bullentin

[forestblaze]

as council only represent 1% of membership could a questionaire not have been put in with the herd census papers to ask the other 99% whether or not they wished to lose their bulletin, talking of the herd census we don't appear to have had it as yet we seem to be getting later and later each year before we get our herd book but we still have to pay £10 for a document thats vertually a year out of date. Bill Osborne

[Duncan MacIntyre]

So far I have kept out of this one, probably because I do feel rather guilty as a former regular contributor that I have not produced anything for the bulletin recently. Time and mental energy only go so far.

I have to say I do think that the bulletin as it is is a great asset to the Society and is a great credit to Eileen, who puts in a lot of unpaid effort to produce it. I too have many of the older typewritten ones from David Key's days and have always valued the bulletin greatly, especially as a newer member twenty years ago.

It was mentioned at the AGM, but of course the bulletin reaches a great number of readers who are unable to attend. I just hope that it can be saved. It does seem a much poorer solution to print a fancy book once a year and a bare photocopied sheet quarterly or whatever. The matter was discussed at the 2005 AGM as well and as far as I recall it had been decided to reduce the repetative bulk of stuff like Society regulations, charges etc and only publish these once a year.

Duncan

[ann]

Hi Everyone

527 hits have been made to this subject but only 9 of us have expressed our objections to the idea of the bullentin being scrapped in its original form so if you want to keep your bullentin come on lets have your views, no one comes round and throws brick through your window on this site or flames you.

If you have never posted before, why not do it now.

[Mark Bowles]

I have kept a low profile too.
Before anything is said i would like to praise Eileen for her work over the years, and yes it is years. As time goes by people tend to take what they have got for granted, that goes for the bulletin and definately Eileen, she has made a cracking job with the limited resources she has had available to her.Trying to hit deadlines with the council ( thats all of them from day one, including when i was on council) holding back to get their pieces of news in, then making some of the items out of date by the time the membership get the copy.
Well done Eileen.
At the AGM i was annoyed when council held high a couple of other breed journals as examples of what they wanted to attain to, one being the Shorthorn publication.
If any of you have seen it then you would agreed that it is a very profesional product, glossy quality photos, valued articles and quality adverts for drugs and herd profiles etc
If thats where we are heading then fine,but beware, where are the quality photos coming from?,we have all seen the doctored poor quality photos in the recent herd books, and it only needs 6, where are the quality ads coming from? where will the content come from all of a sudden when Eileen is struggling.
There has always been a bit of an issue as regards the cost of the bulletin, if a quality journal can be produced then would that be cheaper, maybe not.
So i say yes to journal if its of good quality and not an embarrasment to the breed, if thats not attainable then dont try to do half a job, stick with a revamped bulletin.
Mark

[richmonds dun dexters]

we are new to keeping dexters and have just made members of the society, we havnt recieved any bulletins yet though but would be intrested in getting on the mailing list

[ann]

Hello Richmond dun dexters

you will automaticaly get a bullentin when the next one comes out if you are members of the Dexter Cattle Society

[happy hollidays]

Good evening, I agree with the Richmonds Dun Dexters. for us newcomers, the more contact the better. I also belong to the South East Group and they have very good communication between members.

[Chris Downward]

Having only received and read one bulletin so far my opinions are based just on the one issue.
It seems a very dull publication for such an exciting breed of cattle. The layout is excellent, the quality of the print and photographs are very good (full marks to the editor)--but The editor is only as good as her contributors and the content is very dull and uninteresting.
I would agree that if we can't improve the articles etc then there is little point in a glossy mag that contains nothing of interest. It would seem to me a good idea only to produce a glossy when we have the content to support one. In the mean time a simple typed letter would seem to be more than adequate.
Chris

[Duncan MacIntyre]

Maybe Chris can give us some suggestions on what sort of article would not be dull.

The last bulletin had bits on cattle health, some on aspects of husbandry from experienced breeders, some anecdotal stuff on dextering, news from some of the regional groups, and some which might seem dull on breed regs etc but ever so useful if you don't know or can't remember it all.

At the end of the day the vast majority of Dexter keepers are doing so on a very small scale, they tend to be the sort of people who are doing lots and lots of other things and not everyone feels able to write something relevant for general circulation.

Labelling Yvonne Froelich, Carol Neilson,Beryl Rutherford, Deirdre Hilton,Chris Bruce, Tony and Kate Reed, Corrine Allward,Diana Lusty, Bill Mortimore, Jim Taylor, Chris Willard,Gabriella Nanci,Alison Kirk, Caroline Bradbury, Howard Hilton and others as producers of a "dull" bulletin does little to encourage future contributors and shows scant respect for the time and effort they have put into making a bulletin possible.

We on this discussion board would do well to remember that many members are not on line, cannot have such exchanges as we enjoy here, and particulary those geographically or otherwise not able to join in group activities rely on the bulletin for information on Dexters and related things, news of other breeders they have met, etc and really do look forward to each and every issue.

Duncan

[Chris Downward]

Duncan,
Thanks for your comments and in reply all I can say is that it is stiill a dull read. I'm sure the people who write the articles are in no way dull but in order to produce a glossy mag such as we currently have, it must contain "glossy mag articles". In the last bulletin in my opinion the articles were the sort that I would expect to see on a type written sheet of paper.
Other breed magazines have similar problems I know.
The solution is to produce only when there are a suitable number of satisfactory articles, otherwise we will produce a glossy mag which looks good on a shelf but which is of little interest to members.
It would be interesting to ask members who actually reads it from cover to cover?
chris

[Chris Downward]

To add to my previous comments I thought that if I am going to put my head above the parapet I might as well analyse the last bulletin in detail. The first thing that I must note though is that it is a well laid out and edited document even if i will later comment on it's content.
Glossy Cover--fine, interesting
Page 1 and facing page--no problem
Page 2--neat editorial
Page 3--this strikes me as a fill in page, large print with large advertising note. The advertising note is unnessersary if we are also to have an advert booking form.
Page 4 --no problem
Page 5 and 6 -- interesting and well written article
page 7--why a letter from N Ireland in addition to readers letters on pages 8, 9,? What is the reminder designed to do? it looks again like a fill in.
pages 8 and 9--2 pages for 3 letters?--again seems to be a fill in.
Page 10--interesting
Page 11--I won't comment on this.
page 12--why this article?--nothing wrong with the article but why are we giving it space in our bulletin? I want to read about Dexters not Garden centres.
Page 13-White Clover--is this an article or advert. Waste regulations--interesting even if its information has been in the farming press for many months.
page 14--no problem
page 15,16.17-- interesting but long winded, the second article from Beryl Rutherford plus also a letter and an email mentioned in the editorial--this seems as though she is the main driving force behind the bulletin--I have never met or heard about the lady, but it is a lot of mentions!
Page18--amusing but why put a reminder at the bottom of the page--again looks like a fill in.
Page 19--no problem interesting--but a reproduced article.
page 20--another reproduced article
page 21--why this in the bulletin? surely this should appear in the herd book?
Page 22--no problem
Page 23,24 and 25--why in the bulletin and not as a seperate sheet--to send for the articles mentioned you will loose the group news from Devon etc.
Pages 26, 27, 28, 29--no problem but why the advert for Melton Mowbary show under the Northern Group News?
Page 30-These are society adverts and I would suggest they appear as such under a society notice page.
Page 31--come on, everybody registered with BCMS should have this information--again a fill in.
Page 32--no problem but the adverts on page 30 should of appeared in this section.
Page 33--I presume the large print is designed to catch the eye of somebody just skipping through the bulletin!!!!!!!!!
Page 34--again why in the bulletin and not the herd book?
Page 35--half the page is devoted to an address and how to use a credit card--not needed.
page 36--why not in the herd book?
page 37, 38, 39--why not the herd book?
page 40, 41, 42 --no problem
Page 43, 44, 45, 46, 47--why in a bulletin and not the herd book?
Page 48--notes!!! on what?
In synopsis we have a bulletin which in my opinion contained 48 pages of which I found the following
14 pages of interest
7 pages that needed compressing(probably 3.5 pages afterwards)
11 pages that I thought should of been in the herd book.
The remaining pages were either adverts or fill ins or notes.
If the adverts are not paying for the cost of the bulletin and we are, this is what we are getting:
1. The 17.5 pages of interest in printing terms equate to 8.75 A4 sheets--printed on both sides say 4.5 sheets.
That is what we are in my opinion getting!and presumably paying for--not impressed at all.
My final comment is much the same as my first--less than 30% of the bulletin was of interest, if we need a glossy then have one produced as and when otherwise I think the council is correct in giving it up for a simple type written sheet.
Hopefully this is helpful
Chris

[Duncan MacIntyre]

I don't think Mr Downward even begins to understand the meaning of constructive criticism, nor the damage done by negative comment on combined efforts of a large number of volunteers, nor the common sense of having a bit of time as a member of a new group or organisation before entering on a campagn of destruction against those willing to make an effort on behalf of others.

I too am very crictical person, have to constantly keep myself in check and try not to criticise if I am not prepared to offer a better contribution or approach myself. I came into the Dexter and RBST world over 20 years ago, took a cow to Stoneleigh Show and Sale and came back very angry about various things that happened or didn't happen. But fortunately I did realise that such groups as RBST and DCS are by and large formed of friendly people, keenly interested in the breeds and breeders, usually open to constructive suggestions. As a result of initially being annoyed I have instead become involved. I would advise Chris to try to do likewise. Perhaps reading more than one issue of a publication before condemning it, getting to know more of the history of the breed and the changes the breed, DCS, and farming in general would be a starting point.

For the meantime a short apology to those who have been sleighted might be in order.

In due course I look forward to reading an exciting article from Chris in the Bulletin.

Duncan

Duncan

[Alison@Hatherland]

My daughter and I fight over the bulletin whenever it drops through the letter box (as it has just done today - she's reading it now whilst I make do with the discussion board). The most important thing is to encourage contributions - it's only ever going to be as good as the articles submitted and we can't afford to frighten off potential contributors by nit picking (or worse).
(ps Harriet apologises for rarely posting on the boards since beginning her GCSE exams.)
(I rarely post myself but the insensitivity of some contributions have driven even me to write something).

[Issy]

I read it from cover to cover and for one will miss it when it goes.

[Chris Downward]

Duncan,
My comments where constructive, if they offend then I'm sorry they do but they still stand. Making off hand comments without listing particular points is also not helpful, my views are my views and we I hope live in a democracy where all views matter--or is this not the case?
I am interested in a forward thinking society with an eye for the future not the past, what happened 20 years ago is historical but probably not relevant.
Which portion of my comments do you consider to be wrong or insulting? or were your comments just designed to support the staus quo.
The magazine is dull in my opinion and we can do better--I do not intend to write long articles for it but that is not the point---very few members do. If the members will not support it with articles why have it.
Please no more insults Mr MacIntyre--refute my comments by all means but do so in a logical manner
chris