I some sense I do think it would be better to consider the production reds, etc., as their own distinct breeds. I see your point, it is a good one, however, there are some concerns. The major problem I see with this, is that a breed is supposed to differ in some obvious, conspicuous, way from all similar breeds. This is to avoid confusion. As it stands now, people can't tell a production red from a standard bred red, so, if we were to standardize the production types, I am not sure they are distinct enough to be a different breed, as per the standard requirements. People can't tell a Java from an Australorp from a Jersey Giant as it is. As for the Easter Eggers, oh, what a messy business that would be!! As bad as the American Games!! People have to be able to agree on set leg colors, feather patterns, etc...even when they do, will the agreed upon standard be distinct from Ameraucanas? I think it would perhaps be best if the interested persons were to start by making breed clubs and organizing, showing, etc. Regardless if they ever seek acceptance by the APA, they would be better off organizing, and showing, etc.
As for using different names over the years-that seems a fine idea for for a few select things, production red, rocks, etc..come to mind. I don't think we ought to give new names to old breeds that are still bred to the standard. If they deviate enough, then, sure, why not?
As for using different names over the years-that seems a fine idea for for a few select things, production red, rocks, etc..come to mind. I don't think we ought to give new names to old breeds that are still bred to the standard. If they deviate enough, then, sure, why not?
