That is correct.
–-> Debra, that was a great post, thank you! It helps me understand your passion about rescues.... you are so right that people will look at some pups and see livestock, while others just see wagging tails.
And since I'm not a breeder, I googled Avuvis to see what I could find. I'm not endorsing this person, but here is a blog site about basenjis. There are several you tube videos from Africa with basenjis in them that I look forward to watching tonight.
http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2010/04/basenjis-diamonds-and-magic-meat.html
Ohhh boy… I was intending to bring up T-man's Basenji-related posts in the "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" thread, because some of what he says dovetails with what I think Harrison is saying in her blog posts/articles, particularly about the supposed commonality of Basenjis on their native continent... except T-man is much more polemic about his position and his use of data and argument style is so infuriating, I didn't know where to start.
But it's 5 AM where I'm at and my brain's already half-rotten from paper writing, so I'll have to come back to this later when I'm more level-headed. (He's definitely provocative, that's for sure, moreso in his other Basenji posts.)
LOL, sometimes you know that the mental state of a person is such that you are spitting in the wind to try to converse… such is blowhard-knowitall Terrierman. Not worth reading.
You are right that term Avuvi is used to describe a breed of African dog that is separate from Basenjis. There are several people including Manu that have Avuvi dogs and do not claim that these dogs are Basenjis but are a related breed with some similar traits but some distinct differences. Then there is a group of people in the US that imported dogs that they at first termed Avuvis and at first did not claim they were basenjis though they did not claim they were not basenjis. Later an organized import effort was made and the importers decided that they would like to see recognition of their "avuvis" as basenjis.
There is still much controversy in the basenji community about whether these dogs are their own distinct breed or if they are basenjis. As of right now, none have been put through the approval process outlined by BCOA and approved by AKC to be recognized as basenjis.
I don't know anything about the Avuvis, but I googled them and found some pics.. and I have to say.. some of them look Basenji enough to me.. am I wrong? What about, for example, Avuvi Afonhaan?
"Extra" 3 dogs? Was this litter planned at all with a list of perspective buyers? It makes my heart sink to hear these little lives considered "extra", which to me comes across as "unintended" or considered "throw aways".
I am confused, are they or are they not basenjis?…Some of them look the part but others don't...and even on Avuvi 2009 facebook page ( i.e Rose Marie H), it states that they are pretending to be basenjis...? well if they are basenjis why "pretend" to be like them..
Maybe I am having a serious blond moment..I have been known to have those..:)
I don't know anything about the Avuvis, but I googled them and found some pics.. and I have to say.. some of them look Basenji enough to me.. am I wrong? What about, for example, Avuvi Afonhaan?
Avuvi Afonhaan (aka Honey) was one out of that group that if she had been submitted for the stud books through the BCOA process, she more then likely would have been accepted. However that was never done by her owner. Remember all, not only do they need to be of Basenji Type, but need to have good temperaments, health testing, etc. So there was obviously some reason that this little bitch was never put up though BCOA to be judged and voted to be admitted to the stud books.
Avuvi Afonhaan (aka Honey) was one out of that group that if she had been submitted for the stud books through the BCOA process, she more then likely would have been accepted. However that was never done by her owner. Remember all, not only do they need to be of Basenji Type, but need to have good temperaments, health testing, etc. So there was obviously some reason that this little bitch was never put up though BCOA to be judged and voted to be admitted to the stud books.
Thank you for answering
I hope any African import that's Basenji enough (and ok healthwise etc) will be submitted, it would be an asset to the breed..
An extra question: would it be possible to admit her pups to the stud books?
Btw.. even if BCOA closes the stud books (which they shouldn't..), there are other countries where stud books are open 
I disagree, they should be closed after a period of time, IMO. And I disagree that any AF import, even of Basenji type should be accepted particularly if they do not have good temperatments. Breeders worked really hard on the temperament of Basenjis and many years ago most every judge in the show ring was very leary of even approaching them….
But you are correct, other countries could open their books, however I have yet to see anyone try and do so.... Then again, most of the imports are in the US
I disagree, they should be closed after a period of time, IMO. And I disagree that any AF import, even of Basenji type should be accepted particularly if they do not have good temperatments. Breeders worked really hard on the temperament of Basenjis and many years ago most every judge in the show ring was very leary of even approaching them….
But you are correct, other countries could open their books, however I have yet to see anyone try and do so.... Then again, most of the imports are in the US
I believe breeding in a completely closed population will cause problems in the long run.. And I agree that not every AF import should be accepted. That's why I said "any African import that's Basenji enough (and ok healthwise etc)". The etc covered the temperament
Belgium has an open stud book next to a 'closed' one. You only have to be a Belgian citizen and show your dog twice with the result "very good". Then you can submit your dog to the open stud book. You will have to breed it with dogs from the closed stud book and after 3 or 4 generations the offspring will be registered in the closed stud book. So it's not impossible. It does take some time
I think this BCOA/AKC process will get some new blood into the basenji lines, and help our breed. Back to this thread. Anyone who breeds "african's" who have not been accepted into BCOA are just breeding mixes. They might "catch" the uninformed re selling puppies, but the folks who love and know our breed will just see this as a way to
make some $$ on the backs of dogs. Yes, I said dogs, not basenjis.
I think this BCOA/AKC process will get some new blood into the basenji lines, and help our breed. Back to this thread. Anyone who breeds "african's" who have not been accepted into BCOA are just breeding mixes. They might "catch" the uninformed re selling puppies, but the folks who love and know our breed will just see this as a way to
make some $$ on the backs of dogs. Yes, I said dogs, not basenjis.
Several Africans that are now accepted in the studbook were bred before they were voted in and had their AKC registrations. I get your point but not everyone who has done this in the past is trying to be deceptive.
Ok, but if you go through the process first, doesn't that make it easier to tell who is legit and who isn't? just a question…breeding isn't my venue, so I don't know
Yes, it would make it easier. (I don't breed either.) I was just getting to the intentions. I think it's okay to breed an un-registered import if, for instance, you want to get an idea of what it will produce before pursuing entrance to the studbook. Of course, what you call those "dogs" until they are registered could be up for debate. I would hope the breeder who does this type of breeding would explain to their puppy buyers the situation so they are informed. But I think this, like the current posting, would be a relatively uncommon situation.
Here are my thoughts.
The original "basenji" was nothing more than a village dog that had similar type. Only the western world has "made" them what they are today where they can produce rather uniformly.
Every founder basenji - past and present - have come from areas that had dogs that were not what the founder thought were typical. Historical (and current) records show dogs that barked, had "funny" colors, had sickle tails, longer coat lengths, etc. What does this mean? It means our founder dogs were picked solely based on their phenotype as genotype would not be known until bred. Why would it be any different for people in the late 30's, early 40's then it would be for us now? IMO it would not be - we would still need to be picking foundation stock based on phenotype - trying to pick the closest that conforms to our man made breed standard - which can be rather hard when picking puppies; some of our original founders were I believe adults when chosen making a bit easier to see what you are going to get. This means I am not so quick to write off native dogs that do not 100% conform to the breed standard - esp. since I feel the breed standard was based more on our human founders preferences vs. reality. I mean if only 1 out of 10 native dog has a short back - what is the reality?
Until the stud books close and certain groups of dogs are either not presented and/or accepted the implication that there is something "wrong with them" is not kosher, IMO. Each group has done their own thing - some heavily health tested and bred to domestics, some heavily heath tested and bred only to others in their group, some have done bare minimum testing (from what I can see on OFA no eyes or hips on the parents) and have bred to their own group and some have done a bit of everything, and some are perhaps taking their time before presenting them to the BCOA for inclusion. I don;t really know so can not presume to speak for them.
In a world according to me - I think it would be a good thing to leave the stud book open indefinitely for native stock making sure that we have things in place - such as our current protocol - to make sure that not every dog born in Africa gets in. Due to conflict and strife in their native land it has been difficult if not downright dangerous to go back to get more native stock therefore our window of opportunity with regards to the AKC is closing rapidly!
As for Manu being an expert - can anyone show/list for me her credentials saying as much as I can not find anything on the 'net. As far as I know she is no more of an expert then Rose Marie - as both have been to Africa and both own Native dogs from a similar region. As always - I like to have as many facts as possible before leaping to a conclusion. Thanks.
I agree the stud book should be left open indefinitely. Anyway that will happen?
I agree the stud book should be left open indefinitely. Anyway that will happen?
Not unless BCOA petition's AKC to do so, but I seriously doubt that they would anyway… just my opinion, as it is my opinion that they should not be left open
AKC's communicated maximum length of time for the studbooks to remain open was 5 years, that is why that number was in the petition.
As a first step it would be great if more people were open about health testing results and actually did all of the health testing suggested. People can make more informed breeding decisions that way and possibly head off health issues down the road. More proactive and encompassing breeders education would be helpful too. If we don't improve issues like that and others, an indefinite influx of imports won't help a lot in the long run.
