|
|
Post by jamshundred on Mar 22, 2015 16:21:04 GMT
Kirk, to avoid 'lots of blanks" use the Legacy online pedigree resources. AND REMEMBER> A blank means a pedigree is in progress. Each and every animal is added one at a time. It is a monumental task and few leprechauns available to help with the task. Legacy identifies the END of any pedigree by showing the animal as a foundation entry. You won't find better anywhere!
Now, once again. The Legacy terminology. Kirk, remember AT NO TIME has upgrading been allowed into America, and also remember that if you get it from me. . you get the truth as I know it.
Legacy. This category began with the assumption that all animals would be traceable to foundation animals in America, and was expanded to include Woodmagic because it had been a closed herd and Mrs. Rutherford was on record as saying there were no upgraded animals in her closed herd and Woodmagic was predominant in so many US pedigrees. Since foundation animals were still being permitted into the breed into the 30's.. . . . . . . .
Traditional. These are bloodlines that have no record of the appendix upgrading program began in England with the A,B,C,D animals in 1943. Bullfinch is considered a traditional bull. There is no record of upgrading, there is a missing entry on the pedigree which dates to the thirties when foundation cows were still being permitted into the breed. My personal research leads "me" to believe this is a registry error. Frankly, I have spent hours and hours on the Limbury herd with more needed. I have been trying to get original records for a years without success. This includes writing to DCS and speaking with archivists. Sheppy is wrong in his assertions because his markers are wrong. . . . AND. . . the Cardiff research reported nothing on either Bullfinch or Ms. Fermoy as to irregularities. . . . . . . so. . . . . . you make the best determination possible with available information knowing that the future will hold more specifics.
Modern - These are the lines imported after 1985 from England which do show upgrading from the DCS registration records.
Accidents, errors, and fraud. Do we all know these occur? Yes. I owned a cow with three calves in one year. . . and they were not triplets since each had different date of birth. There was a herd whose owner died suddenly and helpful folks in the breed tried to help the family and maintain the bloodlines but they did not do it with care and that created errors and I tried to "fix" all of that. . . but i got ZERO cooperation from many who could have helped in doing it. Still working on it though. . .I don't give up on the cows just stupidity. I see errors in the registries. Most are still Dexter cattle. The ones that are possibilities of outcross are concern, and in some instances breeders have taken the matter into their own hands by removing animals from the breed. For instance, I know of two animals registered as horned that are actually polled. The owner told of them on a chat board. Didn't consider it a "big deal". Just one of those things. ( these were not from established polled lines) Were any offspring registered then I think the registry would have had to "do" something if alerted. . . but the owner quit registering.
The bottom line is this. . . . .we have an established breed and the word of breeders has been the only requirement to register and establish a pedigree. Until a time that an error is uncovered, then we have to honor the pedigrees and the animals born from them. Otherwise. . . you have to throw them ALL out and just breed unregistered cattle as many are now doing. Or. .. throw them ALL out, start over with foundation cattle and move forward.
Which solution do you choose?
Judy
|
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Mar 22, 2015 16:45:46 GMT
No . . . . there has to be a starting point. Like with drinking. An 18 year old can a 19 year old cannot. Or age of consent for sex. Or marriage. Last year you couldnt but this year you can. Starting points.
Either you set rules and follow them or you have what exists currently because rules were not established and followed. I think politics, power, and position are usually the culprits, don't you?
The first animal imported that is upgraded was Lucifer of Knotting. He descended from a failed plan to find a remedy for bulldog calves. The official pedigree of DCS names Angus and Jersey in his pedigree. . . . and Mrs. Rutherford maintained a letter in file has more information. I wonder if that will be lost to the ages? Hope not.
I have owned a number of Lucifer descendents. The females are usually small and very "Dexterish", and I've always like them. Every female I ever owned had an "independent" personality which was sometimes a pain, but they were all friendly. I never had a problem with bulls from this line that I raised, but there is too much documentation from others, ( my own experiences count), including the cause of death of Lucifer himself, a breeder with whom you consult who confirmed the sire of Lucifer to have a disposition that was not what is expected in Dexters. . . . . and bulls who exhibited very negative behavior from this line. I think there is also an issue with size in bulls. I was told Lucifer was 54" when killed. I know of two bulls that were also very large bulls. I personally would make all the horned cattle from the Lucifer lines traditional, and Legacy does tell anyone who inquires that all Lucifer descendents are on the preserve these horned bloodlines wish list, but these animals are late 80 imports with recorded other breeds. . . . . where do you draw a line Kirk? At all times there has been nothing but an attempt to be fair and just. Just is important.
Judy
|
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Mar 22, 2015 21:32:45 GMT
That's the problem with an unscientific approach and looking extra hard at terrific famous bulls to try to find weaknesses, while letting non-famous mediocre "traditional" bulls just slip by unnoticed. Lucifer has thousands and thousands of descendants and all those descendents have many OTHER bulls in their backgrounds, but an unscientific person would attribute any negative traits in a handful of descendants, to that famous bull. Let's take a scientific approach The MOST linebred Lucifer bull of all was Glencara Finerty His sire was Lucifer and both of his mother's grandsires were also Lucifer. Glencara Finerty was 44" at 12 years of age he had a GREAT disposition his entire life He has 46# calves He's a pretty perfect bull www.dextercattle.org/adca/adca_ai_bulls.html#AI8We've raised LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of bulls that are descendants of Lucifer, and 100% of them have had good temperaments. I've NEVER been challenged by any of them, EVER. I can put a halter rope on any of them and lead them up into a trailer (with no practice). I could easily approach all of them and pet them and NEVER carry any sticks or noise makers EVER. |
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Mar 22, 2015 22:07:34 GMT
Kirk,
I make no statement lightly.
You are wrong.
I have volumes of "hearsay" information from people that I do not repeat and added to that which I feel comfortable relating it is weighty.
Davidson has reported on a chat group that Lucifer's sire was personality challenged.
Lucifer was shot at a holding facility by the owner because he went beserk and was tearing the place apart. We can make some excuse but will it cover all?
Chesterley told me on two occasions of a Lucifer descendent that was nuts and was upset this bull was used for breeding. As a matter of fact, he told me the bull was sold with a promise it would not be used for breeding. I cannot attest to Chesterley's veracity. . .but he was comfortable relating the information.
Sandy Thomas, though she makes excuses, was treed for a period of time by her Lucifer descendent, which she writes about herself and hauled him to slaughter.
I have been in the presence of two Lucifer sons that were loco, one of them was psycho beyond description and I detailed it on previous occasions.
Other people have detailed this trait ( loco-ism) in "some" animals in this bloodline.
At one time I had a list of 16 male animals that owners reported they had destroyed from this bloodline.
Finally, Kirk, on an occasion when I had a conversation with Mark Weber, HE mentioned Glencara Finerty to me, said he sold him because of his attitute and that he had destroyed things around his farm. It was completely unsolicited. I have not heard other people relate any problems, but still, that was told to me by an owner relating their opinion and experience.
Where there is smoke there is fire. There have been a number of fires. . . two I witnessed personally.
The thing which has always puzzled me is the breeders who would keep this information secret. The knowledge has not stopped breeders using the bull, and most report no problems at all, but do they sell their males for breeding? Isn't it better that the information is out there and an owner has an awareness which breeds caution versus someone being injured out of ignorance?
Judy
|
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Mar 22, 2015 22:21:36 GMT
The bottom line is this. . . . .we have an established breed and the word of breeders has been the only requirement to register and establish a pedigree. Until a time that an error is uncovered, then we have to honor the pedigrees and the animals born from them. Otherwise. . . you have to throw them ALL out and just breed unregistered cattle as many are now doing. Or. .. throw them ALL out, start over with foundation cattle and move forward. Which solution do you choose? Judy I choose honoring the pedigrees as registered by the breeder The breeder of Godstone Esmeralda says that Woodmagic Pine Martin was the sire of that cow and he was the only breeding bull on their farm for their May 1984 calves. We have no PROOF that he was NOT the sire. Why have you blanked it out in your system? legacydextercattleregistry.com/pedigree.php?sec=1&aid=1428you should restore it. If there is a doubt about the parents of Godstone Esmeralda, it's the mother that's in question, NOT the sire. |
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Mar 22, 2015 22:55:46 GMT
Kirk,
is there an existing stat as to how many persons have been convicted by circumstantial evidence alone?
The chances of Godstone Esmeralda being a mutation are far greater than 20,000. Way far higher. several zeros higher. Mrs Rutherford had a typo. Read the article in the UK book on the World Congress. The circumstantial evidence and science makes this nothing more than a bogus but very successful commercial venture
This was modern times. It could have been established with science. Still might be. Dig up a bone. There is a carcass out there.
i noticed something interesting about this blood line. Let's see if you notice it.
judy
|
|
