Home | AKGA REGISTRATION ISSUES | Inventory | Donors | Embryos | History | Contact
I have received via an unknown source a message to BOD members from Sky Shivers and Duff Sandness. I respect people asking questions to protect and enhance Kiko goats and the AKGA Registry; it is a pity that they were not put directly. But I do not accept or respect the twisted thinking in the main message, some of which I find derogatory and offensive. I will respond by relating to its headings. The entire message refers to Garrick Batten. It should be stated that I am a shareholder in Caprinex Enterprises Ltd who is acting in all regards in this matter, and that reference should have been made to that entity. These are not Batten goats but Caprinex goats.
I Disqualifiers to the registration of goats residing in NZ
1. Deception
(a) Deception is utterly rejected and is an actionable libel accusation. However it is clear that if anything it is self-deception by the authors themselves because it was their assumption that our goats were registered in the original Registry.
(b) I never stated that the goats were registered in the original NZ Registry, or were not, and saw no reason to state that either way. This was because the original Registry was a North American registry not a New Zealand Registry. Our registry is a New Zealand Registry that is clearly quite different.
(c) I saw no reason to correct an assumption that they were registered in the North American registry because I was not aware of it, they clearly were not, despite what is asserted in the message text.
AKGA rules require imported animals to have a certificate issued by Goatex Group Ltd in NZ. That is what was done. It was well known that this company owned by Culliford was dissolved in 1996 (and that Culliford was trading as Goatex Group LLC as he specifically stated at the time that he sold the Registry) and that therefore there could be no further certification by Goatex Group Ltd after that time. So certificates issued by Goatex Group Ltd in 2008 must have been by a different company. Any confusion that is being called deception was because some people apparently did not do their homework, and certainly did not reflect any attempt by me to mislead the AKGA.
The NZ Registry has operated in NZ since 2003. It was taken over by the newly formed Goatex Group Ltd in 2008 because AKGA required certificates to be issued by that company. If we had provided different certificates, the animals would not have been accepted. There is nothing secret, mysterious, misleading or underhand about that.
(d) I am not responsible for what is in the AKGA Handbook, or the 2 deceptions in the specific statement quoted. (I have contributed a paper to the 2007 Convention that corrects some errors and adds further information, but that has not yet appeared). Our catalogue sale website www.caprinex.com has further information. The North American Kiko Goat Registry was operated in NZ by Goatex Group Ltd from 1994 until 1996. It was subsequently operated in USA by Goatex Group LLC (i.e. Culliford). Goatex Group LLC (Culliford) had nothing to do with either Goatex Group Ltd or Kiko goats prior to mid 1994, and was certainly not the “exclusive developer of the Kiko breed” in NZ.
(e) Creating a company Goatex Group Ltd is not a deception. It is a legally registered company in NZ, of which Caprinex Enterprises Ltd is a shareholder, and Garrick Batten is a shareholder of Caprinex and has been for over 25 years.
(f) See (c) above. AKGA required donor goats to be registered to allow registration of progeny of imported embryos and semen. Following prior discussion with AKGA BOD we were assured that the progeny from our donors would be registerable They required the donors to be registered. To be acceptable required certification from the NZ Registry issued by Goatex Group Ltd. The existing records in the existing NZ Registry were formalised under that name.
(g) The Registries were not the same. But the goats are linked and that is what this should be about - a fact that I believe is being forgotten.
2. Knowledge
(a) The current NZ Registry used the prefix Goatex in NZ from 2003 because it identified where those animals came from. It was not a protected name in NZ. The inference of malpractice is a nonsense and is rejected.
(b) At that time there was no thought of any connection between the NZ and NA Registries, so no reason to consider any prefix confusion. Presumably we were not meant to check every prefix in the NA Registry from 2003 to ensure no duplication as that would have been ridiculous. Goats in the NZ Registry continued to carry the Goatex prefix into 2008.
(c) There was no attempt to monitor the self-generated assumption about the NZ Registry in the minds of some BOD members. The statement in the message reflects some paranoia. The Goatex issue has nothing to do with perceived registries confusion.
(d) Thank heavens for the acceptance that we can run our own lives in NZ. The Goatex prefix confusion in USA arose because we submitted certificates issued by the NZ Registry that identified some goats with a Goatex prefix. That was the name under which they were registered in NZ, so anything different would have been false. The AKGA Registrar chose to register them using that name in the NA Kiko Register. It could have been changed at that point to avoid confusion as is not uncommon in similar situations when racehorses, dogs or ships are registered in another country. It still could do so. In fact the AKGA suggested it. It still hasn’t approved that despite repeated requests. The confusion was highlighted by Culliford’s ill-founded objection to use of the prefix.
3. Prefix
(a) The Goatex name was not arbitrarily assigned. It was deliberately used to identify goats from Culliford’s flock left in NZ.
(b) The goats with a Goatex prefix were born in Culliford’s flock
(c) The point about not having complete control at kidding is weak. It is possible to raise questions about flock control at mating and kidding in any flock that can challenge complete authenticity of information, and people who actually farm goats know that.
(d) It is possible to challenge my ability to guarantee genetic purity. That is rejected. As well as the point made above, from my knowledge of the original goats, of the goats that were sold to Culliford, of those that were exported, of those that were not exported, information from Steele, and of from those bought back in 2003 it is perfectly possible to join the dots and to identify the animals.
It is also worth noting that if this point is questioned, then greater questions should be asked about information provided by Caprinex to Culliford in 1994 on which he then developed the NA Kiko Goat Registry, now accepted and vigorously defended by AKGA. Given what he subsequently did with that information, ranking my statements now as of lesser credibility than in 1994 is laughable.
(e) The Goatex prefix was issued in NZ not USA. Use of a prefix does not give the authority of pedigree knowledge. That comes from knowing the goats and their background.
I I Registration of imported goats
We sought approval of our embryo and semen plans from the AKGA prior to collection, and only proceeded on their encouragement, and assurances of registration. Obviously we would not have spent the large amount of money that we have to send genetic material that could not be registered. In all cases, the requirements as set out by the AKGA have been followed. In no case has Caprinex done anything that was not so required. Any claim of anything untoward in registration aspects by us is unfounded and completely rejected.
I did not necessarily want to register these goats in the NA Kiko Goat Registry. I planned to send embryos and semen and the buyers would want to register the animals born from that. AKGA required donor registration.
I believe that under the terms of the agreement that AKGA bought the Registry in 2000, and because it currently uses the operational procedures embodied in that, registration of the donors was not required. Cl. 21 of the S&P Agreement states:
• “Vendor(Culliford) …restricted to original registration of Kiko … goats in NZ and Australia” That does not prevent others from registering Kiko goats in NZ.
• “Animals exported from those countries with appropriate registration (i.e. with certificates issued by Goatex Group Ltd) may be registered in the …North American Registry”. That does not require them to be registered, but it does allow them to be.
• “Their (i.e. Kiko goats registered in NZ) offspring may, at the election of their owners (Caprinex) be registered in the North American Registry”.
I appreciate that registration of the donors has produced a DNA trace. However now that that information is in the database, the donors themselves could be de-registered, so long as there was a guarantee that the progeny could be registered.
I I I Registration of imported goats
I do not know who said that the Steele doe herd was a breeding base. Click here for the invoice of Kiko does bought from Steele in 2003. I certainly didn’t, because it wasn’t. Kilgarnie Sapphire is not a percentage buck. Goatex Destiny has the same level of purity as the animals sent to USA in the 90s. Who said that Samuel was a 100% Kiko buck? ME. Who said that Destiny was a 100% Kiko doe? ME. What is the difference here? NONE. There would be more success in questioning how Culliford could create pedigrees for 3 and 4 generations out of information provided for one generation only.
I have no comment on the Lohman example, as that is an AKGA matter.
I V Registration in a foreign country
Any article by me printed by Joe Pool is without my authority and in breach of my copyright.
Kiko goats exported by us have been used as improver goats on local goats, and not necessarily maintained as purebreds.
Internet authority is always suspect. As Australia can only import Kikos from NZ, I would know about that. I don’t know of any activity other than our own.
The questions posed in this section of the message are all for AKGA. But the answers may be influenced by the truth as set out above.
The point in H about veracity of US citizens is interesting. It raises the issue of whether the basis for the NA Kiko Goat Registry has more validity just because its New Zealander creator Culliford happens to reside in USA when he is not in Mexico, than the current NZ Registry run by New Zealanders residing in NZ. And whether the veracity of New Zealanders is any less than people who can imagine enough WMD to upset the whole of global politics, or who can find inconvenient truths about climate change. Other New Zealanders are as mendacious as Culliford.
Click here for the next section
All material © 2008 Caprinex Enterprises, Ltd., New Zealand
To contact the USA agent for Caprinex click here