@senjisilly just now saw your reply. Thanks for the pedigree website. I knew about it and it’s a great resource.
What does it mean to add genes?
-
Therese wrote…I would just like us to see all the info we can on the imports we approve and like you not just rely on what wins in the ring to judge how these dogs look, heaven knows that doesn't always match our standard even though it should.
ThereseYes, I do agree. Get what testing done we can, including color and see what these new imports produce. I don't think an ETHICAL basenji breeder would try to sell the membership on an import that throws puppies who look like bulldogs. Again, just my rescue opinion. We will always have those who try to make a name for themselves over the quality of the dogs they have..but again, haven't we had that already in some show breeders?
-
@Therese:
eeeefarm, sorry don't know what to call you.
eeee farm is my farm name….."for ease" (that's a joke, folks). I'm Shirley.
It's interesting you bring up termperament. At a recent specialty here in the PNW a judge when discussing her choices in the ring told a large group at our banquet we are breeding dogs that are "too easy" to live with. She is a breeder judge (long time) and said we are breeding away from the original temperament of the breed by breeding the type of temperaments she was seeing. The dogs I showed her as well as the dog she gave the breed to are confident, curious and outgoing and yes pretty easy to live with.
I am always amused when people say the "original" dogs had poor temperaments. My first Basenji (1966) had the best temperament of any I've owned!
I cared for a litter of pups for a humane society, mom was not well and pups had a better chance not being in a shelter setting, pups were all four black/white looked like a cross between lab/border collie/****ers. I still laugh at all the vets that told us there was absolutely no hound in these pups, we would always wait to bring mom in, she was a blood hound black/red, small but likely pure bred. She delivered pups that looked nothing like her, but I wonder what they would have produced if bred to a blood hound?
I got a pup from a GSD (purebred)/husky (unregistered stray) litter that looked pretty much like a husky, as did half the litter. The rest could have passed for purebred GSDs. (and no, the bitch was not exposed to multiple dogs). I had hoped for a good farm dog, but after he flunked at that he turned out to be a marvelous pet for my sister's kids. But especially with a mix you just never know! I have seen some pretty odd things happen with horses, as well….
-
Coursing ability is not an indication of whether or not a dog is a basenji. AKC and UKC are both making good money offering all breed coursing ability tests. For most of the breeds you see running you can easily see that they run differently than the sighthounds but others especially the terriers can be just as keen and awfully fast.
Personally, I think any breeding program that relies on only 1 venue to test and evaluate breeding stock is not going to "see" the whole dog. The more I do with my dogs, the more I see different things in each of them.
To bring this back around to the topic of this thread, success in a performance venue does not make a dog a basenji. I will say again, I think people need to look at old publications with lots of pics of basenjis of the past to see what we had, what we have lost, and what we have never had before we can even begin really talking about "what is a basenji" because what we see today is not the full spectrum of what was basenji and if that is the expectation people will be disappointed but not everything coming back from Africa is basenji.
-
Coursing ability is not an indication of whether or not a dog is a basenji.
Of course (no pun intended!] it's not, but it is a handy way to determine athletic ability. Field trials would be a better one, as that is much closer to the way the breed was originally used, but most people don't train their dogs for that. A Basenji is a beautiful athlete. Nobody is saying any dog that can course or hunt is a Basenji, but a dog that has the phenotype of a Basenji should also display the athletic ability, IMHO.
Personally, I think any breeding program that relies on only 1 venue to test and evaluate breeding stock is not going to "see" the whole dog. The more I do with my dogs, the more I see different things in each of them.
I agree.
To bring this back around to the topic of this thread, success in a performance venue does not make a dog a basenji. I will say again, I think people need to look at old publications with lots of pics of basenjis of the past to see what we had, what we have lost, and what we have never had before we can even begin really talking about "what is a basenji" because what we see today is not the full spectrum of what was basenji and if that is the expectation people will be disappointed but not everything coming back from Africa is basenji.
I've seen quite a few pictures, and I wonder if you think any of the original dogs would win in today's show ring? That may be the best measure of how much we have lost, or how much we have changed the breed…..
-
@Therese:
At a recent specialty here in the PNW a judge when discussing her choices in the ring told a large group at our banquet we are breeding dogs that are "too easy" to live with. She is a breeder judge (long time) and said we are breeding away from the original temperament of the breed by breeding the type of temperaments she was seeing. The dogs I showed her as well as the dog she gave the breed to are confident, curious and outgoing and yes pretty easy to live with.
I understand it's tough to judge the individual dog, that's why I would like to see more information about where the dogs came from and what the dogs within the same village look like as added info.
Personally I will take today's temperaments.
And I fully agree that we should be looking at the entire picture went evaluating additions to the stud book. Were they come from and what other dogs in the village look like would be great information to have before just voting a dog (or group of dogs) into the stub books. And add to that, there have been ones brought back that were not even put up for evaluation because they fit the standard way less then some of the others. So consider this, if you brought back 6 dogs, 3 were put up for evaluation, 3 were not because they were less of breed type then the 3 that were, what does that say about the prospects of breeding them? What it the chance you will get more of the ones that have very little breed type?
Many of you will remember that the BCOSW raised a litter (and one of our members here has one of the offspring) of pups that were Basenji and ??, but the guess was Beagle mix. A few of those pups could have passed really easily as purebreds, but of poor quality. As I remember there was one pup in that litter that could have passed for a Lab puppy….Clearly they were mixes.
-
BCOSW raised a litter a few years ago too where the dam was basenji and the sire was something else. Pictures of the offspring were posted on another group and it was striking to see the variation in the offspring from basenji-like to not-really basenji-like at all.
That one set of images really drove home the point to me that we should not get our native stock from areas that have other kinds of dogs. So for me, one requirement to call a dog from Africa a "basenji" is that it needs to come from a sufficiently isolated area. Similar to what others have said, I now really want to know more about the population of dogs that were living around the applicants to the stud book. Of course, that info is not required for the applicants to provide so that may require some digging for info on my part to figure out.
It would be nice to get permission to post the pics of that litter I was referring to, it would be very useful to the discussion.
-
Clay, you could ask Wanda, I think it was she that posted them for that other discussion. And yes, that is the litter I was talking about. One of our members here has one of those pups. For some reason I remember the sire as being a Beagle mix.
-
Lol, I thought you were talking about southern California. I'll ask Wanda. That litter was before my time in the club so I don't know as much of the details other than seeing some of the offspring.
-
Pat wrote..
And I fully agree that we should be looking at the entire picture went evaluating additions to the stud book. Were they come from and what other dogs in the village look like would be great information to have before just voting a dog (or group of dogs) into the stub books. And add to that, there have been ones brought back that were not even put up for evaluation because they fit the standard way less then some of the others. So consider this, if you brought back 6 dogs, 3 were put up for evaluation, 3 were not because they were less of breed type then the 3 that were, what does that say about the prospects of breeding them? What it the chance you will get more of the ones that have very little breed type?
+++
Pat, It could be that those who were not put up would not help improve the basenji breed as a whole. So, an ethical person, taking information from many long term breeders, would listen and say, A B C look good, but D E F, not so much.
Why would an ethical person say, I am putting them all up? Wouldn't they say, I will put up the ones who will do what we want, put new genes into the basenji lines?
I don't see it as all or nothing. I see it as take the best dogs you can get from the Congo and see if they can be accepted. The ones who are not the quality you want, make them pets.
Heavens, don't breeders to that with every litter they have? Eval them and say, these are pets, these are show?? -
But if A, B, C, D, E, F all come from the same small region or even the same village then if the traits that bother you are ones that suggest they are not basenjis then the likelihood is that though A, B, and C may have traits similar to basenjis they are probably not pure basenjis because evidence of mixing is present in D, E, and F.
-
But if A, B, C, D, E, F all come from the same small region or even the same village then if the traits that bother you are ones that suggest they are not basenjis then the likelihood is that though A, B, and C may have traits similar to basenjis they are probably not pure basenjis because evidence of mixing is present in D, E, and F.
The question to me would be, are the dogs not being put up because they have traits that indicate that they are not Basenjis, or are they being held back because of traits that are not indicative of impurity, but might make them harder to get voted in?
Keep in mind, all dogs have to be voted in, they get voted in in blocks, and a bunch of votes against one dog could keep all of that group out. So there is a VERY powerful disincentive against people putting up dogs with obvious but minor faults, like slightly off colors, very loopy tails - I heard people complaining against more than one dog in more than one importation because it didn't have enough white (they had minimal Irish white, which is entirely in the typical range.) I'd raise an eyebrow at solids, but not at limited Irish.
Those sorts of things are not traits that suggest they aren't purebred. The original founders came from groups where, as VTW discusses, there would be both more and less typey dogs.
That said, Sponenberg specifically lists history as an important thing to consider in evaluating animals for inclusion in a stud book, and discusses looking at the source population as a whole when evaluating sources. You'd probably enjoy reading his examples of the process.
-
But we aren't given that information. Once the process was formalized the site took down the profiles of all dogs except those under consideration so the membership no longer has access to information about the other dogs in an importation group unless they are on the right lists or know the people involved.
-
So it sounds like what people are saying, is that you have to decide how much you trust the importers of a given group of dogs to: do the research to know *where the dogs should be coming from; understand how much, if any "contamination" there may have been by non-basenji dogs over the last 100 years; and honestly evaluate the "remoteness" of the area for traffic…
Because most of us haven't been there...most of us barely know where the importers are going/have been on a map. So, in the end, we have to take the word of the people who were, there...and then decide how much we trust them to be do it the right way.
-
So it sounds like what people are saying, is that you have to decide how much you trust the importers of a given group of dogs to: do the research to know *where the dogs should be coming from; understand how much, if any "contamination" there may have been by non-basenji dogs over the last 100 years; and honestly evaluate the "remoteness" of the area for traffic…
Because most of us haven't been there...most of us barely know where the importers are going/have been on a map. So, in the end, we have to take the word of the people who were, there...and then decide how much we trust them to be do it the right way.
But - for all of these importations put forward thus far, the people have written articles about their trips, which have repeatedly been in magazines; put up many pictures of the dogs that they saw, not just the dogs that they imported, on their website and in those articles and in one notable case on video; described the remoteness of the area and how they selected it publicly in some detail; answered questions pretty freely; attended Nationals and brought both dogs they were registering and dogs they weren't for people to see; and the vast majority people involved are people that have been involved in the breed for quite a long time.
-
But we aren't given that information. Once the process was formalized the site took down the profiles of all dogs except those under consideration so the membership no longer has access to information about the other dogs in an importation group unless they are on the right lists or know the people involved.
What was the reasoning for removing the info on the other dogs in the importation groups? Was it placed somewhere else? I can understand not wanting to put up every dog in a group for stud book consideration but knowledge of those dogs should be considered worth preserving.
-
What was the reasoning for removing the info on the other dogs in the importation groups? Was it placed somewhere else? I can understand not wanting to put up every dog in a group for stud book consideration but knowledge of those dogs should be considered worth preserving.
Exactly what information was removed? I can't think of any information that was taken off, so it would help to know what's being referred to.
-
When this project was originally undertaken and a Native Stock page put up there were pictures and information submitted by people with native imports. There were pics of the new Avongara imports, the Lukuru, the Avuvis, and the Jengis. It didn't matter if they were being submitted for the stud book they had each group posted and welcomed information on all individuals and had maps of where each group came from. Once the formal process for acceptance was approved all this information came down off the website and now the only thing posted there are dogs up for consideration.
-
Prior to ever submitting any of my dogs for evaluation in 2009, Mopaya was introduced at the Cincinnati Specialty in 2007 and I gave a presentation about her native provenance with lots of slides of the population and an open Q&A. I gave an expanded presentation with lots more slides, maps, and details when I introduced Amisi at the Nationals in 2008 where lots of people met him during my presentation and throughout the Nationals. Again, with an open Q&A. I published articles and pictures about everything related to the Lukuru dogs for the membership to review PRIOR to asking for anyone to vote on them. I had well established breeders come to my home and see my whole pack … again prior to submitting them for consideration.
I personally am strongly in favor of voting based on a geographic region because one or two "basenji-like" dogs (please see my previous posts in this thread) from a population within the traditional range of accepted Basenjis but from a current location where dogs are not ALL "basenji-like" makes a big difference.
When the goal is at the genetic level, the whole population must be considered because they are all locally from the same gene pool. -
When this project was originally undertaken and a Native Stock page put up there were pictures and information submitted by people with native imports. There were pics of the new Avongara imports, the Lukuru, the Avuvis, and the Jengis. It didn't matter if they were being submitted for the stud book they had each group posted and welcomed information on all individuals and had maps of where each group came from. Once the formal process for acceptance was approved all this information came down off the website and now the only thing posted there are dogs up for consideration.
I think that's going on now on the African Stock page, under "Other Imports." There was a member request in 2008 or 2009 that expressed concern that dogs not yet registered as Basenjis might be confused with dogs that had been admitted. Moving things around may have been part of the response to that.
The Avuvis are on the "Other Imports" page under the African Stock Project, and any unregistered import, is eligible for listing there, if their owner submits their information. So there is a relatively open place for that sort of information.
-
They were not moved to the African Stock pages. The Other Import section is how it has always been.
