@senjisilly just now saw your reply. Thanks for the pedigree website. I knew about it and it’s a great resource.
What does it mean to add genes?
-
Prior to ever submitting any of my dogs for evaluation in 2009, Mopaya was introduced at the Cincinnati Specialty in 2007 and I gave a presentation about her native provenance with lots of slides of the population and an open Q&A. I gave an expanded presentation with lots more slides, maps, and details when I introduced Amisi at the Nationals in 2008 where lots of people met him during my presentation and throughout the Nationals. Again, with an open Q&A. I published articles and pictures about everything related to the Lukuru dogs for the membership to review PRIOR to asking for anyone to vote on them. I had well established breeders come to my home and see my whole pack … again prior to submitting them for consideration.
I personally am strongly in favor of voting based on a geographic region because one or two "basenji-like" dogs (please see my previous posts in this thread) from a population within the traditional range of accepted Basenjis but from a current location where dogs are not ALL "basenji-like" makes a big difference.
When the goal is at the genetic level, the whole population must be considered because they are all locally from the same gene pool. -
When this project was originally undertaken and a Native Stock page put up there were pictures and information submitted by people with native imports. There were pics of the new Avongara imports, the Lukuru, the Avuvis, and the Jengis. It didn't matter if they were being submitted for the stud book they had each group posted and welcomed information on all individuals and had maps of where each group came from. Once the formal process for acceptance was approved all this information came down off the website and now the only thing posted there are dogs up for consideration.
I think that's going on now on the African Stock page, under "Other Imports." There was a member request in 2008 or 2009 that expressed concern that dogs not yet registered as Basenjis might be confused with dogs that had been admitted. Moving things around may have been part of the response to that.
The Avuvis are on the "Other Imports" page under the African Stock Project, and any unregistered import, is eligible for listing there, if their owner submits their information. So there is a relatively open place for that sort of information.
-
They were not moved to the African Stock pages. The Other Import section is how it has always been.
-
@JoT:
Prior to ever submitting any of my dogs for evaluation in 2009, Mopaya was introduced at the Cincinnati Specialty in 2007 and I gave a presentation about her native provenance with lots of slides of the population and an open Q&A. I gave an expanded presentation with lots more slides, maps, and details when I introduced Amisi at the Nationals in 2008 where lots of people met him during my presentation and throughout the Nationals. Again, with an open Q&A. I published articles and pictures about everything related to the Lukuru dogs for the membership to review PRIOR to asking for anyone to vote on them. I had well established breeders come to my home and see my whole pack … again prior to submitting them for consideration.
I do think the importers as a group have been similarly open - the Avongara group, the one I am most familiar with, from the very beginning had videos that are available to anyone, provided extensive photographs, had a number of very very experienced people from several countries go on the trips, made presentations at Nationals, wrote many articles which are available at the BCOA website with more coming as the online archives come online, put tons of info out on the web, had the dogs at shows and performance events, and had people over to see them at all ages - and this was before new dogs were voted on.
-
They were not moved to the African Stock pages. The Other Import section is how it has always been.
The Other Import section was added in 2008 or 2009 following a member complaint. Prior to that, dogs in the stud book and dogs not in the stud book were in the "Import by Year of Import" listing.
Linda or James could give you a more detailed report, but they were told to do it at that time following complaints.
-
The Other Import section has been on the website for some time, before the Native stock project. There was controversy at the time the Native Stock project was undertaken about whether the Other Import section was appropriate since they have not been accepted as basenjis.
-
There is a minor correction, the dogs listed as "Other Imports" have been on the website for sometime, they were simply moved from African Imports After 1988 to the heading Other Imports.
The pages on the Native Stock Project's original site were different then Other Import pages on the African Stock Project.
-
But - for all of these importations put forward thus far, the people have written articles about their trips, which have repeatedly been in magazines; put up many pictures of the dogs that they saw, not just the dogs that they imported, on their website and in those articles and in one notable case on video; described the remoteness of the area and how they selected it publicly in some detail; answered questions pretty freely; attended Nationals and brought both dogs they were registering and dogs they weren't for people to see; and the vast majority people involved are people that have been involved in the breed for quite a long time.
I agree Lisa! That is why I feel very comfortable with the dogs that have been accepted so far.
-
My issue is that though I feel importers have been very open, because when the vote comes only the information on the dogs be put up for acceptance is sent and there is not a central place where people can go to view information on all the other imports from the region, including those not be put up at that time, people don't have the full picture at the time of voting.
If the issue for the group being put forth is just some are lesser quality but all are considered basenji then there should be no arguement about providing information about the entire import group including those not being put up for consideration.
-
I have a question, but I am not familiar with the procedure involved in accepting new dogs, so bear with me. Are these animals just assessed on their own appearance, or are there test breedings to see what they will produce?
-
I've attached the photo montage I was referring to in a previous post. These dogs are the offspring of a rescued female basenji and an unknown male. It is rather striking the variation that you see among the different dogs considering that they are all half basenji.
So if an import in question comes from an area that is populated by "non-basenji-like" dogs the probability that the import may not be "pure basenji" is much higher. It can be hard to tell this just by looking at the dog.
-
I have a question, but I am not familiar with the procedure involved in accepting new dogs, so bear with me. Are these animals just assessed on their own appearance, or are there test breedings to see what they will produce?
Here is the page where you can find out information on the process. But in short, test breedings are not required. We would have to have the stud book open pretty long at a time to enable that unless you want to breed them when they are really young (they are typically imported as puppies).
https://www.basenji.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=98
-
I've attached the photo montage I was referring to in a previous post. These dogs are the offspring of a rescued female basenji and an unknown male. It is rather striking the variation that you see among the different dogs considering that they are all half basenji.
So if an import in question comes from an area that is populated by "non-basenji-like" dogs the probability that the import may not be "pure basenji" is much higher. It can be hard to tell this just by looking at the dog.
I don't think there is any question about whether or not a mixed breed dog can produce a dog that looks like a basenji when bred to a basenji. So I think we all agree that just looking like a basenji isn't enough to cut it.
So, are we saying that we want more 'proof' that the area is remote and free of non-basenji dogs beyond the importers' word? And what kind of proof would we find acceptable? I am not disagreeing with this statement…I am wondering how, exactly, the BCOA could evaluate this?
-
On a cursory reading, there appear to be a lot of potential "holes" in the process. So what happens if a dog is accepted and then sires or whelps a litter with some individuals so off type that it is obvious there is major influence of non Basenji blood ? (I know some breeders would just make such puppies "disappear", but one can hope for honesty) Does the dog then get dropped from the registry? Or is there any mechanism allowing this?
-
Once the dogs are in the stud book they are in the stud book. One would hope that the breeder would be ethical enough to withdraw the dog from breeding and gene pool but it would be up to the breeder.
I think that though there are many articles published and importers work to get information out there that when dogs are put up for a vote it is really left to each individual to try to go back and find the right article for the dogs being voted or rely on memory of the details of each importation group. It would be far more helpful for voters to have access to information about the importation groups being voted on that is comprehensive and not confined to just the individuals being voted on. I feel that though some of the dogs being withheld from voting are ones that people feel are just not up to snuff breeding wise, there are also ones being withheld because they lack basenji-type and that may very well change how people vote if they had the information of those dogs in front of them at the time of the vote instead of relying on them keeping all the groups straight. It may also be that some people vote against all imports because they can't remember which groups are which and choose to error on the side of caution.
-
I don't think there is any question about whether or not a mixed breed dog can produce a dog that looks like a basenji when bred to a basenji. So I think we all agree that just looking like a basenji isn't enough to cut it.
So, are we saying that we want more 'proof' that the area is remote and free of non-basenji dogs beyond the importers' word? And what kind of proof would we find acceptable? I am not disagreeing with this statement…I am wondering how, exactly, the BCOA could evaluate this?
It may not have to be too complicated as it looks like the importers are already gathering the important information required and sharing it in different venues, it's just not a formal part of the application process. I really think it should be. Perhaps the application just needs more detailed questions around the area chosen and types of dogs that are in the area with some requirement of pictures and or video. Plus, information on any other dogs brought back from the same area needs to be including in the information packet even if they aren't going to be submitted to the studbook. That way if population genetics is a concern for a particular voter then they will have information to consider via the formal process to make their decision.
-
The Other Import section has been on the website for some time, before the Native stock project…
My issue is that though I feel importers have been very open, because when the vote comes only the information on the dogs be put up for acceptance is sent and there is not a central place where people can go to view information on all the other imports from the region, including those not be put up at that time, people don't have the full picture at the time of voting.
If the issue for the group being put forth is just some are lesser quality but all are considered basenji then there should be no arguement about providing information about the entire import group including those not being put up for consideration.
The OTHER IMPORT page of the ASP was created after the 2009 Board mandated the change in October/November 2009. Prior to that mandate, the page never existed - this is per James (the creator of the page and the person who maintains this section of the website).
The original online Native Stock pages were created in 2007-2008 and yes, at that time anything and everything submitted by the importers was online in a hodge podge sort of way; once the application process started, the page turned its focus on those specific dogs to keep confusion, of who was applying vs who was not applying, to a minimum.
As a member of the Native Stock Committee LisaV, you are in a position to create change if you want things done differently. I admit, this is the first time I have heard this complaint about the NS pages and I am also on the committee.
-
For Clay and whomever else has Sponenberg's Managing Breeds for a Secure Future on their wish list, I checked amazon.com and it is not currently available through them since it is out of print. But it looks like you can get a copy from the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy at http://www.albc-usa.org/store/store-conservation.php
Enjoy!
Katy Scott
I looked and I found it on Amazon - ALBC is printing this themselves and it's a small press - it's available via LuLu Press - at http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B002ACYY26/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&condition=all
and also at ALBC at http://www.albc-usa.org/store/store-conservation.php
Cost is 22.95.
Lisa
-
I am not sure if you all are speaking of my Miss Wheat, who was brought over with the last 2 b's approved or not. But if you are I am going to say this. Lisa Saban had her totally tested with all that should be given before approval. She was "sadly" a carrier for fanconi. That and the eval we had re her yellow eyes, and how hard they were to get out of the lines, once in, was the reason she was withheld. I don't mind calling her a village dog. As she was not put up and approved,because that is what she is, but that in no way should "blight" the ones that were approved. Had she not had these flaws, we would have put her up and hoped she would be approved. I do think its unfair to try to "tarnish" the new b's approved by implying they are flawed because of Wheat. Ethical folks take in information, look at what will happen and decide to do what is best for the breed. If your not speaking of Wheat, then I am happy to share why we didn't put her up.
-
I disagree Sharron. I think it is important to look at the entire group, regardless if they are being submitted to the stud books, not just one or two that are "Basenji Like". I refer back to Dr. Jo's post earlier in this thread and her statement (which I agree 100%).
Quote from Dr. Jo's post:
"I personally am strongly in favor of voting based on a geographic region because one or two "basenji-like" dogs (please see my previous posts in this thread) from a population within the traditional range of accepted Basenjis but from a current location where dogs are not ALL "basenji-like" makes a big difference.
When the goal is at the genetic level, the whole population must be considered because they are all locally from the same gene pool"And I don't think this is just about your Ms. Wheat, but applies to all dogs brought in and considered for addition to the stud books.
