Pups :-)
-
Here is video of the tri girl from this weekend.
-
I've hesitated for a long time in entering into this debate and have posted and deleted a few times. It really doesn't concern the UK Kennel Club because we no longer have the facility to import unregistered dogs.
As somebody who saw one of the very early imports here and also several of the first generations bred in the UK, I would say that these puppies/dogs definitely do not resemble those that I saw.
I don't really understand the debate, as in my opinion if they are born in West Africa they can't be Basenjis as described in our original standard. I don't understand either why any move wasn't made to register them as Avuvis rather than Basenjis if I have that correct? Please enlighten me, somebody. I do know that dogs with the Avuvi affix are on Sally's Basenji pedigree website and so am rather surmising.
The current UK standard is not brilliant in describing the Basenji and I'm sure that I could breed a dog to it's descriptions that is a mongrel!! Perhaps the AKC Standard is better?
Personally I would have thought that a requirement to breed African to African would be essential before considering the acceptance for registration of dogs from areas where other breeds exist. To each his own!
Just because a dog resembles a Basenji it doesn't make it a Basenji and vice versa.
Please pardon my presumption in entering the debate but I do feel a bit qualified as i'm about to become an honorary co-mother to a USA registered DRC baby.
-
Patty, IMO any dog brought over from Africa is only a village dog until the BCOA accepts them as basenjis. Some folks want to make a name for themselves, "make" a new breed or claim dogs are basenjis when in fact that isn't the case. Its a shame as the dogs are the ones who lose with this type of thing.
-
I agree that they look scared but the question is, are they scared because they were born that way or because they haven't been socialized and trained for showing?
Either way I wouldn't be happy to use them in my very new ;) breeding programme…
If these are the same pups that were on the first page of this thread, and I believe they are, it appears to me they have had a deterioratition in their temperaments, quite a significant change, too. They were able to be handled and stacked, with their tails loosely held in the correct position... I dont know why, and Im not saying anyone is to blame, but I actually find it incredibly sad that these little pups appear to have gone downhill in their temperaments :confused:
-
I couldn't tell temperament, but I did think they were either very poorly trained or socialized when you can't stack or get a relaxed picture.
That said (putting on my own flame retardant material)… not about these dogs, but the African ones in general. We need more genes. The problems of such a limited gene pool results in sometimes catastrophic problems (read up on heart problems with Cavaliers, where many countries CLAIMED 'not our lines' and then when real testing done, it's wide spread). If we get in some African stock that are more, well anything temperament wise, that issue can be bred out of them. I'd risk that over a diminishing gene pool any day. I for one am grateful for those who pushed to open the registry each time to include more dogs.
-
Here's the thing, are you really adding genes if you are just going to quickly breed away from what is added?
In order to have a significant impact, new dogs have to make significant contributions, percentages, of pedigrees in a breeding program. If what you are adding has so many faults that your next few steps is to breed to away from it to fix those faults then you are not truly adding anything new, it will be washed away quickly in the next couple of generations.
It is in the best interest of the breed that we select dogs to add to the studbook that are most likely to be used by many different breeders in different combinations. Though we have now on several different occassions added new founders, we seem to whittle them down so that only a few have signifcant impact on the breed within 20 years time. Look at the 87/88 imports and see how many of those are no longer represented in the modern population. We need to add dogs with traits that we want to keep, otherwise we get the feel good sensation of doing something right without the actual benefit.
-
I couldn't tell temperament, but I did think they were either very poorly trained or socialized when you can't stack or get a relaxed picture.
That said (putting on my own flame retardant material)… not about these dogs, but the African ones in general. We need more genes. The problems of such a limited gene pool results in sometimes catastrophic problems (read up on heart problems with Cavaliers, where many countries CLAIMED 'not our lines' and then when real testing done, it's wide spread). If we get in some African stock that are more, well anything temperament wise, that issue can be bred out of them. I'd risk that over a diminishing gene pool any day. I for one am grateful for those who pushed to open the registry each time to include more dogs.
The belief that registering "African dogs" as AKC Basenjis because we need more genes, is something very interesting to me.
The premise seems to be that we have such a limited gene pool that our breed is headed for disaster and a house of cards where health is concerned.
Perhaps we could start a new thread and discuss the idea that the Basenji gene pool is actually diminishing in such a calamitous way as to be cataclysmic.
Is our breed in such a dire situation?
What are the reasons?
What does it mean to "add new genes" by registering "African dogs?" -
Excellent idea, Jo. Here is the new thread, http://www.basenjiforums.com/showthread.php?p=142406#post142406
-
Dr Jo, I was not suggesting just adding african dogs. Although the Maine Coon people pretty much allowed ANY cat to be bred in when they opened their registry. But yeah, lets move this to another thread.
