeders tested they were shocked to see the stats showing they do.. same with basenjis with CHD.

I see people use what you said to justify buying from byb/pm litters. I cannot support breeders who do not at least do the minimal testing for their breed. And I can totally support breeders who test for conditions to be sure. Because my concern is one I have seen play out many times with other breeds... "oh we don't have that problem".. and then the breed club and good breeders start pushing testing and the numbers actually affected are double, triple or more than they thought when the testing was a low amt.

[DebraDownSouth]

@mixie:

tanza, your scare quotes suggest that you think the environmental issue is a minor one. CHD has a heritability of approximately 0.25-0.5. That means anywhere from 50-75% of CHD is environmental or cofactored with a polygenetic influence.

Your rights and abilities to breed your dogs are being eroded very quickly by people who believe that ALL of you are "exploiters" and "abusers" and "puppy millers".

Please show me research that supports your continued claim that CHD is environmental. "co-factored with polygenetic" is still genetic. In fact you talk about Baker, but you see to pick and choose and misconstrue facts. They said, as I keep saying.. environment (including diet) influences the expression or PROGRESSION of the disease but NOT if a dog has chd.

http://bakerinstitute.vet.cornell.edu/animalhealth/page.php?id=1104

What can genetics teach us about hip dysplasia?

It is clear that hip dysplasia is an inherited, polygenic disorder, meaning that more than one gene influences the development and transmission of the disease. It is not yet clear however which genes are responsible, and this is the subject of intense, ongoing research. Both genes and environment have significant effects on the expression of hip dysplasia. The disease has a heritability of between 0.25 and 0.48. This means that 25 to 48 percent of the variability in hip dysplasia development is due to additive genetic factors. We may interpret this to mean that both genetic and environmental influences impact the progression of the disease.<<

But let us even say that diet might help cause or prevent it (which old studies thought though new ones disproving it)… until we have a goodly number of dogs tested in the breed, the breeder testing is doing the breed and their puppies the best possible action. Yeah, I'd be willing to pay my part of that astronomical cost.. what a few hundred dollars most places in the US?

I agree that calling a breeding bad over not testing for CHD with basenji isn't cricket. It isn't ideal, but not terrible. But try to understand this--- it only takes a few popular studs who have a disorder to make it big. So yep, I won't bash those that don't but I sure applaud those that do.

[DebraDownSouth]

@mixie:

With the completely subjective qualitative test we use now, even WHEN tested, you don't know; you are not testing for genetic markers.
Are we all clear on this? The test you are doing only shows if your dog has bad hips. It does not show if your dog will pass bad hips to offspring. In fact, more than half the time, YOU are giving bad hips to your dogs' offspring.

The test we are currently using does not screen for genetics. It doesn't screen for functionality. Its results are certainly variable according to the skill and/or shadiness of your vet. We know that somewhere between half and three quarters of CHD is "caused", rather than bred.

Whew… You know you really need to stop with the made up stuff. Since CHD is genetic, and since there is not a test for all the genes involved, yes.. it is a qualitative test but not nearly as subjective when done right (ie not by bad vets) as you would like it to be. And no research on earth shows that even a small percent is the owner GIVING the dog bad hips from nutrition. That really is not proven and you need to learn to say "in spite of overwhelming research in many countries in controlled studies indicating that overwhelming testing shows it really is genetic, I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE that it is food/environment".. because at least that would be true.

As for not cutting down other breeders... sorry. I don't know.. well actually I do. I had a lot going on health wise and haven't been here a lot the last several months, so I never read your first post.

Wow. I am sorry, but I their only testing is for fanconi (and a couple of thyroid and eye) for basenji, and NOTHING on Westies or Welsh. Westies should all have patella, hip and Cerf. Welsh Terriers at least CERF, thyroid and Von Willebrand.

http://www.offa.org/results.html?num=istrar=&namecontains=N&part=nocturnal&breed%5B%5D=BJ&breedlist=ALL&variety%5B%5D=&sex=&birthday_start_month=&birthday_start_year=&birthday_end_month=&birthday_end_year=&birthday=&rptdte_start_month=&rptdte_start_year=&rptdte_end_month=&rptdte_end_year=&rptdte=&submit=Begin+Search

While I am far more concerned with health testing than titles, I do think that someone who really is into "preservation" of the breed is getting working titles. These seem to be simply kennel dogs bred for money making. I wouldn't vote with my dollars to support them. If they had working titles, and health, I say that's great. But breeding dogs in kennels to make money is sad. These aren't chickens, they are companion animals that deserve to live primarily as companions… breeding/showing/working 2nd. I know a lot of breeders with more than one breed, but they have few, they still are predominately PETS FIRST, and they show or work and show or work, and they do the health testing recommended by the breed club.

And with this, done. I totally agree with Pat, if you don't test you don't know. Anything less is blowing smoke. And when a breeder seems to keep dogs just to make money and doesn't even do the basic testing... nope, not responsible. If CHD was the only missing thing, fine. But in fact they seem only to do Fanconi because even noob buyers have learned to ask for that.

[DebraDownSouth]

For the record... nope, Pat's comments were NOT

[mixie]

@DebraDownSouth:

1. When you have 3 vets rate and their agreement is very much similar, it isn't that subjective.
When you have dogs that are not rated with CHD as puppies and who, not matter what they eat or do, are still not dysplastic at a rate over 95 percent as adults, it isn't subjective and it isn't CREATED by diet.
DIET can help with symptoms, but it does not make a dog have CHD.

Yes, that is actually the dictionary definition of subjective. That your three vets all subjectively rate the picture the same does not change the definition of "subjective". It just means that they all agreed the picture looked the same. That has no bearing on whether the presenting vet fudged the positioning, or screwed up the positioning, or whether their training was accurate, and it has no bearing on the actual GENETIC status of the dog, and its ability to pass good or bad hips to its offspring.
When you have a breed that is ~97% clear of CHD, you can't take credit for "good hips". When you have dogs that don't have CHD as puppies and don't develop it as adults, that means you have a breed that natural selection built with fantastic joint structure, and you didn't do anything to screw it up.
You are, specifically, wrong with that last point. As we've already reviewed, according to the Baker Institute and Cornell University, somewhere between half and three-quarters of CHD is environmental. That's not JUST diet, that's exercise, injury, pediatric spay/neuter, etc. Got that? That's not opinion, that's medically established FACT. Dogs with the polygenetics for CHD make up 25-48% of CHD presentations. LESS THAN HALF.
Diet CAN create CHD. So can requiring your puppy buyers castrate prior to puberty. Hell, I'm dysplastic on the right side due to a fall. How often do roughhousing puppies tumble off something? CHD is a complex issue. OFA ratings are one simple piece of the puzzle. Actually, they're more like looking at the picture on the box of the puzzle.

2. Well all have, but fortunately they are the minority. Just because some people cheat doesn't make it bad for all. GOOD breeders test to know if they should breed.

If course it doesn't make it BAD for you to do whatever tests you want. The only BAD thing here is attempting to crucify someone in your community for making different choices, when those choices are ABSOLUTELY supported by the literature and personal experience.

I think you are confusing other orthopedic issues with CHD.

Now, that's funny.
No, I am not confusing "other orthopedic issues with CHD". Not, for example, the way you guys confuse "other retinal issues with PRA".

Early alteration affecting hips: http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10498
Environmental factors, with a collection of links at the bottom: http://www.usdaa.com/article.cfm?newsID=2288

A dog from ofa clear parents can still have or NOT HAVE CHD, no matter what they are fed.

Correct. A "clear" rating from OFA is not a guarantee the offspring will have "clear" hips. Say it with me now: "Because more than half of canine hip dysplasia is environmental, or co-factored".

being overweight wasn't the issue.

Of course "overweight" isn't the issue. You can most certainly be both fat and undernourished. That's actually the case with most of the obese pet dogs I see walking around. If the puppy is fat on excellent food, that is going to turn out a different set of hips than a puppy that is fat but nutritionally deficient, eating Ol' Roy.

<< http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167587710002643

Yep, and also noted that a variety of environmental factors besides rate of growth, such as stair-climbing, DID have a significant impact on expression.

I propose that what everyone should want from a breeder should include health testing.

I propose that what everyone SHOULD want is a gold-plated work of art from an artisan who deigns to breed (but only for themselves!) once a decade, and that to feel really good about themselves, they should have to take a week off work and family and a cross-country journey.
But guess what? That's not what everyone wants.
You know what I want? I want a sold, structurally correct, healthy, well-socialized, drivey, typey, thinking dog. My first dog, my old man, is a European import out of one of the world's top bitches of the year, by a multi-Euro-champion son of a world GrCh legend in our breed. I waited five years for that dog, and he's golden, to me. In Scout's case, she happened to be available because she was filtered out of Sarah's breeding plans because she wasn't conformationally immaculate. We weren't planning on a puppy until the Spring, but after spending a significant amount of time with Sarah and her dogs, I was impressed enough to buy her, and she is really fantastic. I am interested in learning to work with pariah-type dogs, training a falconry dog, doing some varminting, and my husband wanted a smaller pet. I did not need a gold-plated cadillac for these purposes, and choosing an older puppy who had been filtered out as a breeding prospect suited our situation more than waiting two years and paying twice as much for no discernible benefit. Scout needed a home, we wanted a young dog to "test train" for utility purposes, and she's not only a fine utility dog, but growing into her body beautifully. She had all the specific testing I cared about, done before I'd asked for it. That's really ideal for me, and her puppies are really ideal for a whole lot of people who aren't hearing the message you're preaching, through that mire of judgey.

When I was considering buying this dog, I looked everywhere for reasons not to buy her. I looked for a glut of "rescue" basenjis in this area. I looked for complaints from buyers. I looked at these boards, at the INSANE slew of complaints about biting dogs and unstable dogs, and I didn't see her name coming up. In fact, all I did find, was a couple of the same names slinging non-specific insults about how she doesn't use hand-carved white picket fencing.

Why on earth would any responsible breeder not do health testing so that they give their puppies the very best possible chance of being healthy?

They DO. When it matters, and when it has a significant effect on your outcomes. Like Fanconi, for example.

Yes, that to me is the basics of RESPONSIBLE breeding. Would I say a Rottweiler breeder should do Fanconi testing? Of course not. But would I say any Rottie breeder who fails to do hips, heart and elbows is not responsible? Damned straight.

Right… because, Rotties do not have a statistically significant rate of Fanconi, but they DO have statistically significant rates of joint integrity problems. Basenjis DO have a statistically significant rate of Fanconi. They do NOT have a statistically significant rate of CHD. Is it a bad thing to monitor the situation? No. But FFS, don't go around crucifying people who choose to, instead, invest in acreage and grassfed beef for their dogs.

And while I don't think not testing for CHD is HORRIBLE for a basenji breeder, I sure do think that between someone who cares enough to test so they limit their chances of having a dog and producing dogs with it are a big step more toward the responsible caring type of breeder I want to deal with.

Yes! Sure! Freedom of choice! Some people might only want to deal with a breeder that spends every weekend in a fancy RV travelling to dog shows and doing rally-O. Some people might only want to deal with a breeder who does hard, consistent field work with their dogs, but couldn't care less about dog show ribbons. Some people might not care about either, and just want a good, healthy pet. Some people want their puppy tested and vaccinated for everything humankind can possibly manage, and will pay ten thousand dollars for that puppy. Some people want their breeder to grill every friend and relative they have like they're getting a CIA clearance, turn over their IRS records, allow random inspections, and agree that the seller can repossess the dog at any time in the future. Some people want to walk into a pound and pick the first mutt they see with zero known health clearance or foundational handling. Some people buy puppies out of boxes in front of Wal-Mart. Or from a pet store.

Choice.

I vote with my wallet for the breeding practices I want to support, and I strongly encourage everyone else do the same. You are in for a great deal of disappointment in life if you walk around enraged that other people have different priorities.

when more breeders tested they were shocked to see the stats showing they do.. same with basenjis with CHD.

The fact that you guys are "shocked" that a statistically insignificant percentage of your dogs have hip concerns is… really funny. Your dogs are very, very healthy and will remain that way as long as you aren't inclined to "improve" the breed by continually narrowing your gene pool because you're performing elaborate acts of "reputable breeding theater". 4% (2-3% environmentally co-factored) here, 6% (completely unknown mode of heritability), 15% there... and don't forget, you are working with a closed studbook. This is how genetic bottlenecking occurs, and ALSO how genetic issues "suddenly spring up" and "shock" you, as you get narrower and narrower and narrower.
If your life is centered around the protection and preservation of threatened and critically endangered domestic animals, and you see nothing wrong with the Joe Average owning a purpose-bred dog with excellent foundational handling and better-than-the-Congo health, nutrition, housing, and sanitation, you are going to have a much more practical, working use of the tests and tools we've been discussing. Not to mention a longer-sighted view of what's happening, overall in the maintenance of the national (or even global) gene pool. If your contribution to the future of your breed is "one litter every several years, 90% of which will be sold on a mandatory spay/neuter contract" then, sure. hyper-screen, cull everything, and make one precious choice in your lifetime. You're not going to have any lasting impact, except what you remove from the gene pool.
A professional genetic preservationist makes other choices. My husband's delighted to know her--he's an actual geneticist and having a great time seeing how she applies, in a practical way, the exact same decisionmaking he would in a high-caliber research lab. She is country, but she knows her ****. Her choices are not the choices you would make, but she has excellent foundation for them and has had excellent results. So far as I can tell, her buyers are thrilled and "rescue" isn't burdened with her puppies. She also has a really great eye for a well-built animal, which I very much appreciate. I have known more than a few top-shelf, world-winning dog breeders who could not see half of what she does when she watches an animal move.
Her sale contract and guarantee, by the way, read nearly identically to the contract I signed for my treasure of an old man. She will stand behind them, and I was more than satisfied with the terms.

I see people use what you said to justify buying from byb/pm litters.

Well now, here's something you're REALLY going to hate. I don't shame those people. I would welcome them and encourage them, but I wouldn't try to tell them they got scammed buying a ****ty dog from a ****ty person, because guess what? The vast, overwhelming majority of the time, people are MORE than happy with their purchase… whether it came from a pet store, or the neighbor, or an ignorant wanna-be breeder, or whatever. The vast, overwhelming majority of the time, those dogs live average, happy, loved lives, and their owners walk away from the conversation with you thinking that you are an elitist jerk who just wants to trash anyone who doesn't have gold-plated fancy-person dogs like you.
And guess what? There is room in American hearts and homes for all those dogs from all those sources. No one wants to further abuse or neglect, and I'm thrilled that we have welfare laws in place and agencies to oversee commercial breeders--though the USDA is woefully underfunded for that. But with puppy lemon laws in place, and paper trail requirements to protect both buyer and seller, a "pet store puppy" is often an OK choice for the average Jane who works at Target, has maybe five hundred bucks to spend on a "breed" dog, does not even know the world of the "dog fancy" exists, and who would be instantly shot down, shut out, and class-shamed by any top-shelf breeder she contacted anyway.
Me? I would MUCH rather see those people be able to buy a yorkie out of a pet store from a clean, sanitary, licensed, inspected, legally-bound, paper-trailed professional kennel... OR the next door neighbor... than for her only choice to be a retail "rescue" group brokering yorkies of totally unknown provenance out of some ****hole in Ohio. OR scraped off the streets in Puerto Rico.

Because she will not be buying a dog from tanza, I can tell you THAT much.

Yes, the gold-standard is ideal, for sure. Absolutely. But NONE of these things are black-and-white, and no matter how passionately we feel about any particular one of them, if you want your breeding community to be able to truly function as a "community" with a cohesive intention for the national gene pool, you will really have to take a step back from all the name-calling and slander about who is "reputable" and who is not, absent any actual abuse or neglect. Maybe there's something I missed, but I didn't find any complaints about her dogs, and she's put enough of them out there for enough years that she WOULD be putting a stamp on the breed, if she were doing anything remarkable. I didn't find any personal complaints about her dogs, but I did see a few people who had gotten "back alley" warned against buying dogs from her, who went on to and be thrilled with their purchase. How ****ty is that, that you guys go around sniping someone you don't even know, because you think her fencing looks cheap?

[tanza]

500.00 for a pet store puppy…. dream on... Basenjis in pet stores from puppy millers are 1500.00 if they are a dime.... and pet stores, clean? Your kidding, right? Puppies are taken from their dams/littermates as young as 4 weeks and shipped off... full of worms, typically sick, not socialized. Once those pups reach 12 wks and are unsold, then you might find prices of 500.00 as they need to dump them because soon they will not be cute any longer.

In regards to PRA, late onset is age 4 or 5 with the majority being 6 to 9. The DNA test we have has been determined that it is over 50% of the Basenjis with PRA is cause by this gene. You claim that their Basenjis are "screened" for PRA? Is that by a board certified Ophth? Way before the elder age that other eye problems would present themselves.

[mixie]

@DebraDownSouth:

Please show me research that supports your continued claim that CHD is environmental. "co-factored with polygenetic" is still genetic. In fact you talk about Baker, but you see to pick and choose and misconstrue facts. They said, as I keep saying.. environment (including diet) influences the expression or PROGRESSION of the disease but NOT if a dog has chd.

Re-read the section you quoted. See this?

The disease has a heritability of between 0.25 and 0.48. This means that 25 to 48 percent of the variability in hip dysplasia development is due to additive genetic factors. We may interpret this to mean that both genetic and environmental influences impact the progression of the disease.

That is what "heritability" means. Also what "additive genetic factors" means. A dog can be dysplastic because of injury. You do not have to have a gene for osteoarthritis to have arthritic hips. Repetitive or acute stress will also do it. Just like some retinal degeneration is due to a specific gene for PRA, and some retinal degeneration is due to simple aging.
Not only that, but CHD is not a "simple genetic" heritability. It's polygenetic, and we really have no idea (yet), which genes are doing what, where. So if you have a breed with a large gene pool and a serious problem of an actually statistically significant number of actual dogs being actually reduced in mobility, experiencing discomfort or actual failure at middle- or young ages, then sure, it certainly does make sense to take a hard, slash and burn tactic with OFA ratings. But if you are working with a small, closed gene pool with a limited audience and a nearly non-existent number of hip complaints, then it's really not the simple choice you guys are making it out to be.

But let us even say that diet might help cause or prevent it (which old studies thought though new ones disproving it)… until we have a goodly number of dogs tested in the breed, the breeder testing is doing the breed and their puppies the best possible action. Yeah, I'd be willing to pay my part of that astronomical cost.. what a few hundred dollars most places in the US?

YES. Sure, 100% on board with you, there. For example, I paid about a thousand dollars just in testing as part of his purchase price for hips, a BAER test, and a couple other things for my old man, because those are things that made a difference in his breed. I might make very similar choices in other circumstances, at other times. But you know what? Some day I might buy a mixed feist-type mutt from the neighbor kid for $50 if I wanted a scrappy, burrowing dog for the work we're doing. I would have been incredibly judgmental about that kind of thing, even ten years ago.

I agree that calling a breeding bad over not testing for CHD with basenji isn't cricket. It isn't ideal, but not terrible. But try to understand this–- it only takes a few popular studs who have a disorder to make it big. So yep, I won't bash those that don't but I sure applaud those that do.

Precisely. Do I wish that everyone in rural everywhere was willing to pay >$1000 for a dog raised in top-shelf style? Certainly, I do, just like I wish every kid in America had a warm, safe place to sleep every night, plenty of food, and a college education waiting. But I also recognize that there are very few crystal clear lines to be drawn with any of these things, and a single mom who supplements her kids' cheap spaghetti meals with veggies she grows herself is probably doing as well for her kid as a dual-income, dual-parent household who feed nothing but pre-packaged Whole Foods meals with all the nutrition info on the label and send their kid off to a Montessori school.

I am 100%, fully supportive of better efforts and best practices, absolutely. What I am against is this tendency for breed communities to get so incredibly nasty toward anyone who deviates even slightly from the protocol. You are managing a precious, living relic. You should be listening to each other, and open to differences, and willing to talk about tradeoffs and choices and risk-taking.

[mixie]

@tanza:

500.00 for a pet store puppy…. dream on... Basenjis in pet stores from puppy millers are 1500.00 if they are a dime.... and pet stores, clean? Your kidding, right? Puppies are taken from their dams/littermates as young as 4 weeks and shipped off... full of worms, typically sick, not socialized. Once those pups reach 12 wks and are unsold, then you might find prices of 500.00 as they need to dump them because soon they will not be cute any longer.

Right, which is why we should certainly combat substandard practices in our licensed, regulated breeders, and create a transparency of source, etc. Because guess what? If you shut down the "pet store" source, those substandard ****holes just sell their puppies to retailers masquerading as "rescues", an industry in which there is ZEEEEERO requirement for paper trail, health or stability of the dog, or any even remotely slime-pit-bottom standard for care.

I do not want the only choice in America to be gray-market hell-hole puppies or gold-plated tanza pups. There aren't enough "twice a decade" breeders around to supply America with puppies, and there are so few random-source dogs being born now that we're importing them from overseas to fill the demand.
So by all means, improve the commercial dog breeding industry. You might call Sarah a commercial dog breeder, by your "twice a decade" standards. And her prices are more within reach of most of America, these days. Would I love it if someone working a very blue-collar-job saved for years for one of your precious babies? Sure. But realistically, that's not going to happen, and I would absolutely send people to her, in a heartbeat.

In regards to PRA, late onset is age 4 or 5 with the majority being 6 to 9. The DNA test we have has been determined that it is over 50% of the Basenjis with PRA is cause by this gene. You claim that their Basenjis are "screened" for PRA? Is that by a board certified Ophth? Way before the elder age that other eye problems would present themselves.

Yes, yes, and no, but nice try.
What you are missing, is that not all retinal degeneration is PRA. So yes, half of the PRA that is PRA is that form of PRA. But according to the BCA:
– 25% of older (>8y/o) basenjis showed retinal changes
-- Most of those were characterized as "suspicious", rather than "affected"
-- They are careful and crystal-clear about stating that not all of those changes are inherited eye disease, that similar changes may be acquired or due to other disease
-- Mode of inheritance is currently unknown
-- Both false positive and false negative results are common

So again, it's not the quick fix you want it to be. I know it feels good to think you can draw simple lines around any of these issues and congratulate yourself for your choices, but none of this is that simple.

In Dogos, deafness is a real issue. It's a complex polygenetic problem with some seemingly random expression. For years the community had to rely on subjective vet certification to declare a dog to be either bilaterally normal, unilaterally affected, or bilaterally deaf.
When the BAER test came out, there was a huge rush to get everyone's dogs tested with an OBjective test. People were SHOCKED at the results. Dogs that were thought to be unilats and crucified for being bred turned out to be normal, some big names turned out bilaterally deaf, tons of dogs with normal vet statements turned out to be affected in one or both ears.
We couldn't fault people for doing the best they could, with the subjective testing that was available. We couldn't fault vets for doing their best with the training they had and the understanding of how deafness presents, phenotypically. We couldn't fault people for having faith in the subjective test results, because it was the very best we had. But it sure was crappy to see how people treated each other, and then how few people were willing to forgive and forget. Now we have a tool that tells us whether a dog is deaf, but we still don't know how to control the pigmentation that's some kind of random co-factor. And people are still making hard choices about whether to breed a unilat if it otherwise has something, or everything worth preserving.
There are very few hard lines we can draw with any of this stuff.

[tanza]

The mode of inheritance is genetic for the gene that causes over 50% of PRA in Basenjis. There is NOT false positives/negative with the DNA test. It is a recessive gene, Basenjis are Clear/Carrier/Affected. Recessive gene just like Fanconi.

If the Basenjis are tested/screened by a Board Certified Ophthalmologist why are those results not posted at OFA?

[mixie]

@DebraDownSouth:

But in fact they seem only to do Fanconi because even noob buyers have learned to ask for that.

Well, aside from the other BS, which is already addressed, this is a pretty crappy thing to claim. She had done the original Fanconi Linked Marker Test for a bunch of dogs, saw problems with the way that was being applied, and when the direct test came out, she had every single dog done, because Fanconi DOES affect quality of life, and IS specifically, directly heritable AND found in statistically significant numbers.
She runs a farm. And we are talking about pariah-type village dogs which existed for all of evolutionary history without "titles" or any particular skill except survival. You guys seem to think you have something really refined that human beings caused to happen and that your influence should better what nature built. You are hobbyists practicing a craft.

Whatever judgments you have about the quality of life, or the desires of a dog that evolved to live eating critters and bugs and sleeping on dirt up until about three seconds ago in their evolutionary timespan, there is nothing wrong with the way her dogs live, or any difference in opinion about what dogs "deserve". Our dogs live in our house, eat the same grassfed animals that we do, and sleep in our bed. It's an incredibly privileged existence in canine-kind. You are speaking from a place of incredible, nearly unbelievable privilege for you AND your dogs.
Her kennels are safe, clean, roomy, sheltered, dogs are well-fed, adore her, are well-socialized, have neighboring farm kids over playing with them every single day, have no interest in killing cats, chickens, or other dogs, don't exhibit any stereotypic behaviors of any kind that you see in understimulated animals, eat very decent kibble, and most of the time are wait-listed.

I read these forums and see alllllllllll these stories about crazy behavioral issues, biting, aggression especially, completely unmanaged prey drive in dogs that have zero impulse control. Scout is focused, game, and precise in her intentions. She's incredibly good-natured, as is every single one of Sarah's dogs. When I went to her property that first time, I truly did expect to see a "puppy mill". That's not the experience I had. Her dogs are balanced, sweet, joyful, clever. Not bored, aggressive, mal-socialized commodities. They are in good physical condition and structurally correct. I am sure Pat is embarrassed that she complimented her.
They're happy, healthy, much-better-than-average pets, which is precisely what a whole lot of people want in a dog.

And again with the money thing, what is that? What an incredibly privileged place to be, where money is no object. I have hobbies, but the hobbies I have have to pay for themselves, or I couldn't afford to continue preserving those skills for future generations. It's the same with Sarah's dogs. She is not living high on the hog with the money they bring in, the money they bring in feeds them, pays for medical and sanitation, and if there's anything left, maintains acreage for them to naturally course the local rabbits and for growing grass-fed raw bones for them to chew. She charges as much for them as she can to provide excellent everything, but when you explain to people that the puppy will cost an extra hundred dollars if it's tested for something that only happens in 6% of the population, and then their choice will be to go buy a completely unsocialized, Fanconi-affected mess of a kid-biter, she makes the concession to practical testing for directly-impactful stuff because she wants people to have access to good dogs, the best they can. She loves them, they love her, she's with them all day long, and they all spend time as house dogs and bed dogs, just like others have crate dogs and house dogs and bed dogs in rotation.

Believe me, I absolutely understand where you are coming from, and why you are judgmental about this stuff… I was, too.

[DebraDownSouth]

@tanza:

The mode of inheritance is genetic for the gene that causes over 50% of PRA in Basenjis. There is NOT false positives/negative with the DNA test. It is a recessive gene, Basenjis are Clear/Carrier/Affected. Recessive gene just like Fanconi.

If the Basenjis are tested/screened by a Board Certified Ophthalmologist why are those results not posted at OFA?

Pat, I have now blocked her because I know talking to her is worthless. People with that mentality will not change. It is good for others to see the nonsense exposed, but honestly, once it is clear someone will continue to back-peddle, change stories, add in stuff you know it is wasted on them. But didn't want you to think I don't agree or care, I just have seen the writing on that wall and cannot stomach byb/pm supporters.

[tanza]

@DebraDownSouth:

Pat, I have now blocked her because I know talking to her is worthless. People with that mentality will not change. It is good for others to see the nonsense exposed, but honestly, once it is clear someone will continue to back-peddle, change stories, add in stuff you know it is wasted on them. But didn't want you to think I don't agree or care, I just have seen the writing on that wall and cannot stomach byb/pm supporters.

Thanks Debra!

[Timesthemyth]

This conversation will help others immensely. The great thing about these types of 'heated' dialogues is that you are forced to explain everything, and a non-breeder, lay person [ like me] will learn more in the process. . I know I've learned a lot just by peeping in (lol).

On an unrelated side note, thank you for keeping this forum anti-puppy mill and anti-byb. This forum does well with that message. There are other places supporters can go to promote their pro-business message.

I am surprised at how many people in the Basenji community are in support of puppy mills - mostly unknowingly in support of them. I had to remove myself from the Basenji Rescue and Transport facebook page for this very reason; it just got to be too much. And then when you point it out you end up being turned into the bad guy.

[eeeefarm]

@Timesthemyth:

This conversation will help others immensely. The great thing about these types of 'heated' dialogues is that you are forced to explain everything, and a non-breeder, lay person [ like me] will learn more in the process. . I know I've learned a lot just by peeping in (lol).

I agree. And of course when people argue it sends one off on a research mission to see whose information is accurate and whose is not. Most often, as with any discussion where people are trying to prove their point, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Separating fact from opinion can be an interesting chore, and considering unintended consequences is never a bad thing…...

I am surprised at how many people in the Basenji community are in support of puppy mills - mostly unknowingly in support of them.

I think it can become confusing because not everyone defines things in the same way. Where is the line that distinguishes them? How many litters can you breed without being a "puppy mill", or does the definition only apply to the care the dogs receive? And is someone starting out with one bitch necessarily a "backyard breeder"? Do you base your opinion on whether all dogs live in the house, or whether all dogs have this or that specific test, or what? How about "reputable" breeders who breed too close or for specific traits that may be detrimental so they can win at shows? (you see a lot of this in other breeds!) Where does that fall in the scheme of things? And is it verboten to make any money? Questions, questions…...

[DebraDownSouth]

Shirley, I'll respond to that with my own opinions.

If you are breeding too many litters to personally raise and interact, which frankly much more than 2 small or one large litter at a time covers it.. and more than 3 or 4 litters a year with most breeds, you are over breeding, imho. Would that be the only issue to make someone a puppymill? No. But the goal of breeding SHOULD be to improve the breed, particularly in health. You need to have a litter, grow it out before you know if that bitch is worth breeding, or if you need to go another way with her. So more than once a year for a bitch in any breed is too much generally. (note that health wise, it is not detrimental to a bitch to do a back to back breeding sometimes, and there are sometimes reasons for it… such as few or no puppies surviving first litter, etc).

If you have so many dogs that their lives are spent outside especially in kennels, to me that is too much. There are breeds that should be outside working... stock dogs. But those dogs take a lot of work. So numbers of dogs are limited to what you can actually care for so that the dog is a pet first. I know few homes able to handle more than 10 dogs no matter how much they say they can or do. Even that many and some go by the wayside in personal care. When you then add on litters... nope, I don't call that good pet ownership. Still just a number doesn't make a puppymill -- you could have 5 dogs you breed 2x a year and still be a puppymill.

Do I think making money is the mark of a puppymill? No. Sometimes (not often) a responsible breeder can make some money beyond that litter's expenses, which is generally poured back into the care of the adults. But yes, I will unequivocally state that someone breeding dogs TO MAKE MONEY is absolutely a puppymill. Because if you are doing the necessary health testing, evaluations for temperament, socializing the dogs, doing ANYTHING with them (be it obedience, showing, hunting, etc) it takes time and money. Puppymillers have gotten good at doing a test or 2 (in rotties they learned to do hips, in basenji it seems Fanconi is their pretend ticket to responsible). Breeding for any other reason than to improve the breed in at least health and preferably function is a puppy mill/byb.

I do not think you have to show to be responsible. I do think you have to do SOMETHING more than breed for pets though. Because having been in rescue for over 30 yrs now, I can tell you the nonsense about bringing in foreign dogs indicating a need is utter bull.

I hate HSUS, but their stats are not far off from most

How many animals enter animal shelters each year? And how many are euthanized?
The HSUS estimates that animal shelters care for 6-8 million dogs and cats every year in the United States, of whom approximately 3-4 million are euthanized. At this time, there is no central data reporting agency for animal shelters, so these numbers are estimates; however, the Asilomar Accords method is gaining momentum as a standard for more accurately tracking these numbers. Annual statistics for approximately 150 shelters across the country are posted at asilomaraccords.org. You can help us develop a more accurate picture of the problem by encouraging your local shelters to report their data.

In the 1970s, American shelters euthanized 12-20 million dogs and cats, at a time when there were 67 million pets in homes. Today, shelters euthanize around 2.7 million animals, while there are more than 135 million dogs and cats in homes. This enormous decline in euthanasia numbers—from around 25 percent of American dogs and cats euthanized every year to about 3 percent—represents substantial progress. We will make still greater progress by working together to strike at the roots of animal overpopulation.<<

As long as we are euthanizing 3 million cats and dogs a year, or over 8,000 each day, there is no need to import. They import to get LITTLE DOGS that they can sell for more. I would love to see the point where there are no byb and puppymills and it becomes an actual need for people to health test and breed for pets. Then you could label it necessary. Right now, that's a crock.

I don't equate "reputable" with "responsible". We both know there are well known breeders who are horrific. I always think of a Rottie breeder who is probably featured in a dozen books back in the 70s-90s who most people didn't know used different studs than were on the papers (yeah folks reported her but they couldn't prove it early on) and euthanized puppies if she "couldn't get her price" even when rescues begged her to let them spay/neuter and find homes without ever revealing where they came from. I don't care how many titles or health clearances, she's a low life dirt bag and far from responsible.

Sadly "detrimental" traits have to be proven. We have bred rottweilers with so much angulation they are horrific cruciate problem. Even after a study came out, I am not seeing changes. Do I call that responsible? Um no. But again, just not correcting that when all other things are on spot... not going to label as not responsible. When you have a breeder breeding colors they KNOW will likely produce some blind or deaf or both puppies to get a color, hell yes that is irresponsible.

For me, this is the bottom line. I believe we have a responsibility to the animals we create and to the people we place them with to do everything in our power within common limits to make sure they are healthy. That means eyes, hips, known genetic issues for the breed, known issues done, thyroid and heart. Some dogs never need repeat of tests, some need many repeats. But the uncrossable line for me between responsible and not is health testing. If you don't do the tests for things KNOWN to be a problem in your breed, you are not responsible. If you don't do the suspected issues until you are sure your lines are okay (ie chd in basenjis), then you are certainly not doing right by your dogs, the new owners and the breed. Part of being a RESPONSIBLE breeder is helping the breed, not just your own dogs. We need more testing in some areas. Absolutely if we get in a good percentage of hips done and the stats stay very low, I might consider a breeder who doesn't test for them. But we aren't there yet.

[Havre de Grace]

@tanza:

Sorry… find that hard to accept that she/they can raise multi breeds and properly socialize them... You have your opinion, I have mine.. and in my opinion this is not a responsible breeder. So I am able to voice my opinion and hope that others will look up and down the East Coast and talk to other breeders... before deciding on a Basenji pup. I clearly have a picture on how their dogs are whelped/raised... just look at the kennel runs.. again, my opinion and I will continue to put out there my opinion.... sorry but this person is into it for the money.. since they do not do all health testing they can reduce price..... and for the rest of us that do testing... our prices are in line with the rest of the Basenji breeding community...

I am coming to this thread a bit late, but my mind boggles at the idea that you know more about someone's dogs from a continent away then an experienced dog person who is looking at those very same dogs in person. That is sheer hubris.

You sound like you have very good intentions, but you really need to figure out that in animal breeding, there are a million different shades of grey, and that there are doubtless breeders who would look at your operations and your dogs as sub par because you don't do things the way they do. Just looking at kennel runs and dismissing a breeder out of hand is very, very shallow.

As for a breeder who raises more than one breed not being able to do their dogs justice, do you want me to write a list of prominent and successful dog breeders who have had multiple breeds? The list would be very long.

Your comments are AR-lite and just one teeny step up from the rabid dog breeders who rant about puppy mills and rape racks and greeders. Every time I think the dog fancy is moving ahead in their thinking, a discussion like this comes along.

[Havre de Grace]

I think it can become confusing because not everyone defines things in the same way. Where is the line that distinguishes them? How many litters can you breed without being a "puppy mill", or does the definition only apply to the care the dogs receive? And is someone starting out with one bitch necessarily a "backyard breeder"? Do you base your opinion on whether all dogs live in the house, or whether all dogs have this or that specific test, or what? How about "reputable" breeders who breed too close or for specific traits that may be detrimental so they can win at shows? (you see a lot of this in other breeds!) Where does that fall in the scheme of things? And is it verboten to make any money? Questions, questions…...

I can answer this. The answer is so common that it's become kind of an in joke among dog people. How many litters makes someone a puppy mill? One more than YOU breed.

[JCF]

take charge of where your dog comes from. No need to demonize breeders. Just make sure YOU are doing the right thing. This will fix the unsavory breeder/puppy mills that are a scourge. Best wishes.
Jim