New Imports requesting admission to Stud Books
-
I would have thought that all of the health testing would have been completed on all of the dogs by now considering there is no pedigree to look back on. How much does overall health testing figure in to whether they get final approval?
The only health testing that is required to be done are the two that have a DNA test available, HA and Fanconi. Though the other health testing is strongly encouraged. The two sides of the health testing debate that led to this compromise were 1: Foundation stock that is being added to the stud book should be rigorously tested because we are bringing in new genes and should have a good history of their health and 2: Breeders in the United States are not required to do any health testing prior to breeding and are therefore free to breed "blind" if they so choose so it is unfair to require importers to health test when no health testing is required by anyone else.
As far as how health testing will factor into final approval, that will be determined by each individual member that is voting.
-
It was interesting to see the same people names - is that because these are the only people allowed to import? Just curious.
No, anyone can import but it is expensive. The Avongaras have been imported in groups and usually a trip is arranged with several people going so they can bring back several puppies or dogs at one time. The Lukurus have been imported by Dr Jo Thompson and have been obtained during trips that she makes for her Bonobo research so usually fewer dogs are brought in at a time. For more info on Dr Jo you can check out this website, http://fopawsbasenjipuppies.com/african_basenjis_and_dr_jo
-
The only health testing that is required to be done are the two that have a DNA test available, HA and Fanconi. Though the other health testing is strongly encouraged. The two sides of the health testing debate that led to this compromise were 1: Foundation stock that is being added to the stud book should be rigorously tested because we are bringing in new genes and should have a good history of their health and 2: Breeders in the United States are not required to do any health testing prior to breeding and are therefore free to breed "blind" if they so choose so it is unfair to require importers to health test when no health testing is required by anyone else.
As far as how health testing will factor into final approval, that will be determined by each individual member that is voting.
Also remember that unless they do Prelims or PennHip, many of the ones from 08 are too young to do hips/elbows yet…
-
The results are in….. All the new imports that had applied for acceptance into the AKC stud books have been accepted by the BCOA membership (at least from the ones that voted). The 9 Avongara and 1 Lukuru have been accepted and can now apply for AKC registration. This is a good thing for our breed, these are some very lovely Basenjis....
-
Excellent!!
Why were some votes withheld? Were they the importers and therefore a conflict of interest issue? Just wondering.
What do you mean withheld? There are members that most likely abstained because they were the ones that own the dogs. There were some that got there to late and some that "didn't" follow the directions for voting, not many however.
The ones I referred to are people that didn't bother to vote at all. Only about 1/2 of the membership voted. I am sure that many people figure that they have only pets that maybe came from rescue or even from a responsible breeder, but because they do not breed, show, etc… it was not important for them to weigh in with their vote. This I totally disagree with, it is everyones responsiblilty to take an interest in the longevity of our breed that includes health, temperament and conformation....
-
I am shocked that so many didn't vote.
Its so important for the breed as a whole to get this new blood in.Pat, do you have any idea how adding this new blood will be done?
-
What do you mean withheld? There are members that most likely abstained because they were the ones that own the dogs. There were some that got there to late and some that "didn't" follow the directions for voting, not many however.
The ones I referred to are people that didn't bother to vote at all. Only about 1/2 of the membership voted. I am sure that many people figure that they have only pets that maybe came from rescue or even from a responsible breeder, but because they do not breed, show, etc… it was not important for them to weigh in with their vote. This I totally disagree with, it is everyones responsiblilty to take an interest in the longevity of our breed that includes health, temperament and conformation....
Overall, I was happy to see the numbers that were invalid or disapproved were so low. I completely agree with you about the number of members that didn't vote.It seems to me that if you make the effort to join the BCOA - to find members to sponsor you, you pay your dues and then join, then you would want to take part in such an important vote. For me as a fairly new member (a little over a year), it felt like a privilege to be able to participate in this vote.
-
To clarify, when I went to the link I saw "Approved. Curby vote withheld" or "Approved. Curby and Schreiber vote withheld". I was just wondering what that meant.
In this example each of those people own a dog that was being voted upon…so I assume they withheld to avoid appearing to have a conflict of interest.
-
Overall, I was happy to see the numbers that were invalid or disapproved were so low. I completely agree with you about the number of members that didn't vote.It seems to me that if you make the effort to join the BCOA - to find members to sponsor you, you pay your dues and then join, then you would want to take part in such an important vote. For me as a fairly new member (a little over a year), it felt like a privilege to be able to participate in this vote.
Me too! I find it strange that someone who cared enough to join the club wouldn't want to weigh in on the fundamental essence of the club….human nature is strange...
-
To clarify, when I went to the link I saw "Approved. Curby vote withheld" or "Approved. Curby and Schreiber vote withheld". I was just wondering what that meant.
Both Curby and Schreiber submitted dogs, so it was appropriate for them to withhold their vote, since it was their dogs
-
Me too! I find it strange that someone who cared enough to join the club wouldn't want to weigh in on the fundamental essence of the club….human nature is strange...
I agree, while they might say, "I don't know enough"… then their responsibility is to learn... they are owners of the breeder and therefore, IMO have a responsibility to learn about the breed and be part of the solution to improve our breed for years to come.
-
I agree, while they might say, "I don't know enough"… then their responsibility is to learn... they are owners of the breeder and therefore, IMO have a responsibility to learn about the breed and be part of the solution to improve our breed for years to come.
I agree 100%.
Just curious, but Pat, do you know if the African Stock vote had a higher or lower response level than the AKC Group Re-Alignment vote or was it about the same.
-
I agree 100%.
Just curious, but Pat, do you know if the African Stock vote had a higher or lower response level than the AKC Group Re-Alignment vote or was it about the same.
I don't know what the response level was for the AKC group re-alignment was and I don't think that it was noted any place either. However, I would guess it was lower then the Af Stock vote…. But then the response level for elections is really pitiful....
