|
Post by legendrockranch on Jul 23, 2014 13:15:42 GMT -5
Hans you haven't been around long enough to know why some of us are skeptical. I would be more than happy to explain it to you by phone. I just don't want to start another war on the reasons why here. You are correct ANY document can be manipulated. especially when more hands on involved. It has nothing to do with secrecy or wanting to hide anything, as I said earlier my reports have all been sent in. Has UC Davis "ever" given you personally tests results from a case number on an animal you did not test? Do not include AI how would you suggest the case be handled where an animal was deliberately sold without papers, and charged for accordingly? . Patti, this does happen a lot. Selling an animal without registration papers. If the animal was sold several times and the paperwork does not follow. Some will go through great extents to get the animal re-registered. Barb
|
|
|
Post by dollarlessbill on Jul 23, 2014 22:12:33 GMT -5
Barb,
some of the first cows I bought bet it took me 2 yrs or longer to get all them transferred over to me, not registered, they were all ready reg. I did not know and was kinda at the mercey of the seller to hold up that end of the deal.That was all the dextercation I needed on paperwork
But fer the most part breeders knows the ins and outs of the paper trail and kkep it up, but sometimes life get in the way and time goes by and cows get sold fer what ever reason and to a first time buyer that don't know the jist of the paper and the excitement of get n their first Dexter blures their vision until they get home they have the cow and the other has the $ and u no what happ n s from there.
I am think n that somewere this topic is discussed in the herd books or on the web page guess it cant b stressed too much now that there is 3 different registrees , use2 b simple just 1 registry 2 deal with
Carol,
I guess their is always a bac door to every front door,,,, I always tattooed "NOREG" in any stocks ears that was sold unregistered, don't know why I did I just did.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Jul 24, 2014 1:09:25 GMT -5
Good idea, Bill.
I've sold a bull to people who didn't want papers, just wanted live service for a bunch of grade mixed cows, and liked the size and temperament of the bull. They didn't want to pay much either. I had someone else who wanted a house cow, didn't care about papers, just wanted something small and handlable that would give a reasonable amount of milk. They were going to breed her angus to get beef. Nothing wrong with her specifically, the sort of cow Gene calls a dual purpose one. I think there is a market for homes like this. Neither had the money to pay for a registered animal, and neither was interested in breeding purebreds. Kind of similar to dogs. Not everyone can afford the fancy papered stuff, or want to show; they just want the basic qualities found in the specific breed, and that's why there's a huge market for unregistered them. Cheers, c.
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Jul 24, 2014 6:04:02 GMT -5
C.
The people that are buying unregistered Dexters and Dexter crossbred animals, aren't likely to go through any extra effort or expense to genotype and try to register these unregistered (into a Dexter registry) or crossbred animals (some breeds accept percentage registrations) later on. Bill's suggestion would work to further discourage anyone from attempting to do this.
There are registered Dexters that have had their paperwork lost along the way, and making it easier to genotype and parentage qualify them, and bring them back into a legitimate registry with a complete and accurate pedigree, would be a valuable service to the owners and breeders.
Patti
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Jul 24, 2014 9:19:30 GMT -5
Hans you haven't been around long enough to know why some of us are skeptical. I would be more than happy to explain it to you by phone. I just don't want to start another war on the reasons why here. You are correct ANY document can be manipulated. especially when more hands on involved. It has nothing to do with secrecy or wanting to hide anything, as I said earlier my reports have all been sent in. Has UC Davis "ever" given you personally tests results from a case number on an animal you did not test? Do not include AI Barb Barb, I've had Dexters since 2006 and joined the ADCA around late 2008, but I certainly didn't get into the politics then, and I'd prefer to not get into them now either. However, I do recall a certain effort spearheaded by a member of this board on several occasions to prevent the registration of chondro carriers, with the intention of bringing it up to the district rep for discussion at the AGM, just a short year or two ago. Yet despite the efforts to do this you also support the mandatory testing AND reporting to the ADCA chondro carrier Dexters. Isn't this hypocritical? After all, somebody is at a minimum trying to discredit at a minimum, and bar the registration at a maximum, the very Dexters I have chosen to concentrate on breeding. Yet I continue to VOLUNTARILY report our carriers for all to see on the pedigree page despite the efforts by some (here at least) to try to discredit them. So don't think that you or other polled breeders have a monopoly on being attacked for your choices in breeding. I think there are a lot of good reasons, certainly more than the bad reasons, for including the case number or accession number of any genotyped Dexters on the pedigree pages in order to facilitate the registration of the offspring of animals who may have passed through multiple owners over a period of years. I have not received any actual results from UCDavis on an animal I did not test, although I have received reports on animals that I have purchased from the owner, and have had test reports transferred to my name and account that were paid for by the original owner, for which I was extremely grateful to have them approve.
|
|
|
Post by dollarlessbill on Jul 24, 2014 10:13:48 GMT -5
a purfik exampill of a reg situashuion,, I wanted 2 buy some cows from the peerless herd in iowa and bring them bac to ky just to c if I could return that old original bloodlines bac to were they started, after talk n with them and found out that they had not kept up their breed n program and hardly any of the cows were reg.now just let the cows do their own thing on the bac 40 sorter thing ,,, If I could have bought any of them bet yur bottom button I would hav went to the xtream to got them reg. but it never got off the ground. Bill
|
|
|
Post by legendrockranch on Jul 24, 2014 10:48:47 GMT -5
Oh my Hans. Where did you EVER come up with the idea this has something to do with Chondro??? I will tell you right now it does not.
Your first paragraph is TOTALLY out of line and has nothing to do with this discussion. Barb Edited to corrrect a statement that was made by Hans As far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure you all know this by now. I am all for testing be it PHA, Chondro, polled, color (except red to red), parentage verification for both sire and dam etc. The above are my statements Hans, not limited to chondro carriers. Polled and other tests are in there too. Please do not single out just the carriers of chondro.
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Jul 24, 2014 11:21:08 GMT -5
Patti, but when that owner then decides to pass the animal along and tells the buyer it's a purebred, and THAT owner decides they'd like papers.....don't be obtuse. cheers, c.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Jul 24, 2014 12:28:33 GMT -5
Barb, I didn't say this particular thread or what you were referring to had anything to do with chondro, I was only making a comparison between what you perceive to be an effort to discredit the origins of what you breed (i.e., polled), vs. the effort to discredit and portray chondro or PHA carriers as undesirable. Correct me if I'm wrong about that...
You are vehemently against transparency with regard to a simple case number for genotypes so people can accurately determine the parentage of their Dexter, yet you believe it is vitally important to report carriers of PHA and chondro (which I pay for and own) and display it on the pedigree. All I asked was what is the difference and isn't it hypocritical to take both positions?
|
|
|
Post by legendrockranch on Jul 24, 2014 12:53:45 GMT -5
I was only making a comparison between what you perceive to be an effort to discredit the origins of what you breed (i.e., polled), vs. the effort to discredit and portray chondro or PHA carriers as undesirable. Hans, I wonder if that is what others saw in your paragraph, I certainly didn't. The only thing you mentioned was Chondro, no mention of PHA, color, polled etc. You certainly can't compare the two.
|
|
|
Post by legendrockranch on Jul 24, 2014 13:05:29 GMT -5
You are vehemently against transparency with regard to a simple case number for genotypes so people can accurately determine the parentage of their Dexter, yet you believe it is vitally important to report carriers of PHA and chondro (which I pay for and own) and display it on the pedigree. All I asked was what is the difference and isn't it hypocritical to take both positions? 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. There are NO marker types, locus, numbers, analysis etc shown. Have you asked yourself why UC Davis won't give this information out? I don't know how I can make myself more clear. Why would anyone else (unless I give it to them) need to see my case markers? They are on file and in some cases at both UC Davis & Texas A&M for parentage verification if needed.
|
|
|
Post by sharethelegacy on Aug 2, 2014 23:02:02 GMT -5
The breeder of the bull involved in this discussion, Stephanie Parrish ( a veterinarian) was diagnosed with cancer several years ago. During the initial period of diagnosis, treatment, illness, her herd records took a backseat to her health. After finishing chemotherapy and feeling better she worked with Legacy to test all the cattle in her herd and make a permanent record so they would always be registerable. There are multiple generations of parentage confirmation.
On July 24th Stephanie Parrish lost her battle with cancer. There was no neglect in calls that were not returned . . . . at the time Stephanie Parrish was fighting for her life.
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Aug 4, 2014 0:12:35 GMT -5
Judy, I'm curious why, since you've obviously been involved with the owner for some time, you didn't bring this up and straighten out the misunderstanding when it came up initially? You could have at least contacted the initial poster direct with the info if you didn't want to go public. c.
|
|
|
Post by carolinagirl on Aug 4, 2014 6:58:29 GMT -5
I was so saddened to learn of Stephanie's passing. She was a very dedicated breeder and a wonderful woman. I admit I was puzzled by the lack of return e-mails but now that I know why, it's certainly understandable. Stephanie absolutely did hold up her end of our bargain....she sold me animals registered with Legacy and provided me their papers in a timely manner. I have no fault at all with our transaction. My desire to register my stock with ADCA was my decision alone, and I can't fault Stephanie at all for not doing that. I knew when I bought my animals that they were not ADCA. I am simply hoping now that I can register the bull or at least his offspring with ADCA because it will making selling them easier.
|
|