We can only educate those who are open to hearing.
Sorry you day was so bad.
We can only educate those who are open to hearing.
Sorry you day was so bad.
For sure there and we just keep on "keeping" on…. and do what we can... as they say... every day is a new day
Thanks for posting this… it was a real eye opener. The neurological disorders in the CKCS was really really difficult to watch & the way they described the brain being too big for the skull... very sad. Again, very thankful for responsible basenji breeders & for a breed that is still so relatively "untampered" with.
Hello, tried to watch those videos but got the message "sorry, this video is no longer available". Does this come from Youtube?
Hello, tried to watch those videos but got the message "sorry, this video is no longer available". Does this come from Youtube?
Yeah.. that's why I also have the written links.. they're in my second post.
Surgically altering a dog makes it ineligible to be shown under AKC rules. There are still people who will do so but it is cheating. Anyone who is considering stud service needs to their homework just like anyone looking for a puppy. There are good breeders and bad ones and you need to use the resources available to you to sort through them.
This wasn't plastic surgery, so then they can't be denied from the ring, right? I do think that everyone should do their homework, but for a normal puppy buyer a breeder with a Crufts BIS winner looks very very responsible.
As for rules for breeding, I truly believe that the statement made at the end of the GI Joe cartoons they played when I was kid was great advice, "Knowledge is Power". Education is the best tool, educated buyers make educated decisions and will require more from breeders. Most of the dogs in my city are unlicensed even though it is against the law. The kennel club is correct when they say making rules are not going to stop people from doing the wrong thing. Public searchable health databases and an educated public who knows how to use them and interpret results has an effect.
I think that it would help to 1. educate people about the importance of a dog with a pedigree and 2. make sure that a pedigree can be trusted.. And therefore you need rules.. No healthtesting before breeding?? No pedigree.. And without healthtesting, no championship title.. And I really do think that this would help. (with a good control system)
Breeders are able to sell offspring of untested parents or parents who have a high likelihood of producing Affected because the public isn't educated enough to walk away from those breedings.
Yes, and of course you always have people who ignore important information… :mad:
Lets hope the folks on this forum can share the info they learn to people who are not on it, or have picked up their b's from a petshop.
As someone says, once you know better, you do better.
I believe that.
Well folks, I saw the broadcast real time … BBC I believe. It was simply horrible. I hope it won't come to this with our beloved Basenjis. The item on the Cavalier was disgusting. A good advice from a newbie : back to basics !!!:mad:
Zoals de heren van Kooten en de Bie pleegden te zeggen : leef met vlag en wimpel maar hou het simpel !
Zoals de heren van Kooten en de Bie pleegden te zeggen : leef met vlag en wimpel maar hou het simpel !
Helemaal mee eens!!
Thanks for posting this… it was a real eye opener. The neurological disorders in the CKCS was really really difficult to watch & the way they described the brain being too big for the skull... very sad. Again, very thankful for responsible basenji breeders & for a breed that is still so relatively "untampered" with.
I would say that creating a Basenji standard from a handful of dogs was pretty irresponsible. I think strategically adding "wild stock" was responsible but that more of an effort should be made to dilute or eliminate genetic disorders due to inbreeding. This really isn't an "untampered" breed.
EDIT: Just noticed the studbook has been reopened. This can only be a good thing.
http://www.akc.org/pdfs/about/board_minutes/0808.pdf
I would say that creating a Basenji standard from a handful of dogs was pretty irresponsible. I think strategically adding "wild stock" was responsible but that more of an effort should be made to dilute or eliminate genetic disorders due to inbreeding. This really isn't an "untampered" breed.
I totally disagree with your statement. While I think that it is great that we have added and accepted native stock and it helps expand the gene pool, I think that we have done an excellent job in retaining "Basenji Type"… it is not about a standard it is about "type"
I totally disagree with your statement. While I think that it is great that we have added and accepted native stock and it helps expand the gene pool, I think that we have done an excellent job in retaining "Basenji Type"… it is not about a standard it is about "type"
The crux of the argument presented in the videos is that we have become enamored with and breed for form at the expense of long term vitality. You believe that importing a handful (6-7) dogs and (in)breeding the progeny exclusively for 50 or more years was responsible? Then I suppose we will have to disagree and leave it at that. Mind you, this inbreeding is what brought about the "unusually high frequency of serious genetic disorders" such as Fanconi and IPSID. Like the video said, having a genetic diversity of 6-7 individuals is enough to put an animal on the endangered species list, why would that be acceptable when it comes to dog breeds? This is not an attack on the breed. This is a criticism, backed by biology, on the failings of past methodologies.
I'm not sure what you mean by type vs form. Could you explain?
IMO, bringing in new blood from Africa is a good thing..
Please note that now that there is a DNA test for fanconi now gives us the ability to use many lines in a breeding program. Since a recessive gene, we can use Carriers and Affecteds with Clears and not have to eliminate different lines. This along with using the newer imports will expand the gene pool… This is something that should have happened when DNA testing for HA was found, however it was not. That in my opinion is what really caused the huge bottle neck in the gene pool. And in my opinion IPSID is not as large as a problem as you seem to think it is.... so serious genetic disorders IMO were/are HA, Fanconi as the most well known. We do have others, these are the most well know.
Type and form can be considered the same... the written standard that you refer to earlier is "written" words on what the "perfect" Basenjis should/would look like and was developed from the very first Basenjis from the 40's.... it has not changed much in all these years. Each person looks at the standard and decides what is important to them and what they think each part of the standard looks like in their mind...
To me, type is the overall appearance of the dog... that you can look across a field at a dog standing there and know without a second thought that it is a Basenji.
IMO, bringing in new blood from Africa is a good thing..
I agree, provide they are Basenjis and have Basenji type and have good temperaments. We have seen some health concerns with some of the imports in relationships to hips and thyroid problems, so none come without considerations
IMO, bringing in new blood from Africa is a good thing..
Agreed. As long as they are tested beforehand.
@tanza:
Please note that now that there is a DNA test for fanconi now gives us the ability to use many lines in a breeding program. Since a recessive gene, we can use Carriers and Affecteds with Clears and not have to eliminate different lines. This along with using the newer imports will expand the gene pool… This is something that should have happened when DNA testing for HA was found, however it was not. That in my opinion is what really caused the huge bottle neck in the gene pool. And in my opinion IPSID is not as large as a problem as you seem to think it is.... so serious genetic disorders IMO were/are HA, Fanconi as the most well known. We do have others, these are the most well know.
I agree. I appreciate that breeders now have the ability to test for and avoid genetic disorders. I also appreciate that the BCOA has urged the AKC to open up the studbook over the past 20 years. IMO, these two approaches will be needed to revitalize and maintain healthy stock. My original point is that these are reactionary moves. The BCOA realized that the breed was mismanaged from the jump because it was based on a small genetic population.
I should state that I really don't mean to offend you, or any breeders here. Thanks for the dialogue.
@tanza:
Type and form can be considered the same… the written standard that you refer to earlier is "written" words on what the "perfect" Basenjis should/would look like and was developed from the very first Basenjis from the 40's.... it has not changed much in all these years. Each person looks at the standard and decides what is important to them and what they think each part of the standard looks like in their mind...
To me, type is the overall appearance of the dog... that you can look across a field at a dog standing there and know without a second thought that it is a Basenji.
ok
I think as science goes and advances are made, many people realized the importance in genetic diverstiy…. in all breeds of dogs. Some have done something about it, some (many) breeds have not. I give much credit to the Basenji Fancy for seeing the need and working to make it happy, including finding DNA tests for genetic concerns.
I don't think any breeder will take anything you have said as offensive, it is opinion like we all have and you have legit concerns/comments IMO.
Lately this BBC show that aired a couple years back, Pedigree Dogs Exposed, has gotten a lot of mentions on several blogs and other forums that I follow. I'm not sure if the timing has to do with a recent re-airing, or because the the director of the show starting her own blog dedicated to that which was covered in the show:
http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/
I watched the documentary, as I had not seen it in its entirety before. If the links that Janneke originally provided are dead, a quick Youtube search should easily pull it back up.
So I was wondering if Basenji forum members had any updated thoughts on the program's claims, specifically that show dogs bred to a prescribed standard promote a host of genetic problems in the long run, and that kennel club norms (I'm talking about all kennel clubs, not just the UK one) are much too conservative about allowing the problems to perpetuate?
For the purposes of what this show is talking about, are there practical differences between the UK's Kennel Club and the American Kennel Club?
For example, some people really harp on the resistance to change exemplified in closed registries. But then I think of the Basenji example with the African Stock Project – which, as I understand it, is an AKC thing, since it's being done with BCOA?
What kind of relationship does the African Stock Project have with the AKC -- which organization(s) was the primary mover for allowing the studbooks to be opened? And just how unprecedented is this?
The BBC program focuses specifically on Crufts. What kind of hierarchy is there to dog shows like Crufts, Westminster... the AKC/Eukanaba show that's happening now, etc.? Is there something about Crufts as a popular phenomenon that makes those kinds of allegations more applicable than other venues?
I'm also curious about what they say about curly tails (heh) in part 4, in regards to pugs. They say that breeding for tighter and tighter tail curls results in deformed spines. How would and does this apply to Basenji, and what can good breeders do to prevent those problems?
Lots of questions here, some big, some specific...
I haven't read it, the link, but am well aware of issues. Let me just explain a few.
The Bulldog. The dog has been bred to such massive shoulder proportions that not only do they not breed naturally, they have to have c-sections or risk all the puppies being crushed in the birth canal, or stuck. The US has made no move to change it. The UK made dramatic changes stating that breeding dogs to such abnormal proportions was, in effect, animal cruelty … and ordered it stopped.
Lets look at my beloved Rottweilers. In the US (and elsewhere) they are bred with shorter backs, stockier and with angulation that is PROVEN to increase (dramatically) the problems with elbow dysplasia, cruciate issues and other problems. And? We don't care it seems because if you look at dogs that won 10 yrs ago and today, we are moving more and more into that "look" rather than healthy.
Because GB and much of western Europe (FCI) have moved to more humane treatment, including the attempt to ban such cosmetic surgeries as tail docking, ear cropping etc.. I suspect that the British public is more sensitive to issues and hence the focus on Crufts (and that's probably the home country of the producers.. will go look).
I am not aware that Basenji breeders are breeding for tightly curled tails, but I am not a breeder.
I am very aware of splits in breeds here in the US between working dogs and show dogs. Form follows function. I believe those working toward function, instead of looks above all, are doing the breed the most good. I think we can have most of each, and I am not advocating throwing out conformation standards! But when standards need to be modified to protect and enhance the health of the dog, it should be done. Sadly, good luck with that.
