@sharronhurlbut:

IMO, bringing in new blood from Africa is a good thing..

Agreed. As long as they are tested beforehand.
@tanza:

Please note that now that there is a DNA test for fanconi now gives us the ability to use many lines in a breeding program. Since a recessive gene, we can use Carriers and Affecteds with Clears and not have to eliminate different lines. This along with using the newer imports will expand the gene pool… This is something that should have happened when DNA testing for HA was found, however it was not. That in my opinion is what really caused the huge bottle neck in the gene pool. And in my opinion IPSID is not as large as a problem as you seem to think it is.... so serious genetic disorders IMO were/are HA, Fanconi as the most well known. We do have others, these are the most well know.

I agree. I appreciate that breeders now have the ability to test for and avoid genetic disorders. I also appreciate that the BCOA has urged the AKC to open up the studbook over the past 20 years. IMO, these two approaches will be needed to revitalize and maintain healthy stock. My original point is that these are reactionary moves. The BCOA realized that the breed was mismanaged from the jump because it was based on a small genetic population.
I should state that I really don't mean to offend you, or any breeders here. Thanks for the dialogue.
@tanza:

Type and form can be considered the same… the written standard that you refer to earlier is "written" words on what the "perfect" Basenjis should/would look like and was developed from the very first Basenjis from the 40's.... it has not changed much in all these years. Each person looks at the standard and decides what is important to them and what they think each part of the standard looks like in their mind...

To me, type is the overall appearance of the dog... that you can look across a field at a dog standing there and know without a second thought that it is a Basenji.

ok

@tanza:

I totally disagree with your statement. While I think that it is great that we have added and accepted native stock and it helps expand the gene pool, I think that we have done an excellent job in retaining "Basenji Type"… it is not about a standard it is about "type"

The crux of the argument presented in the videos is that we have become enamored with and breed for form at the expense of long term vitality. You believe that importing a handful (6-7) dogs and (in)breeding the progeny exclusively for 50 or more years was responsible? Then I suppose we will have to disagree and leave it at that. Mind you, this inbreeding is what brought about the "unusually high frequency of serious genetic disorders" such as Fanconi and IPSID. Like the video said, having a genetic diversity of 6-7 individuals is enough to put an animal on the endangered species list, why would that be acceptable when it comes to dog breeds? This is not an attack on the breed. This is a criticism, backed by biology, on the failings of past methodologies.

I'm not sure what you mean by type vs form. Could you explain?

@Andrew:

Thanks for posting this… it was a real eye opener. The neurological disorders in the CKCS was really really difficult to watch & the way they described the brain being too big for the skull... very sad. Again, very thankful for responsible basenji breeders & for a breed that is still so relatively "untampered" with.

I would say that creating a Basenji standard from a handful of dogs was pretty irresponsible. I think strategically adding "wild stock" was responsible but that more of an effort should be made to dilute or eliminate genetic disorders due to inbreeding. This really isn't an "untampered" breed.

EDIT: Just noticed the studbook has been reopened. This can only be a good thing.
http://www.akc.org/pdfs/about/board_minutes/0808.pdf