TOP 5 MOST INFLUENTIAL STUDS and females of the last 20 yrs

Stud males, females , best famous basenji.
Please give information. Please intoduce with best pedigree lines, kennels in world.

Could you please clarify what you mean by most influential? Do you mean dogs who have produced the most champions? Or dogs that have influenced your breeding program? Or?

I think the dogs that are used most for breeding? That are in a lot of pedigrees of our B's?

If you are talking about shear number of puppies produced then I think that would would be Nate, Ch Akuaba's Tornado. He produced over 400 puppies before being diagnosed with Fanconi Syndrome.

Ivoss,

All I can say is, wow that is really tragic! My heart did a funny little dance when I read that, thinking about all the potentially affected dogs that were produced.

So glad we have means to test ahead breeding now. And glad my dog is clear, even though he has an Akuaba dog in his pedigree (cannot remember which one right now…having a blonde moment)

Sorry, but I ask for best reproducers and show dogs. It mean healthy dogs with hight show results and give hight quality puppy. I am not ask about how meny puppy dogs have.
In every breed have famous lines, what know all breeders.

Please help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)

Nate was used so much (38 breedings) because he was a great producer, he had many champions and is still behind many dogs in the show ring today. Many of the top producers have produced health issues. That is the problem with popular sire syndrome. Everyone breeds to a top winning dog and pretty soon the entire breed has that dog's problems whatever they are.

Some other well known and frequently used sires that are behind many dogs today would be Nate's Sire Changa's Gala Celebration (23 breedings), Nate's son Blucrest Bound for Reveille (15 breedings and sire to Zindika's Johnny Come Greatly), Jerlin's General Patton (31 breedings), Reveille's Boutonierre (28 breedings), Penda Taji's Tri-Umphant One (12 breedings)

Nate produced well to high-quality and even mediocre-quality bitches. He was an exemplary speicmen of the breed.

To NOT consider a dog as a top producer because he/she became affected with any disease is a disservice to the breed.
Every one of the dogs that Lisa mentioned has produced outstanding get, yet also has produced dogs that are affected with some health condition that we wouldn't necessarily "desire" to reproduce, be it Fanconi, Hip Dysplasia, PRA, etc.
Does that NOT make them a top producer ?? Heck NO!
If the quality of their get is still there, then they surely should be considered to be a top producer. If it were just high numbers, not quality, then no, they are not a top producer.

Especially some of these late-onset diseases, [excluding any breedings since the development of the fanconi linkage test], many many breedings have produced and the dog [sire or dam] was later found to be affected with X, Y or Z.

Too many people forget that is TAKES TWO TO TANGO! Don't blame it all on the stud or all on the bitch.
It gets tiring year after year hearing that Nate was responsible for all the Fanconi out there. Especially since there was fanconi for many many years before his time!

Nate is not responsible for all the Fanconi out there and there are plenty of studs and dams that have produced it that have no Nate in the pedigree but the fact that he was a good producer means that a lot of his kids were used in breeding programs and as we now know, every single one of them was at best a Carrier if not Affected themselves so his being so heavily used did effect the amount of Carriers in the population.

Again, this is the problem with ANY dog being used so much especially with so many health concerns being late onset where some people may be 2 or 3 generations down before they know they have a problem.

I am also sure there are dogs who were great producers but would never make anyone's top producer list because they just weren't used very frequently so didn't catch people's attention, doesn't mean they didn't produce well.

I'm only going to respond to the "best Basenji" part of the question and say that my favorite Basenji in the past 20 years is Am Ch. Zindika's Johnny Come Greatly. "Johnny" was, in my opinion, a near perfect example of the breed.

Johnny is gorgeous, thanks for the great picture Robyn!

I think Johnny was more influential in the Show Ring then breeding… at least IMO.

I tend to agree with Pat, he was not bred that much, but he (and Erin) did a fabulous job of demonstrating what Basenjis can do in the ring.

Terry

There is only one basenji that I consider the best,and he was Ch. Djakomba's Spotlight.
Spotty and me where best friends as he stayed with me while his owner,Doris used to go Globe Trotting.I also bred him to my bitch,Cookie 4x's.Had many wonderful pups by him.
Spotty produced 75 Champions.He had the most wonderful temperment and produced that in his pups.

This thread really made me go::eek::eek:

It can't be good for any breed, especially not a breed with a small genetic basis, to use a male THAT much..

@Jaroufa:

There is only one basenji that I consider the best,and he was Ch. Djakomba's Spotlight.
Spotty and me where best friends as he stayed with me while his owner,Doris used to go Globe Trotting.I also bred him to my bitch,Cookie 4x's.Had many wonderful pups by him.
Spotty produced 75 Champions.He had the most wonderful temperment and produced that in his pups.

I believe Roo is related to 'spotty.' He has a dog named Jaroufa's Light of Djakomba in his pedigree, as his great-grand-dam, I think. His temperament amazes us regularly. You could never hope to meet a more friendly and fun loving dog. He is not aloof in the slightest. Self-reliant, maybe, aloof, never.

He is certainly the most influential Basenji in MY world-view.

Randa

@Janneke:

This thread really made me go::eek::eek:

It can't be good for any breed, especially not a breed with a small genetic basis, to use a male THAT much..

We agree, it seems scary! Any dog bred that much seems excessive. It could be just asking for trouble. Certainly, in the wild, left to their own devices, no creature would be allowed to make such a extreme impact on the genes in the pool. We feel this artificially narrows the gene pool and is bound to have an adverse effect on the breed. Out in the wild, natural selection rules.

Would it not be more beneficial for any breed if the breeders would try to breed in a fashion more similar to natural selection? In other words, prohibit the overbreeding of any individual beyond what would be reasonable in the wild.

There are reasons why this is not encouraged, and in most cases prohibited within human cultures.

If the purpose of breeding is to reproduce and improve the finest traits and genetic characteristics of the breed, then doesn't massive repetition of breeding the same animal defeat that purpose since it doesn't add anything significantly new to the breed and it doesn't perpetuate those traits being carried forward in future generations.

This is an interesting question… breeding more isn't better in some cases.

Pretty loaded question…. and it is pretty hard to go back 20/30 yrs and talk about what "was" done... I think we need to look forward.... and what is the right thing to do... I doubt that you will ever get rid of the "popular" sire syndrome... but I certainly do not agree with it... Dogs like Spotty were way over used as were dogs like Nate... Of course now that we have a Fanconi linkage test, we can certainly improve the odds with producing Fanconi. Both lines produced it, there is no doubt about that. Same with dogs coming from Vikentor's Lucky Mountaineer and in some lines Kazor's Dandy Deerstalker, that were line bred and over used. However now we have a pretty common practice of collection and freezing males. It gives a better option of using different dogs to the breeders that are interested is expanding the gene pool with including the Avongara dogs in their breeding programs.

We need to look forward... but still look back as to what happened with the dogs used or over used... what did they do for the breed? And just because we have a linkage test for Fanconi, we still MUST be aware that there are other health concrerns in our breed, PRA comes to mind since we have no DNA test for that. Hips are beginning to be more of a problem.. and if you don't test, you don't know.... add to that Thyroid and Patella's... so much to condsider when breeding... and at the top of the list temperament.. but remember, you can breed what you think is the best temperament going.. but if that puppy is hurting physically.. it will NOT have a very nice temperament...

When air travel became more affordable so that people could more easily ship their bitch to a stud across the country, popular sire syndrome became a much larger problem.

Pat is right, we can not change what happened 20-30 years ago but we can learn from what has happened. We do need to be aware of popular sire syndrome and the damage it does to the gene pool. We used to have a lot more lines of basenjis then there are today. It can be hard to find pedigrees that do not have the dogs mentioned in this thread in them. Many have several of those dogs in their pedigrees.

We do need to be aware that there are several health issues in this breed and breed responsibly which means not using any one dog so much that you can't find a pedigree without it.

Looks like your connection to Basenji Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.