ADCA's desire to move to all Dexters being DNA genotyped.

[jamshundred]

Below is the announcment made by the President of ADCA.  I highlighted a couple of the comments.

Special Announcement To All

ADCA Members

Over the past week, there has been significant concern expressed from all regions regarding the potential consequences of the implementation of our new registry system (see page 8 of the Fall 2014 Bulletin) planned for January 1, 2015. To address these concerns, a special Board of Directors (BOD) conference call was held on November 30, 2014. During this conference, the BOD unanimously voted to postpone the rollout of the new registry system until after the 2015 AGM. This postponement affords members additional time to provide input to their respective regional directors to help refine the registration system and for us to communicate our plan to transition to a parentage verified registry.

Our transition to a parentage verified registry was not started on a whim from the BOD, but was membership driven. The plan was developed in direct response to broad based membership requests to clarify the meaning of Chondrodysplasia, Pulmonary Hypoplasia with Anasarca (PHA), and the conveyance of an Obligate status for each when parentage verification is not required for registration.

We are grateful to the members that took the time communicate with the officers and the BOD regarding this first step in transitioning to a parentage verified registry. It is apparent that there are issues that need attention and clarification. As we go forward as an association, please contact your regional director with points of clarification and changes you would like to see prior to the 2015 AGM in Virginia. Please, do not contact the Registrar with your suggestions. Jill is the Registrar and does not make policy; that is the job of the Board.

Thank you,
Jim Woehl
ADCA, President

There is NO one who can say I am not for DNA typing or parentage confirmation.   However, I am NOT for mandatory/compulsory requirements in the breed as yet and I think the voices of the membership on this should be honored. ( Fat chance since every voice the membership had was removed from 2004-2008 and now they are being ran by the same executive fiat that has proven so useful in American politics). 

 During the course of 2013 the ADCA Directors polled their regions regarding DNA genotyping of females.   By OVERWHELMING percentages the MEMBERS stated to their Directors they did NOT wish compulsory testing.  The ADCA Directors do though. . .it is Legacy driven.   Through the efforts of Legacy many breeders have began to test and parentage verify their herds and the market will drive more to do so.

Although there are many members now testing all animals in their herd and parentage confirming it is not a majority of the membership.  The actual complaints and concerns that were registered were regarding the absolute asinine system they came up with to manipulate breeders into fulfilling the ADCA goal which they didn't have the guts to implement to begin with because they know it will cost them members and money.  I am suspicious that the complicated system which many think would reflect negative on certain animals in certain categories was devised to engender just the reaction that occured.  Read the highlighted lines above and you clearly see what the leadership wants and plans to implement.  The obligate status issue was just a backdoor into parentage so they can tell the membership  it was all their idea to begin with in hopes of minimizing the loss of members and funds.

And THAT is what concerns ME.  Not the members ADCA will lose or the funds that go with them. .  . but what seems to ever be of any concern to this association which represents the breed. . . .  .the DEXTERS.   The number of Dexters that will drop from the registration rolls.   We cannot afford to lose another single traditional animal from this breed. . . . . and I fear that will be the biggest loss and I figure knowing the make-up of this board that is their least concern.  Their biggest one has always been keeping up with the innovations of Legacy.

The best example that they know little of what they are doing. . . . . it when they require their members to genotpe their bulls, and to genotype any bull calves from their bulls and they do NOT require these bull calves to be parentage confirmed to the sires!  Say what?   Right.  So, if the actual parentage confirmations are the issue. . . . why haven't they been requiring it for the past 5 years?   They simply do not know what they are doing!  Worse, they don't ask anyone who does!

Second example.   Obligate status.   Before you can give offspring obligate status for A2/A2, or non-carrier of PHA and chondro. . .. . they have to be proven ( parentage confirmation) to be a progeny of the two tested parents, ( or any with obligate status).    ADCA was passing out obligate status without this important requirement.  OOPS.  Slightly behind the Legacy curve yet again.  . so how do we resolve all these obligate records we have online because we didn't know what we were doing?  We try to get the horse back in front of the cart by forcing the members to genotype and parentage confirm rather than remove any obligate status of an animal without parent confirmation on record. 

I think ALL the members should have a voice and not the ones already doing it who will not be affected by new rules.

Judy

PS -  In England, the largest registry of Dexter cattle, there is NO requirement to genotype and parentge confirm all Dexters. 

[lonecowhand]

"There go my people, I have to hurry and catch up to them because I am their leader!" LOL

[cascade]

ALL members not only have a voice, but also have the right to BE a director by running for the office.
Those who gripe year after year after year after year, should run for office, rather than taking pot shots at those hardworking volunteers who do the job.

You won't hear me complaining about the directors, because I wouldn't want that difficult and thankless job.

I feel that every idea or suggestion that I've ever submitted to the board, has been given due consideration. They do a pretty good job... Not perfect, but pretty darn good.

[jamshundred]

ALL members not only have a voice, but also have the right to BE a director by running for the office.

Those who gripe year after year after year after year, should run for office, rather than taking pot shots at those hardworking volunteers who do the job.

Kirk,

You are WRONG yet again.  Not all members are permitted to become directors.  Some members are not even permitted to have a vote in who IS their director.   And very few members are even given positions on committee.  Do you remember when Olga volunteered to serve on a committee and others said they would volunteer as well.  WHAT committees do you see any new faces on?  And I don't see Olga's anywhere.  . and she is certainly competent.   As a matter of fact. .  . why don't you check out those committees and the control.  And/or the membership.  Not much diversity.

I DO wish you would go tell the Democrats to stop complaining about Republican leadership and then go tell the Republicans to stop compaining about Democratic leadership.   Can I assume you agree with every decision made in DC and you never, ever, complain about leadership no matter what party is in office and that you are always in lock step local, county, statewide and nationally.  You go guy!   

In the words of a Dexter member I know, " this is not a Democracy".   Well, that applies to ADCA.   It "used" to have provisions in place that permitted members a voice.  A voice that members could raise on their own, not be given permission to use.  EVERY right of a member to put brakes on leadership was written out prior to 2008, BY the leadership.  They voted themselves absolute power. . . . . ignoring the rights of the members at the time,  but the members were not paying attention.  They rarely do.

Not to worry - - I am here to keep them posted.  LOL

Judy

PS   - By the way Kirk. . . . last I heard you were against it.  What won you over?

[cascade]

Dec 19, 2014 1:21:25 GMT jamshundred said:

 By the way Kirk. . . . last I heard you were against it.  What won you over?

Part of me is an old traditionalist that would just like to raise animals the way my great grandparents did it (with no DNA testing).  But I realize that the world of cattle is moving toward parent verification and I'm willing to get on board if I must.

I was also opposed to moving too quickly toward full parentage verification before the technology and testing labs settle down, so we don't have to redo things twice or three times.  

I was also hoping that we'd have a SINGLE place to store ALL tail hairs for ALL calves... So I was hoping that the Texas lab would go belly up, before we pursued full testing of all animals.  I was hoping we could have ALL tail hairs at UCD.   UCD seems like a thriving long-term genetics testing organization that runs like a top-notch business, Texas seemed a little shaky.  

I'd like to see a process where tail hairs are submitted at birth as part of the PERMANENT record of the calf.  PULL HAIRS ONE TIME and send them in and any and all future testing (regardless of owner) would use those original hairs.  I'd like the Association to OWN rights to the hairs to investigate any future discovered genetic problems.  This process could also eliminate tattooing.  Instead of tattooing, the tail hairs are the identification.    If a cow was in question, you could send current tail hairs in and the lab could tell you who she is by matching the current hairs to the ones submitted at birth.  (other breed registries can already do that).  

But all that said,  you don't always get things exactly how you see them, so you end up compromising and supporting a good-enough solution as the decision gets made.  It's not the way I'd do it, but it's good enough.

[jamshundred]

Kirk,

That was a post I can mostly agree with!  I suggested as far back as 2005 that ADCA require tail hairs be submitted for each registration and these be archived.  That way. . .  .if in the future there was any issue with an animal. .  . samples would be available to resolve it. 

Back to the committee issue I mentioned.    How many members does ADCA claim to have now?  Over a thousand, right?  Maybe a few hundred more than that?   

I counted all the committees with the exception of the website/technology one.   

There are 54 positions on committee.     Of those 54, members of leadership ( officers, BOD secretary/registrar)  appear on the committee lists 32 times.  That means there are only 21 unique members out of a thousand serving on committee and these committees are top-heavy in leadership.  More documentation that the membership of this association have been run off the plantation!

I noticed yesterday when looking at the AI bulls, the link is still to the Texas lab established in 2007/08 by Professor Cochran, with no link to the educational arm of the University of California for Veterinarians and all animal science degrees, with decades of experience and expertise.    And. . . if one looks in the ADCA handbook online. . .  . same thing.   Contact Pam Malcuit and/or fill out Texas forms.

One more gripe.   I've hated the sound of "education committee" since I first heard it because it sounds like a camp for those not in agreement with the power structure that be.   But I look at the committee, and no personal criticism here for the members. . . . . but.  ..   .. two of the three named are Directors and the other is the registrar.  All great and competent women I am sure.   BUT . . . .  . ..  .none of these three had calves born of their own breeding prior to 2010.   They should still be on their own learning curve. . . .  and more aptly assigned to a "learning" committee than a teaching one. 

Out of a thousand members. . . . surely there are a couple seasoned folks out there with lots of knowledge and experience to share.  I can think of more than a few.  Leads me back to "re-education camp" stinkin' thinkin'.

Judy