@tanza I don't believe there was a limit to the number of letters, though I wasn't paying much attention to whether the field stopped me from continuing. Tanza is nice! I was actually surprised no one has claimed the name 😃
What does it mean to add genes?
-
Avongaras have made a significant impact on the gene pool, and not in the sense of one cross and quickly breeding away from. A number of long time breeders breed straight Avongaras.
Diagba, Gangura, Zamee, Mbliki, Ngola, Elly, and to a lesser extent Kposi are pretty well represented in the gene pool ? even Kposi, which is the rarest of the bunch, has full Af descendents with some linebreeding to her going on.
Can you help me understand your definitions of the above? I think that would be a useful context to further the discussion. What is a "significant impact" or what is "well represented"? This would help me understand the different perspectives on this.
-
Itzyu, I'm glad you joined the discussion.
Without having easy access to the book to read about the bolded sentence, can you paraphrase what comments he has on how "animals of that breed" and "animals not of that breed" can be defined? I think that gets to the crux of some of the issues discussed here.It's really good to get the book - well worth buying and I strongly recommend it for anyone interested in Basenjis or any other land race breed of any species. See www.amazon.com or the ALBC website.
That said, ALBC has their books online at Google Books and you can read pages 20-23 at http://books.google.com/books?id=GmsDwDuuP2cC&pg=PT100&lpg=PT100&dq=sponenberg+preserving+breeds&source=bl&ots=6RiX-84Svh&sig=LZhXlf8_auMwBfmuShgk9nDfVTY&hl=en&ei=EWtMTti5Ls25tgelib28Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Sponenberg says it better than I can, and the whole section - heck, the whole book - is worth reading.
-
It's really good to get the book - well worth buying and I strongly recommend it for anyone interested in Basenjis or any other land race breed of any species. See www.amazon.com or the ALBC website.
That said, ALBC has their books online at Google Books and you can read pages 20-23 at http://books.google.com/books?id=GmsDwDuuP2cC&pg=PT100&lpg=PT100&dq=sponenberg+preserving+breeds&source=bl&ots=6RiX-84Svh&sig=LZhXlf8_auMwBfmuShgk9nDfVTY&hl=en&ei=EWtMTti5Ls25tgelib28Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Sponenberg says it better than I can, and the whole section - heck, the whole book - is worth reading.
Thanks, I can't preview those pages but I will definitely add it to my wish list.
-
Can you help me understand your definitions of the above? I think that would be a useful context to further the discussion. What is a "significant impact" or what is "well represented"? This would help me understand the different perspectives on this.
I think that is going to differ depending on who you talk with - but to me, a significant impact is when dogs are recognized as being useful in the gene pool to enough people that they are likely to have a lasting influence.
Well represented, to me, means descendents are in multiple households, appear likely to breed on, and are not limited to one or two people or one or two small programs.
They tend to go together, for obvious reasons, but aren't exactly the same thing.
-
Thanks, I can't preview those pages but I will definitely add it to my wish list.
Try using the right hand scroll bar - it should let you scroll all the way up. At least when I browsed it, I was able to read that section.
-
Try using the right hand scroll bar - it should let you scroll all the way up. At least when I browsed it, I was able to read that section.
It's just letting me preview a different section of the book, pages earlier in the book than 50 are "omitted from this book preview." Just bad luck with Google Books. The section I looked is very interesting though. Definitely looks like a good book.
-
@JoT:
[
This is a critical statement. The value of adding additional native dogs to access other EFb genes only comes from adding dogs within the EF biome from areas not already represented by current founders. To continue bringing in dogs from the same geographic area(s) within the EF biome does not add "new" genes or contribute to gene diversity.Jo, my main question goes to this general statement. Practically, do these "areas not already represented by current founders" still exist and if so, are they accessible and relatively "un-compromised" (for lack of a better word) by dogs that may represent other areas in the EF biomes or elsewhere.](http://www.suite101.com/content/central-africas-dog--congo-origin-of-the-basenji-a224967)
-
I think that is going to differ depending on who you talk with - but to me, a significant impact is when dogs are recognized as being useful in the gene pool to enough people that they are likely to have a lasting influence.
Well represented, to me, means descendents are in multiple households, appear likely to breed on, and are not limited to one or two people or one or two small programs.
They tend to go together, for obvious reasons, but aren't exactly the same thing.
Thanks, I realize this all depends on perspective. It would be beneficial IMO if "significant impact to the breed" could be dimensioned in a more quantitative way. We seem to have ways to demonstrate "significant negative impacts" such as with the discussions of popular sires and their disproportionate contributions to the gene pool but "positive impacts" seems to be more nebulous to demonstrate.
-
It's just letting me preview a different section of the book, pages earlier in the book than 50 are "omitted from this book preview." Just bad luck with Google Books. The section I looked is very interesting though. Definitely looks like a good book.
A brief summary of the relevant section - and please get a copy of the book if you can - what to include and what to exclude is the stickiest issue, and more difficult with land race breeds than any other. In general, one should look at phenotype and cultural setting. It can be misleading with individuals, but is indicative with populations.
History can be greatly of use. Phenotype is important. DNA can be useful (parenthetically, Boyko's DNA work showed that most African village dogs he sampled were either relatively pure or highly admixed, with villages having entirely or almost entirely one or the other.)
He has page after page of examples of applying this (it is also a frequent topic in his other writings.)
-
Jo, my main question goes to this general statement. Practically, do these "areas not already represented by current founders" still exist and if so, are they accessible and relatively "un-compromised" (for lack of a better word) by dogs that may represent other areas in the EF biomes or elsewhere.
The South Sudan is newly accessible (although I don't know of any Basenji person who has gone yet) and is historically a major home of Basenjis. I have heard multiple people interested in going there - I do not know if a trip is planned yet but I would be surprised if it did not happen.
However, in bringing in new dogs, you do NOT want to avoid areas already represented by current founders. Unless you've already gotten 100-200 founders well represented in the gene pool, the area is likely to include very significant untapped genetic diversity. Additional genetic diversity is likely even if we had that many founders. We still have, last I checked, less than 50. And that genetic diversity is highly correlated with healthy long-term survival of a breed.
The principle used to preserve rare and land race breeds is basically "include as much genetic material that is of that breed as you can".
-
Thanks, I realize this all depends on perspective. It would be beneficial IMO if "significant impact to the breed" could be dimensioned in a more quantitative way. We seem to have ways to demonstrate "significant negative impacts" such as with the discussions of popular sires and their disproportionate contributions to the gene pool but "positive impacts" seems to be more nebulous to demonstrate.
Significant impact isn't a quantitative measure. It's a qualititative one. It varies depending on your values, your breeding program, and what you are selecting for. Major questions are usually, which population, and what qualities do you consider significant.
Giving horse examples (because they are likelier to keep me out of trouble) - Nazeer has a significant impact on the Arabian class A halter population, as does El Shaklan, Bey El Bey, and Padron.
They have no significant influence on the CMK population (very popular as endurance, family, riding, and dressage horses.) You'll occasionally see a distant descendent of Nazeer via Ralvon Elijah, who is 90-odd percent Crabbet otherwise, but that's about it. On the other hand, Aurab, who you don't see a lot of in pedigrees in the Class A halter ring, is a major influence on Arabian dressage horses and a significant force in CMK pedigrees.
For Basenjis (treading carefully here), the new imports are being widely used, in significant percentages of pedigree (not once and out) in show dogs in my area and in other areas that I know. This includes dogs that are top Honor Roll producers (see previously mentioned #3 Brood Bitch of all time, dam of at least one BIS winner and a boatload of champions, who is about 40% Avongara), National Specialty Award of Merit winners, all-breed Best in show winners, and top performance competitors. The Honor Roll producers include at least a couple of Avongaras, dogs that I frequently see in pedigrees.
So I'm not sure I "get" the idea that the earlier imports have not been well-used. In general, I see better, not worse, overall conformation with full and part Afs - I may be seeing results of more successful selection, but the source dogs are the same. In particular, Afs and Af blends I see tend to have better substance. They avoid extremely upright and forward shoulders too common in domestics. All I have seen have better musculature than average.
The usage I am seeing is not "one and out" breeding as much as careful and ongoing blending over multiple generations.
The Avongaras are significant to these programs, and these breeders feel they are getting better dogs through them. They are winning enough, and having enough other people to use their dogs, that their impact on the overall breed is substantial.
-
The usage I am seeing is not "one and out" breeding as much as careful and ongoing blending over multiple generations.
The Avongaras are significant to these programs, and these breeders feel they are getting better dogs through them. They are winning enough, and having enough other people to use their dogs, that their impact on the overall breed is substantial.
You're talking about native stock that people wanted to use and my perception is that you won't get much argument there. If people are using them regularly then they have significant value and could have impact to the breed as a whole. Going back to the original question at the beginning of the thread (and granted it started as a continuation of another thread), I believe the context of "one and out" comments were directed more to potential introduction of native stock of "lower quality" which do not have as much general appeal to breeders. If they have so many faults that you would have to do a "one and out" to compensate to get their "new genes" then what's the point? I think it all gets back to what individual breeders consider a "basenji" to be, it appears there is a wide range of perspective particularly when talking about native stock.
-
You're talking about native stock that people wanted to use and my perception is that you won't get much argument there. If people are using them regularly then they have significant value and could have impact to the breed as a whole. Going back to the original question at the beginning of the thread (and granted it started as a continuation of another thread), I believe the context of "one and out" comments were directed more to potential introduction of native stock of "lower quality" which do not have as much general appeal to breeders. If they have so many faults that you would have to do a "one and out" to compensate to get their "new genes" then what's the point? I think it all gets back to what individual breeders consider a "basenji" to be, it appears there is a wide range of perspective particularly when talking about native stock.
The problem with the original question, to me, is that the dogs to date used for "one and out", to get brindle, are the exact same native stock that other people wanted to use, and have used very successfully. With the exception of first generation pups from a fourth import and first generation from Tiger in the 60's, all brindle prior to the 2006 stud book openings was from Gangura, Diagba, and Mbliki.
All three have been successfully incorporated into ongoing breeding programs. One and out is a choice, not a condemnation of the dog's potential.
What I've seen in watching breeding programs my whole life, of a variety of domestic species, is that animals value as breeding stock varies according to who is using them and what they're using them for.
My upbringing was replete with stories of horses that were seen as no value by some, but turned out to be immensely valuable in breeding programs when they caught the eye of the right breeder. See Bazy Tankersley's discussions of *Sulejman, many of Lady Wentworth's discussions of many varied horses, the history of the Davenports, etc, etc. - also see Spencer Borden's writings on the Arabian in the US, etc.
Some rather obscure or even ordinary horses turned out to be spectacularly valuable in the breeding shed - and some horses with specific faults (Bazy's writings on using *Ranix comes to mind) were brilliant sires when used correctly. *Count Dorsaz was the better horse, and more important in her program - but she got things from *Ranix that were invaluable - e.g. the lovely Canadian Beau - and she has repeatedly emphasized how important *Ranix was to her program.
In Avongaras, some of the more ordinary individuals have been exceptional producers. I don't think anyone would have pegged Gangura as the star of his importation, but he turned out to be quite a good sire - look at his full Af son, Avongara Zindiko of Brushy Run - there is no question what breed Zee is, and no question that he is an outstanding individual of that breed.
Excluding Gangura, because he "wasn't pretty enough", would have been a horrible mistake, and would have cost us many very, very good dogs.
The criteria is not "an individual that I would use." There are tons of champions, including Best in Show winners, that I would not use if you gave them to me. I have a goal and I am interested in dogs that help me achieve that goal.
The criteria IMHO is "is this individual of this breed, and of sufficient interest to be used by someone." If they've put them forward, it appears that the answer is yes to the latter question.
Gorgeous individuals may or may not be good producers. Ordinary individuals can be very, very good producers, particularly when used well.
My excluding a dog because it isn't my cup of tea, although I believe it to be a Basenji, to me is equivalent to my saying, if I don't want to use it, you can't either.
Imagine if I tried that with domestics!
I do not think I am so smart as to be able to know every way every dog can be usefully incorporated into a breeding program, and I honestly don't think anyone else is capable of that either.
-
The original post which was by me was not abut "in and then out for a color", it was about bringing in dogs that don't give you the feeling, "this is a basenji" for the sake of diversity and then breeding to them once and then out because they really do nothing for you.
I think the main criteria should be is it a basenji. That is the real issue though, what is a "real basenji". I think that Dr Jo gave some really good information about the region where basenjis live. Something that seems to be overlooked quite often.
-
The original post which was by me was not abut "in and then out for a color", it was about bringing in dogs that don't give you the feeling, "this is a basenji" for the sake of diversity and then breeding to them once and then out because they really do nothing for you.
I think the main criteria should be is it a basenji. That is the real issue though, what is a "real basenji". I think that Dr Jo gave some really good information about the region where basenjis live. Something that seems to be overlooked quite often.
Well put lvoss. I agree.
-
As Lisa Voss put it, what is a "real basenji"?, circling back to her original post. That question has yet to be answered satisfactorily.
There certainly are myriad opinions as to what is a "real basenji", and what is a "basenji -type" dog, and from what regions in Africa dogs should be imported for incorporation into the breed we call the Basenji.
Thanks Lisa CA for the excellent resources about the necessity of maintaining a robust vigorous breeding population. The opportunity to hear Dr. Sponenberg talk at the 2012 BCOA Nationals in Gettysburg PA is just one more exciting reason to attend!
Katy Scott
-
This is a fascinating discussion! (Love the horse references, although I would contest the idea that anything of Sheila Varian's is only good for "pretty"! She bred and trained athletes…...she thought Bay el Bey could easily have been an open reining horse, had she gone that way with him, and his get through some of his sons have done well in dressage, among other things)
The trouble with asking "what is a Basenji" (or any other breed) is that we tend to judge by what we see. Bench showing requires that. The breeders who are into lure coursing, and breeding for that ability, or the few who actually hunt with their dogs, might have a different idea of the "ideal" Basenji, based on performance. If the animals are not tested for ability in some way, it is too easy to lose those qualities that defined the breed in the first place......and made him useful.
The Border Collie people who breed herding dogs don't give a rat's patootie what the dog looks like, as long as he can herd......hence their reluctance to allow the breed to be CKC registered, because they simply do not want them bred for "pretty" at the expense of their working ability.
-
The trouble with asking "what is a Basenji" (or any other breed) is that we tend to judge by what we see. Bench showing requires that. The breeders who are into lure coursing, and breeding for that ability, or the few who actually hunt with their dogs, might have a different idea of the "ideal" Basenji, based on performance. If the animals are not tested for ability in some way, it is too easy to lose those qualities that defined the breed in the first place…...and made him useful.
People that course do not have a different idea about conformation and having a coursing dog. All of mine are Dual Champions (Conformation and Coursing). As they say, Form follows Function. It they are properly constructed they can run and in fact if they are not properly constructed your will have issues running them long term. So I disagree that people "breed" for coursing dogs are different then people that breed for conformation. Maybe for "instinct" in course/hunting, but should not be anything different in conformation. The qualities that are in the standard for conformation support the performance aspect of the breed.
-
People that course do not have a different idea about conformation and having a coursing dog. All of mine are Dual Champions (Conformation and Coursing). As they say, Form follows Function. It they are properly constructed they can run and in fact if they are not properly constructed your will have issues running them long term. So I disagree that people "breed" for coursing dogs are different then people that breed for conformation. Maybe for "instinct" in course/hunting, but should not be anything different in conformation. The qualities that are in the standard for conformation support the performance aspect of the breed.
Yes, and one hopes it will remain that way! Unfortunately, the experience in other breeds has been that although specified standards may not change, the way in which judges interpret them may follow the "style" that is currently in vogue, to the determent of the breed.
I've seen this in horses as well as dogs (dainty footed, overly muscular Quarterhorses, Arabs bred for an extremely flat croup, Thoroughbreds dominated by a popular line with poor hoof structure…..undoubtedly fast, but they break down young, etc.) I'm sure most dog people are aware of the extremes in dog breeds that have strayed too far from their original purpose. I wouldn't be too quick to say it can't happen in Basenjis.
Perhaps it would be good to restrict breeding stock to those who actually can demonstrate their ability as athletes, e.g. as is done in Dutch Warmblood horses? I am thinking such a criteria would improve a lot of dog breeds, and safeguard the ones that are still sound. I know it is unlikely to ever happen, but one can dream....
-
I am also really enjoying this topic and would like to agree with LVoss in her posts. But I might also like to add that the form follows function argument has always thrown me a bit. Last time I checked basenjis in Africa aren't found chasing plastic bags. I also have watched my dogs hunt and see they are great at flushing bunnies, hunting in under brush for mice, digging out moles and snagging birds mid air, I have not seen any of my dogs hunt my property by running game down in open fields, for one thing most game is smarter than that. The means in which my dogs do successfully hunt is appropriate for their structure and size.
Watching lure coursing I see larger longer leg males faster on the straight stretch while smaller agile bitches lower to the ground catch up on the corners. So using lure coursing as a identifier of function could lead to one saying longer leg dogs are faster, as well as longer backed, yet shorter legged shorter backed dogs corner better that is a slippery slope.
Personally I have seen a German short hair pointer run the lure course at my place and he was out in front of the whippet in the straight stretch, but the whippet caught him in the corner. I still wouldn't consider the GSP a whippet or basenji even though he loved coursing.
I think we have to keep in mind the standard and the purpose behind the standard and that is also why I appreciate coursing dogs should follow standards. I have seen field golden retrievers and they look nothing like ring goldens, how sad it would be if we allowed our standard to be altered from its original intent, neither dog should dictate a change in standard alone.
I believe our standard allows for differences and for actual "function" as it should be. I think a dog being considered basenji because of his coursing ability is a risky gamble. I also think we need to consider seeing photos of all dogs within an area whenever possible because what appears to be "basenji" like could produce something very different. I have friends who were in Peace corp that both had basenjis while in the Congo. One dog that was brought back is slightly larger and although lets out a single bark she also yodels, however she has a very clear distinct ridge down her back. Her head looks very much like a ridge back head with upright ears. She was a street dog and how she was produced a mystery. Other friends had a boy that looked very much like our basenjis however he was out of a litter of three pups and all pups had been given to Peace corp workers, the mother was also seen. Having had photos of the dogs in the village that dog came from would further support the "basenji" type coming out of the area.
I think the idea of sticking as closely as possible to our standard and building a strong line with imports as some have is the important thing to keep an eye on. I think there is nothing wrong with being selective about the dogs we allow into the stud book, maybe we should have considered that when deciding to vote on a group as a whole instead of an individual dog.
Just my two cents.
