To our fellow SOA members,

You have probably received a letter from Ronda, Holly, and Nancy
within the last day or so.  This letter describes the four of us and
our interactions with the board in highly unfavorable terms. The last
few months have been a trying time for all of us.  But there are two
sides to this story, and you have had the chance to hear only theirs.
Their letter is seriously misleading and utterly one-sided. We have
been given no opportunity to present our side of the story to you. In
fact, the board's refusal to allow us to communicate our concerns
about SOA matters with the membership is at the root of all this
brouhaha. This is not fair. In subseqeent postings this discussion
forum will be used to present some facts about what has transpired.

Since the board has consistently blocked our attempts to air our
views on the SoaySheepInNorthAmerica group, we have tried to reach
you in other ways.  We asked for a list of members' mailing addresses
and email addresses so that we could communicate with you.  (This is
was one of our "unreasonable" demands).  That didn't work out, so we
have pieced together an incomplete email list from other sources,
mainly the Breeders' pages on the web site.

We would welcome the opportunity to share with you the letter we sent
to the entire Board, including George and John, on August 7.  In that
letter, we urged the Board to hold an election, to conduct SOA
business in accordance with the Bylaws, and operate SOA in a much
more open and communicative fashion.  We asked the Board to share our
letter with the SOA membership (they refused).  We also would also be
pleased to share with you any of our other communications with the
Board as well as our postings to the SSINA group, messages which
Ronda, Holly and Nancy have refused to let through. We would like to
give you the other side of this story so that you can decide for
yourselves just how "disruptive" and "chaotic" we have been, just
how "unreasonable" our requests have been, and whether what we really
have requested and what we actually have done bears any resemblance
to the charges in the August 12th letter.

The "ballot" we all received from Ronda, Holly, and Nancy presents a
contrived choice between two extreme alternatives: (1) to endorse
their actions in cancelling elections and appointing themselves to
additional three-year terms, or (2) to cause the "demise" of SOA by
removing from office those directors who have served beyond their
proper terms. Some of you may well support the first alternative, and
if so, that's your right.  But we don't believe that anybody would
vote to kill SOA. There is a middle ground, however, which we hope
that you will consider.  We urge you to write in a third choice on
your ballot, a choice that is valid, fair, and that makes common
sense:  the present Board should remain in office and hold an
election.  It's simple and straightforward. Let the membership decide
who they want to run the organization.

Thanks for your attention to this important matter.  You can reach
any of us if you want to see any of our communications with the
Board, including most importantly our August 7 letter, or if you're
able to help us locate other SOA members. If you have any interest in
the future of SOA as a viable Soay Sheep breed organization, please
make your opinions known via this discussion group. (You can be sure
the Executive Board will be reading it.)

         Steve and Priscilla Weaver
         steve@...

         Jennifer Bailey
         jen@...

         Gevan Marrs
         marrstree@...

To my fellow Soay sheep breeders and owners, especially those who are
members of SOA: It is my fervent hope that this new avenue for
communication will help all of us heal the divisions within the SOA
membership, particularly without having to burden our friends in the
UK and elsewhere who rely on the SoaySheep@yahoo... site for their
Soay news.  I would like nothing better than for those who currently
are controlling access to the SSINA site to render this new site
utterly superfluous and unnecesary.  The "Executive Committee" (Holly,
Ronda, and Nancy) can do that very simply and quickly by (1) lifting
the blockade of postings from the members they have blacklisted, and
(3) allowing full and robust communication on the SSINA listserv among
all the members, even if we disagree in good faith with each other and
with some of the current policies.  Until then, this site will have to
do and I am grateful to the owner for setting it up.  Priscilla
Weaver

Hi,
I am new to the 'groups' lists.  I noticed that the home page says
there are eight messages but I can only see five.  What did I miss?

This page where I now type reads that my message must be approved.
Why?  I though this was an open board?

a little confused...

V.

--- In SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com, "video_chick_p"
<video_chick_p@y...> wrote:
> Hi,
> I am new to the 'groups' lists.  I noticed that the home page says
> there are eight messages but I can only see five.  What did I miss?
>
> This page where I now type reads that my message must be approved.
> Why?  I though this was an open board?
>
> a little confused...
>
> V.

First - the missing messages. I can see how that might make some
wonder what is gone. The 3 deleted messages were my own. I was
stumbling around trying to figure out the best way to post a pdf
file, and first had it linked to a web site, then figured out to use
the Links option, and then finally the "Files" option of the group.
So I cleaned up and reposted the essential part of the message and
deleted the (then irrelevant) messages. Nothing of substance has been
deleted.

As for open postings, the second-to-last sentence of the group
description originally noted that as set up, postings were moderated.
It was probably easy to overlook. Why? As "owner" of this newly
created discussion group, and given that it's the first one I've ever
done, and with the recent unjustified mis-characterization of my
actions with respect to SOA policies, I hope you can understand that
I was at first leery of a wide-open field for the Board to take
additional pot-shots at me. (They have been invited to join, and so
far two have accepted). But your questions made me stop and reflect.
One of my major dissatisfactions with the current state of affairs is
the one-sided moderation (actually, censorship) of the SSINA group by
board members. Since I don't want to give any appearance of doing the
same thing, the settings have just been changed and any member can
now post unmoderated. Your postings will go directly to the site. For
those members who may be counting on me stopping any posts that might
violate Yahoo policy about threats, etc. to individuals, be aware
that they will not be reviewed before posting.
In your request to join, as I recall you said you were new to Soay
and considering getting some. Originally I intended this discussion
to be strictly for SOA members, as it only focuses on current events
within the organization. But again, I realized that it is very
important that potential new members be fully informed about the gulf
between what is promised from SOA, via the web site and bylaws, and
what actually has and continues to happen in the organization.
For one, you may note that it has been pointed out several times that
I have only been a member since Jan-05, and even worse "haven't
registered a Soay lamb born on my farm". The clear suggestion (to me,
anyway) is that I have not yet somehow earned the same member voice
at those who have put sweat into organization for the 4 or 5 years of
its existence. So be aware that although it's nowhere stated in the
bylaws, in the Board members minds there is clearly several levels of
membership. One is "elite, founding member" status - they get to make
all the rules and change them at will, without notifying members for
months. Then there are "newbie" members, whose opinions are
apparently not worth considering, and who should not be allowed
(apparently) any chance of participating in carrying some of the
heavy burden of the organization.

To the Executive Board members I pose this question- SPECIFICALLY
what is it that you fear the "insurgents" have proposed, or
threatened, to do to "bring down the organization that you've worked
so hard to create"?

I'm beginning to see that the current Exec board, with their pride of
ownership (not to be minimized - they've produced an organization
that looks good on the web, and delivers in many respects - that's
why I joined!) is never going to relinquish power. They stated that
when they met in March-05 there were "rumors of an insurgency". Does
that mean they heard that someone else, outside the inner circle of
founders, was going to put some time and effort into the
organization? They simply cannot fathom and SOA without themselves in
control. Do the phrases "To protect our members, and to defeat an
insugency, we in power are cancelling elections and will remain in
power. This is a ONE TIME ONLY cancelling of elections" sound
somewhat familiar to anyone? (Hint- check the history books.)

So they are offering members these two choices in their sham ballot:
1) Let us continue in complete and authoritarian power, or
2) We'll bring the organization down with us.

That they don't even offer the members the rational third choice of
holding elections as called for in the bylaws says a lot about what
you will be in for as a new member of SOA! Don't join without
understanding the gap between what it says on the web and what really
transpires.

Gevan Marrs

I am also a relatively new member of SOA and have felt adequately served, and
welcomed, by the organization.  My registrations have been processed in a timely
manner, my questions about process and so forth have been answered.  Why the
difference in perception or service?  I'm not sure, except that perhaps I
inadvertently or fortunately phrased my queries in an way that was not perceived
as a demand, threat, or insistence on getting my way immediately.  I honestly
believe that change is possible in this organization, and that some changes are
necessary as the organization grows (some changes in operation become necessary
as ANY organization grows)....but I also believe that accepting a slightly
slower "timeline" for effecting those changes, and making an effort to work with
and not be so confrontational with the present "powers that be" will be more
effective in the long run and do less damage to what has the beginnings of a
really good association and registry for our sheep.

I need to  make it clear that I am not an official voice for the SOA Board, and
that these next sentences are my opinion only....but having had some experience
with organizations of this type, of writing and revising by-laws, and in seeing
organizations struggle through growing pains....I offer this possible
explanation for the widening gulf I see in this one certain area.  The SOA Board
seems to view the recent demands from some unhappy members as a "stop business"
imperative.  That has been ridiculed as some sort of grandstanding or false
choice (either keep them all in power for the moment or be a party to the
"downfall" of the organization.)  I think perhaps the ballot could have been
phrased or explained differently, but this is what I believe about this
situation:

There IS a huge "catch 22" in the requests/demands made recently that the SOA
Board cease operation and immediately hold elections.  If they are operating
"illegally" (which is a silly word to use, since as far as I know there is no
section in the offices of the DA or Attorney General of any city or state in
charge of enforcing animal association by-laws)  :~) then they CAN'T hold an
election.  If they are "invalid" officers and directors as claimed, they can't
do ANYTHING....including process registrations, answer any questions on behalf
of the organization, finish processing our sheep which are in the progeny
testing program....or even hold an election.  Though I do not speak for them,
and am not an officer or a director; I do believe this is what they are
referring to when they say they are effectively at the stop of all business
until they have the vote from the membership as to whether they should continue
in office for the present time.  Since they have been told they are not a valid
Board, then anything they do (especially something as important as holding an
election) could also be questioned and held to be invalid.  What are they
supposed to do?

Under the by-laws at the present time, they DO actually have the power to do the
things they have done recently which have been questioned, but I believe they
are asking for the opinions of the members in a good faith effort to find out
how to proceed. Even if they were not, there is no state authority in charge of
making animal organizations follow their by-laws, or interpret them any certain
way.  :~)  You know, there's really no wonderful "power" or glory to be had in
being an officer or director of an animal organization and registry!  There's
just lots of really hard work, lots of hassle, lots of putting your own projects
and business on hold....and it's sometimes a pretty thankless task.

Do I see that some things need to change about this organization?  I absolutely
do.  I also firmly believe that "backing off" a little bit and some patience
with a perhaps slightly longer timeline for such change will be extremely
beneficial both to the organization in the long run, and also to the people
wanting certain changes made.  I don't claim to be "all seeing" or have any
special intelligence at work in being able to see both sides of this
issue....it's just that I've BEEN on both sides of this issue elsewhere.  I've
been a founding member and one of the "drones" :~) who worked my butt off and so
I think I know why the current Board feels under attack.  I've also been a new
member in an organization I cared about, which was valuable to me, where I
thought there were serious changes needed and I wanted to work for those
changes. I've been one of the new members who felt frustrated at not feeling
that my contributions were welcomed, so I also think I understand some of the
frustration being experienced on the other "side" as well. Seeing what happened
in those situations and to those organizations is why I have started speaking up
advocating slowing down a little bit, a less confrontational approach, and if
necessary accepting a longer timeline for desired change.

I sincerely believe that voting to approve (or if you can't vote to completely
"approve," perhaps vote to "live with" in the spirit of compromise and working
from within for change in a positive manner) the decision of the current Board
to extend terms this one time only; it is the best way to put things back on an
even keel, insure a viable organization, and let business continue.  Then any of
us who want a change or changes in any area can work towards that without
throwing everything into complete chaos and dividing the organization so harshly
that it either splits into more than one group or comes to a standstill (either
of which would be extremely harmful to all of us.)

Debra

The SOA board decided to cancel the upcoming elections and extend their terms of
office on March 31.
In justifying this action they speak of health issues, of attempts to
"overburden" the board, and of
an "insurgent faction."  I am truly sorry about any health issues; I've heard of
these indirectly
since. But their claim that they took this extraordinary step in March in
response to the
"overburden" or to some "insurgency" just doesn't hold up.

I had only the most minimal correspondence with SOA up to that point: four
back-and-forth emails
wondering about the status of my membership.  All four were short and simple and
could not possibly
have overburdened the board. And I don't know what to make of their references
to an "insurgent
faction."

My point is this: whatever the real reasons the board had for their March 31
actions, anything that
Steve Weaver did can't possibly have been among them.

Flash forward. At some point in early June I began to think about running for
the SOA board.  It
seemed to me then, from perusing the web site, that there would be two positions
open, Holly's and
either George's or John's (I wasn't sure which).  And, at that point, I hadn't
picked up on the fact
that there hadn't been an election the prior year.  So, being interested in the
election, and
thinking that others might also be, I made a series of perfectly sensible
postings to SSINA asking
about the next annual meeting, and about how the elections were going to be
conducted.  It seemed to
be a very reasonable use of the SSINA list, and I wanted to get my name out
there in front of the
SOA membership so that I could become known as a reasonable fellow asking
sensible and timely
questions.  Yes, I was "politicking" a little, but in was innocuous and there
was nothing in the
nature of a "rant."

I ran into a wall of delay, censorship, unanswered emails, evasive answers.  The
board refused to
post my messages, and refused to answer most of my questions.  It was a near
complete blockade.
There then followed a lot of back and forth between me (and Priscilla) and the
board, some of it
heated. I could not for the life of me understand why they were behaving this
way.  I did wonder
whether there might be an inside candidate that would appear at the last minute.
That might have
explained things. But then, I didn't know about the March 31 decision.

In retrospect (knowing now what I didn't know then) I think can better
understand the board's
response to my postings and emails. Here is my theory: back in early June, two
months had passed
since March 31, and the board must have been worrying how they were going to
break the news about
canceling elections to the membership.  Then, here comes Steve Weaver, who is
thinking about running
for the board. I started asking questions that seemed innocent enough to me, but
from the board's
standpoint, they were most inconvenient and came at an incredibly awkward time.
They didn't know
what to do, or how to respond to me.  That's why they were so unhelpful and so
unforthcoming, and
that's why they decided block all my "political" messages on SSINA. As I grew
more and more
frustrated by their stonewalling, they grew more and more irritated by my
persistence.  We had a
runaway situation, sort of a nuclear meltdown.

How I wish the board had announced the momentous decisions it made on March 31
in a timely way,
rather than waiting four months.  Things would have turned out very differently
for the
organization.

This message is being posted to the SoaySheepAssociationMembers list and the
SoaySheepInNorthAmerica
list.  I hope it will appear in both places.

Steve

--- In SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com, "Steven Weaver"
<steve@s...> wrote:
> My point is this: whatever the real reasons the board had for
their March 31 actions, anything that
> Steve Weaver did can't possibly have been among them.
>

Hi Steve,
I am trying to get brought up to speed here before I spend any
serious money.  I am reading what I can on these boards and
elsewhere.  Gevan's response to me was ok, except that he drifted
off and wrote directly to the board.  It is starting to look
like Gevan's group for grievances.  Debra's post though seems pretty
rational.

By the way, it reads a little strangely that you refer to yourself
in the third person, almost like someone else wrote it about you.
Sorry, but the awkwardness caused me to reread it to make sure I got
it right.

In any case, the should have, would have possibilty you suggest
below leaves me curious.  What would have been different than
the 'nuclear meltdown' you describe?  You all seem so mad. I can't
imagine that knowing any sooner would have made any difference.

> How I wish the board had announced the momentous decisions it made
on March 31 in a timely way,
> rather than waiting four months.  Things would have turned out
very differently for the
> organization.
>
> > Steve

I am really surprised at all these goings on in a sheep
organization.  Although I am a bit wary, these sheep must be really
something special for all this fuss.  I'll definitely wait until
things calm down at the very least but thanks for the chance to read.


V.

Anyone know how long it takes to get on the "soaysheep" board?  I'm
still waiting over there...

Thanks!

V.

--- In SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com, "video_chick_p"
<video_chick_p@y...> wrote:
> Anyone know how long it takes to get on the "soaysheep" board?  I'm
> still waiting over there...
>
> Thanks!
>
> V.

Here is what I have seen and experienced with posting on SS group. A
posting supporting the board will be posted almost immediately (note
near simultaneous postings of Debra Keen's post on SSINA and SS
groups on Aug 19).
My experiences have been quite different. Here is the automated email
I received regarding my submitted question. Note that way down at the
bottom is the text of what I submitted. Also note that I sent it 29-
Jul-05,  without a clue that the newsletter informing us that
elections were canceled arrived at my house 3 days later (1-Aug-05).
------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 8/16/2005 6:55:47 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
notify@yahoogroups.com writes:

Hello,

Your message to the SoaySheepInNorthAmerica group was not approved.
The owner of the group controls the content posted to it and has the
right to approve or reject messages accordingly.

In this case, your message was automatically rejected because the
moderator didn't approve it within 14 days. We do this to provide a
high quality of service for our users.

A complete copy of your message has been attached for your
convenience.

Thank you for choosing Yahoo! Groups

Regards,

Yahoo! Groups Customer Care

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Return-Path: <marrstree@...>
X-Sender: marrstree@...
X-Apparently-To: SoaySheepInNorthAmerica@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 32990 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2005 14:50:32 -
0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
   by m29.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Jul 2005 14:50:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n5a.bulk.scd.yahoo.com) (66.94.237.39)
   by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2005 14:50:31 -0000
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
Received: from [66.218.69.6] by n5.bulk.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29
Jul 2005 14:50:07 -0000
Received: from [66.218.66.86] by mailer6.bulk.scd.yahoo.com with
NNFMP; 29 Jul 2005 14:50:07 -0000
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:50:07 -0000
To: SoaySheepInNorthAmerica@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <dcdfmv+emqh@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 197
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose
X-Originating-IP: 66.94.237.39
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:7:0
X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 207.200.116.136
From: "marrstree" <marrstree@...>
Subject: Annual meeting and election of Board members
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=199731698;
y=0ha6KQ30cjXzcEuN83ylu7tDTK6cZIg03qOAoP5wTeynz2mc
X-Yahoo-Profile: marrstree



Can you tell me (and other interested SOA members) when the annual
meeting will be held?

What Board positions will be open for re-election this year?

Thank you.

Gevan Marrs
Woodland Creek Farm

------------------------------------
So, I would ask you - do you think the question above was demanding,
threatening, intimidating. Do you think that ignoring it until it
expired is an example of "We have tried our best to answer members
questions". If the best they can do is to ignore questions, that's
not very good, in my book.

Want to know what the criteria is for being accepted on the SS group?
So would I. My question about "what is the moderation criteria" was
also ignored.

Gevan Marrs

Gevan,

Ummm....I think V. was asking about the "soay sheep' group waiting time, not
SSINA.  What you sent was only correspondence pertaining to SSINA.

Since nobody has answered V's question yet, I can say that when I subscribed to
"soay sheep" group it took a couple of days for list owner to approve my
membership (and since Gevan brought it up, I'll also say that it took about the
same couple of days to be approved to join SSINA.)  Neither process was unduly
long, and matched my experience with other forums I've subscribed to. 
Moderators and list owners are usually busy people with their own lives and
businesses to run, so don't always get to new memberships or their task of
"moderating" as quickly as we'd wish.

Debra



*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 8/22/05 at 1:56 PM Gevan Marrs wrote:

>--- In SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com, "video_chick_p"
><video_chick_p@y...> wrote:
>> Anyone know how long it takes to get on the "soaysheep" board?  I'm
>> still waiting over there...
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> V.
>
>Here is what I have seen and experienced with posting on SS group. A
>posting supporting the board will be posted almost immediately (note
>near simultaneous postings of Debra Keen's post on SSINA and SS
>groups on Aug 19).
>My experiences have been quite different. Here is the automated email
>I received regarding my submitted question. Note that way down at the
>bottom is the text of what I submitted. Also note that I sent it 29-
>Jul-05,  without a clue that the newsletter informing us that
>elections were canceled arrived at my house 3 days later (1-Aug-05).
>------------------------------------------------------
>In a message dated 8/16/2005 6:55:47 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>notify@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
>Hello,
>
>Your message to the SoaySheepInNorthAmerica group was not approved.
>The owner of the group controls the content posted to it and has the
>right to approve or reject messages accordingly.
>
>In this case, your message was automatically rejected because the
>moderator didn't approve it within 14 days. We do this to provide a
>high quality of service for our users.
>
>A complete copy of your message has been attached for your
>convenience.
>
>Thank you for choosing Yahoo! Groups
>
>Regards,
>
>Yahoo! Groups Customer Care
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>Return-Path: <marrstree@...>
>X-Sender: marrstree@...
>X-Apparently-To: SoaySheepInNorthAmerica@yahoogroups.com
>Received: (qmail 32990 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2005 14:50:32 -
>0000
>Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
>  by m29.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Jul 2005 14:50:32 -0000
>Received: from unknown (HELO n5a.bulk.scd.yahoo.com) (66.94.237.39)
>  by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2005 14:50:31 -0000
>Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
>Received: from [66.218.69.6] by n5.bulk.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29
>Jul 2005 14:50:07 -0000
>Received: from [66.218.66.86] by mailer6.bulk.scd.yahoo.com with
>NNFMP; 29 Jul 2005 14:50:07 -0000
>Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:50:07 -0000
>To: SoaySheepInNorthAmerica@yahoogroups.com
>Message-ID: <dcdfmv+emqh@eGroups.com>
>User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Length: 197
>X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
>X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose
>X-Originating-IP: 66.94.237.39
>X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:7:0
>X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 207.200.116.136
>From: "marrstree" <marrstree@...>
>Subject: Annual meeting and election of Board members
>X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=199731698;
>y=0ha6KQ30cjXzcEuN83ylu7tDTK6cZIg03qOAoP5wTeynz2mc
>X-Yahoo-Profile: marrstree
>
>
>
>Can you tell me (and other interested SOA members) when the annual
>meeting will be held?
>
>What Board positions will be open for re-election this year?
>
>Thank you.
>
>Gevan Marrs
>Woodland Creek Farm
>
>------------------------------------
>So, I would ask you - do you think the question above was demanding,
>threatening, intimidating. Do you think that ignoring it until it
>expired is an example of "We have tried our best to answer members
>questions". If the best they can do is to ignore questions, that's
>not very good, in my book.
>
>Want to know what the criteria is for being accepted on the SS group?
>So would I. My question about "what is the moderation criteria" was
>also ignored.
>
>Gevan Marrs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Hello video_chick_p and other readers,

Let me respond to two questions that video_chick_p made last night ...

She asked: "By the way, it reads a little strangely that you refer to yourself in the third person, almost like someone else wrote it about you.  Sorry, but the awkwardness caused me to reread it to make sure I got it right."

I wrote it this way as though I were stepping outside the situation for a moment and looking in at my own actions from a distance.  Sorry if you found it confusing, but then I'm glad I made you read it twice :-) !

She asked, quoting my earlier posting: "In any case, the should have, would have possibilty you suggest below leaves me curious.  What would have been different than the 'nuclear meltdown' you describe?  You all seem so mad. I can't imagine that knowing any sooner would have made any difference.

'How I wish the board had announced the momentous decisions it made on March 31 in a timely way, rather than waiting four months.  Things would have turned out very differently for the organization.' "

How might things have gone differently if the board had reported its actions promptly in April?  For one thing, they would not have been able to pin the blame for cancelling the elections on me, Steve Weaver. Whatever their real reasons were for deciding in March to cancel the elections, knowing those reasons in April would have allowed the entire membership to decide whether their real reasons were justified. In other words, all this sideshow about "overburden", "unreasonable demands", "chaos" would have been avoided since none of it happened until July.

Thanks for reading.

Steve

---

From: SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of video_chick_p
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 5:54 AM
To: SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [SoaySheepAssociationMembers] PS

Anyone know how long it takes to get on the "soaysheep" board?  I'm
still waiting over there...

Thanks!

V.

Hi Everyone,
yes, it was the soaysheep group not the soaysheepinnorthamerica
group.  the second already let me join and I am able to read there.

Thank you for your responses.

Sorry to appear impatient.  I guess that come of the instant response
time so often found online.  I am sure Dr. Thornton is a busy man.
I'll check back in a few to see if I'm no longer 'pending'.


Thanks!
V.

Mr. Kohrman makes one good point in his recent posting on the SSINA
group. That has to do with his comment about trusting people - or
not. (I'm not exactly sure to whom he was referring - I first saw
what seemed to be a confrontational tone in SSINA postings in mid to
late 2004 which were the first sign I had that there were some long-
held and deeply held divisions and animosity among certain SOA
members and certain board members).
At any rate, for an organization like SOA, trust is absolutely
critical. For example, they MUST trust that the breeder honestly
reports which ram sired, and even which ewe lambed, a particular
sheep. There is no realistically practical way to
independently "guarantee" lineage. (They are not worth enough to
afford DNA testing, for example).
Showing a lack of trust is what probably bothered me most about the
ill-advised "Code of Ethics" that was sent out, then retracted. Do I
really have to sign and SWEAR that I'll be honest? Do you have so
little trust? And if you think I might be dishonest without a signed
piece of paper, why would you not think I would simply sign and then
be dishonest and not obey? Realistically, you are going to HAVE to
trust people.
Similarly, I think the retraction of allowance of "digital photos"
for projeny test registration submissions was / is related to one or
more board member fears that "some breeders have digitally altered
photos"... In other words, a lack of trust and an attempt to
institute rules that will stop it. Face it, I can guarantee that you
will not be able to tell whether a photo that I might submit for
registration was originally digital or from film, and whether or not
it has been manipulated. You will have to either trust me, visit in
person, or require that the sheep be physically brought to you to
ever be SURE what the sheep looks like.
So, similarly, I finally see more clearly now that published bylaws  -
  the "promises" that induced me to join the organization - cannot
guarantee what behavior we can expect from the SOA board members.

Specific case in point.
The newletter I recieved on 1-Aug-05 reports in 31-Mar-05 Board
meeting notes that:
"With some indications that an insurgent faction has attempted to
take over Soays of America, and in order to maintain a necessary
level of stability and consistency,... present officers and board
members remain in office for one more term, as a one-time occurrence"

Who is the mysterious phantom threat that was spotted by 31-Mar-05?
Three specific (actually 4) individuals have been identified in the
12-Aug-05 ballot memo.

Mr. Weaver has posted why he could not have been the rumored threat
identified by 31-Mar-05.

I gave no indication to any SOA member, nor gave any public notice
that I was disturbed by, nor interested in seeing remedied, any SOA
practices until my naieve email to the President of SOA on 2-Jun-05.
And I did not converse with Steve Weaver about SOA concerns until 15-
July-05. So it could not be me that was the identified "insurgency
threat". If the board members had PREMONITIONS of an insugency, they
are far more powerful than  I thought!

So, my assessment is that most aspects of the story they are telling
doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. You will note the near
absence of any actual proof of their allegations of threats,
intimidation, demands, deluge, siege, etc. It is far easier to simply
make broad-brush accusations and hope that people will believe and
follow blindly and obediently.


The Executive board has demonstrated clearly to me that they cannot
be trusted. And when you've lost that, you don't have much of an
organization left. If you cannot trust that they accurately and
honestly reported what transpired at a board meeting, why would you
trust that extending terms is a "one-time occurrence"? How do you
know that the board has not met again already, and declared
themselves rulers for life, and just not informed the membership via
snail mail newsletter? Perhaps in 4 months you will find out that
they did! How would I know that my membership has not already been
suspended or that I've been expelled, but not yet informed (and thus
my vote on the recent ballot won't be counted!).

  The lack of any significant interest by SOA membership in making
their opinions known  makes me realize that there simply aren't more
than about 8 or 10 people who care much one way or the other. My
guess about what really transpired at the 31-Mar-05 board meeting is
that the idea of simply not having elections was done assuming that
nobody would object or even care. I don't think anyone noticed or
cared that the 2004 elections were simpy overlooked. I believe they
probably assumed nobody would be interested in taking on such an
unpleasant task. Then when later a couple people started asking when
elections would be held, they had a dilemma on their hands.

And all of this really is a pity, because I actually admire those who
conceived, created, and did the hard work to bring the organization
to what it appears to be on the web site. Sadly though somehow things
have gone badly awry. I don't know how the board members can ever
earn back the trust they have lost.

Gevan Marrs

I wanted to ask everyone how they feed grain to their rams?  Do you all
feed inside or outside?  Individual feed tubs or one big long one?
Does anyone else have a ram that is too friendly (this guy was my first
ram and totally my fault I know)?  This ram is particularly a challenge
to safely feed grain to and to get back in the barn each night.  Most
of the year he is ok to deal with, but as breeding season approaches
and his view on things changes he gets to be much more of a challenge.
I really want to revamp the way I feed my rams and was hoping to get
some good ideas from my fellow Soay sheep friends.  Any input would be
greatly appreciated!!

BTW, just had to share that I recently got to see the first bit of yarn
actually spun from our Soay!!  It was truly a special moment for us to
see the process come full circle!  Aren't these sheep the greatest and
an awful lot of fun?!?!

Laura Lane-Unsworth
Larkspur Lane Farm
Hagerstown, Maryland

----- Original Message -----

From: Claudia Pettis

To: SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 11:26 AM

Subject: Re: [SoaySheepAssociationMembers] Trust

I think it is time for all of us to get back to the business of raising sheep. These long postings are time consuming and have left out the purpose of the organization, which is to comfortably discuss issues of raising sheep. I am signing off temporarily. I will not reccommend new owners go on line. Sincerely, my best to all, I support the present BOD being free to go about their business. Claudia Pettis

Gevan Marrs <marrstree@...> wrote:

Mr. Kohrman makes one good point in his recent posting on the SSINA
group. That has to do with his comment about trusting people - or
not (I'm not exactly sure to whom he was referring - I first saw
what seemed to be a confrontational tone in SSINA postings in mid to
late 2004 which were the first sign I had that there were some long-
held and deeply held divisions and animosity among certain SOA
members and certain board members).
At any rate, for an organization like SOA, trust is absolutely
critical. For example, they MUST trust that the breeder honestly
reports which ram sired, and even which ewe lambed, a particular
sheep. There is no realistically practical way to
independently "guarantee" lineage. (They are not worth enough to
afford DNA testing, for example).
Showing a lack of trust is what probably bothered me most about the
ill-advised "Code of Ethics" that was sent out, then retracted. Do I
really have to sign and SWEAR that I'll be honest? Do you have so
little trust? And if you think I might be dishonest without a signed
piece of paper, why would you not think I would simply sign and then
be dishonest and not obey? Realistically, you are going to HAVE to
trust people.
Similarly, I think the retraction of allowance of "digital photos"
for projeny test registration submissions was / is related to one or
more board member fears that "some breeders have digitally altered
photos"... In other words, a lack of trust and an attempt to
institute rules that will stop it. Face it, I can guarantee that you
will not be able to tell whether a photo that I might submit for
registration was originally digital or from film, and whether or not
it has been manipulated. You will have to either trust me, visit in
person, or require that the sheep be physically brought to you to
ever be SURE what the sheep looks like.
So, similarly, I finally see more clearly now that published bylaws  -
the "promises" that induced me to join the organization - cannot
guarantee what behavior we can expect from the SOA board members.

Specific case in point.
The newletter I recieved on 1-Aug-05 reports in 31-Mar-05 Board
meeting notes that:
"With some indications that an insurgent faction has attempted to
take over Soays of America, and in order to maintain a necessary
level of stability and consistency,... present officers and board
members remain in office for one more term, as a one-time occurrence"

Who is the mysterious phantom threat that was spotted by 31-Mar-05?
Three specific (actually 4) individuals have been identified in the
12-Aug-05 ballot memo.

Mr. Weaver has posted why he could not have been the rumored threat
identified by 31-Mar-05

I gave no indication to any SOA member, nor gave any public notice
that I was disturbed by, nor interested in seeing remedied, any SOA
practices until my naieve email to the President of SOA on 2-Jun-05.
And I did not converse with Steve Weaver about SOA concerns until 15-
July-05. So it could not be me that was the identified "insurgency
threat". If the board members had PREMONITIONS of an insugency, they
are far more powerful than  I thought!

So, my assessment is that most aspects of the story they are telling
doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. You will note the near
absence of any actual proof of their allegations of threats,
intimidation, demands, deluge, siege, etc It is far easier to simply
make broad-brush accusations and hope that people will believe and
follow blindly and obediently.


The Executive board has demonstrated clearly to me that they cannot
be trusted. And when you've lost that, you don't have much of an
organization left. If you cannot trust that they accurately and
honestly reported what transpired at a board meeting, why would you
trust that extending terms is a "one-time occurrence"? How do you
know that the board has not met again already, and declared
themselves rulers for life, and just not informed the membership via
snail mail newsletter? Perhaps in 4 months you will find out that
they did! How would I know that my membership has not already been
suspended or that I've been expelled, but not yet informed (and thus
my vote on the recent ballot won't be counted!).

The lack of any significant interest by SOA membership in making
their opinions known  makes me realize that there simply aren't more
than about 8 or 10 people who care much one way or the other. My
guess about what really transpired at the 31-Mar-05 board meeting is
that the idea of simply not having elections was done assuming that
nobody would object or even care. I don't think anyone noticed or
cared that the 2004 elections were simpy overlooked. I believe they
probably assumed nobody would be interested in taking on such an
unpleasant task. Then when later a couple people started asking when
elections would be held, they had a dilemma on their hands.

And all of this really is a pity, because I actually admire those who
conceived, created, and did the hard work to bring the organization
to what it appears to be on the web site. Sadly though somehow things
have gone badly awry. I don't know how the board members can ever
earn back the trust they have lost.

Gevan Marrs

---

Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

It's in my opinion, best to give them their treats (including grain)
whereever you will want them to be when it is time for you to catch them. It
habituates them to that location. Whether that is an outside paddock, or
inside a barn is simply your preference.
George
----- Original Message -----
From: "larkspurlanefarm" <SoaySheep@...>
To: <SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 11:37 AM
Subject: [SoaySheepAssociationMembers] Feeding grain to rams


>I wanted to ask everyone how they feed grain to their rams?  Do you all
> feed inside or outside?  Individual feed tubs or one big long one?
> Does anyone else have a ram that is too friendly (this guy was my first
> ram and totally my fault I know)?  This ram is particularly a challenge
> to safely feed grain to and to get back in the barn each night.  Most
> of the year he is ok to deal with, but as breeding season approaches
> and his view on things changes he gets to be much more of a challenge.
> I really want to revamp the way I feed my rams and was hoping to get
> some good ideas from my fellow Soay sheep friends.  Any input would be
> greatly appreciated!!
>
> BTW, just had to share that I recently got to see the first bit of yarn
> actually spun from our Soay!!  It was truly a special moment for us to
> see the process come full circle!  Aren't these sheep the greatest and
> an awful lot of fun?!?!
>
> Laura Lane-Unsworth
> Larkspur Lane Farm
> Hagerstown, Maryland
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com, "George Kohrman"
<g_kohrman@h...> wrote:
> text deleted here>

It is interesting though that I only received your letter when she
quoted it in her email. Also in other yahoo groups I would always
receive an email of my own replies, which so far at least half of the
time isn't happening for this group. Should I assume that I am being
edited by the moderator of  this "Free Speech-Open Forum""? Is what I
receive is only selected emails, or maybe computers and internet
emails aren't as infallible as some would maintain, and somehow
things are just delayed?
>
> The idea of an "Open Forum" is good as long as it is truly open,
and if it is used constructively, but as Claudia implies, less than
that is simply a waste of time.
>
> George
<my original posting message deleted here>

George-
I cannot explain why you didn't get my posting. Trust me (get it?)
the forum settings are for unmoderated postings by any and all
members, and when I just checked, all members are set at "individual
emails" of all posts. So beyond that I cannot say what is happening.
I'm new to setting up and running a discussion group, so it's
possible I have some setting different than what you are used to.

Gevan Marrs

Hi Laura,
I have always been advised to be very sparing with grain with rams-
especially during the rut as it tends to make them "hotter" (tempers
flare) more than they normally do.  That said I would give them a
very small amount of treats- a little moistened beat pulp with some
oats- if they will eat the beat pulp ( :-)- as I recall yours hated
it) on a regular basis  and in the same place, ideally where you
want to catch them. They will get used to this and associate you and
the space with good things. You might try getting them used to
apples or greens or something other than grain too.
Kathie in Oregon
www.soayfarms.com
who is suffering from severe jet lag (back from a of month
researching and playing with Soay sheep in Wales and Scotland)

--- In
SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com, "larkspurlanefarm"
<SoaySheep@h...> wrote:
> I wanted to ask everyone how they feed grain to their rams?  Do
you all
> feed inside or outside?  Individual feed tubs or one big long
one?
> Does anyone else have a ram that is too friendly (this guy was my
first
> ram and totally my fault I know)?  This ram is particularly a
challenge
> to safely feed grain to and to get back in the barn each night.
Most
> of the year he is ok to deal with, but as breeding season
approaches
> and his view on things changes he gets to be much more of a
challenge.
> I really want to revamp the way I feed my rams and was hoping to
get
> some good ideas from my fellow Soay sheep friends.  Any input
would be
> greatly appreciated!!
>
> BTW, just had to share that I recently got to see the first bit of
yarn
> actually spun from our Soay!!  It was truly a special moment for
us to
> see the process come full circle!  Aren't these sheep the greatest
and
> an awful lot of fun?!?!
>
> Laura Lane-Unsworth
> Larkspur Lane Farm
> Hagerstown, Maryland

ok Gevan, now your origianl one arrived, but several of my posts have still
not made it back to me so I dont know if they got to the list
George

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gevan Marrs" <marrstree@...>
To: <SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 8:17 PM
Subject: [SoaySheepAssociationMembers] Re: Trust <group settings>


> --- In SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com, "George Kohrman"
> <g_kohrman@h...> wrote:
>> text deleted here>
>
> It is interesting though that I only received your letter when she
> quoted it in her email. Also in other yahoo groups I would always
> receive an email of my own replies, which so far at least half of the
> time isn't happening for this group. Should I assume that I am being
> edited by the moderator of  this "Free Speech-Open Forum""? Is what I
> receive is only selected emails, or maybe computers and internet
> emails aren't as infallible as some would maintain, and somehow
> things are just delayed?
>>
>> The idea of an "Open Forum" is good as long as it is truly open,
> and if it is used constructively, but as Claudia implies, less than
> that is simply a waste of time.
>>
>> George
> <my original posting message deleted here>
>
> George-
> I cannot explain why you didn't get my posting. Trust me (get it?)
> the forum settings are for unmoderated postings by any and all
> members, and when I just checked, all members are set at "individual
> emails" of all posts. So beyond that I cannot say what is happening.
> I'm new to setting up and running a discussion group, so it's
> possible I have some setting different than what you are used to.
>
> Gevan Marrs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

George-
Sorry, I'm not sure what is happening with group emails in your case.
I checked all settings I can find on Yahoo and I don't see any way I
could block a poster from getting a copy of their own posting. My
view shows you should be getting individual emails. I've gotten email
copies of all of my postings and everyone elses too (so far, anyway).
When you say you are unsure if your postings made it - you can go
directly to the discussion group and see all messages listed. If some
of yours are not there, I don't know where they went. There is
nothing in the pending messages folder, and I did not reject any
messages in the couple days at the outset before the group was
changed to  un-moderated postings.
I did have one thought - my email provider has a spam filter and for
a while email delivered postings to several Yahoo groups were ending
up in my spam folder. I have to remember to go check there every now
and then.
Gevan Marrs

--- In SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com, "George Kohrman"
<g_kohrman@h...> wrote:
> ok Gevan, now your origianl one arrived, but several of my posts
have still
> not made it back to me so I dont know if they got to the list
> George
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gevan Marrs" <marrstree@a...>
> To: <SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 8:17 PM
> Subject: [SoaySheepAssociationMembers] Re: Trust <group settings>
>
>
> > --- In SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com, "George
Kohrman"
> > <g_kohrman@h...> wrote:
> >> text deleted here>
> >
> > It is interesting though that I only received your letter when she
> > quoted it in her email. Also in other yahoo groups I would always
> > receive an email of my own replies, which so far at least half of
the
> > time isn't happening for this group. Should I assume that I am
being
> > edited by the moderator of  this "Free Speech-Open Forum""? Is
what I
> > receive is only selected emails, or maybe computers and internet
> > emails aren't as infallible as some would maintain, and somehow
> > things are just delayed?
> >>
> >> The idea of an "Open Forum" is good as long as it is truly open,
> > and if it is used constructively, but as Claudia implies, less
than
> > that is simply a waste of time.
> >>
> >> George
> > <my original posting message deleted here>
> >
> > George-
> > I cannot explain why you didn't get my posting. Trust me (get it?)
> > the forum settings are for unmoderated postings by any and all
> > members, and when I just checked, all members are set
at "individual
> > emails" of all posts. So beyond that I cannot say what is
happening.
> > I'm new to setting up and running a discussion group, so it's
> > possible I have some setting different than what you are used to.
> >
> > Gevan Marrs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> George:  I frequently have to retrieve messages from my "spam" folder as
> well, and there doesn't always seem to be a pattern.  Sometimes it's those
> annoying, "you can get both a mortgage and ___ medicine for the price of
> one" messages, and sometimes it's just everyday messages.  So give that a
> try and good luck.  For what it's worth, I've gotten messages from you on
> this discussion group about feeding grain and about the issue of trust.
> Priscilla

AHHH Spam, and the filters! I hate that stuff, but the stuff in the can is
ok, once in a while
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gevan Marrs" <marrstree@...>
To: <SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:04 AM
Subject: [SoaySheepAssociationMembers] Discussion group settings


> George-
> Sorry, I'm not sure what is happening with group emails in your case.
> I checked all settings I can find on Yahoo and I don't see any way I
> could block a poster from getting a copy of their own posting. My
> view shows you should be getting individual emails. I've gotten email
> copies of all of my postings and everyone elses too (so far, anyway).
> When you say you are unsure if your postings made it - you can go
> directly to the discussion group and see all messages listed. If some
> of yours are not there, I don't know where they went. There is
> nothing in the pending messages folder, and I did not reject any
> messages in the couple days at the outset before the group was
> changed to  un-moderated postings.
> I did have one thought - my email provider has a spam filter and for
> a while email delivered postings to several Yahoo groups were ending
> up in my spam folder. I have to remember to go check there every now
> and then.
> Gevan Marrs
>
> --- In SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com, "George Kohrman"
> <g_kohrman@h...> wrote:
>> ok Gevan, now your origianl one arrived, but several of my posts
> have still
>> not made it back to me so I dont know if they got to the list
>> George
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Gevan Marrs" <marrstree@a...>
>> To: <SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 8:17 PM
>> Subject: [SoaySheepAssociationMembers] Re: Trust <group settings>
>>
>>
>> > --- In SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com, "George
> Kohrman"
>> > <g_kohrman@h...> wrote:
>> >> text deleted here>
>> >
>> > It is interesting though that I only received your letter when she
>> > quoted it in her email. Also in other yahoo groups I would always
>> > receive an email of my own replies, which so far at least half of
> the
>> > time isn't happening for this group. Should I assume that I am
> being
>> > edited by the moderator of  this "Free Speech-Open Forum""? Is
> what I
>> > receive is only selected emails, or maybe computers and internet
>> > emails aren't as infallible as some would maintain, and somehow
>> > things are just delayed?
>> >>
>> >> The idea of an "Open Forum" is good as long as it is truly open,
>> > and if it is used constructively, but as Claudia implies, less
> than
>> > that is simply a waste of time.
>> >>
>> >> George
>> > <my original posting message deleted here>
>> >
>> > George-
>> > I cannot explain why you didn't get my posting. Trust me (get it?)
>> > the forum settings are for unmoderated postings by any and all
>> > members, and when I just checked, all members are set
> at "individual
>> > emails" of all posts. So beyond that I cannot say what is
> happening.
>> > I'm new to setting up and running a discussion group, so it's
>> > possible I have some setting different than what you are used to.
>> >
>> > Gevan Marrs
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

dont you mean a / medicine and not a ___medicine?  Ha Ha (hope nobody is
offended by that)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Priscilla Weaver" <priscilla@...>
To: <soaysheepassociationmembers@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 10:53 AM
Subject: [SoaySheepAssociationMembers] Waylaid messages


>
>
>> George:  I frequently have to retrieve messages from my "spam" folder as
>> well, and there doesn't always seem to be a pattern.  Sometimes it's
>> those
>> annoying, "you can get both a mortgage and ___ medicine for the price of
>> one" messages, and sometimes it's just everyday messages.  So give that a
>> try and good luck.  For what it's worth, I've gotten messages from you on
>> this discussion group about feeding grain and about the issue of trust.
>> Priscilla
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

I have been reading up on sheep coat colors and patterns and the
genetics. There is a lot of information on other breeds, particularly
Icelandic and Shetlands, but far less on Soays. I am curious if
anyone out there has (or thinks they may have) a self-
colored "moorit" - that is, a "tan" or "blonde" Soay. To be more
specific, I am not talking about the "light phase wild" as described
in "Soay Sheep" by Clutton-Brok and Pemberton. I have seen
photographs on various web sites showing Soays of various light
colors, but I have not found one yet that is clearly self-colored
moorit (or "tan").
Seeing photographs of the varying Soay types that are out there. If
anyone has a photograph of what they think or know is a self-
colored "light-phase" or moorit or (tan or blonde...) I think it
would be interesting to post it for others to see.
According to the data in "Soay Sheep" Appendix 2, the self-colored
light phase is by far the rarest genotype in the sheep that were
brought fron Hirta to the research station an Edinburgh. There only
1.5% of the offspring (1192 in the study) were self-colored light
phase.
Anybody seen such a creature in North America?

Gevan Marrs

we had a blondie (well blonde compared to the rest of the flock actually
tan) born this year, but I cant find the digital camera, when I do I'll try
to post (ask my wife to post since computers dont like me) her underside is
a little lighter than the tan sides and top.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gevan Marrs" <marrstree@...>
To: <SoaySheepAssociationMembers@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 11:28 PM
Subject: [SoaySheepAssociationMembers] Self-colored moorit (or tan or
blonde) Soay in North America


>I have been reading up on sheep coat colors and patterns and the
> genetics. There is a lot of information on other breeds, particularly
> Icelandic and Shetlands, but far less on Soays. I am curious if
> anyone out there has (or thinks they may have) a self-
> colored "moorit" - that is, a "tan" or "blonde" Soay. To be more
> specific, I am not talking about the "light phase wild" as described
> in "Soay Sheep" by Clutton-Brok and Pemberton. I have seen
> photographs on various web sites showing Soays of various light
> colors, but I have not found one yet that is clearly self-colored
> moorit (or "tan").
> Seeing photographs of the varying Soay types that are out there. If
> anyone has a photograph of what they think or know is a self-
> colored "light-phase" or moorit or (tan or blonde...) I think it
> would be interesting to post it for others to see.
> According to the data in "Soay Sheep" Appendix 2, the self-colored
> light phase is by far the rarest genotype in the sheep that were
> brought fron Hirta to the research station an Edinburgh. There only
> 1.5% of the offspring (1192 in the study) were self-colored light
> phase.
> Anybody seen such a creature in North America?
>
> Gevan Marrs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

In several recent postings Debra talks about having had experiences
with growing  pains and bylaws and other troubles in other animal
breed organizations. I have always been impressed, since  first
reading the SOA website, with the depth of detail in the SOA bylaws.
When  founders speak of the difficulties of starting such and
organization, and mention is  made of the bylaws being "fledgling
only", I admire the individuals who  would take the time and effort
to pull this all together.
But I wanted to do a bit of research and see if I could find some
information on  difficulties other breed organizations have faced.
In looking in the Jacobs breed information, I found two items that I
think are  relevant to the current situation in the SOA organization
world. First I found:

1) The American Jacobs Sheep Registry -
http://jacob.sheepregistry.com/  - describes  that they are a
privately held registry organization, created as near as I can
deduce  to get free of " paperwork, cost, time, and political
turmoil". They have an entire  FAQ page describing what appears to be
their "Declaration of Independence"
http://jacob.sheepregistry.com/dont.htm
It includes this:

  "If you do not like what we are doing here, do not agree with our
methods or goals,  you have other options. Please do not write to us
to tell us how wrong we are. We  reserve the right to ignore
insulting, disparaging, niggling, pedantic, or  unnecessarily
controversial communications; and we intend to exercise that right."


2) So I wondered what organization it was that they had been dis-
satisfied with and and branched off from. I can't be  sure, but in
searching for a likely candidate, I found this site for the  Jacob
Sheep Convervancy - http://www.jacobsheepconservancy.org/index.htm

What I found particularly interesting was the bylaws. If you want to
make an interesting  comparison, open the JSC bylaws in one browser
window, and open the SOA bylaws in a  window next to it, and scroll
through them together. I think the fact that virtually  all
numbering, subsection titles, and probably 90% of the text are
identical strongly  suggests (as I had heard mentioned once) that the
Jacobs Sheep Conservancy bylaws  (adopted in 1990) were taken
verbatim (I'm sure with permission, although I've  noticed anywhere
on the SOA site an acknowledgment of this) to provide the great bulk
of the SOA bylaws that were adopted 12 years later.

This helps me understand why there are what appear to me to be some
contradictions in  the SOA bylaws (e.g., OPEN Board meetings are
closed to members in the SOA bylaws.  They are not closed in the
original JSC bylaws). Apparently later SOA modifications were not
always entirely consistent with the original intent in the JSC
bylaws.

So while this in no way diminishes all of the other areas of hard
work I'm sure it took to get this  starting template adapted to Soay
sheep, and other organization activities, it puts a slightly
different slant on the  persistent statements like "those of you who
have never started a breed organization  don't know how difficult it
is".

I can't be 100% sure, but it appears to me that in the Jacobs sheep
world, when  one organization wasn't fulfilling what members had
hoped for, a private registry was  set up to provide the essential
functions of a registry and flock book, for  sale/wanted listings,
etc.

Gevan Marrs

If anyone is interested, I have a Soay Ram Lamb for sale in SC.  He
is 6 months old and already has a nice set of horns.  If anyone is
interested, please contact me at branchcreekfarms@....

Thanks,

Alec
Branch Creek Farms
Eastover, SC