|
Post by midhilldexters on Jul 22, 2014 16:48:38 GMT -5
Gene, why don't you tell me exactly which bulletin minutes you are referring to so we can be on the same page. You certainly made it sound like we were so close in being one registry there must be lots about it in the minutes. Just to let you know, any board member that needs to say something at a meeting has a way of doing so, the fact that your representative didn't do so is their problem.
Carol K
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Jul 22, 2014 16:57:51 GMT -5
Barb, you constantly harp about testing and reporting the results to the ADCA registrar for public listing on the pedigree page. Last time I looked I was "paying" for those tests too. Isn't your stance about making available a simple case number for a genotype inconsistent?
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Jul 22, 2014 16:58:00 GMT -5
The Dexter cattle registry issue has always been within the Dexter Breeder's power to resolve. No action is needed by any Board of Directors. All that is needed is for Dexter Breeders in the United States to collectively register their animals with the ADCA, the original Dexter cattle registry, and the largest Dexter cattle registry in North America. Problem solved. No need for drama queens (or kings) narratives on the matter. It is directly by our own actions that we choose to be part of the solution or part of the problem.
Patti
|
|
|
Post by legendrockranch on Jul 22, 2014 18:43:24 GMT -5
Barb, you constantly harp about testing and reporting the results to the ADCA registrar for public listing on the pedigree page. Last time I looked I was "paying" for those tests too. Isn't your stance about making available a simple case number for a genotype inconsistent? Not inconsistent at all. I'll try and put it more simply for you. I report the results to the ADCA I paid for the test. I give the results to the ADCA to show the some of whats on the test. For instance sire and dam qualify, polled/horned, chondro carrier/non carrier, pha carrier/non carrier, color, nothing more is shown on the pedigree site or certificate. The rest of the tests results should be held in their confidence. Mind you we have the option on some of those tests to report them or not. There are no marker types, locus, numbers, analysis etc. that are shown. To make it clearer for you, I am the first party. the ADCA or Judy is the second party. NO third party should be given any extra information unless the first party (me) gives approval.
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Jul 22, 2014 20:33:49 GMT -5
I don't want this to be a 'here we go again', but I feel compelled to respond to Gene and his egregious statements. If it hadn't been for Judy and her strident, hysterical spewing on any chat site she could find about how the Board was trying to 'take over' the running of the assn, and who supported the hired employee who wanted absolute control instead (anybody see the irony here?), the whole issue would likely have taken place in camera, and I doubt the split would have occurred. For Gene to claim Judy is the paragon who has been trying to repair the rift--for which she is largely responsible--is outrageous, but then, I suppose, is all of a piece.
I'm going to comment to Olga, and ask that this thread be edited to exclude the political rhetoric, including mine.
c.
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Jul 22, 2014 20:55:30 GMT -5
Barb,
The ADCA currently requires a genotype to be "on file" for the sire and for the bull calf, in order to register the bull calf. The owner of the genotype test for the sire, was required to submit that genotype to the ADCA database, in order to register that animal. By the time another Breeder or Owner needs to register an offspring of that particular bull, the owner of that original genotype test may be dead or incapacitated, the bull himself may be gone, and if the Registrar is unable to provide access (by providing the lab case number or accession number) to that genotype for the purpose of parentage testing, no one could register a perfectly eligible calf and meet the ADCA registration requirement.
Patti
|
|
|
Post by carragheendexters on Jul 22, 2014 21:59:44 GMT -5
I have no right to comment on this thread but I am going to. How about everybody take a few steps back and a few deep breaths. This thread is going no where useful for carolinagirl.
It is not helping her solve her problem of getting her bull registered. Patti has explained the logistics of what she has to do. Carolinagirl has said she's going to contact the registrar.
No doubt she is wishing she had never asked what she thought was a simple question. Maybe she may not want to ask another question for fear of the war that she may start.
How many other new people are being turned off because they don't like this warring?
I know and understand that there is a long history behind this, but with respect for carolinagirl she doesn't deserve this on HER thread.
|
|
|
Post by legendrockranch on Jul 22, 2014 22:15:24 GMT -5
Carolinagirl, after all of this hopefully you will let us know how things work out for you. Best of luck.
Barb
Edited to add: Patti there could always be exceptions made if the original owner was dead or incapacitated, the bull himself may be gone. Again though not just given to anyone who wants it.
|
|
|
Post by midhilldexters on Jul 23, 2014 5:51:56 GMT -5
rather than edit gene's post could it be moved to it's own thread so it can continue to be addressed.
Carol K
|
|
|
Post by carolinagirl on Jul 23, 2014 6:52:56 GMT -5
I have been involved with a variety of animals and registries for a number of years, and also of discussion forums. I know how sensitive topics tend to overheat at times. So don't worry...the debate on this thread is certainly not enough to drive me away from the group or the breed. There is way too much valuable information on this group to ever turn away from it just because of disputes over registry. I see the value in all of the things that the different registries offer. It would be nice if everything was in one place, but at this point it's not so we deal with what we have.
I have not spoken to Judy yet but I have spoken to the ADCA registrar (by email) and have been instructed how to proceed. I sincerely appreciate everyone's input.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Jul 23, 2014 8:52:23 GMT -5
Barb, you constantly harp about testing and reporting the results to the ADCA registrar for public listing on the pedigree page. Last time I looked I was "paying" for those tests too. Isn't your stance about making available a simple case number for a genotype inconsistent? Not inconsistent at all. I'll try and put it more simply for you. I report the results to the ADCA I paid for the test. I give the results to the ADCA to show the some of whats on the test. For instance sire and dam qualify, polled/horned, chondro carrier/non carrier, pha carrier/non carrier, color, nothing more is shown on the pedigree site or certificate. The rest of the tests results should be held in their confidence. Mind you we have the option on some of those tests to report them or not. There are no marker types, locus, numbers, analysis etc. that are shown. To make it clearer for you, I am the first party. the ADCA or Judy is the second party. NO third party should be given any extra information unless the first party (me) gives approval. I hope your post was just quickly constructed and it wasn't meant to be condescending toward my intelligence. ANY document can be manipulated, and the "first party" is the one likely to do it in the effort to misrepresent their animal for financial gain. The case/accession numbers not only serve to allow future owners to register their animals without the availability of the "first party" as Patti had mentioned in her previous post, but it also provides a safeguard to somebody who may have questions about the parentage of their Dexter to independently verify it through the lab results without the participation of the owner. I shouldn't be able to take my copy of the genotype, for example, and send it to the registrar directly as verification of an animals parentage. The same goes for other test results, such as PHA, etc. Even though I provide this to buyers, they still have the option of independently verifying it themselves without my participation or consent. How awkward for somebody who might wish to verify it to have to come through me to do so. Frankly as I said before I don't understand all the fuss about secrecy with respect to genotype markers, etc...unless there is something to hide. And to answer your prior question about listing the genotype case# on the online pedigree, I welcome it. And to go further, since there are now two labs that are ADCA approved, it should also be made clear which (or both) labs did the genotype, just as is done with the AI bull list.
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Jul 23, 2014 9:13:20 GMT -5
Hans,
I agree with you. There is no reason to encumber or delay the registration of an eligible animal because a "first party" isn't willing to let a certain "third party" utilize a genotype that is already in either of the approved labs genotype databases for the purpose of parentage testing. Why make things more difficult than they need to be. It would help facilitate accurate future registrations if the genotype case number (or accession number) was included in the online pedigree information and it would save a few extra emails and extra time for the Regisrar and the owner of the animal in question.
Patti
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Jul 23, 2014 11:09:35 GMT -5
Patti, to be devil's advocate, how would you suggest the case be handled where an animal was deliberately sold without papers, and charged for accordingly? I've had incidents where someone wanted stock for crossbreeding, and also where a heifer had what I considered a fault I didn't want to see perpetuated in a registered herd, so sold her without papers as a family cow. I sent in the paperwork to the registrar with a bold felt pen notation across the papers saying SOLD AS UNREGISTERED, DO NOT ISSUE/REISSUE PAPERS, with a copy of the bill of sale where it explicitely said the animal was being sold as grade stock and no papers would be forthcoming.
With DNA reports now, someone could buy an animal sold specifically without papers, do the testing and prove parentage, and suddenly the buyer would have (on paper) a perfectly presentable registerable Dexter, completely confounding the original terms of sale.
Do you know if we have provisions for this? Cheers, c.
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Jul 23, 2014 11:47:49 GMT -5
C.
In a rare circumstance where that might happen, I suppose that you could take action against the buyer in small claims court for breach of the sales contract. I can't imagine this happening much, since only a few animals would ever even be sold this way.
Or you could do what I do and only sell registered animals that you consider worthy to use as breeding stock, and the rest are either processed for beef (if suitable for that purpose); or euthanized and buried on-site. Then it will never be a problem in the first place. If it's got your herd name on it, and it's not worthy for use as breeding stock, then it's your responsibility as the breeder, to cull (process for beef or bury it) and remove it from the breed.
Patti
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Jul 23, 2014 12:52:42 GMT -5
I would hope there is a provision to prevent registration in those cases but there isn't. I actually am aware of an instance with a heifer where this occurred with the sire of the heifer sold as unregistered and as is and without consent to ever be registered.
I would report the animal as deceased if it was previously registered. This would at least raise some flags and result in contact by the registrar with the prior owner where an explanation could be made as to why it was reported deceased and why it was sold unregistered. With the deceased animal reporting, there probably should be a date included with the report.
There are a lot of loopholes as it is with the registry without dam genotyping, and there needs to be a balance between having tighter control over registrations without making the process of registration an undue burden which would drive up costs and create a scenario where people don't register quality animals.
Edited to add, I think Patti's solution to the problem is the best and first choice when possible.
|
|