johno

facs are facts. no suspicion. no scoring points. pure and simple facts.

rembrandt these are facts. i have posted no opinion or anything else. facts. there is no question of accepting or not accepting. they are facts.unless someone can prove them not to be facts.

i hear there is supposedly a ommunique being hand delivered to the snrpc agm today. the content is allegedly a proposal for the snfc and the snrpc to get together on the same motor to tours. this same topic was being banded about as a fait accomplis at a funeral through the week. the llyod grossman analytical approach would have us look at the facts. snrpc. established 2005. membership circa 400.liquidity circa 25k. managed to provide a full race program each season. innovated what is seen by many as the outstanding trophy available in british racing with the inception of the gold medal for the reims winner. slver medals to each other national race winner. and bronze to each section winner. convoys of around 600 birds negotiating their way home under extreme testing condition. proving individual pigeons as the convoy does not allow followers. achieving everything that 600 mile flyers set out to achieve.this year the birds will be transported on the most modern transport available to the fancy worldwide. geraldy transporters circa 2008. innovated Wednesday marking thus reducing the length of stay in the basket by one day. Now snfc. established the turn of the 20 century. membership circa 1200 and falling.liquidy around 100k and falling by over 10% per annum. 2008 program. membership price increase £5 or 25%. late fee £10 or 66% increase. Joining Yb race £10 increase over 30%. prize money decrease by 25%. these are the facts for all to see before any debate or discussion.

shu laid out in excess of 30k to have atudy done by an expert team. result was advice to avoid the west route and try to avoid certain time slots. around end of may. what do we do we go west and fly at all times. spend a fortune and ignore the result. welcome to doomanland. democratic vote means exactly that. everyone present had a vote. what they voted for is the crux of the matter. democracy it would appear seems to have very little considration for the birds and defininately pays no attention to well informed experts regardless of what they cost.

any proof to add to these theories?

sometimes you are 100% correct red yoyo. you do not have to be a member of any special organisation to particpate with the snrpc. any recognised ruling body. open to all lofts within the boudaries of scotland.

what price so called success?

step 1 red yoyo remove the ludicrous need to be a member of the shu to allow entry to the snfc races. this would move the position forward quickly.

i fail to unerstand a loss on the race account. 2 inland nationals with combined birdage in excess of 10000. it would seem that by taking the feds along with the national a loss situation has occured. are the feds being subsidised by the national membes? as to joint convoying who with. f you convoy with someone way south of you and the weather is wrong at this end you are on to a hiding to nothing. along with rising feed and fuel costs increased membership and birdage charges may well put the lid on many coffins. the effect of raising joining and participation costs may well be the opposite of what is wanted. it may encourage reduced membership.

well put andy. all i am doing is observing the effect of 2 or 3 nobodys moving out. after three years snfc loss £30K. fact. snfc increase joinimg fee by 25%. inland birdage increased by 33%. joining fee for yb national incrased 66%. late fee increase 66%. 25% reduction in prize money. the facts would hardly indicate a rip roaring success. the motto would seem to be pay alot more and win a lot less. seems like a strange marketing strategy. with these kind of increases it is possible that you will be flying for more in your club than in the snfc also.

the last or one year only trick was when the birdage for the reims race was increased to £5. has never been reduced. £5 per member will bring in around £6K, £10 late payment around £500 maximum, £10 one race membership will stop a few so finance benefit minimal. reduction in prize money means no more cars. 50p on inland races now means national racers paying £2 a bird feds paying substantially less travelling on same motors. if allowed should rais around £4K overall. Total increased income £11K. Actual annual loss 2006 2007 £30K. £15Kper year. who said one year only ?

this already exists. the snrpc. open to anyone flying pigeons into scotland who is a member of any recognised ruling body.

no one has mentioned the price of petrol/diesel. over the last two years this has gone up around 30p a litre.over 30%. what price racing and training. 40 mile toss on our own around £10. the increase in diesel is automatically trnsfered to the price of feeding and everything else that needs transporting. it is not finished yet.

if a race is an open race flown under rpra rules then you can become an affiliated member of the club holding the race for the duration of the race. this is only in open races. the affiliation is needed to allow any objections etc to be dealt with. the organisation which the club is a member of is then the right of appeal route and their rules apply.

the snfc have 2 consecutive deficits 06 an 07 of around 15K each year frank.

by your reasoning yoyo it was silly to move on due to restricted membership. should we forget all that and go back to where we were only 30K lighter?

how is it possible to go together anywhere when there is a restricted membership? the snrpc is open to anyone with a loft in the boundaries of scotland who is a member of a recognised ruling body. is that not the way forward?

straight forward. why did those who moved on move on? the restriction requiring membership of the shu to participate in snfc races. remove this restriction and you will go a long way to putting it back together.

bruno in your post number 7 on this topic you rave about the nutitional content of pigeon milk. you say it is so good they are using it as a sources of nutrition to feed to chickens. you then imply in your post 37 "isnt it strange that in this thread, as in others we claim to be convinced that any pair will raar two healhy youngsters in the nest without any help fom us" everyone else is guilty of fads and such the like. once again the logic here does not stack up. if the milk of a pigeon is the most nutritious substance known to man ? and nature has deemed that 2 younsters per nest is the most efficient and beneficial situation for pigeons to rear a nest then surely the main fad as you call them must be single rearing. you state that given the fact that by only rearing one youngster in the nest that youngster will benefit from the excess nutrient not goin to a second youngster. once again hot air. a youngster can only consume a certain limit and no matter how much is available the youngsters intake is limited by nature.

but you said you only considered the parents of such pigeons as the 1st open pau. " my preference would always be for the champions parents" your post. implication is that you have settled for something below your preference. you also make a big issue about good racers not always breeding good racers. then tell us you bring in sons and daughters of such pigeons each year. you are handing out advice freely backed up by nothing but hot air. you habitually contradict your self and back track to attempt to save face. as you said the original post was about the benefits, if any of single reaing. my point is regardless of all your theories single reaing no hope third raters is of little benefit to anyone. we should always remember to accomodate single rearing we have to feed two pigeons we do not consider good enough to breed from by our own standards. this does not make sense to me.

on this theory bruno it is impossible for anyone to acieve top success as the the required tools are so few and rarely ever available. the follow on from this by your own logic is that you and many of the rest of us have a dookit full of no hopers and at best 3rd raters. if this is where you want to use your feeding its your choice. me ill keep my dreams and keep trying.

you win bruno. i apologise for having the cheek to have an opinion. by the way how many champions do youi have in your loft?

Ronnie i take your point and accept what you say. you are faciltating racing cocks for a period of time and temporarilly taking on loan hens which will return to their origin at the end of racing. this makes sense. you are not addng to your numbers for addings sake.

Bruno how is it possible to think "issues raised are quite relevant" and then follow on with "in my opinion they are going off main topic a bit" this does not add up. as to birds recognising a weakling in the nest surely this would back up the idea of reaing what is in the nest naturally. the implication is that the birds are more than capable of sorting out the situation by themselves so why should we get involved in creating an unnatural situation by removing either an egg or a youngster. as to excellent performers not always producing champions i would suggest the apple never falls far from the tree. i would always prefer a youngster off a proven racer than some bird that had never achieved anything. a lot of the time patience and time will provide the answers. this is hardly possible when we get involved and create unnatural situations. as to your last point i have never seen a for sale advert for proven feeders.

if birds are not good enough to breed off why keep them? this is surely a much better way of keeping numbers down. by making life in the nest less competitive are we not encouraging survival of potential weaklings? a bird not good enough to breed off is surely a poor candidate to rear the young of a potential champion. if the bird is not so good where is the logic in beieving that it will be a super feeder?