by JOE CALLAHAN
An Ontario sheep nabbing case will proceed to trial next year, says the Crown attorney involved in the matter.
The preliminary hearing into charges laid against Linda (Montana) Jones, Michael Schmidt and Robert Pinnell has concluded, and according to Crown Attorney Damien Frost, all three have been committed to trial on all charges.
A judicial pre-trial hearing is scheduled for April 20, 2016 in Superior Court of Justice in Peterborough.
The case dates back to 2012 when sheep were abducted from Jones’ farm in Northumberland County while the farm was under a Canadian Food Inspection Agency quarantine.
Jones, Schmidt and Pinnell face charges of conspiracy to commit obstruction of a Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) officer, to transport or cause to transport an animal under quarantine, and conspiracy to defraud the public of a service over $5,000 under the Criminal Code.
Jones is also charged with obstructing a CFIA inspector under the Health of Animals Act, and Pinnell faces a further charge of attempting to obstruct justice and another for obstruction a police officer, both under the Criminal Code.
Charges have not yet been proven in court. BF
Comments
Editor: This anonymous comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.
Editor: In accordance with our guidelines, a phone number is required for this signed comment.
Open letter to all sheep producers in Canada
Over and over during conversations with other farmers I hear comments like;
"Montana Jones has really damaged the sheep industry"
One can hear these kind of comments right across the Country.
Montana Jones as one should know by now is the shepherd who had been wrangling with the CFIA for many years to prevent the slaughter of her flock. Her problems started when she questioned the scrapie positive test results, which was the base of the entire drama. It ended with the destruction of very valuable heritage sheep and criminal charges against four people me included.
The day the sheep supposed to be killed by the CFIA they had disappeared but were found later several hundred kilometers away. Slaughtered shortly thereafter all sheep tested negative for scrapie to no ones surprise.
For sure the sheep industry was in a state of disbelieve that someone actually would challenge and kidnap sheep which were placed under quarantine.
The CFIA as well was in a state of shock that it's authority was challenged. That's why the law enforcement came down with full force and with full support of the Sheep industry to try to punish those who dare to challenge Policies.
This happened over three years ago.
In the meantime we had countless days in court, 15 thousand pages of disclosure and most importantly a glimpse into how the Scrapie program is administered ,managed, executed and covered up.
No wonder the prosecution applied for a publication ban after it became public via the National Post and several farm papers, that an internal memo raised valid doubts because of inconsistencies within the CFIA.
Did Montana Jones sheep ever had scrapie???
Anybody who is making judgement without knowing the details about this case should take the time and attend the court proceedings.
Any organization involved in breeding, exporting or importing sheep should sit in or send somebody to take notes.
It would be an eyeopener for every one involved.
A national inquiry into this case would be justified, at least it would clean up incompetence and internal corruption.
Too bad that the current ruling judge prevented a transparent court proceeding by issuing an p who then can shamelessly keep hiding and doctoring evidence.
Remember, before anybody passes judgment again on the Montana Sheep case, wait until the CFIA ruins your life as well. Too many still trust in agencies which are pretending to help and protect, but do nothing else than designing programs which fill their own pockets.
Inform yourself first and attend court proceedings and then come down with your own judgment if you still trust Government.
The CFIA could play an important role in society but not without accountability.
What happened with the Montana Jones case is nothing else than creating the opposite then what is needed; trust in due process.
When I got involved with the sheep drama I had some idea how convoluted and messed up bureaucrats can be. I never thought that it would be so baaad
Michael Schmidt
Editor: Some deletions were made to this comment for legal reasons.
the fact that the sheep tested negative,the case should be scraped.Quit wasting taxpayer dollars
John Van Dyk
John,
Scrapie is a nationally reportable disease, and as such, it is dealt with as mandated by international laws and treaties. The live test is not 100% accurate, and they are bound by law to eradicate it by putting down any susceptible sheep. Testing the obex of the brain is the only 100% accurate test for Scrapie at this point in time. They genotyped the flock and only the QQ animals were destined to be slaughtered. BUT, for the first time in history, a reprieve was offered. She could have purchased an RR Ram (resistant genotype), bred him to the whole flock...2 - 3 times, and KEPT ALL OFFSPRING forever. This was an initiative negotiated by the AB farmer who was unfortunate enough to have purchased the ewe that tested positive a mere 2 yrs after purchase. Typical Scrapie timeline. That Scrapie positive ewe died at only 3.5 yrs of age (in her prime!), it is very suspicious for Scrapie. Then, another ewe died on Montana's farm, and it tested positive, as well. So, there are, in fact, 2 positive attributed to her farm. We don't know how many others were infected, because of the sheep napping, the Quarantine was broken, and 5 sheep were not returned. A few were found on the side of the road later, but their ID's were obliterated, so it isn't certain if they were from that lot or not. So others in the flock could have also died of Scrapie, but the sheep napping makes it uncertain.
And she could have gotten up to $1200 each in compensation for the destroyed animals.....but
1. she hadn't been registering any of the flock for the previous 5 yrs! I fail to see how someone thinks they are preserving heritage bloodlines without registrations that only cost $10 each.
2. She refused compensation offered by CFIA originally. Now she seems to have changed her mind, and registered them after death with horrendous names to slander CFIA, and CFIA and police investigation has charged her with criminal offenses and wonders why they refuse her now. It reminds me of a murderer that thinks he is still allowed to collect the life insurance money on the person they murdered. When you are charged with an offense, you don't get to financially gain from the crime.
Regards,
Charlie Renaud
Please resubmit with your name and phone number as per policy below so that editors can confirm authenticity. The telephone number will not be published.
As per previous comment, do you still have it? It did not have a place for me to give you my phone number for some reason. Do I have to resubmit?
Let's see; The ewe WHE24S was tattooed by Montana, then sold to an AB farmer at 14 mos of age. You can't lose a tattoo, yet Linda/Montana Jones tries to stipulate that the CSIP tag was all that mattered for Identification. Then why didn't she put that on the receipt for purchase? At the age of 3.5 yrs she died of a wasting disease. 2yrs after purchase, and quite common for Scrapie. Head was submitted, CFIA confused some ID's when several heads were collected from the producer's freezer due to being on the 'Voluntary Scrapie Program'. So, to ascertain for certain which one was the positive, without ANY doubt, they came back to the AB farm and did DNA tests on some of the daughters of WHE24S and confirmed the positive was, in fact, her.
So....what is the problem? An accounting error was found and corrected. We are all human.
She hadn't registered ANY sheep in 5 yrs, so how do you 'preserve rare bloodlines' without registering?
She refused to provide trace-in and trace-out information so CFIA could conclude their investigation in a timely fashion. 2 yrs later when she finally provided it, it was too late, as many of the sheep sold from her farm were dead or missing.
When the 31 sheep were 'sheep-napped', there were 5 missing when they found them again (only 26 found). Did the other 5 die of scrapie?
The ewe that died on her farm, that Linda/Montana begged CFIA to put on the order for destruction....was positive for Scrapie. So, that makes 2 positives from her farm.
CFIA's mandate is to eradicate Scrapie. Due to input from the AB farmer, CFIA developed a new policy for "Heritage Sheep". As a result, she was given 2yrs to buy an RR Ram, breed him to her flock and could KEEP ALL offspring. That would result in QR offspring. The QQ ewes were going to be destroyed afterwards, but their genetic lines would be preserved.
Nothing seems good enough for Montana/Linda. She thinks she is above the law we all have to abide by. CFIA mandate is international. 1 hobby flock shepherd (not a full time farmer) refuses to cooperate, begs the public for money....and all the journalists copy her verbage word for word as if it is all gospel. Without presenting the WHOLE story for all to judge for themselves. Why? Because she says she is somehow the expert on Heritage Shropshire Sheep. The industry has not appointed her as any sort of expert on anything and she is ruining our export market by fighting this tooth and nail. She has made her bed...now she is upset that she has to lie in it.
Charlie Renaud
While the above posting appears to tell a detailed, spectacular and damning story, how many of the statements and/or claims made by Mr. Renaud have had their evidentiary value determined in court?
It's one thing to make judgements based on basic economic principles, basic accounting principles and/or even common sense, but it's a completely-different matter to make judgements based on hearsay. For example, if:
(A) Ms. Jones told Mr. Renaud that she "begged" CFIA to issue a destruction order.
(B) Ms. Jones made this claim, while under oath, in court and was subject to cross-examination by a CFIA lawyer.
(C) There is a video of Ms. Jones making this claim
(D) CFIA made this statement, while under oath, in a court of law and subject to cross-examination by counsel for Ms. Jones.
then Mr. Renaud would be justified in making his own claim - in the absence of any of these things, Mr. Renaud's claims are hearsay and without any evidentiary value or merit whatsoever.
Can Mr. Renaud point us to transcripts, videos and/or anything else that would substantiate and/or justify what appears to be a visceral hatred of Ms. Jones?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Charlie is a woman. She did not say Jones begged the CFIA to issue a destruction order, but to add the second (later tested positive) ewe to the order. Jones has publicly admitted that. And for heaven's sake, why does Charlie have to have proof but yet Jones apparently can say whatever she wants? There has been a double standard in this case all along and it is time people stood up to it. Ask Jones for the same kind of proof. Not just citing her own website as a source.
Lorri Nelson
Stephen,
How many of Montana's claims are without fact? Many. Most are half truths, not all the facts. I have no hatred for anyone as you incorrectly assume. I just want the WHOLE TRUTH to be shared, not just what she cherry picks that she spins to make it sound like she is a victim and being persecuted. I am sick and tired of her milking the unknowing public to financially support her without justification. She could have mitigated her damage like every other sheep, beef, pork or poultry producer has to when a "nationally report-able disease" presents itself with any relationship to your farm. Instead, she decided SHE was better, that her small flock was more important than any other in Canada. It isn't.
FACT: Most people don't know what Scrapie is, nor how it is transmitted, nor do they know the ramifications for our entire country and our valuable export market. She uses that lack of knowledge to her advantage and skews the facts on how it is transmitted. Trying to say it was 'many years later', as if that makes it less believable. In fact, that is EXACTLY how Scrapie works. It appears years later. Dying at 3 - 5 yrs of age is common after infection at birth. It incubates for years! She states that she never had symptoms. Sudden death is a symptom of Scrapie, in fact, the most common. They just die and you don't know why.
FACT: She CHOSE to fight this battle, that she will never win. Her only way to come out of this in any good position to continue farming would have been to take the generous offer of using an RR Ram and keeping the offspring for 2 whole years. Nobody has ever been offered that before. It was the best case scenario. She refused compensation offered at the time. They even offered $525 over the commercial unregistered sheep maximum. Probably before they realized she hadn't kept up with their registrations. Now she wants it. She registered them after death with horrible names to slander CFIA and is now upset that they refuse to pay her compensation. She got charged with the offenses she must now deal with in court. She did this. Nobody did this to her. She did it to herself. She just doesn't think SHE is accountable. That only our gov't agencies are. She is wrong!
As far as her begging them to list the ewe that died on her farm, that she thought went down with ketosis, it is in her own words...online.
btw: you assumed incorrectly, I am female and have been raising sheep for well over 20 yrs. I am a full time farmer (unlike her) and her antics are affecting my full time business and my entire industry.
Regards,
Charlie Renaud
Regardless of gender, Charlie Renaud still hasn't been able to clearly communicate just exactly what her position is.
A good part of the confusion arising from Ms. Renaud's postings arises because:
(A) the original posting stated - "The ewe that died on her farm, that Linda/Montana begged CFIA to put on the order for destruction...."
(B) the above posting now states "begging them to list the ewe that died on her farm".
What either statement has to do with the matter at hand, or with each other, is not clearly written and/or clearly communicated.
If Ms. Jones "begged" anyone to do anything, Ms. Renaud had a responsibility to indicate where and when this happened - Ms. Renaud did not do so, even in the most-recent posting and, therefore, comes up short in the credibility equation.
Furthermore, Ms. Renaud continues to express legal opinions which she, by not being a lawyer, is not qualified to make - for example, Ms. Renaud's claim:
"FACT: She CHOSE to fight this battle, that she will never win"
is not a fact, but a legal opinion Ms. Renaud, unless she is a member of the Law Society, is not qualified to make and should not have expressed.
Furthermore, Ms. Renaud commits the egregiously-unpardonable sin of intimating that because she is a full-time farmer, her views need to be accorded more evidentiary value than the views of a part-time farmer like Ms. Jones.
It's like this Ms. Renaud, unless you cite proof of your claims and unless you are a lawyer, don't make claims and don't express legal opinions.
Finally, even though I'm not a lawyer, and even though I am not defending Ms. Jones in any way, it would appear to me that Ms. Jones has ample grounds to at least explore the launching a defamation suit against Ms. Renaud who should govern herself accordingly.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Please research this case a little further before making these accusations. All of these things that Charlie is saying are not speculation. The fact is that Linda "Montana" Jones has plastered every event on her website and social media since the start. We know Jones asked the CFIA to add that ewe to the order because Jones admitted it. We know Jones chose to fight this battle because she has been very public about it from the start. Nothing was ever hidden, it was out in the public domain from the beginning. Jones also publicly accused others of things that she had no proof to back up. For instance, she has intimated on more than one occasion that the Alberta producer misidentified the first sheep, that he mixed up samples, I have even seen implications that he deliberately set her up. Now, until you are willing to hold Jones accountable in the same way you are trying to do with Charlie, maybe your time would be better spent researching this case before you comment any further. And if you want to know what authority I have to comment- the Alberta producer is my husband. And I also lost Shropshire sheep on the original trace-out. And his, and mine, unlike a large number of Jones's, were registered. (And before you ask for proof of THAT, registration dates are a matter of public record, clrc.ca , take a look). You have clearly chosen a side here, in advance of finding out the whole story. (In this particular case, what else is new?) Oh, and one other thing: the idea of a defamation suit is not new. The threat of that is a Jones staple. But you cannot win a defamation suit if the things said about you, no matter how damaging, are true. And another thing about defamation suits-they work both ways. Jones said she plans to write a book about this case; she must be very, very careful what she says in that book.
Lorri Nelson
If Ms. Jones had published the same sort of stuff on this site as Ms. Renaud, I'd be chastizing Ms. Jones too, but she didn't, so I am not.
It's like this - unless and/or until Ms. Renaud provides proof to readers on this site to support her claims about Ms. Jones:
(1) Ms. Renaud's claims
(2) Ms. Nelson's claims in support of Ms. Renaud
must both be considered speculation and of no evidentiary value whatsoever.
I am taking issue with what was published on this site by Ms. Renaud because somebody needs to take issue with her.
Furthermore, I am not taking any side in this matter except the side of what can be and/or what has been proven in a court of law. Ms. Renaud has, by virtue of her uncited, unreferenced and, therefore, unsupported "evidence dumping", assumed the role of judge, jury and executioner and it is unfair and unjustified for her to do so.
Furthermore, any "evidence" Ms. Nelson offers on behalf of her husband is, if I understand the law correctly, hearsay and of no evidentiary value at all. If Ms. Nelson's un-named husband was to post what has happened to him during this saga on this site, it would be another matter, but anything offered by Ms, Nelson on behalf of her husband is, and must be, of no evidentiary value whatsoever.
While I am not supporting (or condemning) anything Ms. Jones has said, published and/or done, she is getting an undeserved and unjustified crucifiction on this site by a few ladies who should know better and who seem to have nothing better to do.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
One other comment, Mr. Thompson, to clear things up (since you are clearly so enjoying muddying the waters): my husband would comment, but he prefers to wait until after the trial. He is a witness for the prosecution, and as such, considering the publication ban, he has opted, at least for now, to wait until after the trial is over. And as for Ms Jones getting an undeserved and unjustified crucifixion, well, thanks so much for supporting the people she has crucified in the past. Clearly, believing her story fits better with your preconceived notions about the CFIA in particular and the government in general. But has it ever occurred to you for one second to consider the people Jones has hurt? No, because that doesn't give you a drum to beat. So go ahead. Beat it.
Lorri Nelson
To Better Farming, I apologize for the separate comments. To Mr. Thompson, I think this: "If Ms. Jones had published the same sort of stuff on this site as Ms. Renaud, I'd be chastizing Ms. Jones too, but she didn't, so I am not." is your largest error. Ms Jones has put all manner of accusations and pot shots and outright speculation on her website. She does have a tendency to "hit and run", so a lot of her comments have been removed. Fortunately we save everything so we know the things she has said on her site. Again, as I said before, she has hurled either sly innuendo or flat-out accusations at the Alberta farmer, myself, and any sheep producer who has publicly stood up to her. You have not done your homework. Please do so before you take this any further, and feel free to contact me privately for more information, as I am sure the Better Farming people are losing patience with us. You have a nice day Mr. Thompson.
Lorri Nelson
To my understanding, Ms. Jones has proffered nothing on this site, yet Ms. Nelson accuses me of making my "largest error" when I make that suggestion and, what's worse, offers no proof to support her claim.
I really don't care what Ms. Jones has claimed on her website because I don't follow that site, I follow this site and my comments are directed at what I read on this site, period. Furthermore, what I read on this site is a crucifixation of Ms. Jones by people who make all sorts of allegations, yet offer not even the vaguest hint of proof to support their allegations.
For example, Ms. Nelson claims -"Ms. Jones has put all manner of accusations and pot shots and outright speculation on her website", yet Ms. Nelson offers not even one example of any accusation, pot shot and/or outright speculation purportedly made by Ms. Jones.
I have no intention of contacting Ms. Nelson privately for more "information" because if she is as reticent about providing verifiable proof then as she is when she posts on this site, it would be a colossal waste of time. More to the point, if Ms. Nelson isn't prepared to publicly reveal her sources on this site, why would I, or anyone else, be the least bit interested in what she might reveal privately?
Sadly, it appears that both Ms. Nelson and Ms. Renaud are:
(A) engaged in little more than a pre-trial witch hunt in the court of public opinion directed at Ms. Jones.
(B) not prepared to be criticized by anyone for anything
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Have you got blinders on? You actually admit that you are basing your comments on this site ONLY? That you have no intention of checking any further into this case than this one little story about the case going to trial? Then I am sorry we wasted your time, Mr Thompson. Clearly you have no desire to know what actually happened in this case. Unfortunately for you, that negates every single comment you have made. Your input has no value because you freely admit you have no idea what you are talking about. Probably you should stop commenting now, though something tells me you won't.
Lorri Nelson
Up until now, I have responded only to signed comments on this site authored by Lorri Nelson and Charlie Renaud. I do not pretend to understand the technical and/or legal complexities of the matters currently before the courts and never stated, suggested and/or even implied I did.
My only concern and my only interest is that while Ms. Nelson and Ms. Renaud may not like Ms. Jones and may believe Ms. Jones to be guilty of all sorts of unpardonable sins, it is quite improper, and even childish, for them to accuse Ms. Jones of anything without also offering any sort of evidence to support these claims, yet Ms. Nelson continues to do just exactly that on this site.
That Ms. Nelson still refuses to offer any transcript references, video references, signed correspondence references, electronic link and/or anything else to support her numerous allegations against Ms. Jones on this site, raises credibility flags all over the place.
Now that Michael Schmidt has posted his suspicion/belief on this site that Charlie Renaud is, in fact, the "nom-de-plume" of Ms. Nelson's previously un-named spouse, a speculation that muddies the water even further, it seems to explain the extreme reluctance of Ms. Nelson to offer any evidence to support her allegations.
Shakespeare's - "something is rotten in the state of Denmark" which, like the title of this posting, is also from Hamlet, might well be updated to "there's something fishy in the Province of Alberta" when it comes to the spate of recent postings by Ms. Nelson and Ms. Renaud.
As a final note, even though I'm not a lawyer, I do agree with Mr. Schmidt's ovservation that Ms. Nelson and Ms. Renaud could be doing more harm than good to their cause. I also have enough experience in legal matters to believe that if "Charlie Renaud" is, indeed, a witness for the prosecution, and conducts himself/herself on the witness stand in the same manner he/she conducted himself/herself when posting on this site, he/she will be crucified during cross-examination.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
It is not my problem if you are not inclined to look this stuff up all by yourself. Google is your friend. Look, here's the thing. I offered for you to contact me privately, I can send you enough screenshots and links to bog you down for a week. But it wouldn't suit you, you would rather have some drum to beat. We have already hashed this out online in several different places and you would find it if you cared to look. Anyway, you are just making yourself look more ignorant. Keep on beatin' that drum, Steve. Until you do your research, and hold Jones accountable in the same way, your opinion is of little value.
Lorri Nelson
Uh, Ms. Nelson, if you're going to publically make accusations and refuse, for whatever reason, to publically provide even one scintilla of evidence to support your accusations, it IS your problem.
In the cattle business, people who make allegations and refuse to provide proof are dismissively referred to as being "all hat, no cattle" - would, in the sheep industry, this descriptor become "all bleat, no sheep"?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
It has nothing to do with whether I like Montana or not. It has to do with the fact that her actions have and still are damaging our sheep industry. And I am disgusted with the fact that she presents herself as some sort of expert on sheep and or Shropshire sheep, when she is not. Our sheep industry does not purport her to be an expert in anything sheep related. She just knows enough from having a hobby flock, to 'snow' the public into donating enough money to pay her mortgage instead of getting a real job.
And I am not a witness for anyone in this case. I am an Ontario Sheep farmer with 250 head to manage year round. Mr. Schmidt and yourself, are assuming facts not in evidence as to my identity.
Regards,
Charlie Renaud, Ontario Sheep Farmer
It is an allegation, rather than a fact, until proven in court, that the actions of Ms. Jones "have and still are damaging our sheep industry". It is conjecture, it is opinion and it is supposition that there is a cause/effect relationship, but until it has been proven in court, it doesn't matter because, in our system, a person is considered innocent until found guilty.
It is also an allegation that Ms. Jones either is, or is not, an "expert on sheep and or Shropshire sheep" Her expertise cannot be decided by the sheep industry but can only be decided by a judge if and/or when Ms. Jones is called to give opinion evidence, and defendants aren't normally given that option.
In addition, unless and/or until Ms. Renaud can point us to a signed and witnessed statement or a video wherein Ms. Jones claims to be an "expert on sheep and or Shropshire sheep", Ms. Renaud's claims are, once again, allegations, not fact.
As for the opinion that Ms. Jones "knows enough from having a hobby flock, to "snow" the public into donating enough money to pay her mortgage instead of getting a real job", it is little more than casting aspersions and, regardless of the real or imagined sins of Ms. Jones, if Ms. Renaud's demeaning and dismissive attitude is typical of the people in the Ontario and Canadian sheep industry, we, in agriculture, could well do without the sheep industry entirely.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Yes, people that go on and on and who seem to have nothing better to do are indeed irritating.
That is something not well-liked by many and would not be missed.
Yes many even those who sign their name go on and on and on . Irritating is an understatement !
Ahh some one hit a finishing nail with a 12 lb sledge !
please sign this comment, who is this from?
Charlie Renaud
This comment will be published if the writer signs it and provides a telephone number for confirmation. The number will not be published.
The comments have the same meaning, you are wasting everyone's time arguing semantics. lol
I have read every blog post she has written on this case on the internet and they are full of half truths that generate donations. I guess you haven't yet, because it was her who asked CFIA to add the ewe that was dying of what she thought was ketosis, to the destruction order so she could get compensation for it. I will not waste hours upon hours to find the link to which article it was....you can do that if you wish. It is there, in her own words.
My opinions on this travesty are just as important as anyone else's. My full time income is being impacted by this case. She never had a full time income in our farming industry, she never had a large impact, she is no expert, although she tries to make people believe she is all of the above.
And clearly my statement that she chose to fight a battle she will not win...is true. The QQ sheep from her farm have been killed. She got a 2 yr reprieve to breed to an RR Ram and KEEP ALL OFFSPRING, and she just sat around collecting donations instead of doing everything she could to mitigate damage to her bloodlines she supposedly wanted to save.
Charlie Renaud
Mr Thompson please check with your neighbor s the Todd's or Ron Gates to find out about this problem and what it is costing our industry Bill Wood
Wish he would talk to other people that have been through this problem. We sheep producers are sick of being held at random by this mess Miss Jones has created.
Editor:
This comment will be considered for publication if resubmitted and signed in accordance with our published guidelines.
Specifically please... "leave a telephone number so that identity can be confirmed. The number will not be published."
Mr. Schmidt, as you are not a sheep producer, I think it is fair to say you don't get a say. You jumped into this gong show for your own personal reasons, everybody knows that. But Linda "Montana" Jones made her bed, as did you. Lie in it. In the sheep industry, which is small, no matter our rivalries that may exist in the show ring or when vying for sales, the first unspoken rule is that we look after each other. If a scrapie case traces back to your farm, the thing to do is not to refuse to cooperate and to throw the blame back on the person you sold the sheep to. That is just selfishness. The thing to do is not to move the sheep and leave the entire industry in your province wondering where they are. Now in my opinion, this case has been plagued from the start with half-truths, errors, omissions, innuendo, denial, and pure spin, all from the Jones camp. In my opinion, it will be an eye opener when people find out just how small a contribution Jones made to the breed, how few breeding animals she sold, how many of her sheep were not even registered until after the destruction, and just how much of her so-called expertise is simple self-aggrandizement. Your cause in the raw milk crusade is a good one, but jumping into this sheep fiasco was not maybe so smart as you think. Your methods may end up doing more harm than good. But you do what you want in the dairy community. If someone ever has a positive BSE in a cow that was born on your farm, are you going to react the same way as Jones did to the scrapie positives?
Lorri Nelson
You had a great chance to save your sheep. If this had happened to you in the 70's and 80's everything would be gone. People like you are what caused this breed to become so little cared about,it has great traits for our industry. I loss my Dorset's in the 70's and got over it and rebuild,you had a great chance to save them. Get over it and rebuild and let our sheep industry get back into the United States, you have cost our industry millions of dollars of sales. Bill Wood
I am a new sheep producer, having only been keeping sheep for going on 4 years now. I aim to have a small flock of quality sheep, some purebred and registered and some not. I am extremely passionate about the breed that I am involved in. In this respect, I am perhaps similar to the type of farmer that Montana Jones has said she is (or was).
When I first got involved with sheep, I had never heard of Scrapie and was completely unaware of this drama that was playing out in Ontario between Montana Jones and the CFIA. As many producers do, especially those who are navigating the steep learning curve that comes along with keeping sheep for the first time, I was concentrating only on what I needed to know at the time to care for my tiny flock. Suffice it to say that since then, thanks in great part to the generosity and kindness of more seasoned producers, I am well on my way to meeting my goal of producing quality sheep and properly supporting my chosen breed. It has been a very rewarding yet difficult journey so far, and I'm sure that the future holds a lot more of the same. I know I will never be alone on this journey as Canadian sheep producers on the whole are a welcoming and helpful bunch. It may be that what marginalizes us in every other aspect in the Canadian meat industry - the fact that we are small - also serves to make us a more tightly knit community.
It is with this in mind that I respond to Micheal Schmidt's "Open letter to all sheep producers in Canada" posted in the comments above. As far as I know, Mr. Schmidt is not a sheep producer in Canada or anywhere else. In fact, I believe he is a raw milk advocate who is embroiled in his own fight with the CFIA. In other words, he has a "dog in the fight" that has nothing to do with sheep, and yet he'd like to tell me how it is in my industry and how I should view what Montana and her supporters have done. I find this extremely offensive. Mr. Schmidt has not poured money, blood, sweat and tears into a sheep flock, has not stayed up day and night to care for lambs, nor has he had to make the difficult decisions that come along with keeping animals who are less robust and more vulnerable than cattle. He only wants to prove his badly informed points about the CFIA, and I for one outright reject those claims.
I have the perhaps unique viewpoint of being only a customer most of my life, and just recently becoming a producer. While I am certain that at times the CFIA makes things very difficult for some farmers (as enforcing legalities often does), I am very grateful that we have them here. As I have said many times to fellow small farmers - If we are producing for the public, we do not have the right to do whatever we like, however we like. We have a greater responsibility to our customers to provide a safe product, a product we can be certain will only enrich the lives of those who buy from us. The CFIA helps us do that. It is no different if we are selling to other producers who go on to provide a product to the general public. Our responsibilities are the same. I am a small sheep farmer who proudly supports the CFIA and wishes that the government would provide them with enough monetary support to do their job in the best way possible.
I do believe that we have lost the plot when it comes to the story of Montana Jones and her Shropshire sheep. This story is not about Ms. Jones, nor is it about Shropshire sheep - although it certainly is a shame that those genetics were lost . This is about Scrapie, and Scrapie only. Other producers were affected through the sale of infected sheep, and they did the responsible thing which resulted in losses for them.
Let me be perfectly clear. Despite all of what I have put into my sheep and how much I care for them, I hold to the laws of civility and responsibility above all. I know that were I in Montana's shoes several years ago, I would have worked with the CFIA to ensure that other sheep producers and the general public would be safe from Scrapie. Being responsible and accountable is and should be the cornerstone of livestock production in our great country. It may cost us at times, surely, but that cost is nothing compared to what we'd lose without the CFIA.
I'd like to call for a greater support of the CFIA by producers and customers alike. If we want people to buy from local farmers and we want to have a responsible voice on the world stage, we need to present a unified voice in support of our food safety legislation and its enforcers.
I am a new sheep producer, having only been keeping sheep for going on 4 years now. I aim to have a small flock of quality sheep, some purebred and registered and some not. I am extremely passionate about the breed that I am involved in. In this respect, I am perhaps similar to the type of farmer that Montana Jones has said she is (or was).
When I first got involved with sheep, I had never heard of Scrapie and was completely unaware of this drama that was playing out in Ontario between Montana Jones and the CFIA. As many producers do, especially those who are navigating the steep learning curve that comes along with keeping sheep for the first time, I was concentrating only on what I needed to know at the time to care for my tiny flock. Suffice it to say that since then, thanks in great part to the generosity and kindness of more seasoned producers, I am well on my way to meeting my goal of producing quality sheep and properly supporting my chosen breed. It has been a very rewarding yet difficult journey so far, and I'm sure that the future holds a lot more of the same. I know I will never be alone on this journey as Canadian sheep producers on the whole are a welcoming and helpful bunch. It may be that what marginalizes us in every other aspect in the Canadian meat industry - the fact that we are small - also serves to make us a more tightly knit community.
It is with this in mind that I respond to Micheal Schmidt's "Open letter to all sheep producers in Canada" posted in the comments above. As far as I know, Mr. Schmidt is not a sheep producer in Canada or anywhere else. In fact, I believe he is a raw milk advocate who is embroiled in his own fight with the CFIA. In other words, he has a "dog in the fight" that has nothing to do with sheep, and yet he'd like to tell me how it is in my industry and how I should view what Montana and her supporters have done. I find this extremely offensive. Mr. Schmidt has not poured money, blood, sweat and tears into a sheep flock, has not stayed up day and night to care for lambs, nor has he had to make the difficult decisions that come along with keeping animals who are less robust and more vulnerable than cattle. He only wants to prove his badly informed points about the CFIA, and I for one outright reject those claims.
I have the perhaps unique viewpoint of being only a customer most of my life, and just recently becoming a producer. While I am certain that at times the CFIA makes things very difficult for some farmers (as enforcing legalities often does), I am very grateful that we have them here. As I have said many times to fellow small farmers - If we are producing for the public, we do not have the right to do whatever we like, however we like. We have a greater responsibility to our customers to provide a safe product, a product we can be certain will only enrich the lives of those who buy from us. The CFIA helps us do that. It is no different if we are selling to other producers who go on to provide a product to the general public. Our responsibilities are the same. I am a small sheep farmer who proudly supports the CFIA and wishes that the government would provide them with enough monetary support to do their job in the best way possible.
I do believe that we have lost the plot when it comes to the story of Montana Jones and her Shropshire sheep. This story is not about Ms. Jones, nor is it about Shropshire sheep - although it certainly is a shame that those genetics were lost due to her unwillingness to work with the CFIA. This is about Scrapie, and Scrapie only. There was sufficient evidence to trace Scrapie to Montana Jones's farm in 2012. Her sheep should have been destroyed, compensation paid as per their value, and that should have been the end of the story. Other producers were affected through the sale of infected sheep, and they did the responsible thing which resulted in losses for them. Montana, however, decided to be an irresponsible sheep producer, a producer with no ethics or morals and not only to put more sheep and people at risk by trying to disappear the sheep in question but also to drag this ridiculousness out in the press and now in the courts. I have no respect for what this woman has done and quite frankly it scares me that so many people are willing to support her manipulative ways. I can only conclude that they do not understand what was at stake at the time.
Let me be perfectly clear. Despite all of what I have put into my sheep and how much I care for them, I hold to the laws of civility and responsibility above all. I know that were I in Montana's shoes several years ago, I would have worked with the CFIA to ensure that other sheep producers and the general public would be safe from Scrapie. Being responsible and accountable is and should be the cornerstone of livestock production in our great country. It may cost us at times, surely, but that cost is nothing compared to what we'd lose without the CFIA.
In conclusion, instead of placing more emphasis on Ms. Jones and her spin on events, I'd like to call for a greater support of the CFIA by producers and customers alike. If we want people to buy from local farmers and we want to have a responsible voice on the world stage, we need to present a unified voice in support of our food safety legislation and its enforcers.
Carolee Penner
Bravo - well said Ms. Penner!
I am glad that people started responding to my open letter.
I was hoping people actually read, reflect and then respond in a civilized manner.
Nevertheless the responses are revealing and demonstrate irresponsible ignorance towards the issue at hand.
Whenever something is written about the Montana case Lorri Nelson and her partner Patrick Lyster, who is writing under the fake identity" Charlie" respond so aggressively that I sometimes wonder if they know more about the real facts where the actual scrapie case originated.
How do I know that "Charlie " is Patrick Lyster?????
I compared the comments of Charlie on this site with many other comments he made on other sites.
Nobody else would be able to comment in such a detail about ear tags, mix ups and Montana jones mismanagement.
Although I am not dismissing everything what Lorri an d Patrick ala Charlie say, the facts have been presented in court and anybody who would have made an effort to attend at least one or two days would think twice before starting the Montana bashing.
IF IN FACT the CFIA and all those involved acted properly, they would not never have asked for a publication ban.
They would have proudly presented themselves as acting with due diligence and due process.
Going through weeks and weeks of cross-examination left me with a very good understanding about the facts. I do have the facts Lorri and Patrick ala Charlie, so I am not afraid of telling you that it certainly has raised a lot of questions, why you still try to paint Montana as the culprit. These rants actually might help Montana and damage the credibility of everyone involved in the Montana bashing party.
Can you please, and I am asking this quite sincerely, I really want an answer, can you PLEASE tell me why when we defend ourselves and our industry, we are "Montana bashing", and yet when Montana Jones accused Patric of all manner of things, such as misidentifying the sheep, or switching the samples, that is okay? She had no evidence to back that up, it was simply said to make Patric look bad and herself look good. And you yourself said, in a post on the Bovine, that Patric said he thought the original scrapie case was an American ram, and that is an outright fabrication, he never said that. What on EARTH did Patric ever do to you, Michael Schmidt? What you and Jones have done to him is outrageous. You can fight the CFIA until your cows come home, and we would never have gotten involved! But to accuse someone of those things, when you have no proof and when it was actually outright speculation, is just cruel. And I think it is high time that people were made aware that the purpose of the publication ban was not simply to hide CFIA blunders. It was to protect the details of other people's confidential cases. All of you people reading this, put yourself in that position for a minute, where all of your confidential details are in the hands of the Jones and Schmidt News Team. What is that going to do for your reputation and sales, as if all this speculation about misidentifying a sample is not damaging enough? Mr. Schmidt, I truly want an answer. What did Patric ever do to deserve the way you have treated him? You don't even know him, you have never met him, he is not against your raw milk campaign. In my opinion, you are just being cruel and malicious to make your own cause look better, while we have never wished you any personal harm. I don't even care if Jones loses her farm, I don't wish for anyone to be homeless. I have never even wished for any of you to go to prison. We just want you to stop dumping all the blame on Patric (who, by the way, is not Charlie, Charlie is an IDF and Romanov breeder from your home province of Ontario, who is NOT impressed by this case at all, as I am sure you have figured out). Stop speculating about all these things! Just stop it already! (**Note to Better Farming, all of these accusations have been made publicly, and Schmidt's comment can still be found on the Bovine.) And to those of you with an opinion who are not directly involved and are not sheep producers (Mr Thompson, are you listening?), please don't bother replying. This happened to us, not you.
Lorri Nelson
Michael Schmidt,
If you think that I am Patric, you are sadly mistaken. Better Farming has my phone number, so they know where I am. In ON, not out west. Also, I will give you a little tidbit as to how I know you are nothing but a media whore. While I support the right to choose raw milk, I do not support your jumping on everyone's bandwagon just to get more media exposure for your cause. It cheapens the cause.
I was quite disgusted with you, when I, on my Paint Horse, was protesting EVERY DAY at Site 41 in Elmvale, to prevent our water from being contaminated by Simcoe County wanting to put a dump there. YOU showed up, with your g/f? and promptly chained yourself to the gates and called the media. As if you had been there helping us block the gates all along. You tried to take OUR CAUSE to USE IT for your cause. Shame, shame!
Regards,
Charlie Renaud
Mr. Schmidt, you have proven your vast intelligence or perhaps lack there of. I have not posted anything on here until now. So stating that you know I am someone else that is posting on here, proves that you are not as intelligent and all knowing as you think you are. That is my opinion and I stand by it. I can tell you why there is a publication ban, because confidential information was being leaked to the general public, sent in brown paper envelopes, wonder who sent them? Just check out when the ban was asked for, it was after information was leaked (which was supposed to have been confidential between CFIA and a producer only).In my opinion, it appears that the defence doesn't care whom they harm with the information they wish to make public and it is not very ethical to be contacting people, whose names were provided confidentially to CFIA. But then, in my opinion, other people's livelihoods and character have never been considered in the defence's quest to further their cause. I know of outright lies made by at least one party charged as well as lies made by their legal counsel. I wonder why they would feel it necessary to lie? I will not disclose or discuss details, as I am somewhat bound by the media ban, but more so I am bound by my ethics. The fact that a non sheep producer, feels it is so necessary to address sheep producers to his view, which in my opinion is somewhat distorted from the truth, makes me wonder why?. For example, I do not think that anyone was so surprised that someone would challenge and kidnap sheep, more likely totally confused as to why anyone would challenge sheep. Or perhaps, Mr. Schmidt meant to say something different. Regardless, my opinion is not disbelief in challenging CFIA, but rather the total disregard for fellow sheep producers, even to the extent of casting them in a very negative light via some of the accusations made. I am not talking about the personal attacks on me. my family and flock, but rather what was said about sheep producers in general.
The amazing thing in all of this, is how so many people are so willing to jump onside with out even knowing a small part of the facts. Also amazing that some people wish to attempt veiled and even unveiled attacks on any who oppose their views and do not support the Montana Jones/Michael Schmidt side.
In closing, I would like people to perhaps consider checking out the whole story before they jump to conclusions. Assumptions like Mr. Schmidt made in regards to who is who, simply show how easy it is for the uninformed to reach the wrong conclusion. Also note how easily, Stephen Thompson has jumped onside with Michael Schmidt, and also came to the wrong conclusion. Now, in my opinion, that only shows where his sympathy lies and that his comments have not been without bias. Now please have your fun and address me directly, rather than all knowingly accuse me as using a false identity. I would hazard to guess that insinuation might be admissible in one of Stephen's defamation suits. That sounds so much like what I used to hear from Montana Jones until I informed her lawyer of a few little tidbits. As usual, very much is not known and very much is known, but all the facts have not been presented to everyone. Thus, in my opinion, views are and will continue to be biased.
I would like to state here. that I greatly resent Mr. Schmidt's comments in regards to me writing under a fake identity and would like a public apology from him. He might wish to consult Stephen as in my opinion, Stephen seems to know a lot about defamation of character.
Patric Lyster phone
No further comments will be published,
Post new comment