Welks

[Borbasuk]

Per the Kennel Gazette, we have lost our CCs at WELKS for 2012.

[tanza]

@Borbasuk:

Per the Kennel Gazette, we have lost our CCs at WELKS for 2012.

For us show folks in the USA… can you explain what that means?

[Borbasuk]

The KC review the allocation of Challenge Certificates annually, on the basis of factors such as recent show entries (the more popular breeds have a lot more sets). They have removed the allocation of CCs from the WELKS championship show (there may or may not be breed classes without CCs) not because they had especially bad entries but for geographical and date reasons (we lost Leeds this year). We will be down to 17 sets for 2012 I believe.

[Benkura]

WELKS is another fairly 'Northern' show. I canaccess it fairly easily from up here in the frozen north! All it means is that now I either do far less showing or take more holidays to travel even further south to show. WELKS was 9 hours drive as it was!!!

[JISGARD]

That’s a shame as the entries have general been up since Southern Counties this year, with the exception of the NBS & E of E. I away enjoyed Welks in the past, one year there was a tremendous snow storm and we had to leave the caravan there and collect it the next weekend. We thought that there had been lightning in the night only to find that power lines had come down on the show ground and they were arcing causing the flashes!

[Borbasuk]

Funnily enough, WELKS is one of the easier ones for me too. Certainly not one I would have wanted to lose, given the choice.

[Patty]

A shame about WELKS which is one of my favourite shows, being one of my nearest too. I am a member of WELKS and am very put out about Basenjis losing tickets there but of couirse we have got away with too many sets of CCs for the number of registrations for a long time now.

[Maya]

Thats a shame. WELKS is one of my favourites too, and not just because i only live 10 mins from the showground Hopefully if numbers continue to improve we might get them back for future shows?

[Borbasuk]

It's possible we may get the set of CCs back but there is no guarantee that it will be WELKS that will get them unfortunately.

[basi]

That's a shame though it isn't a show I have ever gone to with the B's just the Buhunds. Ahh the KC and it's wisdom:rolleyes:

[Elscodobermann]

Thats a real shame about WELKS - always enjoyed that show. Dont you think that the KC is reacting a bit quick to take away CCs? What is the reason for the Basenji entries falling so much? I know they are falling in all breeds due to credit crunch etc. But i was under the impression (correct me if im wrong) that perhaps so few basenji litters have been bred in past few years because of uncertainty relating to Fanconi. Now that the test has been available to a couple of years, more people are aware of their dogs status and can plan a "safe" breeding accordingly. Just for talking round the ring at Bournemouth i heard of at least a couple of breeding plans - surely things are on the up - numbers wise anyway?

[Patty]

Scott -UK Basenji registrations have been falling over several years - indeed before any concerns had been raised about Fanconi. These concerns mainly arose when some people became more involved with the USA and realised what a problem there was over there. Fanconi syndrome has occurred in the past but not to a great extent. However carriers must have existed, one assumes, and without the syndrome frequently appearing. I obviously have bred carriers without any idea until the test has now shown that Nakura is a carrier and so her parents or at least one must have been a carrier. (I am now testing my senior dogs - not sent the swabs yet!) Most of my dogs have led long natural lives with few visits to the vet other than routine. One of the exceptions unfortunately was Nakura's mother but her death was related to her pregnancy). Hence the puzzle and I'm always amazed that people are not more concerned with the 'why' or 'how'.

Back to WELKS - there have generally been lower entries in Basenjis there compared to other major Champ shows even in the days of larger numbers bred. (Incidentally, I can remember when there were more Basenjis at Open shows than Beagles!!)

Basenjis have not been a popular breed in this country for some time although there have been peaks and troughs. Breeders are normally quite concerned about homing puppies and so no point in extensive breeding.

For some years now we have (for some reason) not had our tickets reduced but we all knew that this had to come. We have been very lucky as some of my friends in other breeds with much higher registrations have fewer tickets and always have this gripe with me. We have been accused of having friends in the KC!!!!

I hope that numbers are on the up but also hope that prospective homes increase! I presume that now all breeders will be endeavouring to have clear puppies not just a couple! Hopefully any way. There surely can now be excusesd for this not to be?

[Borbasuk]

@Patty:

We have been very lucky as some of my friends in other breeds with much higher registrations have fewer tickets and always have this gripe with me. We have been accused of having friends in the KC!!!!QUOTE]
Next time they mention this you can remind them that the CCs are allocated based on championship show entries over the previous two years, not on registration numbers.

[Borbasuk]

@Patty:

I hope that numbers are on the up but also hope that prospective homes increase! I presume that now all breeders will be endeavouring to have clear puppies not just a couple! Hopefully any way. There surely can now be excusesd for this not to be?

I can't speak for anyone else, but my feeling is that we should be firstly aiming to avoid producing any affected puppies, and secondly to maintain quality and genetic diversity. The latter will not necessarily be served by rushing too quickly to eradicate carriers, as we do not have enough Basenjis and especially good quality stud dogs tested clear to do this without creating a genetic bottleneck. In the longer term of course we want to eliminate the Fanconi gene entirely, but we want to make sure while we are doing it that we don't eliminate too many other desirable genes.

[Elscodobermann]

[QUOTE=Borbasuk;82628
Next time they mention this you can remind them that the CCs are allocated based on championship show entries over the previous two years, not on registration numbers.

Compared to other breeds there does seem to be a very high proportion of basenjis bred that go to show homes - does the breed as a whole perhaps not encourage pet owners enough?

And why are registrations at an all time low? any ideas?

[tanza]

@Borbasuk:

I can't speak for anyone else, but my feeling is that we should be firstly aiming to avoid producing any affected puppies, and secondly to maintain quality and genetic diversity. The latter will not necessarily be served by rushing too quickly to eradicate carriers, as we do not have enough Basenjis and especially good quality stud dogs tested clear to do this without creating a genetic bottleneck. In the longer term of course we want to eliminate the Fanconi gene entirely, but we want to make sure while we are doing it that we don't eliminate too many other desirable genes.

I totally agree as to 90% of breeders in the US…. and I believe around the world... the only thing that I would add is maintain temperaments also.

[Benkura]

My thoughts on the falling entries are as follows:

• Credit Crunch
• Poor Judges - same old judges round and round
• Same dogs winning at every show

I was regularly showing 4 dogs at shows, which can be at least 10% of entries sometimes. Now I am showing 1 or 2 and more and more shows I am choosing not to go to because let's face it, you can look at the judge scheduled to be judging and know who is going to win straight away. How many times are you right I ask? And before you think it's just sour grapes, it's not, as I know it goes on in a lot of breeds. There have been letters to say just that in dog papers over the past few months.

Just my opinion. I am entitled to it after all.

[Elscodobermann]

@Benkura:

My thoughts on the falling entries are as follows:

• Credit Crunch
• Poor Judges - same old judges round and round
• Same dogs winning at every show

I was regularly showing 4 dogs at shows, which can be at least 10% of entries sometimes. Now I am showing 1 or 2 and more and more shows I am choosing not to go to because let's face it, you can look at the judge scheduled to be judging and know who is going to win straight away. How many times are you right I ask? And before you think it's just sour grapes, it's not, as I know it goes on in a lot of breeds. There have been letters to say just that in dog papers over the past few months.

Just my opinion. I am entitled to it after all.

I actually meant falling registrations rather than entries - have amended my post.

Re same dogs winning at shows as a reason not to enter - surely the fact that same dogs win at a lot of shows should only be considered wrong if the dont infact deserve the award? If a top winner is bang on form and gets on a winning streak then yes, it gets a bit disheartening for us mere mortals plodding away - but thats dog showing for you. If you cant cope with it, dont do it.

I agree, there are poor judges out there and you are right - the only way to combat them is to vote with your feet.

[Patty]

Borbasuk - I don't think I'll do that (remind about entries rather than registrations) as they also regularly have more entries than we do and particularly some in the endangered British breeds who make a concerted effort to keep entries high!!

I agree with you about the possibility of losing desirable elements by eradicating carriers but this is dealt with by careful and considered breeding and as you say without rushing into decisions.

The problem in only using clear dogs would obviously limit the gene pool but this has already happened in the past by breeders going to the same dog without waiting to see the resulting offspring in his previous litters. Personally I don't advocate either. There is so much to be taken into consideration when breeding which makes it such a minefield and unfortunately we have so few really experienced dog people/stockmen to learn from.

Good quality is in the eye of the beholder!!

[Borbasuk]

@Patty:

Good quality is in the eye of the beholder!!

Whatever we perceive as good quality, we still don't have enough clear dogs to choose from in this country to remove carriers from the breeding pool at this stage. That is my opinion and of course those who will not breed carriers are entitled to theirs.