@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?
-
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.
-
@JoT:
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 do think the importers as a group have been similarly open - the Avongara group, the one I am most familiar with, from the very beginning had videos that are available to anyone, provided extensive photographs, had a number of very very experienced people from several countries go on the trips, made presentations at Nationals, wrote many articles which are available at the BCOA website with more coming as the online archives come online, put tons of info out on the web, had the dogs at shows and performance events, and had people over to see them at all ages - and this was before new dogs were voted on.
-
They were not moved to the African Stock pages. The Other Import section is how it has always been.
The Other Import section was added in 2008 or 2009 following a member complaint. Prior to that, dogs in the stud book and dogs not in the stud book were in the "Import by Year of Import" listing.
Linda or James could give you a more detailed report, but they were told to do it at that time following complaints.
-
The Other Import section has been on the website for some time, before the Native stock project. There was controversy at the time the Native Stock project was undertaken about whether the Other Import section was appropriate since they have not been accepted as basenjis.
-
There is a minor correction, the dogs listed as "Other Imports" have been on the website for sometime, they were simply moved from African Imports After 1988 to the heading Other Imports.
The pages on the Native Stock Project's original site were different then Other Import pages on the African Stock Project.
-
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.
I agree Lisa! That is why I feel very comfortable with the dogs that have been accepted so far.
-
My issue is that though I feel importers have been very open, because when the vote comes only the information on the dogs be put up for acceptance is sent and there is not a central place where people can go to view information on all the other imports from the region, including those not be put up at that time, people don't have the full picture at the time of voting.
If the issue for the group being put forth is just some are lesser quality but all are considered basenji then there should be no arguement about providing information about the entire import group including those not being put up for consideration.
-
I have a question, but I am not familiar with the procedure involved in accepting new dogs, so bear with me. Are these animals just assessed on their own appearance, or are there test breedings to see what they will produce?
-
I've attached the photo montage I was referring to in a previous post. These dogs are the offspring of a rescued female basenji and an unknown male. It is rather striking the variation that you see among the different dogs considering that they are all half basenji.
So if an import in question comes from an area that is populated by "non-basenji-like" dogs the probability that the import may not be "pure basenji" is much higher. It can be hard to tell this just by looking at the dog.
-
I have a question, but I am not familiar with the procedure involved in accepting new dogs, so bear with me. Are these animals just assessed on their own appearance, or are there test breedings to see what they will produce?
Here is the page where you can find out information on the process. But in short, test breedings are not required. We would have to have the stud book open pretty long at a time to enable that unless you want to breed them when they are really young (they are typically imported as puppies).
https://www.basenji.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=98
-
I've attached the photo montage I was referring to in a previous post. These dogs are the offspring of a rescued female basenji and an unknown male. It is rather striking the variation that you see among the different dogs considering that they are all half basenji.
So if an import in question comes from an area that is populated by "non-basenji-like" dogs the probability that the import may not be "pure basenji" is much higher. It can be hard to tell this just by looking at the dog.
I don't think there is any question about whether or not a mixed breed dog can produce a dog that looks like a basenji when bred to a basenji. So I think we all agree that just looking like a basenji isn't enough to cut it.
So, are we saying that we want more 'proof' that the area is remote and free of non-basenji dogs beyond the importers' word? And what kind of proof would we find acceptable? I am not disagreeing with this statement…I am wondering how, exactly, the BCOA could evaluate this?
