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.
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?
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?
The African Stock Project is Basenji Club of America, it is not separate from the Parent club. It is not that unprecedented, however the Parent club has to petition AKC with the reasons, facts, what they hope to accomplish, why the need, etc…. AKC then votes on the merits of the project. It would never be AKC opening the stud books, because the Parent Club to all breeds is the "keeper of the flame" so to speak. So the African Stock Project has no relationship with AKC, as part of BCOA, it is the Parent Club that makes the rules and you can go and read the requirments to have new stock accepted into the stud books, it is totally the responsibility of the Parent Club.
I don't think that Basenji breeder's breed for a "curly tail".... Like anything else a breeder needs to know what they can or can not live with.... if they don't care for a loose tail, then they would more or less lean towards breeding to a line that consistantly has tighter tails. And in the end, it is really the "tailset" not the tail curl.
Pedigree dogs exposed caused a real stir over here but not having television I didn't see it at the time.
However in my opinion our KC has overreacted to the programme and rushed in measures without giving a lot of thought. All standards were amended to add an introductory paragraph about soundness and warning judges and breeders to avoid exaggerations detrinmental to health soundness etc. which really shouldn't have been necessarty. Some breeds standards were altered.
Not to say that this isn't good but in fact hass not made a world of difference.
Some breeders and judges are still getting away with breeding/awarding prizes to unsound dogs.
It's almost impossible to monitor this and in any case the KC doesn't have the resources to constantly do so.
Thank you for the link Curlytails, I know I'll find it interesting.
Re the curl - I don't imagine that the degree of tightness of curl referred to as occurring in pugs could ever occur in a Basenji. Yes I do know that some people try to breed for a tight curl but I've noticed that some of the better curls in the show ring here are not, in my opinion, correctly set. Set is a more important criteria I would say.
Thanks for the responses so far.
I think the show is worth watching, though it is a bit disturbing at times (it's only 50 minutes). I just checked, and the links Janneke posted are already dead, so I'll repost where I watched it:
You should be able to find parts 2 ~ 5 from that link. Anyway yes, it is a bit polemical and sensationalistic, but obviously it IS making people ask questions, as intended. Reactionary and quick-change kennel club standards just to meet short-term demands are disappointing, and so are people who cite this show as a reason to paint ALL breeders with the same brush, as I've seen others do. I've also seen people cite facts gleaned from this show as a reason to discount kennel clubs altogether – but is anarchic breeding without some kind of oversight organization really the way to go??
Is there an equivalent of the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals for the UK?
Hmm, I wonder if the OFA has a response to the show.
If I must try to salvage some good out of the bleak picture depicted, I think the show suggests that breed clubs band together in different ways. They feature the worst examples, but I know there must be good models of conscientious breed clubs that are willing to talk about and improve the health of the breed. Not all of them breed for exaggerated traits like the English bulldog, which they portray exactly as you mention, Debra. Not all of them can be blind to the extremes of the German Shepherd gait or the barely-breathing Pekingese. And I find it hard to believe that all breeders can be as prideful as some of the Cavalier King Charles breeders depicted.
(Also Debra, the rottweiler does get briefly mentioned in the show for temperament problems.)
Thanks for the clarification on Basenji tails. I think I see what you mean about "tail set" rather than tightness of curl. I did notice that the imports don't always have the same kind of double curl that I usually see in pet Basenji pictures.
Also curious to hear about how judges are trained to judge Basenjis or other breeds -- that's probably a whole topic in itself.
Yeah sorry I missed the akc question, but fyi.. Maine Coon cats opened theirs for a while because of severely limited gene pool. The parent club is in control, can't imagine AKC (and whoever is main stud book club for cats) not accepting a reasonable request.
The parent club is one in control which is why when the Dalmation club decided they didn't want the pointer crosses that were done to introduce the genes to produce non stone forming dogs, the AKC revoked all their registrations. It has severely fractured the Dalmation community. UKC has registered the dogs resulting from the cross.
I think the Basenji Club of America has done a good job of being proactive about issues like health and long term survivability of the breed. Funding genetic research, opening the studbook, encouraging all owners to participate in the canine phenome project to collect data about where the breed stands, and encouraging open and honest conversations about the issues in the breed. We may still have a ways to go but I think we are moving in a good direction.
I still haven't had time to watch the Pedigree Dogs Exposed link. (I'm not able to digest information quickly.)
But I've read back over the original posts in this thread and see that the early UK standard was mentioned and that it was based on the handful of imported dogs. In fact I must correct this as it's untrue. The earliest UK standard was drawn up by a panel, the majority members having been people that had experience of Basenjis in their native land and so were able to draw on all that experience to formulate a standard.
Thanks, this is all very interesting.
One reason the KC representative cited for not wanting to impose more strict testing requirements and requiring dogs to breed later is that he didn't want to "alienate" breeders – and send them to other kennel clubs?
I don't know if that's even a really viable option in the UK.
I know in the US we have the UKC, CKC, and APRI (the last of which I thought didn't actually host shows?). It seems like the UKC has limited cachet amongst certain breeds because they'll register breeds that the AKC doesn't recognize -- American Pit Bull Terriers, Klee Kai, I don't know what else. The Dalmatian's case adds something to my understanding of the UKC now. Goes to show that it's hard to see the whole picture even when you're looking down from the top level. More of the interesting stuff seems to be happening at the breed-specific level.
The CKC in the US is the Continental Kennel Club-a non reputable registry. APRI does hold dog shows and has for several years. APRI also advertises at the dog auction and has a table if that tells you anything! Another registry in the US is ACA-American Canine Association. I found out that the ACA now holds dog shows!
Jennifer
Curlytails - there are no other official registration bodies in the UK apart from the Kennel Club. There are a couple of unofficial ones but mainly for breeds which are not recognised by the KC
I forgot one other registry in the US that is sometimes used and that is UABR-United All Breed Registry. There are too many registries to keep track of!
Jennifer
Well, looks like the blog is ready to address Basenjis already. Here is an excerpt from her latest post, which was apparently originally published in the July issue of Dogs Today Magazine:
The story is repeated in many other breeds – with many top dogs siring hundreds and hundreds of puppies, blithely passing on horrific problems down the line. In fact, it’s happened no less than three times in the blighted Basenji – a breed that began with only a handful of founders (despite there being thousands of them in their native Africa). Of those, some were used far more heavily than the others and within a few years basenjis were dying from a horrible condition called haemolytic anaemia (also known as PKD). Fortunately, a DNA test was quickly developed. Unfortunately, breeders were so intent on cleansing the condition from the breed that they didn’t just stop breeding from affected dogs – they refused to breed from carriers too (which could have been bred safely to ‘clears’), rendering an already too-small gene pool even smaller. One of these dogs became a top AKC champion and had hundreds of puppies – only to be diagnosed when he was about eight years old with Fanconi Syndrome, a kidney condition that can be life-threatening. By then, Fanconi’s was widespread.
The same has happened with Progressive Retinal Atophy (PRA), too – a once rare, and blinding, condition now not so rare in the breed. In fact, the health problems in Basenjis have been so severe that the American Kennel Cub has sanctioned the import of a few more native dogs from Africa. Sadly, they have not been universally welcomed, especially by the breed purists who view the imports as mongrels.
In the Congo, the breed’s name translates as “village dog”. Doesn’t sound quite so grand now, does it? Although it many ways it should – the native Basenji is a triumph, a true survivor. And there’s a big lesson to be learned from them: the native Basenji is instantly recognisable and it breeds true – as is the case with other landraces, such as salukis, who have existed for hundreds and in some instances, thousands of years without help nor hindrance from kennel clubs or the show-ring.
Any thoughts? Responses? Does she have her facts straight? I'm especially curious about this insinuation that Basenjis are running all over the place in Africa, a dime a dozen, if you will…
I would encourage knowledgable folks to direct your comments to her on her blog as well, as it appears that she takes an active role in responding to information, keeping a discussion going.
I don't know if she has her facts straight, but I do agree with her when she says that it wasn't wise to only use HA clear dogs in such a small population. It would also be wrong to only use Fanconi clear dogs now. Last thing we should do is make the population even smaller and the inbreeding coefficient higher. A high inbreeding coefficient gives a higher chance for a recessive illness to come out and it is proven that a high inbreeding coefficient lowers the vitality and fertility of a breed. This is why I don't believe in strict linebreeding. Same for using popular sires over and over again. Just wrong. I would vote for a limit.
Testing is of course important, but even more important is honesty and openess. Publishing test results, but also causes of death, if known, would be helpful. And with deseases that show later in life it would be good to not only test before breeding, but also when the dog is older. And not only breeding stock, but also siblings. It gives valuable information for next generations. I think using breeding animals too young is another mistake. It would be wise to wait a couple of years before using both male and female dogs in breeding programs.
I don't know if there are that many Basenji's in Africa, but I do think we shouldn't stop importing new blood. They don't all have to be perfect in looks.. Our goal shouldn't be to breed the most perfect looking Basenji.. It should be to keep the breed strong and healthy, so they will still be around and live long lifes in, lets say, 200 years. If necessary, I wouldn't even mind mixing in a different breed once in a while..
I don't think you can blame the shows, but it wouldn't be wrong to maybe think about changing the concept.. It looks like titles blind people for making good choices.. maybe we should stop the competitive element and only judge the dogs, without placements and titles… Only written judge reports, so you know the strong and weak points of your dog..
I agree with you Janneke about HA, that was a really, really big mistake that knowing it was a recessive gene and then only use clears. If we did that with Fanconi we would find ourselves with the exact same problems. Of course there is alot more known about genetics now then back in the HA days, but still IMO, it was a mistake to only breed clears and throw out the carriers and affecteds.
There are only a few places left in Africia were you can really find Basenji "type" and I think that the ones that have recently been accepted into the stud books are fine examples of Basenji Breed Type. IMO, we should continue to look for those types and if found try to bring them into the breed. The stud books for AKC are only open for 5yrs and a few of those years are now passed. So I totally disagree with her statement about "hundreds of Basenjis running around Africia"… not true... there are many "village dogs" running around, but they are NOT Basenji type, IMO
I also agree that we use dogs too young, on the other hand, you can't wait that long to use a bitch (my preference is no younger then 3yrs with a bitch). With stud dogs, if you have a young dog with a long history of older living healthly, tested dogs in the pedigree and also siblings/offspring then I don't really has as much of a problem using those dogs at a young age.
Regarding PRA, I disagree with her assessment that implies that this is "running" out of control. Yes, it is a genetic concern and late onset. We do not at this time have a marker for testing. It is on the list (I believe at the top) as the next genetic concern the BCOA wants to address. Again, as said, testing is important and more important to have results published on a public database so that everyone has access to review. As they say, you can stick your head in the sand and say "not in my Basenjis", but if you don't test, you do not know.
Well, these "facts" are not quite correct and if you talk with the breeders who actually lived it, they will give a very different perspective.
First of all, it is important to realize that the first test for HA was NOT a gene test. It was a blood test that determined the production of red blood cells and then classified dogs as carriers and clear though there was overlap in the range of clear and carrier so dogs in that range were often treated as carriers "to be safe". This margin of error is one reason that breeders opted to only use dogs that were in the upper range and therefore a higher likelihood of Clear. When the actual DNA test was actually released many carriers had already been culled from the genepool based on the blood test.
Most long time breeders feel that air travel making it possible to ship bitches much easier was a much larger contributing to factor to the shrinking genepool since popular sire syndrome reached all time highs.
Secondly, about there being thousands of basenjis in Africa, I don't think there is any data support that number. It also does not take into account the difficulty of actually obtaining dogs from remote, genetically isolated regions in politically unsettled nations.
I think that basenjis can be an easy target for people trying to make a point because basenji breeders are open about issues because they have a real desire to do the best for the breed.
