[Andy Carson]

I have been thinking about the DAPNet mission statement and how it relates to concrete actions (such as the field days) a lot lately. I think these are important things to think about and share our thoughts. Personally, I think that our inability to form strong ideas on what the field days/gathering ought to look like is a symptom of a deeper underlying confusion of disagreement about what the organization is at a very fundamental level. I think that the organization, right now, is many different things to different people. Personally, I see strengths are weaknesses is each different aspect of “what we are.” I feel compelled to share my thoughts on this. Again, I think it is an important discussion.

Networking
Are we primarily a networking organization that brings everyone possible “into the same tent”? I can see how this would be attractive to people wanting to sell equipment/substriptions, find new club members/interns, attract customers, or forward specific agendas to a wider audience. The downside is that because want to bring everyone together, we cannot (or do not) make any statements that might be devisive. This might seem abstract to some, but with the spector of “humane and ethical treatment of animals” and “big buisness organic movements” (just as examples) controversial issues are knocking on all our doors. I feel that overnetworking ties our hands when it comes to advocacy. Overnetworking makes all actions hard. We already have a difficult time reaching a consensus on specific issues with our diverse group of people, and then we add to this scepulation about what is going to attract other people with unknown interests and agendas. This is so speculative, and I feel it ultimately leads to inactivity because it is too speculative to reach a strong consensus on. Even when a consensus is reached, I fear that many will have compromised thier personal visions so much that they are not enthusiastic about this final product. Personally, I am much more attracted to a “Field of Dreams” model, where “If you build it, they will come.” I this model, we advance our own diverse goals in an open forum, and new people are attracted to what peaks thier personal interest.

Education
Reguarding education, I think this our unique contribution to draft animal power, and we should not forget that. General information for new draft animal users is everywhere, from neighbors, in bookstores, on several sites on the net. General information is the easiest thing you could possibly ask for in this day in age. I do not believe that this type of info is going to attract anyone to our events. What is rare, truly rare, is detailed information about specific things from reliable sources. Additionally, information that represents new ideas (or even old ideas) that were actually tested and compared is very difficult to find. Education does not tie our hands when it comes to advocacy. I can see how the “stop and see” crowd might not be as large with a education focused event. People who want to sell stuff might not be attracted to this type of event (unless they can explain how thier stuff is better). People who want to forward specific agendas or gain publicity might also be less attracted, too, as they have a posibly smaller crowd. I do, however, think that the people who would come to an event like this would be retained well. Also, I think that it would be attractive to more experienced animal users. I feel this is an important aspect, as if everything is geared towards new users, mentor-types would not be very motivated to attend.

Community
I recognize that many people simply like to hang out with other like-minded people. I recognize this is pleasureable, and probably goes a long way towards retaining some people. I do not think, though, that this can be the ultimate goal. For me personally, I feel the strongest sense of community when I am with a group of people working towards a easy to understand, fairly concrete goal that everyone agrees upon. At least for me, if the goal of community IS community, I feel deflated. For reasons outlied above, easy to understand, concrete goals that our diverse group all agrees upon have been difficult to lay out. On the surface, perhaps a strong vision and bold, concrete ideas would alleviate some of this confusion and give members ideas to rally around. On the other hand, these same bold concrete ideas, gives everyone a chance to decide if they are “on board” or “not on board” with the idea. Some members may not care enough about these specific ideas and decide they are not on board…

I think that all of these goals have positive and negative aspects to them. In a large event, one can simply have all parts together and then you don’t have to decide which are most critical. For a smaller event, I feel we will need to decide which aspects are critical. I think it is smartest to first decide what the specific goals are, then decide how to accomplish them, and which potential activities are least important to the goals. I think most people think this makes sense, but setting priorities is a contentious issue.

Sorry for this rambling thread, I just wanted to get this all off my chest.

[Andy Carson]

I am deeply confused by these statements. Personally, i value education above all other aspects of what we do. Is education simply to be the “worm” that is put on the hook to catch new “fish?” And what to do when they are landed? Certainly ask them to join the club, and perhaps get a donation or some volunteer work from them. Most organizations want to grow, but should this be our greatest goal? If so, to what end? I thought the end WAS education. I certainly understand the value of growing the net if there is some goal that is cannot be accomplished by a smaller organisation, but i do not know what these goals are… I recognize that some degree of fellowship is important to many people and can be a strong motivator (not so much for me). I am not sure how this fits into the organization… Have these issues been discussed already? Has the organization reached a concensus on these issues? These will go a long way towards directing future plans in the field days and other issues.

[Andy Carson]

i think this is 7 PM, right?

[Andy Carson]

Could you share the dimensions on your stocks? In “A teamsters guide” Conroy draws a rough schematic of stocks, but it doesn’t have dimensions. It just says “A shoeing stock needed for a dexter is vastly different in size from one needed for a mature chianina.” I just need an “average” size (if such a thing exists), as I only have plans to keep oxen that are “average” sized.

[Andy Carson]

Thanks Kevin, I think I will try that next year. How do you space them?

[Andy Carson]

Thanks for the good wishes everyone, she is a joy indeed.

[Andy Carson]

I am glad to see you are thinking about this, Kevin. I think that starting with small numbers is a good way to see how many animals your land can support and also be able to build slowly without financial hardship. Personally, I have always had better luck with crossbred animals, but alot of people have different opinions. If I was going to be breeding and selling alot of animals, I would probably raise purebreds. For me personally, I would pick devons if I was going to raise a purebred animal. I did check into shorthorns for a short time when I was thinking about breeds. This was mostly when I was thinking “do I really want to drive that far?” I didn’t spend alot of time doing this, but in the short time, I found alot of breeders in my area didn’t have a good appreciation for the difference between the triple purpose traditional animal and the more modern “holstein with a different color.” Nothing against holsteins, mind you, but that wasn’t what I was going for… As far as the sex of the offspring goes, it’s always a bit of a crap shoot. Probability theory tells you that if you have 2 cows, there is only a 1 in 4 (25%) chance you will get a pair of bull calves, if you have 3 cows, the odds are 50%, 4 cows and the odds are 69%, 5 cows and the odds are 81%, and with 6 bred cows the odds are 89%. Obviously, if you want to pick between 4 or more bull calves, you are getting into some serious numbers of cows. Perhaps if you plan and market well, the heifers can be a good thing. Andy Van Ord talked about a market for famiy milk cows that you might be able to get into. A milking devon would likley be a great breed for this and in Ca, you won’t have much competition. Do you know if there is a market for family milk cows in your area?

[Andy Carson]

Perhaps there is a way to discourage extremely objectionable practices without alienating many people. I still don’t have a good appreciation for the scope and severity of this problem or how clear it is what practices would be deemed “extremely objectionable”… It seems like such a slipperly slope… Perhaps if people are very set in thier tracks, all anyone can do is throw up my hands and walk away. Still, with young or new people who are or might be open to some degree of mentoring, I wonder if more should be done. Sometimes you don’t know what you don’t know. That said, I am unclear on what concrete steps can and should be taken. I am also suspecious that some solutions might create more problems than they solve. Did you have any concrete actions in mind, Droverone?

[Andy Carson]

@Kevin Cunningham 36699 wrote:

…this year when I “showed” my steers for the first time to a group of second graders (a very discriminating crowd), I knew how many hours of work it took for them to stand and move on command flawlessly, but my two minute performance probably was not completely understood because it took so many hours of daily work to get them to that stage.

If the goal of showing is to expose people to draft animal power who may have not thought to ask, you may have just earned the bluest ribbon you can get! Who cares if they don’t completely understand now? The few that are interested will learn. Maybe in time, we will all meet a few here and they can tell a story of when they first saw Kevin’s team on a second grade field trip. I think this kind of work is something to be especially proud of.

[Andy Carson]

@Carl Russell 36692 wrote:

I also think that pulling and showing, while not usually done by people who are actually working their animals, also serves us well in a larger context. I have no tolerance for competitive showmanship, but I find most draft animal people to have some appreciation for the craft. It isn’t up to us to dismiss the poor examples set by others, it is up to us to set better examples, for the public, as well as for those pullers and showers who may inadvertently be watering down our efforts.

I think of this in much the same way. I have never shown my animals and am not interested in doing so in anything more than in a simple demonstration. My feeling is that show events do not match my training goals precisely, and I would rather focus on aspects that more directly relate my work or (ideally) actually get the work done. My most respected mentors will probably always be people who focus primarily on getting work done. These people may not have a single blue ribbon hanging in thier house or barn.

Still, I have to admit that I have watched oxen at shows and on youtube, and know personally that they can play a useful role in demonstrating what animals can do. I have been to a lot more horse shows than anything else and base most of my opinions about showing from these experiences. In general, I feel that if the competition at a show is strong, there is a natural tendancy to focus on “soft criteria” (general attitutude of teamster/animals, conformation/grooming of teamster animals, familiarity with the practices of the teamster, reputation of the teamster) instead of fundamentals to rank what are all essentially very competant teams. In these situations, I am just as impressed with the yellow ribbon (or similar) as I am with the blue ribbon. Similary, when competition is weak, teams might not even be competant to recieve a blue ribbon. So here the ribbon is means nothing too. My wife used to show at dressage competitions, and they would not only give ribbons, but the judge also filled out a scorecard with individual scores in a number of aspects of riding. These scores were then added up for a total score, which was supposed to conform to an international standard. I liked this system more than a simple ranking system, as it allows participants to know if they are almost as competant as the winner and also allows them to know where and how they need to improve. There was also a general appreciation of this system in that aspect of riding. People would usually ask “how did you score?” rather than “How did you place?” I wonder if a system like this would be able properly recognize teamsters with strong fundamentals in appropriate areas. What do you think, Droverone?

Despite the many downsides of competitive pulling, one of the things I like about it is that there aren’t “soft criteria.” If whoever pulls the most weight wins, than there is room to be creative in the use of training techniques, equipment, breeds, mixes, etc. that might be frowned upon in other areas. Being completely free in how you approach a challenge is exciting to people like me, as you can experiment with practices and techniques and see what works best in an objective way. It sometimes makes traditionalists angry, though, because sometimes a nontraditional practice proves to move more weight. Reguardless of this, though, I think the 2nd and 3rd and 4th place pullers move a lot of weight, and don’t really care if someone got a blue ribbon?

If the goal of participating in shows and competitions is to attract new people, than perhaps it is best to judge success by the number of people you attract to doing real meaningful work with oxen (rather than by who wins). If the goal is to simply get as many blue ribbonsas possible, and obtain the degree of fame that this provides, I think it is missing the point.

[Andy Carson]

I am certainly not advocating that the content of this site change. I think this site is wonderful and plays as essential role in mentoring, continued learning, documentation of traditional practices and techniques, as well as introduction of new practices and techniques. My concern, which is only something I think about from time to time, is if this site alone is sufficient for attracting new draft animal users. I think that if someone wants to know more about draft animals, and is serious about them, google inevitable leads them to this site. I wonder, though, about the people who might not have even thought to ask… Perhaps some level of public participation and general visibility is appropriate so that some people will be curious enough to “check it out.” This might sound ridiculous to some people, but oxen were very much “off my radar” for a long time. It they weren’t generally visible at a few events I went to for other reasons, I might not have given them a chance. I do not know if facebook is the best forum for this, and suspect it is not. I am disappointed to hear that rural heritage might not be either, as I have expected this would be another great forum to gain some visibility. I understand that these types of interactions can be very frustrating (Droverone), personally unrewarding (Tim), and/or boring (Carl), and I have experienced this too. Despite the annoyance, I still think that it is important to have some (possible low) level of interaction with the general public, even if all it does is get slightly interested parties to do some searching to learn more about it. Keeping a practice alive requires some mechanism to attract young people to carry the knowledge into the future. Again, I am not advocating that the focus of this site should change its focus towards attracting young people in exclusion of any of the other things we do. I am just thinking that if might not be best if individuals shy away from public forums either. I understand that getting into long drawn out discussions on tired subjects that have already been discussed is time consuming and frustrating. One approach when faced with a situation like this would be to write something like “There are many opinions on this topic and it has been discussed at length on DAP (post link).” I would hope this is polite enough to not be deleted, and brings interested parties to DAP and to a complete discussion of the issue/topic at hand without the DAP member getting too frustrated or bored by having to rewrite thoughts.

[Andy Carson]

i completely agree that an honest an open exchange is ideal. I also think that we should also not shy away from controversial issues, or feel that our honest respectfully stated opinions should be hidden from view. People usually hide things they are ashamed of, and i believe this gives the wrong impression. For example, I try to be open honest about how I use a goad, how I slaughter animals, and what I think is humane. To some extent, we are preaching to the choir on this site, which is something I think about from time to time. On the other hand, I am honestly not sure what damage is being done to the practice of working oxen by competative pullers. I would honestly love to read opinions about this, but wonder if it is wise to be very critical of how someone else world thier animals. Perhap some of these practices are so far afield than worthy is discussion so I don’t pick up these practices/habits. I simply don’t know what these are. I like that I can ask! 🙂

[Andy Carson]

I have not used this type of bow before. My feeling is that the pointed end will allow me to keep the bow tight without putting undue pressure on the windpipe or blood vessels in the neck. The narrow profile and sharper angle also keep the bow further away from the mobile shoulder area. I have often wanted to raise the bow on my big yoke as the edges of the bow flirt with rubbing on the shoulders. Raising the yoke much more, however, causes choking on my semi-circular bows. This shape would solve that problem for my big team. I do not honestly know how common this problem is and might be due to my big team having “Jersey necks and Shorthorn shoulders.” Perhaps there will be no advantage for my calf team, but following the natural outline of the neck makes sense to me.

[Andy Carson]

So sorry to hear about your buddy, Geoff.

[Andy Carson]

Thanks Kevin, I will report on the chain attachment point. Like I said, my big yoke uses this type of attachment and I like it, so I think I’ll like this too. I tried to bend the steel for these bows cold with a long cheater, but just ended up messing them up. I also tried to heat them with charcoal and a blow dryer, but that didn’t heat them up enough. I ended up taking them to a blacksmith, bent them and showed me how to do it with a torch and an anvil. The sharp angle at the tip was not as hard as I guessed it would be. The hardest thing was getting the curves on the edges consistant and keeping the distance between the tops of the bows parallel and a constant distance appart. Nice thing about steel, though, is you can usually bend it back if you go too far. I will try my hand at my next set of bows, but I paid for these. Still cheaper than wood, but paying someone to bend them makes the price only a little cheaper than wood. In case anyone is curious, the arch shape is known as an “equilaternal gothic arch.” Here’s how to draw one, in anyone is interested. http://www.builderbill-diy-help.com/gothic-arch.html I did make a wooden form of what I wanted the arch to look like. The blacksmith found this very useful as he could compare his bend to the form at many points to make sure he was getting it right.

[Author]

Posts