Does THIS define honesty.

[Gorignak]

HE KNOWS......UNEQUIVOCALLY
"I have done more disclosure than most Dexter breeders will do."

"I am not responsible for the world's problems"

Go back to sharpening your knives. If someone wanders into his trap without all the information, it is not his responsibility to furnish it.

I felt like throwing up while talking to him. One can only assume that his position is the position of the ADCA. He reiterated that he is doing all, and more, than is required of him. How true.

AMEN.

[jdcarnathan]

I woupdnt consider him being a breeder. More of a scam artist. These are my 2 cents.

[ssrdex]

That's gonna be our new slogan..."south sutter ranch-we do more disclosure than most breeders do". What a joke! I guess our call to honestly need only be "better than most" to be acceptable. And yes...if you CAUSE the problems-you ARE responsible for them. This sucks. I hope you were more gracious than I'm afraid I would've been, Mike.

[Olga]

Look at the ADCA Pedigree page. What do we see:
GF Coconut Kai is registered to a breeder who has a total of 9 animals registered to them. By looking at the animals' names, one can conclude that this person has acquired 7 cows and 1 bull and began breeding. So far they have 2 offspring registered to their name, both PHA positive. 5 of the animals in the breeding herd, including the bull, come from the same farm. The bull's dam is a tested PHA carrier, yet the bull does not have PHA status listed. One of the cows also has a recent PHA positive ancestor, her grand-dam. Finally, I see that the 2 offspring of this herd are still registered to the original breeder's name. What can be concluded from this information?

- The breeder of the bull (breeder #1), RRV Jordan, didn't test him for PHA or didn't disclose the results

- The breeder who bought RRV Jordan (breeder #2) didn't test him for PHA or didn't disclose the results

- Breeder #2 didn't pay for the transfer of GF Coconut Kai into new owner's name

- Breeder #2 is aware of PHA, since he tests for it and even submits the results

- Current owner is trying to cut his losses

Anything further would be an insinuation. But there is all kinds of wrong here, on many levels.

[kansasdexters]

This is what can happen when people buy from a breeder that is dispersing their herd in an emergency situation. The RRV herd is/was being sold off and dispersed, so the original owner/breeder has/had no further interest in testing, registering or transferring animals and their sale prices for those animals reflected that. They sold at a financial loss. They just wanted to sell their herd and get out of owning Dexter cattle. They had no pasture and little or no water because of the drought. The kindest thing that they could do for their herd was to sell it to someone that had pasture and water.

PHA testing and reporting is optional, it is not required by the ADCA to register or transfer a Dexter. Chondrodysplasia testing and reporting is optional, it is not required by the ADCA to register or transfer a Dexter.

Whenever people buy from someone that is in financial or personal distress, "going out of business", they get what they get "as is". It's the buyer's decision to buy at "fire sale" prices, and the seller is usually taking a substantial loss by selling at those prices, so it's really not fair to harshly judge the seller for what they did or didn't do.

The smart buyers know enough about the cattle to "get a good deal" or at least get something that they can make into something worth more than what they paid for it. It's naive buyers get themselves into trouble and they learn a few hard lessons along the way. The moral of this story is, that if you need help in selecting healthy, quality cattle, your best option is to buy from a reputable breeder that is willing to guarantee the animals, provide support after the sale, and help you to establish a successful herd.

It's surely not our task to pass judgement or to be critical of what these people did or didn't do. The cattle in the photos look like they're being well cared for, watered, and fed. Everything else is just icing on the cake after a herd (and herd owner) like this suffers through a severe drought and a huge financial loss. They deserve our compassion, not harsh judgement or critical comments.

Patti

[Gorignak]

I STARTED OUT POLITE.... I hung up after about 5 minutes of prepared deflection of every possible scenario that I posed to him....This guy is SMOOTH. "Someone could want it for a herd of Angus Heifers" ( NO, they would want a polled black so the calves would pass the "Angus" test at the auction) On and on.... I ended up babbling as I attempted reason. Then I locked down, and offered that the next stupid person in line was going to get this bull, and all the harm it could do.
That's when I got the "I am not responsible for the worlds problems" ........ END of conversation for me.
I think that this discussion is academic and hypothetical, UNTIL we are faced with a situation as real as this. If OUR goals....and I use OUR meaning society as a whole, not just Dexter Breeders....are to maximize profits and minimize involvement and culpability AT ALL COST.... Where's the exit
Henry Ford chastised the rich of his era with...."I have to pay my workers enough to buy my car"..... Now, Wal Mart says....."your problem, chump....you're not holding any cards". A tremendous article last week in the NY Times on the hyper-growth of those "Dollar" stores. It seems the WalMart is losing the poor's business because THEY (WalMart) is not paying them enough to shop there.
Folks, you want those cattle customers happy, fat, and entertained by their involvement with you and your cattle. If Dexters get enough bad press....people will move on.

Anyway.....lesson learned. Thanks Olga, I will look at the cascade of ownership and try and get a sense of how many times this has been repeated with these cattle or their relatives.

[Gorignak]

Patti....I'm going to challenge your reasoning on this one. I think there are alternative views. Though the sellers were in trouble economically......the PHA status of the animals seems to not be in question. I'm a little confused here, given the extreme burden that you shouldered when PHA became evident in your herd. Your story is one of the brightest beacons in "my " Dexter experience. I'll not give these or any folks a pass to sell PHA positive animals to UNSUSPECTING buyers.....whether the unsuspecting is a product of stupidity or subterfuge.
NO....I'll stand and fight right there....not an inch. Knowingly selling a PHA positive bull, while advertising it in a way the minimizes the fact or the consequences of breeding him is, or should be, criminal.
It is not.....and it seems like you have a back story with these folks. I'm glad I don't.
I am most troubled by the statement as to what is "required"and what is optional. Owning other people was legal 90 years before I was born..... Slave owners suffered horrendous financial losses..... I'm trying here....but I just can't muster any compassion for them.
I am, and I hope others are, more than a sum of the laws currently in place.

Zero on the compassion meter here.

I will welcome any information that serves to further clarify.

[wvdexters]

I was hoping as we all were that this was not what it looked like. Unfortunately, it was.

It is one thing to sell in ignorance; with no understanding of what you are dealing with.

It is another to sell untested stock. Many members/breeders do not test for PHA. They never have and probably never will until they are required to do so.

It is a totally different thing IMO to sell a bull that you KNOW is PHA positive as excellent breeding stock. It is a misrepresentation of facts and completely dishonest. (A used car salesman turning up the radio so the lady can't hear the knock in the engine.) This is wrong and he Knows it.

[kansasdexters]

The first ADCA registered Dexter bull that I purchased, after much research, and paying extra to get a breeding soundness examination and vaccinations, and travelling 1,400 miles round trip to get, ended up being a PHA-carrier (there was no test in 2005), A1/A1 for Beta Casein (there was no test in 2005), and registered with the wrong sire (genotyping of bulls was not required by the ADCA in 2005). He was one of the best Dexter bulls that I've ever had. I still have some of his daughters and they are among my very favorite Dexter cows. We worked through the other issues. His pedigree was corrected. No regrets, I loved this bull, he was superb.

Carol Davidson's best-ever, never to be sold, registered Dexter cow, Hiyu Rosegay, was a PHA-carrier. She produced several notable and very excellent Dexter bulls that were PHA-free.

The lesson here is clear to me, one defective gene (especially one that is testable for only $25) is not a good reason to condemn any animal to slaughter, male or female.

Be a smart buyer, know what you have in your herd, and know what you are buying to improve to your herd. I don't sell PHA-carriers, but I have some in my herd and I test and report on all of their offspring. They contribute many excellent and desirable traits, they have value and a place with breeders that know how to use them.

I report my test results to the ADCA and the ADCA online pedigree shows the PHA and Chondro status of every animal that I own and produce. How many of you have tested all of your cows and bulls for PHA, Chondro, and Parentage (sire and dam qualified)? I have and it's reported to the ADCA, carriers and non-carriers. Before you get on your high horse and make derogatory comments about what other people are doing or not doing, you better get it done yourself on your own herd. Anything less is hypocrisy at its highest level.

Patti

[Gorignak]

Patti....you're arguing Grapes and Raisins here. There is a difference.

No high horse here.....all ours are tested...all will be. PHA will get ate.

I'm going to chew on this a bit. I cannot follow your argument all the way through the initial post with the listing on Craigslist.....to the arguments that evolved........somewhere in between the buttercups in the field....and the floor of the barn.......this was turned from a solvable problem, into...well, manure.

The seller I spoke to is a sleaze.... a smooth talking "Fast Eddie" with a great used car for YOU. If he was enticed, cajoled, and hoodwinked into a stupid purchase.....then it was by pros. I will stand by my assessment of the person I spoke with concerning the bull in the listing. His pedestal is existing law....he has no other footing whatsoever.

Now, you are going to bat for the prior owners. I haven't commented YET on them. But I will challenge that, though a PHA positive test does not need to be a death sentence, the propagation and advancement of affected animals indiscriminately is terrifying. How many more "testable"genetic flaws would you welcome as manageable in Dexters......2.......6.....10.

I'm not very smart.....but I am terribly thorough. I don't think the proper arguments are being advanced here. I am going to back off and examine this with a broader lens. I just don't see the link between..."Carol did it, and I do it right"....so it should be okay. There is a level of prowess below yours that possibly deserves some measure of protection. I do not think that accepting that a PHA positive cow has value, forces acceptance of the argument that a PHA positive bull has value. I stand by my assessment that this bull will/could/would be sold to someone who was not prepared fully to understand the consequences. AND, that every contrivance and semantic manipulation possible is being used in the ad to deflect awareness of the "problem".

Is this still the game of Lords.....I had hoped not....M'Lady. Us bodgers deserves to áve a good cow too.

[kansasdexters]

Mike,

There isn't a single Dexter in the ADCA registry (as of today) that shows up with your name on it as Owner or as Breeder. You haven't tested and reported anything yet.

Since you had no intention of buying that bull, your phone call to the owner was more harassment than it was anything else. You don't know what that owner would have said or done with an honest buyer, because you weren't an honest buyer.

If you want to talk the talk, then you'll have to walk the walk. This isn't a game, it's real animals and real people that are involved and affected. Treat others as you want to be treated. Do the right thing, whether it's optional or not. Those of us that have made the long-term commitment to the Dexter breed are doing that.

Patti

[marion]

I find it more than a little suspect, that the ad has every other detail about the bull EXCEPT the fact that he is a carrier of PHA. It has to have been a deliberate omission, so I would very much doubt it would have been mentioned to someone new to the breed and buying their first few Dexters. Possible, but not likely.
If safeguards are not put in place by the Association, PHA will be a perpetual problem for the breed. Four years have gone by since we became aware of the problem and have had access to a simple, cheap test. IMO, if someone chooses to retain an existing PHA carrier for breeding purposes, every calf should be tested and if carrier be ineligible for registration. This lethal mutation can be (and should be) eliminated from the breed. marion

[midhilldexters]

Well I searched part of the morning trying to find an older post that Patti had written previously on PHA to give Mike, and the others, another perspective on this. Now I can stop searching.
Many of you have the attitude that losing genetics from a Chondro carrier is a big no no as the breedings can be managed, why on earth is a PHA carrier any different?
Good post Patti, hopefully it will be thought provoking.

Carol K

[lakeportfarms]

Well said Gene and Carol. PHA in the hands of a responsible breeder shouldn't be a death sentence. However, this Craigslist ad still strikes me as being a classic case of buyer beware. The problem is that a lot of buyers are not aware and so the problem is just passed on.

[gcf]

I just got my ADCA Dexter Bulletin in the mail and happened to have re-read the ADCA Code of Ethics before reading this thread.

"As a member of the Association, I agree that I will:

<...>

E. Represent my animals honestly to prospective buyers and give such advice or assistance to the buyer as may be reasonably requested."

F. Keep on the alert for and work diligently to control potentially adverse effects of known genetically inherited conditions by educating prospective buyers regarding the implications associated with the presence of these conditions in a breeding program."


I have no idea if the PDCA maintains a similar code of ethics for members.

While it seems like there may be an ethics issue and possibly a violation here, unless the seller is a member of the Association and we want the Association to be ethics police, I'm not entirely clear what actions we all can take as Dexter owners and advocates in this situation that won't result in a giant mud-fling of a situation.

The reality of the breed is that there ARE a lot of small owners that range from spectacular to uninformed to sleazy. Unless you personally want to pay the guy to fill your freezer and get their "breeding stock" off the market, the best we can do is represent our herds and our breed to our customers as professionally as possible, through education and good example. In my area, craigslist is filled with unpapered, cross-bred, and poorly-kept dexters that make it harder for me to market my (tested or obligate-free) registered, pure-bred, well-cared-for animals. In some sense caveat emptor applies to cattle as much as anything else.

Kelsey/gcf