Perhaps we would all be best to consider the true meaning of Heritage, not necessarily the APA/ALBC interpretation. Heritage means just that - part of our heritage. Meaning something that was around that shaped this country (world) into what it is today. That includes all the old breeds involved in homesteading the Americas, Russia, Asia, and Europe.
I think Heritage will mean different things for different people. For instance, I wouldn't consider the Aracauna/Ameracauna (forgive spelling errors) heritage for me, because they didn't really come into play in my country (USA) until later on, and serve more of an ornamental purpose (both the birds and their eggs) than anything.
For me, a true Heritage bird produces well on its own (meaning at least sometimes broody, and healthy enough to make it to breeding age without problems, and smart enough to raise a clutch of chicks to maturity). I also enjoy birds that will happily forage for food, and can survive the climate in at least some parts of the country. I understand each breed has their downfall, but a good heritage bird would have served our forefathers well in giving nice sized healthy eggs and making flock growth easy by supplementing their food sources with bugs and plants and by breeding well.
Even if the cornishx grocery store birds were an old breed, they wouldn't meet this standard for heritage - they aren't exactly the sharpest tacks, and they have so many health problems (including extreme heat intolerance) that many die before maturity. I also agree that the naked necks aren't heritage, as they are more of an ornamental bird.
I do think that the ornamentals that are heritage from where they come, such as the asian breeds, are still heritage for that country.
To me the idea of a North American heritage bird is one that might have been seen in the early times of the colonies (US and Canada), and then later on a late 1800s/early 1900s farmstead - the kind that a pioneer would have been happy to call her egg producers. These birds came from all over the world, but it was their ability to produce and prosper that made them a part of the American heritage.
Am I making any sense?
I think Heritage will mean different things for different people. For instance, I wouldn't consider the Aracauna/Ameracauna (forgive spelling errors) heritage for me, because they didn't really come into play in my country (USA) until later on, and serve more of an ornamental purpose (both the birds and their eggs) than anything.
For me, a true Heritage bird produces well on its own (meaning at least sometimes broody, and healthy enough to make it to breeding age without problems, and smart enough to raise a clutch of chicks to maturity). I also enjoy birds that will happily forage for food, and can survive the climate in at least some parts of the country. I understand each breed has their downfall, but a good heritage bird would have served our forefathers well in giving nice sized healthy eggs and making flock growth easy by supplementing their food sources with bugs and plants and by breeding well.
Even if the cornishx grocery store birds were an old breed, they wouldn't meet this standard for heritage - they aren't exactly the sharpest tacks, and they have so many health problems (including extreme heat intolerance) that many die before maturity. I also agree that the naked necks aren't heritage, as they are more of an ornamental bird.
I do think that the ornamentals that are heritage from where they come, such as the asian breeds, are still heritage for that country.
To me the idea of a North American heritage bird is one that might have been seen in the early times of the colonies (US and Canada), and then later on a late 1800s/early 1900s farmstead - the kind that a pioneer would have been happy to call her egg producers. These birds came from all over the world, but it was their ability to produce and prosper that made them a part of the American heritage.
Am I making any sense?
