@chenke yes of course you can ! It is the work of a few seconds to change a photo once the program knows it needs to look for one.
A word from Susan Patterson re: Avuvi's
-
As for Linda's post… why are you bringing it all up again? Pat said the pups were listed. She said nothing else.
True. True. But why bring it up in the first place? When I asked myself that and came to an answer - I replied as I did. Having read what folks think about Marie ad nauseam - it makes it hard for me to believe there was any positive motivating factors in the post. So I got sarcastic. Felt good actually. :O)
But I will.. she is still listing under Basenji, she makes no note that they are NOT really basenjis and in fact lists herself as BCOA breeder when we all know this litter has nothing to do with BCOA….
Personally I think she has every right to call them whatever she wants to. As stated earlier - unless and until we have a DNA test that can 100% include or exclude these dogs as being basenji - we can only go by phenotype. And as there is no perfect basenji, having seen funny/furry coats, funny colors, sickle tails et al in domestic and/or BCOA accepted stock - she is not necessarily off base in calling them basenjis.
No, she does NOT list herself as a BCOA breeder.
What she has written is: "Home based occasional breeder. Member Basenji Club of America.Special interest in breeding Africans."
She is a BCOA member.
She goes on to say: "Current vaccinations, Veterinarian examination, Health certificate, Health guarantee, Pedigree
Additional information: AKA Spot. Vivi and her sister are hard to tell apart! Friendly to people already and holding their own or more with the boys. Unique pale red/white coloring. These Avuvi pups are 1-2 generations from Benin, Africa where dogs live with people who own them and they have jobs as hunters and watchdogs. In Africa they have to fend for themselves for some food and water. They tend to be very affectionate and loyal to their people - pack. They are not for everyone, but if you are right for them you will never have a better dog.
Email for more information. At 4 weeks they are playing with each other and humans and trying to play with the adults which is not well received!"
Further, she guarantees the health of the dogs that we all know she hasn't done the health testing on the parents.
Her idea of guarantee might not be your idea but that does not mean she is misrepresenting anything when she says it. To guarantee a product means to repair or replace or pay incidental costs. If she is willing/able to do this - she is not being misleading.
Sorry - I do not see anything wrong in what she is posting nor do I see her misrepresenting herself as we continue to imply she is.
(I hope this fits under Alex's guidelines. :O)
-
Folks,
Once again, please respect our forum guidelines. If you can not find a way to settle your differences of opinion in a civilized manner, our advice is to leave this topic alone.
Repeat offenders are going to be treated with a permanent forum ban.
But he/she started the fight by attacking me! Can't I defend myself?
This is a forum for the discussion of Basenjis, not a dueling society. If you feel attacked, please report it to the admin and then ignore the poster. Remember, however much you were provoked, if you attack a poster personally then you are just as guilty of breaking the rules.
If you feel that you need stop posting for a while because of a conflict with other members, please step back and email us directly before posting publicly about the issue.
We created this rule to make sure Basenji Forums has a friendly environment for discussion about Basenjis, as well as to shield new members from any arguments that could be brewing in the community. Best way to comply with this rule is to just let it go and move on.
Where is it written that MY comments get deleted, yet ppl libeling me have free run of this forum? I dont think it is necessary to speculate about my ad - go look at it yourself and if you are a serious buyer, you can ask me anything and I will tell you everything, asked or not.
Marie
-
Oh, I'm so disappointed I missed an oppertunity to see Honey when she was out here. I have greatly admired pics of her. I'll second what Andrea said in wishing Susan all the best in her personal life and in getting her pups put through the process of AKC registration. I'm not really sure why the lack of pics from one pup would cause the process to slow/halt as most of the dogs submitted have 0 pups to their name.
There are 4 pups from one litter and several pups from the second 2006 litter. That's 4 of the 5 intact 2004 imports that have litters.
Further, I have 3 pups from a litter of my Avuvis, but one is a 2006 pup, so only one of the Avuvi 2009 with pups to track down
-
Not sure what your point is…. All I said was that there is a reason, I never stated that I had any idea why, be it good, bad, indifferent... It was RMH that assumed that I was saying there was a "bad" reason they have not been submitted... not me. And I think Honey is very much Basenji Type.
And to email her and give her "your" impression of what was implied is improper at best. Again, I point out, I said nothing about her bitch, her conformation, her health testing, etc... only that "obviously" there was a reason that she had not been submitted... it was others that put words in my "mouth"... making it look as if I thought there was a "bad" reason.
In the end, I really have no interest in these particular imports and if submitted they would be judged as all the others have. IMO until they are admitted to the Stud Books they should be referred to as something other than Basenjis.
United Kennel Club may beg to differ. They also register "Basenjis" and all the 2004 imports are so registered. It;s kind of a strange argument - I list my dogs under "Basenjis" so people who are interested in such dogs have a chance of finding them. Everyone who expresses interest knows what he or she is getting from the first moment we have contact.
-
Okay first, I also "read" the indication that there was some REASON Honey wasn't submitted with an inference, intended or not, that there was something wrong with her. I thought the implication was pretty darned strong…so am glad to have it cleared up.
As for Linda's post... why are you bringing it all up again? Pat said the pups were listed. She said nothing else.
But I will.. she is still listing under Basenji, she makes no note that they are NOT really basenjis and in fact lists herself as BCOA breeder when we all know this litter has nothing to do with BCOA but her listing it makes it seem so,and will have weight with the uneducated who go there for finding a dog. Further, she guarantees the health of the dogs that we all know she hasn't done the health testing on the parents.
And I find the colors a bit startling.
I wish her the best of luck, I wish those pups the best of homes, and I don't care to rehash the other thread. Life to me is pretty basic. You don't test before breeding, you aren't responsible and no dancing undoes that. You advertise dogs as one thing hoping to snare the unsuspecting, you aren't responsible. I judge the actions of people and anyone who pretends they don't judge others is a liar. We ALL make judgments, it is the basis for decision making.
The large range of natural colors of the basenji were severely culled from the beginning. You can tell this by looking at the standard and seeing what is specifically pointed out as undesirable. Or you can read VTW. Those are traits that were seen in nature and not desired by the Victorian show breeding class. Brindle used to be one of them.
No one gets a dog that doesnt understand 100% what they are getting. i take back and I dont really want to have to take back.
-
Nay Marie - yours are not the only posts to be deleted. My dripping in sarcasm post seems to have disappeared into thin air - luckily I have a copy of it if anyone cares to know what we are replying too. Nothing more absurd (or confusing) then to read replies to things that are no longer there.
Silly really we have to have a moderator step in to take care of things as though we are children vs the adults I thought we all were. And as you say - only certain posts from certain folks are targeted. Double tsk.
-
With out the dripping sarcasm - should make this a legal post:
Not sure what your point is…. All I said was that there is a reason, I never stated that I had any idea why, be it good, bad, indifferent... It was RMH that assumed that I was saying there was a "bad" reason they have not been submitted... not me. And I think Honey is very much Basenji Type.
I never said you specifically stated anything. However the implications were certainly there, in many of the postings not just yours, for people (sans Marie) to fill in the blanks and think badly or negatively about the reasons why they have not been submitted. I know how I read it and know from several private exchanges I was not the only one. Therefore I personally felt the need to find out vs just taking said implications as being based on any kind of fact.
And to email her and give her "your" impression of what was implied is improper at best.
I disagree. Whose impression should I give but my own?? How else does one start a conversation or query if not to give a bit of background based on my thoughts? Would you rather I send her a 'copy and paste' of all the posts and let her judge for herself? I would be more than happy to - folks just need to give me permission to do so and it is done!
Again, I point out, I said nothing about her bitch, her conformation, her health testing, etc… only that "obviously" there was a reason that she had not been submitted... it was others that put words in my "mouth"... making it look as if I thought there was a "bad" reason.
Again - I never gave her particulars of who said what only what this readers overall impression was. And while I agree you never "said" anything per se, IMO, writing an open ended statement such as "obviously there was a reason she was not submitted" leaves much for the reader to fill in - which is of course where implications et al come in.
[qoute] In the end, I really have no interest in these particular imports and if submitted they would be judged as all the others have.
And THAT is the beauty of living in a world we do - interest is not forced on those who have none. I think that was KathyB's point - if they are not your cup o'tea - then you never have to use them but don't take away or make the decision for someone else who might have an interest.
Thanks for your reply Lisa. I will send along what you have written. Good stuff to know. I did not take her questions re: offspring to be "putting words" in anyone's mouths but I know we all read things how we see things.
Thanks too aAndrea - will be sure to send your positive thoughts to Susan as well.
-
Nay Marie - yours are not the only posts to be deleted. My dripping in sarcasm post seems to have disappeared into thin air - luckily I have a copy of it if anyone cares to know what we are replying too. Nothing more absurd (or confusing) then to read replies to things that are no longer there.
Silly really we have to have a moderator step in to take care of things as though we are children vs the adults I thought we all were. And as you say - only certain posts from certain folks are targeted. Double tsk.
Heh! Kind of a waste of good material (sarcasm) but c'est la vie.
I dont say much about my dogs bc I see no reason to talk to anyone but buyers and co breeders and folks who are genuinely interested. I'm not exactly sure I have seen moderation done in precisely this way, but WTH.
-
With out the dripping sarcasm - should make this a legal post:
I never said you specifically stated anything. However the implications were certainly there, in many of the postings not just yours, for people (sans Marie) to fill in the blanks and think badly or negatively about the reasons why they have not been submitted. I know how I read it and know from several private exchanges I was not the only one. Therefore I personally felt the need to find out vs just taking said implications as being based on any kind of fact.
I disagree. Whose impression should I give but my own?? How else does one start a conversation or query if not to give a bit of background based on my thoughts? Would you rather I send her a 'copy and paste' of all the posts and let her judge for herself? I would be more than happy to - folks just need to give me permission to do so and it is done!
Again - I never gave her particulars of who said what only what this readers overall impression was. And while I agree you never "said" anything per se, IMO, writing an open ended statement such as "obviously there was a reason she was not submitted" leaves much for the reader to fill in - which is of course where implications et al come in.
[qoute] In the end, I really have no interest in these particular imports and if submitted they would be judged as all the others have.
And THAT is the beauty of living in a world we do - interest is not forced on those who have none. I think that was KathyB's point - if they are not your cup o'tea - then you never have to use them but don't take away or make the decision for someone else who might have an interest.
Thanks for your reply Lisa. I will send along what you have written. Good stuff to know. I did not take her questions re: offspring to be "putting words" in anyone's mouths but I know we all read things how we see things.
Thanks too aAndrea - will be sure to send your positive thoughts to Susan as well.
The original tanza post is still up and Susan et al can make their own decisions about implications.
-
Hi Patty,
If you are really interested in knowing the answer I would highly suggest ask the folks that are responsible for the Benin Avuvi's. So as not to post their private info to a public group -email me and I can send you contact info. Or if you are a BCOA member - look up: Susan Patterson, Anne Humphries and Brenda Greenberg Jones and drop them a line or give them a call. (I do not not include Marie cuz we know where she is and how to locate. I do not include Robert cuz I have no contact info for him but the others might) IMO, they are the only ones who can answer that question fully - the rest of us can only speculate and to be honest I would rather listen to fact than speculation.
As for Avuvi's being a distinct breed with the AKC - I am not sure what you mean unless you are refrring to the Avuvis of which Manu has written? If yes - I seem to recall Marie stating that Manu's dogs are not the same as the Benin but confusingly they share the same name so perhaps that is where the problems arise?
<shrug>I do not know but until such time that 1) they do not submit the dogs and the studbook is closed or 2) they submit but are denied - we can not say unequivaclly what they are or are not as there is no genetic test to prove or disprove otherwise.
Sure we can have our opionions but that is all it is - our opinion and only worth the monitor we type it on.
Again - go to the source(s) if you are truly interesrted.</shrug>
Avuvi is a fon word meaning Little Dog - it isnt the more common word for dog. Fons live along the West African Coast, in the southern part of several contiguous countries. North Benin has a whole different set of tribes and languages.
The name of Manu's dogs and our Benin dogs is coincidental to the fon language and the species (dog) and with Robert having contact with Manu. If you look at the BCOA guidelines for African imports you can see exactly where the Avuvis we speak of here are from. Manu has no connection with us. She did help out James J I believe with his dogs in a completely separate country/plan/expedition. Going back and googling Avuvi will bring in a lot of preliminary stuff by Robert, not necessarily relevant to the project related to the AKC/BCOA. This information can be used intentionally or unintentionally to confuse the picture and has been so use caution in interpreting it.
