comments personally. A lot of fine people got insulted and believed that there integrity was questioned. I don't think that was the intent of Rich or KJ or myself or anyone. Unfortinatley, as everyone has admitted, the paper trail has not been maintained on many of the animals that should have been. KJ and Rich both admit that they could not find paper trails to satisfy their minds on legit "local" northern pines. That should not be an insult to anyone...it's just there standards, and they have that right, and thus do not have any northern pines. I on the other hand have over 25 and some I know where they came from, and others I think I know where they came from, and then some, I don't have clue, except they are outstanding looking animals. But by the same token, many on this forum have spent years building outstanding reputations both in there integrity and quality of animals. To msny that is acceptable proof and reliable inforamtion and to others it is not...but it is NOT casting doubt on these people and I think alot of folks took it as that. Like you John, my years of field expierence tells me that there are characteristics of animals that would "indicate" approximaley where they originated from, but as you stated, it is not always true. I think the truth is we all need each other and these folks who require that strength of proof for verification are not hurting the hobby but helping. In this hobby we sometimes measure with a micrometer, mark with a chalk and then cut with an ax! As Rich indicated, to "believe" something versus "knowing" something is a big difference. I think most of us have not considered that difference until these threads and we all will be the better for it!



Dan P.

[ Show Entire Thread ]