Page 1 of 1
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:21 am
by Martin
Whatever is the matter with us? We have people saying 'this is the end of the Dexter cattle society' Field officers resigning, what next? I am no shrinking violet and will always let my views be known, but before this bull thing gets out of hand we must all step back take a deep breath and think of the consequences of our words & actions.
The membership must realize that council are also Dexter owners & will have to live by the rules that they make up whilst in office, they give their time to the society when most of us are too busy to give ours. I would imagine that some are there simply because there was no one else willing to fill the gap. I cannot imagine for one minute that they make decisions purely to upset the membership, but truly think they have found a solution to a problem.
What council must realize is that the membership are mainly into Dexters for a hobby, pockets are not bottomless, & more simple solutions may be possible if you look hard enough. If we have to have hoops to jump through, they must be easy to negotiate and not too costly. If things need to change we must do it as a slow process, not chuck it all in a bag & give a good shake.
So everyone, lets not take things too personally & think of the good of the society, & remember that the society is the membership. Things are never as bad as they look, we have to find the middle road, I just hope we dont end up destroying the map.
Martin.
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:00 am
by Duncan MacIntyre
I thoroughly agree with Martin, there is real danger that serious damage will result to the Society from peoples' reactions to problems rather than from the problems themselves.
We have seen times before when strife caused a lot of damage to the DCS, and real hurt and disgraceful treatment of individuals. Let us make sure that it does not happen again.
I have deliberately slowed my reponses on the fees and bull registration issues just to give myself a bit more time to think it through - I can be a slow thinker at times.
I would agree that we need more detail to be able to judge some of the issues, and this can be difficult for council to communicate since details inevitably involve individual cases and members. A lot of the changes are not in any way meant to be punitive to those who are a wee bit late with paperwork, they are genuine efforts to ensure that mistakes in pedigrees do not occur. I certainly do not want to start discussing individual cases, but I am aware of several cases of pedigrees being questioned at a later date which if we had the proposed system in place would not have happened.
Several other breed societies have had similar problems, unfortunately I do not know enough details to compare with current DCS issues. I know that the Clydesdale Horse Society has used DNA for registrations for many years, and the introduction was not well received by all members. It has been suggested to me that one of the troubles we have at the moment is too quick an introduction of the parentage check as well as the sampling of the individual to be registered. Individual sampling of the calf/bull would have established a base of DNA profiled individuals, and then a later introduction of parentage verification would have been less costly as many would already been on file. But that would take quite a few years, and even then there would no doubt be those shouting that it discriminated against offspring of older animals. It might surprise some to know that in the days of blood typing as the method of parent verification this was not done for all bulls collected for AI. But that does not mean that we need doubt every pedigree we look at.
Duncan
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 5:57 pm
by Stuart Tarrant
Unfortunately in the past few months there have been several Council decisions 'made on the hoof' without proper consideration of the implications or without consulting interested members not represented on Council (ie Junior members' maximum no of cattle and fees for new members). Also, the recent introduction of the 30 day transfer of ownership requirement has drawn a formal members' resolution seeking to rescind it at the AGM.
The hasty, illconsidered introduction of COMPULSORY DNA parent verification for bull registration on 1 10 05 is yet another example of the Executive Committee's style of management.
Martin, can I correct you. Not all members of Council's Executive Committee and not all the members of the Registration Committee currently own Dexters and have not for many years. There will be at least two council members
next year who do not own any Dexters.
Stuart
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:09 pm
by Ken Hobbs
First of all any comments made by me on this website are purely personal and NOT with the Councils authority.
I am sorry,but it was not an Executive decision it was voted on by all of Council as are all decisions on matters that will affect all of the membership not just those with large herds. As one of the Executive I find it very difficult to accept blame for all decisions made and certainly accusations by a man whom I greatly respected and sat on Council when the decision on fees and Junior membership cattle numbers was set, now attacking the very system for which he has been part of for six years. I agree that two of the members on Council do not have Dexters now, but over the many years associated with the Society they have put in many hours of very good work on behalf of the membership. They are both respected Judges and Bull inspectors and will continue to give their time and efforts (FREE) to the Society.
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 8:34 am
by Martin
This is exactly what I mean. On this post alone we now have two people that have sat on council together, discussed issues and probably agreed on most issues, and tried find solutions to problems.
If we are not carefull we could end up slagging each other off over this. We must not allow this to happen! We have to have reasoned debate, and each of us must consider our words carefully so as not to be misunderstood.
Ken & Stuart, you are both respected long term members of our society, please find the middle ground between you, if you can't, what hope for the rest of us?
Martin
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:58 am
by Penny
Wise words, Martin.
I'm a member of the "slow thinker brigade" too. Unfortunately there have been a few times when my mouth has been ahead of my brain and causes me problems!!
Getting 3 people to agree on Dexters is hard, getting a whole society to agree is monumental. Those on council have my admiration for the time they are prepared to give, even if I do not always agree with their decisions.
Penny
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 3:11 pm
by Caroline Ryder
Thanks Penny! As a DCS council member I do try to work for all its members. All the issues raised at council meetings I have a opinion on, not all of them in agreement with the others. You are quite right, trying to get agreement is difficult, but at the end of the day we do have the breed at heart and that is what I try to keep sight of.
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:51 pm
by Harriet Bunning
We should be grateful that we have a breed society at all!
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:28 am
by Stuart Tarrant
In order to correct some misleading statements elsewhere
I insisted at the last Council meeting on a formal minute to record the following that I:
1. Opposed the introduction of Compulsory Bull DNA parent verification at this time
2. Advised that the implications had not been properly considered and
3. Warned that the flyer as drafted would create unnecessary
rumour and speculation.
(This can be checked with the Breed Secretary)
The Council Chairman moved swiftly on to the next item!!
Hence a public debate.
Stuart
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:39 pm
by tirbachdexters
In the short time we have kept Dexters we have been amazed at the poor standards of husbandry exhibited by some people who should know better. One 'reputable' breeder, a former council member & field officer kept 4 bulls between the ages of 2 years & 10 years old in with the herd & claimed to know which had bred with which!!
If you buy a used car you should do an HPI to check the authenticity & legality of it.Buying a bull should be no different. The 'reputable' breeder was indeed selling full pedigree stock but were the parents those actually stated on the pedigree certificate? We feel that this is a storm over nothing, once DNA has been taken then there is no dispute about the beast's pedigree or parentage. We welcome the introduction of the DNA testing as we have nothing to hide & will simply include the costs in the sale price.
DNA testing & the associated costs may also mean that breeders will be more selective as to what they register & as such the standard of the bulls in the herd may well go up.
If the parentage can be established beyond any reasonable doubt by virtue of DNA then it must be a step in the right direction. Too many people are selling "pure bred" Dexters that aren't pedigree & eroding what little market there is as well as diluting the quality of the breed. If this closes any loopholes & moves us towards a more transparent certification process then we are right behind the Council all the way.
Chris & Jan Taylor
Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 12:07 pm
by Jo Kemp
DNA testing of bulls is, in my view a step in the right direction. We should know the true parentage of our animals and this certainly helps with that.
Now, as it has only just begun, there will be animalies(sic) but these will decrease as time goes on and more animals are tested. Remember, dead bulls can be tested through a straw of any remaining semen.
Question: who should pay for all this? The young, newly registered bull obviously by the owner but the archival material?
I have maternal verification of my prize bull and am hoping to get Apple Joe profiled. This info would be used by the society and other progeny owners so I ask again, who should pay for this?
Jo