@kembe you will
Pedigree dogs exposed
-
-
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 -
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.
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"
-
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?
-
IMO, bringing in new blood from Africa is a good thing..
-
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.
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.
-
IMO, bringing in new blood from Africa is a good thing..
I agree, provide they are Basenjis and have Basenji type and have good temperaments. We have seen some health concerns with some of the imports in relationships to hips and thyroid problems, so none come without considerations
-
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
-
I think as science goes and advances are made, many people realized the importance in genetic diverstiy…. in all breeds of dogs. Some have done something about it, some (many) breeds have not. I give much credit to the Basenji Fancy for seeing the need and working to make it happy, including finding DNA tests for genetic concerns.
I don't think any breeder will take anything you have said as offensive, it is opinion like we all have and you have legit concerns/comments IMO.
-
Lately this BBC show that aired a couple years back, Pedigree Dogs Exposed, has gotten a lot of mentions on several blogs and other forums that I follow. I'm not sure if the timing has to do with a recent re-airing, or because the the director of the show starting her own blog dedicated to that which was covered in the show:
http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/
I watched the documentary, as I had not seen it in its entirety before. If the links that Janneke originally provided are dead, a quick Youtube search should easily pull it back up.
So I was wondering if Basenji forum members had any updated thoughts on the program's claims, specifically that show dogs bred to a prescribed standard promote a host of genetic problems in the long run, and that kennel club norms (I'm talking about all kennel clubs, not just the UK one) are much too conservative about allowing the problems to perpetuate?
For the purposes of what this show is talking about, are there practical differences between the UK's Kennel Club and the American Kennel Club?
For example, some people really harp on the resistance to change exemplified in closed registries. But then I think of the Basenji example with the African Stock Project – which, as I understand it, is an AKC thing, since it's being done with BCOA?
What kind of relationship does the African Stock Project have with the AKC -- which organization(s) was the primary mover for allowing the studbooks to be opened? And just how unprecedented is this?
The BBC program focuses specifically on Crufts. What kind of hierarchy is there to dog shows like Crufts, Westminster... the AKC/Eukanaba show that's happening now, etc.? Is there something about Crufts as a popular phenomenon that makes those kinds of allegations more applicable than other venues?
I'm also curious about what they say about curly tails (heh) in part 4, in regards to pugs. They say that breeding for tighter and tighter tail curls results in deformed spines. How would and does this apply to Basenji, and what can good breeders do to prevent those problems?
Lots of questions here, some big, some specific...
-
I haven't read it, the link, but am well aware of issues. Let me just explain a few.
The Bulldog. The dog has been bred to such massive shoulder proportions that not only do they not breed naturally, they have to have c-sections or risk all the puppies being crushed in the birth canal, or stuck. The US has made no move to change it. The UK made dramatic changes stating that breeding dogs to such abnormal proportions was, in effect, animal cruelty … and ordered it stopped.
Lets look at my beloved Rottweilers. In the US (and elsewhere) they are bred with shorter backs, stockier and with angulation that is PROVEN to increase (dramatically) the problems with elbow dysplasia, cruciate issues and other problems. And? We don't care it seems because if you look at dogs that won 10 yrs ago and today, we are moving more and more into that "look" rather than healthy.
Because GB and much of western Europe (FCI) have moved to more humane treatment, including the attempt to ban such cosmetic surgeries as tail docking, ear cropping etc.. I suspect that the British public is more sensitive to issues and hence the focus on Crufts (and that's probably the home country of the producers.. will go look).
I am not aware that Basenji breeders are breeding for tightly curled tails, but I am not a breeder.
I am very aware of splits in breeds here in the US between working dogs and show dogs. Form follows function. I believe those working toward function, instead of looks above all, are doing the breed the most good. I think we can have most of each, and I am not advocating throwing out conformation standards! But when standards need to be modified to protect and enhance the health of the dog, it should be done. Sadly, good luck with that.
-
For example, some people really harp on the resistance to change exemplified in closed registries. But then I think of the Basenji example with the African Stock Project – which, as I understand it, is an AKC thing, since it's being done with BCOA?
What kind of relationship does the African Stock Project have with the AKC -- which organization(s) was the primary mover for allowing the studbooks to be opened? And just how unprecedented is this?
I'm also curious about what they say about curly tails (heh) in part 4, in regards to pugs. They say that breeding for tighter and tighter tail curls results in deformed spines. How would and does this apply to Basenji, and what can good breeders do to prevent those problems?
The African Stock Project is Basenji Club of America, it is not separate from the Parent club. It is not that unprecedented, however the Parent club has to petition AKC with the reasons, facts, what they hope to accomplish, why the need, etc…. AKC then votes on the merits of the project. It would never be AKC opening the stud books, because the Parent Club to all breeds is the "keeper of the flame" so to speak. So the African Stock Project has no relationship with AKC, as part of BCOA, it is the Parent Club that makes the rules and you can go and read the requirments to have new stock accepted into the stud books, it is totally the responsibility of the Parent Club.
I don't think that Basenji breeder's breed for a "curly tail".... Like anything else a breeder needs to know what they can or can not live with.... if they don't care for a loose tail, then they would more or less lean towards breeding to a line that consistantly has tighter tails. And in the end, it is really the "tailset" not the tail curl.
-
Pedigree dogs exposed caused a real stir over here but not having television I didn't see it at the time.
However in my opinion our KC has overreacted to the programme and rushed in measures without giving a lot of thought. All standards were amended to add an introductory paragraph about soundness and warning judges and breeders to avoid exaggerations detrinmental to health soundness etc. which really shouldn't have been necessarty. Some breeds standards were altered.
Not to say that this isn't good but in fact hass not made a world of difference.
Some breeders and judges are still getting away with breeding/awarding prizes to unsound dogs.It's almost impossible to monitor this and in any case the KC doesn't have the resources to constantly do so.
Thank you for the link Curlytails, I know I'll find it interesting.
Re the curl - I don't imagine that the degree of tightness of curl referred to as occurring in pugs could ever occur in a Basenji. Yes I do know that some people try to breed for a tight curl but I've noticed that some of the better curls in the show ring here are not, in my opinion, correctly set. Set is a more important criteria I would say.
-
Thanks for the responses so far.
I think the show is worth watching, though it is a bit disturbing at times (it's only 50 minutes). I just checked, and the links Janneke posted are already dead, so I'll repost where I watched it:
You should be able to find parts 2 ~ 5 from that link. Anyway yes, it is a bit polemical and sensationalistic, but obviously it IS making people ask questions, as intended. Reactionary and quick-change kennel club standards just to meet short-term demands are disappointing, and so are people who cite this show as a reason to paint ALL breeders with the same brush, as I've seen others do. I've also seen people cite facts gleaned from this show as a reason to discount kennel clubs altogether – but is anarchic breeding without some kind of oversight organization really the way to go??
Is there an equivalent of the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals for the UK?
Hmm, I wonder if the OFA has a response to the show.
If I must try to salvage some good out of the bleak picture depicted, I think the show suggests that breed clubs band together in different ways. They feature the worst examples, but I know there must be good models of conscientious breed clubs that are willing to talk about and improve the health of the breed. Not all of them breed for exaggerated traits like the English bulldog, which they portray exactly as you mention, Debra. Not all of them can be blind to the extremes of the German Shepherd gait or the barely-breathing Pekingese. And I find it hard to believe that all breeders can be as prideful as some of the Cavalier King Charles breeders depicted.
(Also Debra, the rottweiler does get briefly mentioned in the show for temperament problems.)
Thanks for the clarification on Basenji tails. I think I see what you mean about "tail set" rather than tightness of curl. I did notice that the imports don't always have the same kind of double curl that I usually see in pet Basenji pictures.
Also curious to hear about how judges are trained to judge Basenjis or other breeds -- that's probably a whole topic in itself.
-
Yeah sorry I missed the akc question, but fyi.. Maine Coon cats opened theirs for a while because of severely limited gene pool. The parent club is in control, can't imagine AKC (and whoever is main stud book club for cats) not accepting a reasonable request.
-
The parent club is one in control which is why when the Dalmation club decided they didn't want the pointer crosses that were done to introduce the genes to produce non stone forming dogs, the AKC revoked all their registrations. It has severely fractured the Dalmation community. UKC has registered the dogs resulting from the cross.
I think the Basenji Club of America has done a good job of being proactive about issues like health and long term survivability of the breed. Funding genetic research, opening the studbook, encouraging all owners to participate in the canine phenome project to collect data about where the breed stands, and encouraging open and honest conversations about the issues in the breed. We may still have a ways to go but I think we are moving in a good direction.
-
I still haven't had time to watch the Pedigree Dogs Exposed link. (I'm not able to digest information quickly.)
But I've read back over the original posts in this thread and see that the early UK standard was mentioned and that it was based on the handful of imported dogs. In fact I must correct this as it's untrue. The earliest UK standard was drawn up by a panel, the majority members having been people that had experience of Basenjis in their native land and so were able to draw on all that experience to formulate a standard.
-
Thanks, this is all very interesting.
One reason the KC representative cited for not wanting to impose more strict testing requirements and requiring dogs to breed later is that he didn't want to "alienate" breeders – and send them to other kennel clubs?
I don't know if that's even a really viable option in the UK.
I know in the US we have the UKC, CKC, and APRI (the last of which I thought didn't actually host shows?). It seems like the UKC has limited cachet amongst certain breeds because they'll register breeds that the AKC doesn't recognize -- American Pit Bull Terriers, Klee Kai, I don't know what else. The Dalmatian's case adds something to my understanding of the UKC now. Goes to show that it's hard to see the whole picture even when you're looking down from the top level. More of the interesting stuff seems to be happening at the breed-specific level.
-
The CKC in the US is the Continental Kennel Club-a non reputable registry. APRI does hold dog shows and has for several years. APRI also advertises at the dog auction and has a table if that tells you anything! Another registry in the US is ACA-American Canine Association. I found out that the ACA now holds dog shows!
Jennifer
-
Curlytails - there are no other official registration bodies in the UK apart from the Kennel Club. There are a couple of unofficial ones but mainly for breeds which are not recognised by the KC
