In 2007, an Alberta sheep producer named Patric Lyster purchased a 14-month-old Shropshire ewe from the Wholearth flock in Ontario, owned by Montana Jones. In late 2009 that sheep died. Because the Alberta producer was participating in voluntary deadstock surveillance, a sample from the dead ewe was tested for the presence of scrapie, a TSE (Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy) of sheep similar to BSE in cattle. The sheep tested positive. The CFIA subsequently genotyped Lyster’s flock to identify which animals were genotyped RR (highly resistant), QR (Resistant) and QQ (susceptible). Most of his Shropshires were QQ.
Owing to the rarity of the Shropshire breed in Canada, Lyster worked with the CFIA to try and come up with a way to salvage some of his flock genetics. The CFIA ultimately agreed to allow him to keep a group of ewes of the rarest genetics alive to be bred to a scrapie-resistant RR ram, in order to keep back as many QR daughters as possible before the QQ ewes were destroyed for testing.
In the meantime the sheep had traced back to the birth farm. When confronted again with the issue of how to deal with rare, valuable genetics, the CFIA in fact offered Ms Jones two years to preserve her genetics in the same type of program that Lyster had used. Ms Jones publicly states that she believes RR-genotyped rams and rams from the US (where RR Shropshire rams can be found) are of no value, even though Patric Lyster had found two separate US flocks that still raise the traditional British-style Shropshire. (In fact if you look at her inventory on the Canadian Livestock Records website, you will see she did in fact purchase an American ram from one of those flocks, something she has rarely publicly admitted.)
Ms Jones chose a path of resistance, as has been widely documented in news media all over the Ontario region, and in some instances nationally. She chose not to co-operate with the CFIA, to delay providing much-needed trace-in and trace-out information, and to deny the possibility there could be scrapie in her flock, even after a second ewe, born just 8 days apart from the first scrapie-positive ewe, tested positive on her own farm. She also insisted she should be allowed to quarantine her flock for five years, even though she publicly admitted a two-year CFIA-imposed quarantine would be a financial hardship. She publicly stated that her flock was registered when in fact only a handful were registered. The ones she would like CFIA to compensate her for (something totally contrary to her own lawyer’s public stance against any form of compensation to commercial sheep farmers) were only registered after death.
What I would like the reader to come away with is that a large percentage of the media coverage of this issue has been blatantly biased. Ms Jones set up a .org website in support of her cause; she would issue “press releases” to various outlets who then printed them as if they were fact. Some did indeed try to verify the claims, but for the most part the “press releases” were put out in their entirety. When certain reporters interviewed her (not all of them, but certainly many that I will not name here) their subsequent news stories presented only Montana Jones’s side of the story. In many cases the reporter tried to get a comment from the CFIA, probably knowing full well that they cannot comment on specific cases.
These are the questions one needs to ask when reading about this case:
-What is the source?
-What are they actually saying, and is there a less inflammatory way to say it?
-Is the assertion indeed proven, or is it in fact an opinion?
-Does the article omit important information? Are there questions the reporter could/should have asked that were not asked?
-Did the information come from a single source? Should they have gotten information from multiple sources in order to provide a balanced news article?
-Does the article print assertions that are actually opinion as if they are fact, in a way that limits debate? Does it give the impression that there is no other way to view the events?
-Does it “frame” the story (in this case, the exposure of supposed wrongdoing) in such a way that it leads the reader to be sympathetic? Would the reader come away with a different impression if the story had been “framed” differently?
I want it on public record that this whole Montana Jones/ Shropshire Sheep/Scrapie/ CFIA fiasco has been frequently portrayed in the media in a manner meant to provide the reader/viewer with preconceived ideas about the events. Ms Jones and her CCF lawyer have manipulated the media to believe certain things about Mr. Lyster, about the CFIA, about scrapie, and about the commercial sheep industry in Canada that are in fact their opinions only. Many of these things are downright offensive. This is a clause taken directly from the court document they filed April 19, 2012: “For commercial sheep breeders, the destruction policy constitutes a form of cost-free, taxpayer-subsidized health insurance for their flock, since the government pays farmers compensation for disposing of their otherwise worthless sick animals.”
Until such time as these reporters are willing to report the whole story, from all relevant viewpoints, I ask the reading/viewing public to keep a more open mind about this case. Until these events, I personally had no idea how easy it is to manipulate the media, orchestrate a news story, and get a reporter to put out your version of a story, in some cases exclusively. Remember, this story has it all- a big bad bully, a poor defenseless downtrodden victim, a government conspiracy theory, and cute fuzzy critters.
To all the reporters who did portray the other side of the story, or who opted to stop reporting on it and stop printing the “press releases” and letters to the editor, Mr. Lyster and I thank you heartily.
Lorri Nelson
Halkirk, Alberta
Comments
This letter looks a lot like some of the comments I've seen anonymously posted below other stories on this situation except for the media criticism.
When you claim "probably knowing full well that they cannot comment on specific cases" who is going to believe the rest of your story?
It is important that this article is written by someone involved in the story and takes an opposite view of the events released by Wholearth. The most refreshing aspect is that this author has taken the time to provide facts within the piece that support the claims being made. In my opinion all of the articles released from Wholearth have contained grandiose claims, but are devoid of facts to support those claims. It has become apparent that major news organizations have arrived at this same conclusion since they are conspicuously absent from reporting on the events swirling around Wholearth.
there is a new law that nullifies and voids reports made by "anonymous". This ensures valid identities are responsible for their claims. It's a shame that more real people can't stand behind what they say they believe is true, and need to hide. The great Oz is back, in triplicate.
In the same way that Ms. Jones is demanding independent third party validation of CFIA test results,
Unsigned comment deleted by editor
I replied point by point to the erroneous comments made by Patric Lyster's wife Lorri Nelson, yet I don't see them posted here. Is it true that Better Farming is not in fact reporting both sides, but that management has a decidedly biased view? I see many inflammatory comments on other issues, yet my considered responses to ill founded accusations are nowhere to be seen. I certainly hope that it's just making it's way through the system and that Better Farming is indeed airing all sides.
Editor's note:
We are researching the original comment which appears to be from an online visitor and is not accompanied by a phone number for identification.
Thank-you for posting my comments—freedom of speech lives.
Montana Jones
Not exactly as they did not post a few of my comments on this site. But then they allow you to post libelous information and you call that okay. Intersting how only the stuff from Miss Jones is posted as fact, without checking for facts. I seem to get thei dea that much of the media is still getting the wool pulled over their eyes by Montana Jones, who does also like to threaten people with defamation lawsuits. Miss Jones has failed to back up her threat to me, perhaps she knows she will lose. Regardless, it implies that she understands defamation, so perhaps she might wish to apologize for her unsubstantiated statements.
Please be ethical in your moderation of comments and either allow both sides to have their say or make her back up her statements before you post them.
Thank you,
Patric Lyster
Ms. Nelson…In the interest of stating facts, you have neglected to mention many. For example, it is relevant that you are Patric Lysters common law wife. In many arenas, this means your testimony may be not be considered as fact nor truth, for obvious reasons. You have also neglected to mention that you and Patric Lyster have followed me obsessively around the internet posting various lies and unfounded accusations, in many instance posting the same diatribes anonymously. It's a mystery as to why. You neglect to mention how much I tried to help save Patric's flock when he wished for the same outcome—that they be saved—before he opted to take the money CFIA offered him. Which you seem to have spent buying up more of my bloodlines.
You state, "In the meantime the sheep had traced back to the birth farm.", but in fact there has always been doubt about which sheep the tissue actually came from, since Patric submitted 10 or 11 or so obexes for testing. One might first wonder why so may dead sheep on hand, but more important is the question of why the pink traceability tag that was on the sheep I sold was not submitted by Patric to the CFIA? Their protocol insists on it…so why did this crucial evidence of identity fall through the cracks? He told me himself that he did not submit it, and CFIA called to ask me if I knew what the number was, instead of them calling me to TELL me what it was. There was only Patric present, only one mans word with no official or authority to confirm the identity. He told me he disposed of it illegally and opted not to submit it or the officials would be able to tell how he disposed of it. So it is not surprising there is doubt regarding true identification.
For the benefit of the doubt, I proceeded to try and work with CFIA to find out if scrapie was or had been present in my flock, despite zero signs nor symptoms for 12 years. It seemed unlikely, but I was intent on working with them to find out.
You state, "CFIA offered Ms Jones two years to preserve her genetics", but in fact this is not indicative of the truth either. How would you know what conversations occurred between the agency and I? In fact, you do not.
You state: "Ms Jones publicly states that she believes RR-genotyped rams and rams from the US (where RR Shropshire rams can be found) are of no value." No, I never said that RR rams were of no value.
I speak from my experience with the breed and my opinion, and that of many British and other international Shropshire breeders is that a true heritage Shropshire ram with ARR/ARR genotype combined with traditional breed character is very very hard to find. I have not yet seen one. I would not advise any breeder of any breed to destroy the genetic biodiversity and cull out one specific genotype—the best specimens happen to be ARQ/ARQ, and by the way, no "V" allele exists in a true heritage Shrop. If it's there, then somewhere in the pedigree that animal was crossed with another breed. I suspected as much from a few American bred ewes I bought many many years ago, and this was confirmed later. They were beautiful sheep…but held the modern characteristics not found in true traditional heritage Shropshires. So I line bred them back over many years to eliminate the undesirable characteristics, and it was quite a successful solution.
You state: "Lyster found… traditional British-style Shropshires" in the U.S.. In fact there are none…there are two that are not as modern as the rest, but there are none of the traditional Miller/Jackson genetics I had nurtured and in fact both those American flocks were hoping to have Wholearth semen from those lines.
You state: "you will see she did in fact purchase an American ram from one of those flocks, something she has rarely publicly admitted" I did indeed bring a new bloodline in and was quite disappointed with the results. You bought it's brother I believe. So you can see in your flock the results, as can other breeders from your flock photos. For me, that line introduced long faces, shallow bodies, pinched chests and long ewe necks…so that ram went for meat at the sales barn. Why would I not "publicly admit" that?
You state: "Ms Jones chose a path of resistance, as has been widely documented in news media all over the Ontario region, and in some instances nationally. She chose not to co-operate with the CFIA", which is even more of your speculation and conjecture. You are not aware of my dealings with CFIA, nor to the extent I was cooperating and offering alternative risk measures to satisfy their policy and the goal of rare breed conservation. Period.
You seem so programmed to nod and swallow what the government tells you is true you believe without a doubt, despite ALL indications to the contrary, that a ewe (not a second ewe, but a single, first ewe) tested positive here. You conveniently ignore the facts on this issue. They are here: http://shropshiresheep.org/2012/05/07/media-fogwash/
You question a long quarantine, but again, you are not privy to any facts or details around the issue…you merely sit and spout sour. Still not sure why. As for registrations, they were merely late…but all records intact, so yes, I have always had a registered flock. It was CFIA who encouraged me to get my registrations up to date after death. They were not supposed to be dead…I prefer them live—but you can ask CFIA about that.
You overlook the fact that I worked for 12 years devoted to keep this line going, but you still seem to be looking for something that is simply not there. Some might wonder, what is at the root of your personal attacks against me? You and Patric have been buying up all my bloodlines wherever you can, so that speaks volumes in itself. Looking at photos of your flock, sadly you may not have the necessary experience to continue the quality, which will be lost without the ARQ/ARQ genotype anyway.
You have framed your story to appear that I would manipulate the media…for what exactly? It's so vague what your point is. The modus operandi seems unclear...or what it is you imagine. You are the ones who have weaved a fabrication, but you're remiss in writing an ending, or a premise. Why would I, or anyone, go to the lengths or trouble you claim? It just doesn't make sense.
You have neatly forgotten to address that in the end (and in the beginning), the facts remain, and they have nothing to do with you Lorri, or Patric Lyster, or your peculiar obsession with me. This is true—I am passionate about preserving a valuable heritage breed that has historical agricultural significance for Canada; I support the control (eradication is impossible) of scrapie in Canada; I am steadfast in my goal to ensure ALL heritage breed livestock are not driven to extinction by Agriculture Canada and their outdated protocols; I believe people need to be made aware of the harmful government policies that are affecting their rights, choices, future health and well-being, and encouraged to make change where change is urgently needed. Perhaps you would like to join those of us who are directing our voices and energy toward a kinder, more powerful, productive and positive future.
Montana Jones
Ms Jones, living with smoeone does not make one a liar. If I had the time to be obsessed with someone, it surely wouldn't be you. I have your number. I am busy, have things to do, so I will read your comment later. Maybe. In the meantime, life goes on.
But I will take the time to say this- the entire reason we waded into this controversy was because of your idea that it is in any way right or ethical to imply (or even state outright) that the original scrapie ewe or her sample were misidentified. If you have any sense, you will retract any and all statements about misidentification of that ewe, tattooed WHE 24S. Immediately and publicly.
Lorri Nelson
-Montana Jones has been told why Patric had a lot of samples (coyote kills after the loss of a guardian dog); she has also been told this- that all the other samples were Horned Dorset sheep, and the Shropshire sample was later DNA-matched back to two of her daughters for extra verification. You can’t match Shropshire offspring to a Horned Dorset parent! The comment about “why so many dead sheep on hand” is simply meant to inflame and to cast doubt on Patric’s management practices, something she has allowed other people to post innuendo about on her website. As to the tag, the law says the tag is to stay with the carcass, not the sample. Obviously Ms Jones did not think the pink tag number was needed on the registration or the bill of sale, so clearly for her the tattoo was enough; but once the sheep tested positive for scrapie, suddenly the lack of a pink tag is important and the tattoo is meaningless.
-”"CFIA offered Ms Jones two years to preserve her genetics", but in fact this is not indicative of the truth either. How would you know what conversations occurred between the agency and I? In fact, you do not.” - Well, the fact is she told Patric herself.
--NOW she decides to post “in my opinion!!!” By George, I think she was paying attention for just a second there! Well, the fact is, she has likely not seen very many RR Shrop rams at all, but for her to say the best ones are QQ is simple- most Canadian Shrops are QQ! The fact about the lack of the “V” allele in Shrops is an interesting one- her Shrop that died on her farm and tested positive had the “V” allele! And if the American ones have had crossbreeding in their background, why did she buy up a bunch of Cramirro sheep? The dead one with the "V" was out of a Cramirro ewe! And why did she wax poetic about how beautiful that ewe was?
-"So you can see in your flock the results, as can other breeders from your flock photos. For me, that line introduced long faces, shallow bodies, pinched chests and long ewe necks…so that ram went for meat at the sales barn. Why would I not "publicly admit" that?” Again- totally her opinion. Speaking for other breeders? She is not considered an expert, she is in fact a self-proclaimed expert.
--”You state: "Ms Jones chose a path of resistance, as has been widely documented in news media all over the Ontario region, and in some instances nationally. She chose not to co-operate with the CFIA", which is even more of your speculation and conjecture. You are not aware of my dealings with CFIA, nor to the extent I was cooperating and offering alternative risk measures to satisfy their policy and the goal of rare breed conservation. Period.” Again, she told Patric herself. And her “alternative risk measures” were plastered all over the internet. You can hardly start an entire movement against the CFIA and then turn around and say, "What makes you think I wasn't cooperating?"!
-"You conveniently ignore the facts on this issue. They are here: http://shropshiresheep.org/2012/05/07/media-fogwash”- here is where she cites her own website as a source, something she has been doing all along. She posts it on her site, then calls it fact! Sounds to me like, "It is because I say it is."
-"what is at the root of your personal attacks against me? You and Patric have been buying up all my bloodlines wherever you can, so that speaks volumes in itself. Looking at photos of your flock, sadly you may not have the necessary experience to continue the quality, which will be lost without the ARQ/ARQ genotype anyway.” -Patric bought her bloodlines ("wherever you can"??!! He bought from ONE farm! ONE time! But she would have you believe he ran all over Canada to get her genetics when in fact hardly anyone has them because she has relatively few registered breeding animals) for access to DNA; but Jones still won’t agree to testing to prove the identity of the original scrapie ewe (they are all her half-sisters). The Wholearth line ewes are not very good because they are small, short, and wool-blind (but that is my opinion). So the lack of quality is not something you can attribute to lack of experience, in my opinion it is something you can attribute to the Wholearth genetics. Anyway, it is all said to be inflammatory and cast doubt back to Patric and deflect attention from the fact that his scrapie was found in a Wholearth ewe. Where the source was before, who knows? She doesn’t seem concerned about that at all! Or trace-in information would have been forthcoming immediately!!! :-)
-"Why would I, or anyone, go to the lengths or trouble you claim? It just doesn't make sense.” I’ll say! I can’t write the ending, it’s her story, not mine. It appears to me to be an ego thing, but let the reader make up their own mind.
Again, for the record- we got involved in this issue specifically because of her propensity for flogging the dead horse called "Misidentification." We would have stayed out of it if she had had the sense to just accept that the original scrapie ewe was WHE 24S. Period.
Lorri Nelson
There is proof in another article:
http://www.ontariofarmer.com/sitepages/?aid=5452&cn&an=Rare+sheep+flock+...
Quote: "She could have retained the animals for another two years but still could not sell breeding stock."
But I also see a gross exaggeration by Montana in that article, as well;
Quote: "Her Wholearth Studio was the birth place of a sheep which tested positive for Scrapies more than five years after leaving."
In fact, the ewe was purchased by Patric Lyster in 2007, at 14 months old, and died in 2009, only 2 yrs after purchase. Nowhere near 5 yrs.
Regards,
Charlie Renaud
Post new comment