Imports and Process of stud book acceptance

  • I wanted to ask a couple questions to see if everyone out there is finding the same points confusing. And I will bravely state my personal opinion about the process…I will step back in case my computer explodes for what I am about to share.
    As I understand the stud book process, the dogs are accepted by the BCOA board after evaluations are done and along with information from the importers submitted to the BOD.
    Then as I understand it a group of dogs is submitted to the membership for vote.
    My first question is this, if I find one or more of the submitted group are not up to my standards for any reason as a voting member would I have to vote "no" for the entire group. I might be inclined to let a dog through if there were others in the group I felt could be of value. Sooo...that said if I as a voting member and voice my opinion as "no" can any of the dogs in that group resubmit in another group? Or how many times can a dog be submitted? I don't really understand why I can't vote for individual dogs, other than yes I know its a rule in the process.
    There has been talk about why anyone would not vote for a dog that has been through the process and also talk about trusting the importers being a value. I am aware of evaluators that have said they would not consider breeding dogs they gave an evaluation to, and that they were unclear about what "as a breed" our goal was bringing these dogs in. Yet these dogs got passing scores. Yes health testing is important and great to see but dogs can still develope health issues at older ages that we won't know with no real family history. That is a risk all breeders have to take when starting out so what we can get is helpful but not written in stone.
    So although it is an overall consideration for me I believe trusting the importers and knowing more about the areas (not just location) these dogs come from is helpful to me when making my personal decision.
    I think Bryan's post about his background and experience is great but to be honest I think Jo did as well picking her Lukuru dogs and she had no history as a breeder. The area was the key in her situation and the isolation supported the type in the dogs she sees in the Lukuru dogs.
    Having said that I have also been concerned that recently there have been people who do not have experience Bryan points out having that have traveled to areas that are heavily traveled and brought back dogs I would seriously be concerned with being let into our stud book. We have all avoided talking about Rose Marie Holt because she is not on this list but just recently she posted a rescue dog was a basenji that immediately was identified as a NSD and when NSD breeders were contacted they immediately recognized the dog as NSD or a possible mix. So I'm going out on a limb and saying this topic was an off shoot of photos submitted by Kathy Britton of Rose Marie's dogs that attended a recent african match. I have seen posts by Rose Marie and how she feels about not just coat color but texture and breeding type that concern me greatly. I have had concern for the care and maintenance of her dogs from posts she has posted on several lists and
    My intent is not to attack but to clearly state that I would like to encourage all BCOA members to research all dogs put forward for vote into the stud book and consider heavily all the factors surrounding these dogs.
    Sharon was right when she said those of us who feel strongly about the subject care about the breed.
    Importing dogs for stud book is not a venture everyone could take on, but also not a venture that everyone has the same motive for taking on.
    While I am not questioning anyone's specific motives I did point this out to help clarify to Bryan why I personally would question some dogs and consider not voting for some dogs put up for vote. I personally will judge each dog on its own merit and the information provided and that I can find online from the importers or by speaking to the importers themselves. I encourage everyone to do the same.
    Most importers are in the roster, contact them directly if you have questions about any dogs that come up for vote. It would be a great opprotunity for further education about your breed, even if you aren't a breeder or don't intend to breed to imports. Its for our future.
    My worry at this point is people voting "yes" because dogs have gone through the process even though they may not feel they should be voted in. As members we still have a voice, that is why our vote is important and that means voting "for" or "against" acceptance with the proper knowledge.
    Okay, stepping back now…whew. Sorry so long winded.:o

  • The dogs are submitted individually and the vote is for individual dogs.

  • Debra, the vote I received as a BCOA member was for a group of dogs and you could not vote for one and not the other. Do you mean they are individually voted on by the BOD of the BCOA before the membership votes?
    Thanks for clarifying for me, unless something has changed.

  • The dogs are submitted individually. Each individual is voted on by the BOD but the group of dogs is voted on by the membership.

    I think many people don't know what the process was that led to the acceptance process that we have. When BCOA petitioned AKC to open the studbooks for the 87/88 imports there was no process in place for such a thing. It was a truly ground breaking request. After the acceptance of the 87/88 imports and what AKC viewed as a successful process they basically adopted the BCOA process as the AKC process for opening a breed's studbook. The BCOA membership on the other hand felt the process had some issues that they if they could do over would do differently but at the time no one really foresaw doing it again.

    So when the idea to open the stud book for new imports came up, there was now an official AKC process for doing so. This process included that the membership was required to vote for opening the studbook NOT for the dogs that would be allowed into the studbook, that was left in the hands of the parent club BOD. This was one of the biggest issues the membership had with the process and yet it was now part of the AKC process for opening a studbook. Now, how to write a proposal that sticks with the spirit of the AKC process but also addresses or tries to address member concern? By voting for groups of dogs the membership is still voting for the opening of the studbook and with the approval process the BOD is still approving dogs, it just flipped the sequence of events.

    As for the issue of 1 dog being one that you would vote "no" on but the others are "okay", group voting really forces you to decide is the "no" vote because you don't feel it is of breeding quality which will probably sort itself out over time or is it because you don't feel it is a basenji? If you don't think it is a basenji and the others came from a close or identical location, why do you think they are basenji, is it just based on looks? Doesn't it make more sense to vote on dogs based on area of import? If the area has non-basenjis and no restricted breeding then aren't all dogs from the area suspect? If the area has basenjis even though some may not be what we each would choose for breeding, aren't they still basenjis?

  • Thank you Lisa for explaining this so well, boy the teacher in you really came through in this post. Well done!
    For me I agree about the area, the confusion I face about the area is that I understood some dogs were brought to importers from different areas. For instance are all Avongara dogs from the same area or how close to each other are those areas. Or the Avuvi's, there have been more than one trip to import these dogs with these prefixes and so I would wonder about the "areas" these dogs came from.
    Does the process allow for regional submissions or is that identified by the prefix of the dogs ie; Ntomba, Avuvi, Lukuru, Avongara.
    I love that this is being clarified so we can all better understand the importance of all the details.

  • Therese,thanks for this post. I am glad to learn with every post I read under this "subject".

  • The idea was that a unique prefix was to be given to each importation region but it was really left to the importers to define the region. I can definitely see your point and if the process were up for refinement, defining what is meant by "region of import" or "area of import" would be something that should be addressed especially with voting by groups.

  • Lisa, would that be done when we ask to open up the book so there is no cut off for imports?

  • When I have had time, I have been back and forth reading, trying to catch up so excuse the hodge podge sort of replying re: a few things I had put on my to do list and/or not posting in the correct thread.


    Three of these were outcrossed Liberian camp-dogs. The record reveals that the Liberian camp-dogs were subjected to a controlled breeding program for more than 12 years selecting for "Basenji" traits. Only then did the get of this intensive selection effort become recognized as outcross founders. In fact, the results of the breeding program produced dogs that were exported to Zambia to be bred with purebred, registered Basenji bitches (bred down from Congo native stock) brought from England. Then those get were imported to England by Elspet Ford and to the USA by Gwen Stanich. Although they are considered to be native dogs because they were whelped in Africa, they were actually only a percentage African stock.

    For anyone who would like to educate themselves on the Liberians - please check out the following link.

    Standifer Liberians

    In truth I encourage everyone to do their own research on everything vs. taking any person on this forum at their word regarding historical information not related to themselves personally; even me.<lol>

    Remember - many people can read the same bible and walk away with their own interpretation of what was said and what was meant by those who wrote it. As an example Jo referred to the Liberian basenjis as generic "camp-dogs" when the author - who studied (then eventually bred) the dogs - clearly identifies them as native Basenjis.

    This is the time line info re: Elspet Fords (Taysenji) blacks:

    Taysenji blacks


    The exercises was not only fun and easy with minimum instruction, but it illustrated to many that genetic diversity is NOT determined by the number of kennel names. ….....

    ...... I keep going back to the article by Mary Lou Kenworthy, "WHAT IS DIVERSITY REALLY?" (The Modern Basenji Worldwide, Vol. 1, No. 2, Summer 2011, page 3) and Mary Lou's statement, " If breeders create and monitor their own lines, the breed, as a whole, will prosper. No breeder can maintain diversity by himself, and any attempt to do so will lead to disaster for the breeder and the breed. It takes a network of breeders working together with individual lines to maintain diversity. " I think she is correct. 🙂

    If I am understanding this blurb correctly - MLK is supporting creating and maintaining unique kennel lines in order to preserve genetic diversity, which Jo, you say you think is correct. Yet in the first sentence I emboldened (from the same post) - you emphatically say genetic diversity is NOT determined by the number of kennel names.

    Sorry, I am confused - are you saying genetic diversity IS a network of breeders creating and maintaining multiple lines (even if highly related) or are you saying genetic diversity is NOT determined by a network of breeders creating and maintaining multiple lines (even if highly related).

    {Highly related to me = high COI which LisaCA (Itzyu) was kind enough to share with the group for the original founders.}

    Also Jo, in 2008, you wrote quite eloquently on the need for new foundation stock in the Basenji Studbook Petition

    Now you write @JoT:

    So, I still wonder if admitting new native stock EFb into the Basenji gene pool will actually help gene diversity in the long run.

    What has changed between 2008 and today, other than the acceptance of 15 newly registered imports, of which yours are included?


    We have all avoided talking about Rose Marie Holt because she is not on this list but just recently she posted a rescue dog was a basenji that immediately was identified as a NSD and when NSD breeders were contacted they immediately recognized the dog as NSD or a possible mix.

    I believe this is a gross misrepresentation Therese, assuming of course you are talking about the recent posting to the MDG list - a private BCOA list where most on this forum could not look into if they were of a mind and validate the information as in fact true. I believe Marie posted the information she found on a rescue site "Animal Welfare League of Alexandria (Alexandria, VA )" in addition to a picture in response to another post sent re: the same dog but with less information; she did not call the dog a basenji, THEY (rescue site) called the dog a basenji. I believe she concurred that it could be a Singer or even a basenji mix - which is what several people speculated.


    I have seen posts by Rose Marie and how she feels about not just coat color but texture and breeding type that concern me greatly. I have had concern for the care and maintenance of her dogs from posts she has posted on several lists…..

    I have seen posts from many breeders over the years that concern me greatly about their breeding plans, their breeding programs and the manner in which they house their dogs; COI's so high they might as well be breeding a clone to a clone for the potential number of homozygous genes they carry, breeding non health tested stock ad nauseam despite knowing problems exist and have been produced in their line, basenjis crated 24/7, kenneled in basements, kenneled next to boilers that could explode at any time, dogs with urine scald due to living in their own waste, (need I go on?). It is not my place to air what I might think is their dirty laundry via a public forum, nor is it my place to make public judgments about any of their choices just because they are not my choices for me and/or my dogs.

    Any random pictures I have seen of Marie's dogs show healthy weights, good body condition, nice/clean coat conditions, and their uncanny ability to drape themselves all over her furniture in a variety of positions. I do not see any evidence of excessively kenneled or crated dogs who lack condition due to such extreme containment, dirty coats showing any evidence of living in a dirty environment; I have also seen a yard that I would be quite envious to have. If eating well, living in a clean environment, with a good sized yard to run in, while being allowed to live loose and sleep on the bed or in a favorite chair is something that concerns you, I hate to imagine what you might think about any number of us.

    Sorry if this offends but in truth, I am offended for Marie and since she is not allowed to have a voice here, I feel balance is needed to offset your (IMO) not so subtle implications regarding her character, based on I assume nothing more than your personal belief system vs. any substantiated evidence.</lol>

  • Linda, Your post does not surprise me at all. As you have not personally been to Rose Marie Holt's home I believe you yourself are doing exactly what you claim I am doing;
    using a "personal belief system vs. any substantiated evidence". I am comfortable with posts I have recieved personally from Rose Marie as well as posts she has posted to several lists regarding how her dogs live to post what I posted.
    When you do have a chance to catch up on posts you may wish to read that one discussion was in regards to the fact that anyone putting imports up for acceptance is asking us to "trust" them. I believe this means Rose Marie is directly asking the BCOA membership to take her at her word regarding her dogs and where they were imported from, also her personal choices in regards to how and why she selected the dogs she selected. Rose Marie has been very outspoken about several of those points in articles, on lists and in emails to many.
    I also believe she has given myself reason to doubt her word and so given a situation that she is asking me to take her "word" for it, that will not be easy for me. I have stacks of emails to support this and until now have chosen not to speak out publicly about what she has written to me privately.
    You are very welcome to stand on a roof top and call out support for Rose Marie but to claim you are only doing so to off set someone else's take is a puzzling to me.
    I think you may have also missed my point… encouraging people to contact importers directly and research for themselves, not taking them or anyone just at their word. I agree people should make up their own minds.
    I hope my tone doesn't come across as mean spirited or nasty, I must admit when you post replies to me I find myself feeling attacked by you Linda and I struggle to not be defensive, I guess you and I just rub each other the wrong way. I certainly can live with the fact not all of us see eye to eye.
    My commenting on Rose Marie is also not intended to be a personal attack, I seriously feel empathy for her health issues, but I do think this is too important an issue to not consider everything involved.
    So sorry list members if I sound like I'm picking on Rose Marie, I just wanted to clarify who I was speaking of to avoid all the stepping around and risking offense to the wrong people. As I said I'll take my lumps for this because I believe its important to our breed.

  • Therese, I respect that you have just said what you mean directly without walking on eggshells. This sounds like a confusing issue for many (I'm not a member yet but the form is in the mail to Andrea) and coming directly to the point for your questions makes sense. I did not read your post as an attack, but rather just getting an issue (the elephant in the living room, as they say) out in the open. Is this the correct forum for that? I don't know but your questions, and LVOSS replies, have been very educational for me. I was lucky enough to have a friend who got a pup from the first '88 imports, I remember seeing that original video of the African pups as they were being selected, so have been interested in the details of how it all happens.

    Thanks for being brave enough to start an 'explosive' but interesting thread.

  • Therese, IMO, you posts have been accurate in all regards.

  • The official BCOA website is a wealth of information about basenjis, for both BCOA members and non-BCOA folks. Lots and lots of great information about basenjis, past, present, and as many of us hope, future!

    A lot of information, including answers to questions posed in this thread about the process of admitting imported Native Stock dogs is on the site, available to everyone. Lots of pertinent information to read and digest!

    There are contacts for the Co-Chairs of the Native Stock Committee, although individual members of the committee are not listed nor their contact information. Contact information for individual BCOA members in contained in the BCOA Roster. The online access to the roster is restricted to BCOA members only; the hardcopy of the current year membership is mailed directly to members.

    Katy Scott

  • Due to multiple complaints this post is closed pending further investigation.

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 29
  • 13
  • 34
  • 6
  • 12