4-H-er thread!

[Yellow House Farm]

These last few comments are silly. There's no such thing as an "Obvious" red sex-link from an APA/ABA judge's perspective. Indeed, he/she may not have seen a red sex-link--which is a mutt-in years and years.

Most importantly, why on earth would a red "sex-link" be at a show?

One of the difficulties with 4-H and poultry is that they do not abide by APA/ABA rules and culture, but they want APA/ABA people to judge their shows and take them seriously. Of course, this is a problem with 4-H institutionally. It's sad that this is ot explained to children. Asking a judge of fine, hand-crafted furniture to come judge out-of-the box, put-it-together-yourself furniture doesn't suddenly make the factory produced tables nice; it just leads to a judges confused about what he's supposed to be doing. You cannot judge a sex-link; you cannot judge a "sizzle." One judges by the SOP, and they're not in the SOP; thus they don't "exist" from a judge's lens. There's no basis for judgment.

 

[I Love Layers]

These last few comments are silly. There's no such thing as an "Obvious" red sex-link from an APA/ABA judge's perspective. Indeed, he/she may not have seen a red sex-link--which is a mutt-in years and years.

Most importantly, why on earth would a red "sex-link" be at a show?

One of the difficulties with 4-H and poultry is that they do not abide by APA/ABA rules and culture, but they want APA/ABA people to judge their shows and take them seriously. Of course, this is a problem with 4-H institutionally. It's sad that this is ot explained to children. Asking a judge of fine, hand-crafted furniture to come judge out-of-the box, put-it-together-yourself furniture doesn't suddenly make the factory produced tables nice; it just leads to a judges confused about what he's supposed to be doing.  You cannot judge a sex-link; you cannot judge a "sizzle." One judges by the SOP, and they're not in the SOP; thus they don't "exist" from a judge's lens. There's no basis for judgment.

X2
I like to stay with my recognized breeds and colors, and varieties.
The only time I have ever shown a red sex link was in a production trio, where it just matters about the egg laying quality of the bird

 

[waddles99]

I agree with what you are saying, however if you think my comment is silly, I think you are way out of line. A Rhode Island Red crossed with a Buff Orpington will not have sex linked offspring, and a judge who fails to realize such isn't as knowledgeable as one should hope.

 

[prizepete]

I really appreciate the talk about all the judging ideas/views, I think its just getting out of hand a bit, so lets Change the subject! I just got back from the first meeting of the year! I love that Feeling of 4-H Starting up again! With all the projects i am doing this year i am going to have a meeting a week! Sometimes multiple!

 

[BantamSlave02]

I really appreciate the talk about all the judging ideas/views, I think its just getting out of hand a bit, so lets Change the subject! I just got back from the first meeting of the year! I love that Feeling of 4-H Starting up again! With all the projects i am doing this year i am going to have a meeting a week! Sometimes multiple!

I agree to change the topic. I just signed up on Wednesday.

 

[waddles99]

4H is largely about judging. The whole purpose of 4H is exhibition animals, and proper evaluation of those animals is essential to success. That is why judging is such a big topic.

 

[I Love Layers]

Cochins are waiting at the post office!!

 

[Yellow House Farm]

I agree with what you are saying, however if you think my comment is silly, I think you are way out of line. A Rhode Island Red crossed with a Buff Orpington will not have sex linked offspring, and a judge who fails to realize such isn't as knowledgeable as one should hope.

No actually, again you are incorrect, and you are incorrect because you apparently do not understand judging and what a judge judges or what a judge needs to know about.

At no point does a judge have to know about autosomal genes versus sex-linked genes, dominants versus recessives, and none of this plays into the SOP. Neither does it need to. I know quite a bit about it, but that has to do with my own curiosities. However, that's not the knowledge I turn on when I'm judging a chicken. When a judge approaches a cage, her/his mind is dialed into the SOP and the presentation in front of her/him.

What I find silly about your post is that you are dropping pretty strong judgments outside of your knowledge base. A 4-H thread is a thread made for education. What you are "teaching" in these judgments is incorrect, and it is important that lurkers understand that so that they don't begin to make the same incorrect assumptions.

A judge judges to the requirements of the SOP, and judge judges what is held by the SOP. There is no basis for judging outside of the SOP, and if a judge says something like, "Wow, that looks like a RIR crossed with a Buff Orpington, it means that she/he is looking at something with non-descript type and non-descript color. It is not something that she/he has a basis to judge. It is a bird that doesn't belong in the cage, and lacking in "true breed character, " it is an automatic disqualification; indeed it is the first listed disqualification. See page 32 of the new SOP, under "General Disqualifications," number 1.

By APA/ABA rules, the judge should have simply written "DQ" on the tag and walked away. Usually, though, judges don't do that because they're perhaps too sensitive to feelings. If this bird was not DQed, it means that the judge was being kind, and that's all. So, if the judge were inappropriate at all, it was in not disqualifying the bird.

 

[waddles99]

No actually, again you are incorrect, and you are incorrect because you apparently do not understand judging and what a judge judges or what a judge needs to know about.

At no point does a judge have to know about autosomal genes versus sex-linked genes, dominants versus recessives, and none of this plays into the SOP. Neither does it need to. I know quite a bit about it, but that has to do with my own curiosities. However, that's not the knowledge I turn on when I'm judging a chicken. When a judge approaches a cage, her/his mind is dialed into the SOP and the presentation in front of her/him.

What I find silly about your post is that you are dropping pretty strong judgments outside of your knowledge base. A 4-H thread is a thread made for education. What you are "teaching" in these judgments is incorrect, and it is important that lurkers understand that so that they don't begin to make the same incorrect assumptions.

A judge judges to the requirements of the SOP, and judge judges what is held by the SOP. There is no basis for judging outside of the SOP, and if a judge says something like, "Wow, that looks like a RIR crossed with a Buff Orpington, it means that she/he is looking at something with non-descript type and non-descript color. It is not something that she/he has a basis to judge. It is a bird that doesn't belong in the cage, and lacking in "true breed character, " it is an automatic disqualification; indeed it is the first listed disqualification. See page 32 of the new SOP, under "General Disqualifications," number 1.

By APA/ABA rules, the judge should have simply written "DQ" on the tag and walked away. Usually, though, judges don't do that because they're perhaps too sensitive to feelings. If this bird was not DQed, it means that the judge was being kind, and that's all. So, if the judge were inappropriate at all, it was in not disqualifying the bird.

I am correct. A rsl cant have a standard because its not a breed. Right??

My knowledge base is vast, and I dont think I am dropping any judgements outside of it???

 

[BantamSlave02]

No actually, again you are incorrect, and you are incorrect because you apparently do not understand judging and what a judge judges or what a judge needs to know about.

At no point does a judge have to know about autosomal genes versus sex-linked genes, dominants versus recessives, and none of this plays into the SOP. Neither does it need to. I know quite a bit about it, but that has to do with my own curiosities. However, that's not the knowledge I turn on when I'm judging a chicken. When a judge approaches a cage, her/his mind is dialed into the SOP and the presentation in front of her/him.

What I find silly about your post is that you are dropping pretty strong judgments outside of your knowledge base. A 4-H thread is a thread made for education. What you are "teaching" in these judgments is incorrect, and it is important that lurkers understand that so that they don't begin to make the same incorrect assumptions.

A judge judges to the requirements of the SOP, and judge judges what is held by the SOP. There is no basis for judging outside of the SOP, and if a judge says something like, "Wow, that looks like a RIR crossed with a Buff Orpington, it means that she/he is looking at something with non-descript type and non-descript color. It is not something that she/he has a basis to judge. It is a bird that doesn't belong in the cage, and lacking in "true breed character, " it is an automatic disqualification; indeed it is the first listed disqualification. See page 32 of the new SOP, under "General Disqualifications," number 1.

By APA/ABA rules, the judge should have simply written "DQ" on the tag and walked away. Usually, though, judges don't do that because they're perhaps too sensitive to feelings. If this bird was not DQed, it means that the judge was being kind, and that's all. So, if the judge were inappropriate at all, it was in not disqualifying the bird.

Our fair let's us bring cross birds, because it is more of a backyard bird show, however, this person asked what breed she was, and he replied that he knew for sure that that was what she was. Sizzles can be judged, because they are judged to the Silkie standard except for the feathers.