We all know there has been a considerable amount of conflict plaguing our organization for many years. Below is my response to a blog post written by a NASSA member who I believe is helping to perpetuate the conflict. How can we ever work together when someone amongst us is spreading blatantly false information off as facts?
***
With regards to a recent blog post, the author is clearly off her rocker in regards to how Shetland sheep are supposed to look and feel like. She claims only the Shetland sheep in North America are the “genuine” Shetland sheep. Give me a break! The real Shetlands came into Canada from the UK/Shetland Islands in the early to mid 1980’s and eventually into the United States. Why is it she thinks crimp is a bad thing in Shetland sheep? Why do the Shetland sheep in Canada look nothing like what she claims to be “genuine” Shetland sheep here in the United States? Why is it the majority of the Shetland sheep in the UK, the Shetland Islands AND Canada have beautiful soft, fine, crimpy fleece? Has she even read the vast historical data available about Shetland sheep?
She then goes on to talk about the divisiveness among the membership of NASSA claiming the past 3 years have been miserable to the organization. She has clearly not been involved long enough in the organization if she thinks things have been miserable for only the past 3 years. I have been a member of NASSA since 2001 and am a former Board Member. I’m here to tell you this divisiveness began as early as 2004 when the NASSA BOD decided that even though NASSA adopted the same 1927 breed standard that is to this day used by the Shetland Sheep Society (SSS) in the UK/Shetland Islands it was okay if breeders didn’t follow it in the name of preserving what they felt were “heritage” characteristics of Shetland sheep. Why is it we are still in this battle?
It may be understandable that this could have happened because the historical information they had in 2004 was limited. But now there is abundant historical data available thanks to advances in technology and there are certain well known breeders who refuse to even discuss that they might have been WRONG in 2004 to have opened this door. Why? Could it be that if they didn’t acknowledge the abundant historical data available they could continue breeding their flocks as is and not have to face the risk of financial hardship due to years upon years of careless breeding?
The author then goes on to say, “ a group moved in and attempted a secretive take over that would change our sheep from heritage sheep to something more modern, more like so many other sheep out there”. This is not only ridiculous but absolutely false. How could anyone change our sheep from a heritage sheep to something more modern when the Shetland sheep in the United States (I can’t say North America because Canada is following the standard just like the SSS) look so much different than those in Canada, UK and the Shetland Islands. They have lost most of the crimp, the length of the fleece has dramatically changed, a considerable amount of the fineness Shetlands are known for has been lost and they are increasing in size. I was a board member during this alleged “takeover” and there was a good mixture of people on the board from both “camps” who worked together very well to make some much needed changes. All of which seems to now be disappearing without any input from membership. Talk about a takeover!
The author writes:
“In the early 2000’s, there was much crossbreeding pressure here in North America, and it is now difficult to find authentic breeding stock in some areas, particularly in the midwest, where the root of the problem continues to lay.”
What? This is absurd! There was NO pressure to crossbreed. There is a crossbreeding program started by the Bluefaced Leicester breeders to use “hill breeds” from the UK (Shetlands are a hill breed) to produce the “Mules” used to ultimately produce a crossbred for meat. While some Shetland breeders chose to use some of their cull sheep to produce the Mules used in this program there was never any pressure to do so and there was NO tainted blood brought into the registry. This is simply a ploy on the part of the author to degrade the sheep in her area of the country in order to promote what she believes is the “genuine” thing. Would you buy sheep from someone who uses this kind of tactic?
I am very tired of the make believe world this author lives in and hope others will join me in repudiating the false statements she regularly posts on her blog so that new people interested in breeding Shetand sheep don’t fall for her dribble.
Note to author: Don’t bother deleting your post, I’ve made a copy of it and am more than willing to share it with any NASSA member who wishes to read it.
Kimberwood Farm