@Kembe 1 hardly any podengo dna on file and honestly the guess your breed tests are just that. Phot in field looks more podengo Close up basenji. Enjoy your dog. Fyi I raised basenjis since 1982 and Podengo grande since 2007
Is my basenji from a legit breeder?
-
One comment I will make is that I think it is very, very important that if you have a Basenjis that can be registered with AKC that you do so. In fact, I pay and send in all the registations on any of my puppies. It is importand I think to the breed to have a record, a complete record of all breedings and all dogs produced.
ComicDom1 is correct, PuppyMills and BYB's can register AKC as long as they have paperwork AND… do the required DNA test for parentage when required for "frequent" breeders. Here is what AKC requires:
"Effective for litters whelped on or after July 1, 2000, AKC DNA Profiling is required if a stud dog is classified as a Frequently Used Sire, meaning that he has produced seven or more litters in his lifetime or more than three litters in a calendar year."
I only wish they had a requirement for bitches.
But you will find that responsible breeder DNA AKC test regardless.And it is pretty hard to come up with a description of a BYB, IMO... but I do agree that just because they might use AKC doesn't make them responsible.
-
Meandi, the AKC does open the stud books, very rarely, to new dogs such as what you're talking about. I believe the books have been open to imports brought out of Africa twice in the last 50 years, so it doesn't happen often, but with more well known breeds with more non-related dogs, the books are even open less often.
While what Michael has said is true, what I do not understand at all, is why the AKC does not open the books, on the case by case basis for Basenji's that are Fanconi free, and DNA tested to assure they are pure bred and genetically sound?
Also, I think the AKC could and should set some standard requiring that any breeder produce these heath records to be placed on file at the AKC on a periodic basis. Along with that the AKC's refusal to register Dog's of any Breed with indicated and confirmed health problems would be of great benefit. Unless I am wrong the AKC already requires all AKC registered dogs to be chipped. If not then this certainly would be a good and safe practice and new certified dogs could be included.
If the AKC is really dedicated to protecting the health and well being of all dogs, as well as the sport of purebred dog as they say in their published Mission statement then they certainly would not object to anything I have written here. If they do then one would certainly wonder about what AKC's underlying purpose really is and of those who support that organization.
If AKC Breeders are really responsible and care as much about the betterment of their breed, and the prevention of health issues of the breed or breeds as they claim, then why in the world would they have any objection to what I have proposed here?
While I certainly agree that not every AKC registered Basenji should not be bred unless they offer something for the betterment of the Breed, I would like to point out, that a process such as I described would add to the limited gene pool of healthy breeding stock. From what I understand, the reason the AKC books have been opened at all for imported African Basenji stock is because of a dwindling breeding stock of Basenji's related to health issues. Why not take the same advantage of certifying healthy Basenji's, that already exist in the US, that were previously unregisterable for one reason for the other. I find this scenario similar to people who want to adopt a child going to outside the US when there are plenty of children who need homes here!
I will admit that I am biased in my questions because I have beautiful Male Basenji puppy who has tested Fanconi Clear, has his Patella's checked, and I willing to do any testing necessary to satisfy the AKC. Although I know I can go to a responsible breeder and most likely obtain an AKC registered dog, it is a shame and a waste when a good quality dog becomes a genetic dead end simply because of paper work, when all the scientific ability exists to prove both Pure Bred Status and genetic soundness by DNA!
Miranda and I do have plans to neuter our dog after we feel he has reached maturity, we are still saddened by the genetic dead end that this represents.
Jason
-
As a member of the BCOA Native Stock Committee and the person assigned to looking into the exsistence of DNA testing for proof of breed identity, I will say that at this time there is no DNA test in existence that can prove a dog is purebred. The current technology can tell if a dog shares markers in common with different known breeds of dogs but can not tell if that dog is purebred. The technology is just not there at this point in time.
Next, in the basenji breed there are currently only 2 hereditary disorders that have a DNA based test, those are Pyruvate Kinase Deficiency referred to as both PKD and HA, and Fanconi Syndrome. All other known inherited diseases in basenjis have health tests that should be done to determine the status of the parents but do not tell you the genetic make up of the dog. The best guidelines for breeders are published on the OFA website and have been shown to work very well when employed by breeders to decrease the incidence of genetic disease where no DNA test is available. These methods require both depth and breadth of health testing in the pedigree to make educated choices.
Honestly, I see no good reason for AKC to open their stud books up to dogs born in the US of US born parents that are "purebred" basenjis but are not of AKC registered parents. These dogs are not AKC registered because at some point in time some one decided they did not want them AKC registered and often that is because they broke AKC's rules which really are not there to ensure that the dogs are healthy but are there to ensure the integrity of AKC's parentage database. So any who has dogs that are not recent imports, that are not AKC registered really need to consider that though their dogs may be 100% basenji, some where back there someone didn't want to play by AKC's rules for whatever reason and one of those reasons might be that they didn't know the real parentage of a breeding.
Also, everyone really needs to remember that AKC is just a registering body. That is all, they do not in any way take into consideration health of the dogs being bred. All someone has to do is make sure both parents are AKC registered and that if they male is frequently used he is DNA tested, in order to register dogs with AKC.
Quality is determined by the standards of the breeder. It is up to the buyer to do their homework and learn what health tests are common in the breed they are considering, to learn about what socialization is required for a well adjusted puppy, and learn about what AKC, OFA, and other acronyms really mean. The quality of breeders is really a spectrum rather than a series of points. That is why it is difficult to come up with a clear cut definition of Responsible, BYB, Puppymill, etc.
Most define the basics of resposible to be
1. Will take back the puppy at any age for any reason
2. Sells pets on limited registration, requires spay/neuter of non breeding animals
3. Co-owns and mentors with any person who buys a show dog
4. Does the minimum health testing for the breed (this where some gray area comes in because different people are going to define this differently)
5. Socializes the puppies and is well versed in puppy developmentThere are probably more things but these are the ones that immediately come to mind.
-
As a member of the BCOA Native Stock Committee and the person assigned to looking into the exsistence of DNA testing for proof of breed identity, I will say that at this time there is no DNA test in existence that can prove a dog is purebred. The current technology can tell if a dog shares markers in common with different known breeds of dogs but can not tell if that dog is purebred. The technology is just not there at this point in time.
Next, in the basenji breed there are currently only 2 hereditary disorders that have a DNA based test, those are Pyruvate Kinase Deficiency referred to as both PKD and HA, and Fanconi Syndrome. All other known inherited diseases in basenjis have health tests that should be done to determine the status of the parents but do not tell you the genetic make up of the dog. The best guidelines for breeders are published on the OFA website and have been shown to work very well when employed by breeders to decrease the incidence of genetic disease where no DNA test is available. These methods require both depth and breadth of health testing in the pedigree to make educated choices.
Honestly, I see no good reason for AKC to open their stud books up to dogs born in the US of US born parents that are "purebred" basenjis but are not of AKC registered parents. These dogs are not AKC registered because at some point in time some one decided they did not want them AKC registered and often that is because they broke AKC's rules which really are not there to ensure that the dogs are healthy but are there to ensure the integrity of AKC's parentage database. So any who has dogs that are not recent imports, that are not AKC registered really need to consider that though their dogs may be 100% basenji, some where back there someone didn't want to play by AKC's rules for whatever reason and one of those reasons might be that they didn't know the real parentage of a breeding.
Also, everyone really needs to remember that AKC is just a registering body. That is all, they do not in any way take into consideration health of the dogs being bred. All someone has to do is make sure both parents are AKC registered and that if they male is frequently used he is DNA tested, in order to register dogs with AKC.
Quality is determined by the standards of the breeder. It is up to the buyer to do their homework and learn what health tests are common in the breed they are considering, to learn about what socialization is required for a well adjusted puppy, and learn about what AKC, OFA, and other acronyms really mean. The quality of breeders is really a spectrum rather than a series of points. That is why it is difficult to come up with a clear cut definition of Responsible, BYB, Puppymill, etc.
Most define the basics of resposible to be
1. Will take back the puppy at any age for any reason
2. Sells pets on limited registration, requires spay/neuter of non breeding animals
3. Co-owns and mentors with any person who buys a show dog
4. Does the minimum health testing for the breed (this where some gray area comes in because different people are going to define this differently)
5. Socializes the puppies and is well versed in puppy developmentThere are probably more things but these are the ones that immediately come to mind.
Ivoss,
If there is no DNA test in existence that can prove a dog is purebred and the current technology can only tell if a dog shares markers in common with different known breeds of dogs but can not tell if that dog is purebred, and if the technology is just not there at this point in time, then how are the imported African Basenji's that the AKC agreed to open their stud books for, any different than any other unregisted Basenji, that might already exist in the US? Certainly there are other breeds of dogs that exist in Africa.
Respectfully,
Jason -
The Native Stock Project's website is located at, http://www.basenji.org/NativeStock/ImportIndex.htm
All the information about the project is there including the process for applying and acceptance of Native Stock.
The big differences between Native Stock imported from Africa and an unregistered dog bred in the US is the isolation of the breeding population and new stock from Africa are new Founders. One factor that weighs heavily into the acceptance process is the provenance of the import. Does the BCOA Board and ultimately the BCOA membership feel that the dog not only looks and acts like a basenji but comes from an area isolated enough that there is a high likelihood that the dogs are pure basenji. Another difference is that any US born unregistered "basenji", does not really offer any new genes to our genepool because they come from the original founders of our breed. Dogs imported from isolated areas of Africa that are most likely to be purebred basenjis offer the breed new Founders which is a very significant and important difference, they represent truly new genes to the genepool not just a different combination of the same old genes.
-
I totally agree with lvoss… as stated any Basenji in the US has come from original stock included but certainly not limited to the very first Avongara Basenjis. And as lvoss also correctly stated, there are many other things to consider other then two DNA tests... and things that are only known by knowing the parents, grandparents, offspring and siblings. I can show anyone that would like to see... a wonderful Basenji with a great temperament... she was bred to a pretty strong dog and the resulting pups are of the sire's side of the pedigree. Had I not known that side of the pedigree (sire's side) and just continued to breed, I could have had produced pups with horrible temperaments... liken to the Basenjis of 40yrs ago. When you don't know what is back in the pedigree then you are breeding in the dark.. just because you have a "nice" dog, doesn't mean that is what it will produce... and that includes things like Hip problems, Thyroid problems, problems with bad bites to name a few.
And while the new imports are mostly in the same boat, they will be selectively bred to find out what possible problems there could be... on the other hand if bred to current Basenji stock, the health is known on that side.
-
So basically one of the major factors considered when planning to import Basenji's from Africa was not based on an absolute, but an assumption of what would highly likely.
I think it is known, that statically there is a margin of error involved in any assumption that is highly likely. Animals have a tendency to go where the food is, so that does bring up other factors.
I am sure the BCOA is very aware of this and has researched it thoroughly.
Miranda and I can see that probably the most significant difference noted is that the Native stock imported from Africa are new founders and bringing some diversity to the gene pool.
While Miranda has been able to find a few companies that do DNA testing in an attempt to identify dog breeds, only one offered any quantification of specific breed makeup, and even this company only offered up to 75% confirmation with their existing test. Most likely there are others companies who's percentages might be different, that do similar testing we have yet to discover. Hopefully the confidence level of these tests will improve as time goes on and this issue can be revisited.
Jason
-
The Native Stock Project's website is located at, http://www.basenji.org/NativeStock/ImportIndex.htm
All the information about the project is there including the process for applying and acceptance of Native Stock.
The big differences between Native Stock imported from Africa and an unregistered dog bred in the US is the isolation of the breeding population and new stock from Africa are new Founders. One factor that weighs heavily into the acceptance process is the provenance of the import. Does the BCOA Board and ultimately the BCOA membership feel that the dog not only looks and acts like a basenji but comes from an area isolated enough that there is a high likelihood that the dogs are pure basenji. Another difference is that any US born unregistered "basenji", does not really offer any new genes to our genepool because they come from the original founders of our breed. Dogs imported from isolated areas of Africa that are most likely to be purebred basenjis offer the breed new Founders which is a very significant and important difference, they represent truly new genes to the genepool not just a different combination of the same old genes.
Is it possible that this answer could be made into a sticky?
Thanks
Jason -
Since we have sort of hi-jacked this thread, I have created a new one in the genetics section if people want to continue the discussion on Founders and Genetic Diversity, http://www.basenjiforums.com/showthread.php?p=50863#post50863
-
Hey Meandi,
I just hopped onto this discussion. My mom was considering breeding her chihuahua with one of her friend's dogs, just to make some extra money and to have puppies (everyone loves puppies!) and I sent her to this website which helped to change her mind (her dog is now altered, yay!). It's from a labrador breeder, but the idea behind it is still spot-on.
http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/breeding/breeder2.html
Here is another one (not quite as snarky!) which I believe is from a Shiba Inu breeder
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/1867/breeding.html
This has a spot close to my heart, because the dog that we are fostering is from a backyard breeder (she was used as a puppy-maker). I know that if you were to breed you would treat your dog better than that, so please don't take offense. If you truly want to breed your dog, please research your dog's heritage, and find a responsible basenji breeder that could be your mentor. Learn, learn, learn as much as you can from them.
I hope this all doesn't sound mean but please be so careful. Are you ready to be there for all of the puppies you produce from cradle to grave? A responsible breeder is there for the owners throughout the lifetime of the puppies they produce. Many are willing to help train and show the puppies as well, free of charge. Those of us in rescue see so many purebred dogs coming through… It's just so sad. In my opinion (take it or leave it!) only the very best of the best dogs ought to be bred. As for all of the other dogs, there are so many dogs out there needing good homes, why add to the problem?
-
I was reading through this post and remember when I joined a couple years ago. I felt the same way about people who are breeders. I have learned that at least the breeders here are unique to what I have seen all my years in vet practice. They really breed for the betterment of the breed. If you look at the cost they put into these pups and parents, there is no way they are recouping all their money. Especially if these dogs come back. Please respect the breeders that we have on here and take their advice to heart. They are not trying to make you feel bad about your purchase but educate you as to what pup you have and what you need to do to keep it healthy.
-
well im not going to breed my dog i was making a fact that to one of the members on here that i could breed my dog if i wanted to, and i could breed her only for money purposes too if i wanted. Im not going to i was just trying to make a point that shes my dog. Cause i believe the member of this forum said "just to have puppies is not a good enough reason for a responsible breeder"
-
And her point was that "just because I can" does not and will not make it a responsible decision. I don't think you made any point other than any one with an intact dog can produce puppies it does not mean those puppies will have homes, be healthy, loved, or cared for. It does not make that person responsible.
No responsible breeder breeds a litter just because they can. Responsibly bred litters are bred only after planning, health testing, screening homes, etc. They are bred purposefully with goals beyond putting money in someone's pocket.
-
Exactly, lvoss…. anyone can breed just "because"... it is the right thing to do... IMO... NO.. it is not... people that breed need to have the right reasons... not just to have puppies to sell, because you need to be responsible for every single pup.. for its entire lifetime... and getting money for those pups is not the objective of a responsible breeder.
