[Jacob-list] JSBA Inspector Games

[Thomas Simmons]

Okay folks, I am going to blow off A LOT of steam here, so if you don't like explosions, cover your ears.

In november 1999, I submitted a registration application for a ram named "Esau."  Esau has a solid pedigree, coloration within the acceptable range, and all appropriate "Jacob" markings.  He also has 4 horns of fairly equal length.  The top two sweep up and back, the side two sweep out and back.  On both sides, as indicated on the application, the side and top horns meet at the base.

On December 16, Ingrid Painter wrote me, saying, "I am sorry to tell you that "Esau" did not pass since he did not meet the breed standard with his fused horn base on one side.  We have found that this is a hereditary fault which is hard to eliminate . . . Esau has an ideal Jacob fleece.  We would like to see more of a spotting pattern but this amount of dark colouration is acceptable."  

The Application sheet was returned with the comment, "unbalanced horn set."

After speaking with a number of people, I called Ingrid directly to discuss this.  I am particularly concerned because the JSBA standards, as approved by the membership, are clear:  As concerns Ram horns, these standards are as follows:

"Desirable Traits" - well differentiated, balanced, flesh between horn bases.

"Acceptable but less desirable" - Fused, even horns; insufficient spacing between upper and lower horns.

"Disqualifying Traits" - Polled; scurred rams; solid white horns; impairing the ability to graze; undifferentiated AND unbalanced, ie, fused in an irregular pattern on one or both sides; feminine horns.

Esau's horns are clearly differentiated, striped, and balanced (his "head" would balance if put on a platter), so how could his horns disqualify him?  This was really strange considering "Max" the Poster Ram has 5 horns, AND the JSBA brochure highlights a ram with an asymmentrical pattern.

During our telephone discussion, Ingrid made it clear that Jacobs are "Park Animals," and apparently Esau lacked in the "beauty" department.  However, we discussed the issue, I sent her more paperwork, and we discussed the possibility of allowing Esau's progeny to be registered.

On January 16, 2000, Ingrid sent me the following  e-mail:

"Hi Thom. Received your copies yesterday.  I feel confident that we will be able to register Esau's offspring.  Your ram isn't the first case like this.  It has been an unwritten policy but because of you...we have put it into words and it is now before the BOD (today) for final approval.  Hopefully the BOD wont be too longwinded about it.  I'll keep you informed.
Ingrid"

Unfortunately, at the time of the BOD meeting, many Board members had not even received their packets and no action was taken.  Apparently there were more important political matters to discuss.  

Many of you remember that I was somewhat vocal at suggesting that it was cumbersome having two seperate organizations.  I also was naive enough to publicly congratulate those who had been elected, by their own constituencies, to positions on both JSC and JSBA boards.  Little did I know that this was an explosive situation.  I hadn't even ever met these people.

Little did I know that Ingrid would be writing a full-page "info-mercial" in the JSBA newsletter ripping Mary Ellen Hansson up one side and down the other in a blatent, unfair, self-serving diatribe.  All of us in JSBA should be ashamed of that little number.

Then the jacob-list carried some conversations about Max.  About a ram that is supposedly related to Esau throwing a ram with an unknown ewe that might have white horns.  About preservation versus creating a carbon-copy of the English Jacobs.

Lo and behold, I received the following e-mail from Ingrid today:

    "Hi Thom,
After many, many emailings back and forth between our team of inspectors I
regret to have to tell you that there was a unanimous decision not to allow
inclusion of offspring from Esau into the JSBA registration process.  It
was felt that there are enough bloodlines in N.A. from Esau's line -
Sutherlands, PMA Bagel, Atwoods Vangie etc - so we don't need to include
offspring from a failed individual.  We all feel that the fused horns are
highly heritable and something that we don't want to encourage.  The Jacob
was historically kept for its beauty and this is something that we should
keep foremost in our minds in conserving this breed.
Sincerely,
Ingrid Painter, for JSBA inspection committee."


Once again, the "beauty" thing.  Can someone show me where "beauty" is included in the standards?

Can someone tell me precisely where Esau fails?  Can someone tell me what other "beauty" standards are overriding the officialy adopted ones?  Can someone tell me why Ingrid could so easily go from "I feel confident we will be able to" (even looking for a BOD policy on the issue) to "a unanimous decisions not to allow."

Am I too friendly with people in the JSC?
Was I too vocal in believeing that the division between the organizations is detrimental?
Am I wrong in believing that the written standards are the real standards?

Am I to believe that letters to the JSBA editor and nasty comments made at JSBA board meetings about individuals who try and help others - regardless of organization affiliation - are made by adults who truly have the BREED in mind, and not conrtrol of a personal kingdom?  

Since I have never filed an official appeal, I will commence immediately.

Oh, and I haven't forwarded this message to Ingrid.  I figured that whoever has been doing it all along will just continue to do so anyway.

Thom (on a Rampage)






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/jacob-list/attachments/20000414/5ec5f46a/attachment.html