Iowa Blues - Breed thread and discussion
- Thread starter Hurley
- Start date
Nice story, I like that.
Okay, well we have all been praising ourselves on our ability to get along and I hope some recent events are no indication of bad times to come.
I believe the inference was that after the standard was formulated with much give and take between the formulators, there was evidence of birds from more traditional lines which I take to be Sand Hill and someone named Glenn, said evidence was either ignored or discovered later. While the outcrossed IBs from another hatchery and their offspring which are being bred by the majority were heavily leghorn. I'm having to go back and read posts and this is a daunting task to say the least. So help me do a reality check please.
1. Am I correct in this assessment?
2. Are you saying that once the standard is agreed upon it cannot be altered or amended even if it has not been sanctioned?
I believe the inference was that after the standard was formulated with much give and take between the formulators, there was evidence of birds from more traditional lines which I take to be Sand Hill and someone named Glenn, said evidence was either ignored or discovered later. While the outcrossed IBs from another hatchery and their offspring which are being bred by the majority were heavily leghorn. I'm having to go back and read posts and this is a daunting task to say the least. So help me do a reality check please.
1. Am I correct in this assessment?
2. Are you saying that once the standard is agreed upon it cannot be altered or amended even if it has not been sanctioned?
- Jan 21, 2013
- 597
- 48
- 146
I light of the many questions that are being asked, I feel compelled to share what my understandings are as there appears to be much confusion, no doubt created by some of my earlier posts. I really don't want to do this as I'm concerned it will only agitate and make matters worse. But it has been requested from me by a couple of our club members, so here it is.
My involvement with the breed goes back over a decade and my first experience was with Glenn Drown's stock (He owns Sandhill Preservation Center). I had them for a few years and had to get rid of them when I moved to Virginia. When I returned from Virginia, I witnessed a flock of Iowa Blues that were for sale that originated out of Bobby Lewis' flock back in Virginia. (Go figure, I was out there but never came across them). Anyway, they were too expensive for me at the time, but they were BEAUTIFUL!
I conversed with Glenn over the years concerning the Iowa Blue and was able to obtain my second start from him in March of this year.
My journey with the IBCC and the Standard Committee began around February of this year. At the time they were working on Standardizing the Birchen coloration. As I remembered the breed in it's original form they weren't Birchen, so I contacted the Standard Committee and asked if I could join. On that committee I was the only one who had any experience with Glenn's flock and was the only person who had ever seen the Iowa Blue in its PURE form. Something else that disappointed me was that Glenn's input on the breed was not sought during the Committee meetings and at the very least we could have referenced his flock characteristics, but that was going to take another year or so until we had his specimens in our flocks and could evaluate them. Anway, I asked the committee to give me a couple weeks to find factual proof that the breed was originally a mealy grey color. After the two weeks I was able to locate all the pictures that we currently have of the purebred Iowa Blues. Each of these pictures showed that they were in fact a sort of mealy greyish pattern. In light of that I was able to get the committee to place a priority on the Silver Penciled over the Birchen, but that give also required a take and so we ebbed and flowed back and forth trying to come up with a comprimise. Size, leg length, color, back shape and length, leg color, were just some of the characteristics that were shifted away from the original type as had been witnessed during the 80's rescue .
At the time I encouraged the Standard Committee to wait another year before we set a Standard to give us time to grow out birds and really see what we had and if we were able to produce birds that resembled the historical accounts of the breed. Clearly this didn't happen.
After we have nearly completed our first year of hatching and grow outs, it's clear (at least to me) that our standards do NOT reflect the true bird.
I also think it's telling that individuals such as Glenn Drowns, Alison Martin (from the ALBC), Michael Moore and John Logston (who's grandfather created the breed and Michael raised them for over 60 years), Kent Whealy (who rescued the breed in the 80's), Phil Roe, Lee Zook, (both of whom raised the purebred birds), and many of W.C. Fenton's decendents (all who know about our breed club), have not JOINED our club!!! Clearly if ALL the individuals alive that have raised the purebred birds and were part of the rescue of the purebred birds (and are aware of our club) do not associate with the club, something MUST be off. No?
Let me also share some things that are in the works at the moment. Glenn has shared with me his Iowa Blue flock history and it is recounted in its entirety now. He obtianed his birds in 1990 and again in 1991 when Kent Whealy gave his flock to Glenn. At that time the birds were inbred so Glenn took a Silver Penciled Rock rooster over S.Campine and Fayoumi hens. He took those crosses and bred them to his Iowa Blues, both the hens and the roosters ensuring the mitocodrial DNA from the maternal line. He then maintained two lines taking the offspring of each generation and breeding them back to the purebred stock until he had done so for enough generations to ensure their purity. In 1995-96 a bager (or raccon) killed off all this stock but two roosters. At that time Phil Roe gave his three remaining purebred hens to Glenn and Glenn bred cockerels back to those hens for multiple years until the hens were no longer fertile. Upon sharing this account with Alison from the ALBC, they are going to work with Glenn to see if they can verify his flock as a purebred line. This isn't set in stone yet, but is simply in the works. What will happen if his stock IS verified as purebred? What will that mean to the Standard we already have? The differences in this stock and the stock derived from Ideal are nearly like night and day........
I know that Connie reached out to the ALBC early on and they were pretty straight forward that they weren't interested unless we could argue purity. Once we recieved that initial reaction, there seemed to be an "all clear" to change the breed to whatever whim or desire jumped into our hearts.
I also believe that when someone wants to raise and Iowa Blue, they actually want an Iowa Blue. There are members (and I know this will be sort of calling them out, please don't take this the wrong way), who want a finely penciled bird, then I think they should then raise a Rock, Wyandotte, or Brahma. These breed varieties need support despirately. Some breeders don't want to let go of the Birchen, then raise a Brichen Marans, or modern game. I don't like this idea that we need to change the breed into something pretty. They are Iowa Blues, if one doesn't like they way they look, don't raise them. If we take the Iowa Blue and breed them into a totally different type, they are no longer Iowa Blues, give them a different name. The Iowa Blue was created to be different! They are different in type, personality, AND COLOR! Let's not morph them into a variety other breeds have. Let's not strip the breed of one of it's most distinguished characteristics!!!
I forgot my camera when I visited Glenn's flock and Denny's flock (both of which are very traditional in type) and I dearly regret that now! Here is a simple low down on the differences when comparing the purebred flock of Glenn's and what we are seeing out of our Ideal line birds (and hopefully when I get out to their flocks this fall I will have photo evidences to share) -
Size - Sandhill 10-11 lb cockbirds, 8-9 lb hens Ideal 5-7 pound cockbirds, 4-5.5 lb hens.
Coloration -Sandhil- Lt.Mealy Grey, Mealy Grey, Dk. Mealy Grey Ideal - Birchen, Mealy Grey, Silver Duckwing
Back - Sandhill - Level, long and wide Ideal - Sloping and medium length, med. width
Body Shape - Sandhill - rectangular Ideal - Tridangular (like a Leghorn) Although our standard does call for rectangular, they just aren't showing it in any consistancy yet.
Breast - Sandhill - Full Ideal - Shallow and Leghorn in type
Legs - Sandhill - long, toes long (to hold up the large frame) and Slate Ideal - medium, toes med. and Willow
Tail - Sandhill - 70-75 Degrees Ideal - 80-90 Degrees
This is just a short list of some of the main differences, and there are even more subtle differences. I'm not advoating that we do a stinct "adhere to only Glenn's flock" type of Standard, but I do expect something alot closer to it than what we already have. As you can clearly see from those two descriptions, they appear as two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BREEDS!!! AND THEY LOOK THAT WAY IN PERSON!! Our current Standard is Standardizing the modern Ideal type of bird, and I think this club is heading in the wrong direction. We should be Standardizing a type that resembles the purest form of the breed and the kicker is that the traditional type is a better looking bird. And yet our club as a whole is fleeing from that type like they're poison. I just don't get it.
In short, my opinion is this (albeit very blunt); if you don't like the way the Iowa Blue looks, raise a breed that you do like the looks of, don't change the good thing we already have into a poor version of a Rock. If the SP Rock can't get enough breeders what chance will a breed that looks like a poor Rock have?
I'm just not ok with where this whole thing is heading and this sort of "we'll do whatever we want" mentality when it comes to this breed. If the majority wants to head in that direction of breeding an Ideal Standard, that's where I jump off the train and start over with breeders who are interested in raising the REAL Iowa Blue.
I'm tired of this discussion and I'm tired of trying to make my points. I've been trying to give my opinions in a delicate way like Connie has mastered, but I've been unsuccessful in that. So this is my blunt and honest opinion. I'm really tired, I'm tired of seeing what I know is the real breed and hearing that others don't want that breed as it is. And I'm beginging to wonder if I even care! Ya know when you care SO much that you just get to a point where you're like "forget it" this isn't worth it anymore. That's kind of where I am right now.
If it's easier for the breed club that I leave and therefore stop the "pot stiring", than I can do that. I can work with Glenn and maintain the breed as we see fit and let the club go do what it wants. After one particular conversation I've just recently had, I'm wondering if members would be happy to see me out.......
My involvement with the breed goes back over a decade and my first experience was with Glenn Drown's stock (He owns Sandhill Preservation Center). I had them for a few years and had to get rid of them when I moved to Virginia. When I returned from Virginia, I witnessed a flock of Iowa Blues that were for sale that originated out of Bobby Lewis' flock back in Virginia. (Go figure, I was out there but never came across them). Anyway, they were too expensive for me at the time, but they were BEAUTIFUL!
I conversed with Glenn over the years concerning the Iowa Blue and was able to obtain my second start from him in March of this year.
My journey with the IBCC and the Standard Committee began around February of this year. At the time they were working on Standardizing the Birchen coloration. As I remembered the breed in it's original form they weren't Birchen, so I contacted the Standard Committee and asked if I could join. On that committee I was the only one who had any experience with Glenn's flock and was the only person who had ever seen the Iowa Blue in its PURE form. Something else that disappointed me was that Glenn's input on the breed was not sought during the Committee meetings and at the very least we could have referenced his flock characteristics, but that was going to take another year or so until we had his specimens in our flocks and could evaluate them. Anway, I asked the committee to give me a couple weeks to find factual proof that the breed was originally a mealy grey color. After the two weeks I was able to locate all the pictures that we currently have of the purebred Iowa Blues. Each of these pictures showed that they were in fact a sort of mealy greyish pattern. In light of that I was able to get the committee to place a priority on the Silver Penciled over the Birchen, but that give also required a take and so we ebbed and flowed back and forth trying to come up with a comprimise. Size, leg length, color, back shape and length, leg color, were just some of the characteristics that were shifted away from the original type as had been witnessed during the 80's rescue .
At the time I encouraged the Standard Committee to wait another year before we set a Standard to give us time to grow out birds and really see what we had and if we were able to produce birds that resembled the historical accounts of the breed. Clearly this didn't happen.
After we have nearly completed our first year of hatching and grow outs, it's clear (at least to me) that our standards do NOT reflect the true bird.
I also think it's telling that individuals such as Glenn Drowns, Alison Martin (from the ALBC), Michael Moore and John Logston (who's grandfather created the breed and Michael raised them for over 60 years), Kent Whealy (who rescued the breed in the 80's), Phil Roe, Lee Zook, (both of whom raised the purebred birds), and many of W.C. Fenton's decendents (all who know about our breed club), have not JOINED our club!!! Clearly if ALL the individuals alive that have raised the purebred birds and were part of the rescue of the purebred birds (and are aware of our club) do not associate with the club, something MUST be off. No?
Let me also share some things that are in the works at the moment. Glenn has shared with me his Iowa Blue flock history and it is recounted in its entirety now. He obtianed his birds in 1990 and again in 1991 when Kent Whealy gave his flock to Glenn. At that time the birds were inbred so Glenn took a Silver Penciled Rock rooster over S.Campine and Fayoumi hens. He took those crosses and bred them to his Iowa Blues, both the hens and the roosters ensuring the mitocodrial DNA from the maternal line. He then maintained two lines taking the offspring of each generation and breeding them back to the purebred stock until he had done so for enough generations to ensure their purity. In 1995-96 a bager (or raccon) killed off all this stock but two roosters. At that time Phil Roe gave his three remaining purebred hens to Glenn and Glenn bred cockerels back to those hens for multiple years until the hens were no longer fertile. Upon sharing this account with Alison from the ALBC, they are going to work with Glenn to see if they can verify his flock as a purebred line. This isn't set in stone yet, but is simply in the works. What will happen if his stock IS verified as purebred? What will that mean to the Standard we already have? The differences in this stock and the stock derived from Ideal are nearly like night and day........
I know that Connie reached out to the ALBC early on and they were pretty straight forward that they weren't interested unless we could argue purity. Once we recieved that initial reaction, there seemed to be an "all clear" to change the breed to whatever whim or desire jumped into our hearts.
I also believe that when someone wants to raise and Iowa Blue, they actually want an Iowa Blue. There are members (and I know this will be sort of calling them out, please don't take this the wrong way), who want a finely penciled bird, then I think they should then raise a Rock, Wyandotte, or Brahma. These breed varieties need support despirately. Some breeders don't want to let go of the Birchen, then raise a Brichen Marans, or modern game. I don't like this idea that we need to change the breed into something pretty. They are Iowa Blues, if one doesn't like they way they look, don't raise them. If we take the Iowa Blue and breed them into a totally different type, they are no longer Iowa Blues, give them a different name. The Iowa Blue was created to be different! They are different in type, personality, AND COLOR! Let's not morph them into a variety other breeds have. Let's not strip the breed of one of it's most distinguished characteristics!!!
I forgot my camera when I visited Glenn's flock and Denny's flock (both of which are very traditional in type) and I dearly regret that now! Here is a simple low down on the differences when comparing the purebred flock of Glenn's and what we are seeing out of our Ideal line birds (and hopefully when I get out to their flocks this fall I will have photo evidences to share) -
Size - Sandhill 10-11 lb cockbirds, 8-9 lb hens Ideal 5-7 pound cockbirds, 4-5.5 lb hens.
Coloration -Sandhil- Lt.Mealy Grey, Mealy Grey, Dk. Mealy Grey Ideal - Birchen, Mealy Grey, Silver Duckwing
Back - Sandhill - Level, long and wide Ideal - Sloping and medium length, med. width
Body Shape - Sandhill - rectangular Ideal - Tridangular (like a Leghorn) Although our standard does call for rectangular, they just aren't showing it in any consistancy yet.
Breast - Sandhill - Full Ideal - Shallow and Leghorn in type
Legs - Sandhill - long, toes long (to hold up the large frame) and Slate Ideal - medium, toes med. and Willow
Tail - Sandhill - 70-75 Degrees Ideal - 80-90 Degrees
This is just a short list of some of the main differences, and there are even more subtle differences. I'm not advoating that we do a stinct "adhere to only Glenn's flock" type of Standard, but I do expect something alot closer to it than what we already have. As you can clearly see from those two descriptions, they appear as two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BREEDS!!! AND THEY LOOK THAT WAY IN PERSON!! Our current Standard is Standardizing the modern Ideal type of bird, and I think this club is heading in the wrong direction. We should be Standardizing a type that resembles the purest form of the breed and the kicker is that the traditional type is a better looking bird. And yet our club as a whole is fleeing from that type like they're poison. I just don't get it.
In short, my opinion is this (albeit very blunt); if you don't like the way the Iowa Blue looks, raise a breed that you do like the looks of, don't change the good thing we already have into a poor version of a Rock. If the SP Rock can't get enough breeders what chance will a breed that looks like a poor Rock have?
I'm just not ok with where this whole thing is heading and this sort of "we'll do whatever we want" mentality when it comes to this breed. If the majority wants to head in that direction of breeding an Ideal Standard, that's where I jump off the train and start over with breeders who are interested in raising the REAL Iowa Blue.
I'm tired of this discussion and I'm tired of trying to make my points. I've been trying to give my opinions in a delicate way like Connie has mastered, but I've been unsuccessful in that. So this is my blunt and honest opinion. I'm really tired, I'm tired of seeing what I know is the real breed and hearing that others don't want that breed as it is. And I'm beginging to wonder if I even care! Ya know when you care SO much that you just get to a point where you're like "forget it" this isn't worth it anymore. That's kind of where I am right now.
If it's easier for the breed club that I leave and therefore stop the "pot stiring", than I can do that. I can work with Glenn and maintain the breed as we see fit and let the club go do what it wants. After one particular conversation I've just recently had, I'm wondering if members would be happy to see me out.......
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #1,846
First off, but I'd like to make note that tone of a post is highly dependent on the person reading it and their interpretation, unfortunately, and my posts have been intended to be read in a discussionary - exploring all the facets type of tone. When I say "I don't get it, please explain", I mean "I don't get it, please explain" not "you are so wrong bash bash bash gar". Nothing has been written in an angry, offended, confrontational, sarcastic or "bad feelings" type of way, or at least that wasn't my intention. Trust me when I say this is a hobby for me and for enjoyment, I only get personal if you attack my kids/family, otherwise I'm pretty even keel. Hard to really put that into the written word without putting a 
after every sentence, but there ya go.
(Mostly as a note for anyone worrying about fighting in the ranks - from my end (which is all I can speak from) no ill will is implied or intended.)
I am genuinely trying to understand the viewpoint of the various people involved and explore the thoughts in my head. I like to hear all viewpoints, it helps me solidify my own thought processes, which are rarely concrete as knowledge is fluid.
I'm a little taken aback by the inference that somehow "we're" (whoever that we includes) are trying to hijack the breed and destroy it and bum rush everything to get "our" way. I've never gotten that tone from the participants in the standards committee or this thread, and it disheartens me to think about lines being drawn as I don't believe anyone has called a duel, a vote, or an us vs. them. We're not electing homecoming queen and we don't all have to have the exact same opinion, that would be boring. I'm really good at "agree to disagree, let's have a beer" as long as I've done my level best to try to understand another's viewpoint and have made my best effort to let them understand mine.
Again, I am trying to speak for myself and my opinion alone. I am not a die hard absolute purist- I'll admit this as I find purity to be something unobtainable in the animal world and subject to many variations in definitions of pure by each individual's standard. However, I understand people who value and try to define "purity" and respect their passion and right to do so. I don't feel that my view is any more right (or wrong) than anyone else's. At the end of the day, these are chickens, my family is healthy, and I have clucks to toss corn to.
For further clarification, I'll type out my view so you know where I'm coming from.
In this particular case, I feel we are speaking of a breed that was created by blending some very different genes and that the state at which the originator quit working with them he had a group of chickens that had formed enough similarities to be what I consider worthy of the title "a breed". This breed, however, was still in a state of flux as evidenced by the variety of reported chick types and adult appearances...much as the breed is now, quite frankly if you discount the weedy, gold birchen stuff. If Mr. Logsdon had another 40 years with the breed (as he is the only one that knows what his mental image of Iowa Blue perfection was) the breed may have drifted closer to his ideal or may have become more refined, as he was holding back the best to breed to the best (best, being towards his mental standard, as otherwise there is no best vs. not). I guess my point is that at no time in history has the Iowa Blue ever been solid/pure in form or type, which really muddies the ability to state that "these" are the real Iowa Blues. I perceive the "Iowa Blue" breed to encompass a set of characteristics (such as the broodiness, the proud carriage, the hawk fighting) and a general appearance, but we really don't have much more to go on from "way back when" other than recollection and a few vague photos with a sprinkle of opinion. I feel the hazy picture of the Iowa Blue is coming more into focus, but we don't have an HD view of the breed back then and we never will. We have interpretation and opinion, which is helpful, but that is what it is.
I don't slight or disdain people who value the "purist" ideal and simply ask for the same courtesy. In my world nothing is black and white, whether I like it or not, so I try to group the gray with minimal overlap when possible. Taxonomy and breeds are all human generated categorizations which are of great help, but breeds (and species for that matter) are not made up of absolutely identical individuals. It's more of a bell curve, with some breeds having wider bell curves than others. As far as I can tell, the Iowa Blue curve has never been very tight by anyone's account. The challenge for standards-makers is to try to define the center of the bell curve without narrowing the curve too far, too fast.
I have not heard anyone state that the standard can never be changed. In fact at the last meeting 3 or 4 changes were made with discussion to reassess these next generations and assess further. This is why I'm confused. I guess I don't see where the standard is favoring (intentionally or otherwise) Ideal over Sandhill type of birds across the board. In fact, I had thought we had tried to do the opposite.
My take on the list:
Size - Sandhill 10-11 lb cockbirds, 8-9 lb hens Ideal 5-7 pound cockbirds, 4-5.5 lb hens.
Standard currently written: Cock 7, Cockerel 6, Hen 6, Pullet 5 - These weights were selected at the time based on what we knew at the time. We all agreed ideally we'd like to see them larger, but were unsure if it was in the genes to get to 11 pound cock birds. I really need to weigh my guys, but I know they are getting bigger and I know I'm planning to select for even bigger. We've talked about upping the weights for the standard but had decided to wait this generation and see what was achieved. This was also before you went to see Glenn's birds, obviously. With the new info, I would (personally) be in favor of raising the standard weights. I doubt many would fight this.
Coloration -Sandhil- Lt.Mealy Grey, Mealy Grey, Dk. Mealy Grey Ideal - Birchen, Mealy Grey, Silver Duckwing
Standard currently written: Birchen and Silver Penciled, proposed change to Gray and Silver Penciled with potential to add in Silver Duckwing (or whatever name is chosen) as well, numbers are so low right now, it hasn't gone far yet. - Gray being the equivalent to Dark Mealy Grey and Silver Penciled being the equivalent to Mealy Grey, but holding enough lattitude to allow for Lt. Mealy Grey, Mealy Grey, and potentially Dark Mealy Grey. The APA doesn't refine the coloration to that extreme.
The change from Birchen to Gray has been proposed as a more accurate representation of the original flocks as well as to slant towards the heavier laced ideal. To me, this is a positive step to bring the standard towards the Sandhill and away from Ideal As for Silver Penciled vs. Mealy Gray, neither is dead on accurate. If we are saying Sandhill represents the closest to original stock - the straight up "mealy grays" I've been able to find photos of showed very little penciling, whereas I the Sandhill hen in Storey's book does. To my eyes, she's at least as much silver penciled as she is mealy gray, therein lies the quandry. As I stated before, I don't personally care what name is chosen, neither are 100% dead center to type, but both carry the Iowa Blue within their bell curve of appearances. In looking at this photo, it seems an intermediate between the two types. I thought we had tried to reflect that in the IB SP standard. Where people go with their birds in regards to coloration is their personal choice, but as I read through the standard again, this bird seems to fall within that description to me other than potentially leg color. I can't tell in the photo. The general consensus was try to focus on the SP (mealy gray) variety first, being what seems to be the center of the original Iowa Blue bell curve, and go from there. In the meantime, the birchen standard was put into place as a placeholder to not alienate 97% of the IB population that seemed to be out there at the time. These were voted and accepted mainly so we could begin the year counts towards approval in the future, not as "the final answer".
To me, looking at the photo below, I would call it predominantly Silver Penciled (since the pattern gene is clearly at work here) rather than Mealy Gray which doesn't seem to have much of the pattern. However, to me, it's a bit like arguing that green is more blue than yellow. It's a case of this look not having a specific name that means this look other than Iowa Blue.
Back - Sandhill - Level, long and wide Ideal - Sloping and medium length, med. width
Current standard - BACK: Medium length, strong, broad, and slightly sloping, blending well into the tail.
Current standard lists a medium length, which to me looking at the bird above seems accurate, it's not an overly long backed bird, but not short. I guess I wouldn't call that bird "long" but leave that up to interpretation. Strong, broad = wide. Slightly sloping vs. level - that's a hard one. The darn birds are so alert their back changes by the milisecond. As I'm seeing more mature birds, I am seeing more and more level stances than sloped when at rest. I know we've talked and revised this issue more than most and could see it getting revised again. Right now standard appears to be favoring Sandhill other than the intermitediate 'slightly sloping' which is intermediate between Idea and Sandhill.
Body Shape - Sandhill - rectangular Ideal - Tridangular (like a Leghorn) Although our standard does call for rectangular, they just aren't showing it in any consistancy yet.
Current standard - Body – full, rectangular in shape, moderately deep.
Favors Sandhill
Breast - Sandhill - Full Ideal - Shallow and Leghorn in type
Current Standard - BREAST: Strong, moderately deep, and well-rounded.
Favors Sandhill
Legs - Sandhill - long, toes long (to hold up the large frame) and Slate Ideal - medium, toes med. and Willow
Current standard - LEGS AND TOES: Legs set well apart, straight when viewed from the front.
Lower Thighs – large, medium length, well feathered, smooth.
Shanks –medium in length, smooth.
Toes – four on each foot, medium length, straight, well-spread.
Set well apart - favors a bigger, wider bird (Sandhill), thighs large.
Medium length thighs, shanks, toes was chosen for a moderate bird, not too big to not be a free ranger, not too stocky. Was based on what we knew at the time. If we feel that should be revised, I don't see why that can't happen. I would argue that the Sandhill birds posted in this post are not long legged. To me, long legged is in relation to the body. Proportionally, I would call these birds medium-legged. Long to me denotes lanky and tall, short - frumpy, bantamish. I would argue that the Sandhill birds are medium legged, but again, leave it up to discussion.
Color - willow - still unclear what was the original, vague memories mostly. Willow was chosen as the majority ruler at the time, and because we couldn't have both slate and willow in the standard. Personally, the only thing I have to add is that the chicks I got from Sandhill look like they had willow legs (note the yellow cast):
I don't know what he has now, but these were chicks straight from him. I wish I had more photos to look at.
Willow can be bred out from current stock if we should so desire. It's recessive and both colors still exist, so easy enough to see the ones that carry the white-skinned gene and select to it.
Tail - Sandhill - 70-75 Degrees Ideal - 80-90 Degrees
Current Standard - TAIL: Medium length, full, carried at an angle of eighty degrees (80˚) above horizontal.
Main Tail – moderately long, broad and overlapping
Based on the only evidence I have from Sandhill (the photo above and my previous birds), I would argue that tail angle is variable. The photo above from Sandhill flock definitely is closer to 90 than 70, as is the cock below. 80 degrees was selected by the committee based on what we knew and the birds we had at the time. If it needs to be revisited, nothing says we can't. I can say that personally my birds sit somewhere in the 80 degree range and I plan to breed away from 90, towards 70-75, especially since they raise their tails higher when they are excited (at a show).
So, this is where I become confused. There seems to be a lot of variance in perception and I'm failing at seeing that the breed club is favoring Ideal birds and away from the "true" Iowa Blue. That hasn't been my perception at all, but I'm trying to understand. It's always been said we have our work cut out for us and I, personally, still see us as being at the beginning of the journey. I guess I don't see that the standard/club has suddenly veered off course.
I would propose that we continue as we have in the past to modify our descriptions and upgrade the standard as we learn more, both in Curt's running down leads, as well as reviewing of various flocks and birds as we continue to learn our own breed. A good next step would be a meeting with face to face discussion and review of birds. Again, we're so in our infancy of resurrecting the breed, we're still trying to find out what we have. I can't comment on anything other than the "silver pencileds" and "birchen/grays" as these are what I have in my flock.
In my personal opinion, the primary thing we need right now is numbers to review to see what we've got before we get hard set on anything. Especially if you're saying Sandhill has only a handful, the sample size is woefully too small to make sweeping generalizations without the benefit of potential for revision. We're talking about a breed that still is nearly extinct, we have to get these numbers up, let the genes in the lines show themselves, and determine what we have.
Regarding color preferences and degree of pattern vs. mealy preferences (which I get the feeling is the big sticking point), the standard as written doesn't get that specific and leaves a lot of wiggle room for personal preference. Everyone sees beauty differently and we can't expect everyone to have the exact same picture in their head defining perfect. Arguing beauty is arguing religion and politics. You won't convince someone that your ideal is right and their ideal is wrong, they aren't. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The original flock was trending towards Mr. Logsdon's ideal of beauty, but he too was working to perfect them during his time. That's all any breed fancier looks for, improvement of their breed and this breed needs every one of us, desperately. We've all got great strengths to contribute and it would be a shame to lose that.
Edited to address the recent edit in Curt's post above:
Sorry if this post adds to the strain. I understand where you are coming from when you care so much about particular points when others value other particular points. It's doubly hard when it's taken personally. As I said above, I'm pretty even keeled...I'm also pretty tough. I'm ok if someone else doesn't see the breed as I do, I stay true to my ideals and that's the way I breed. Trust me on this one, in the Australian Shepherd world, this battle has raged for years, at 1,000 times the decibel, hurt feelings, etc. I stay out of that. I pick my group of a few people with lines of the breed I like and that's where I place my focus. It doesn't mean I leave the breed club, it doesn't mean I don't show, it doesn't mean I don't talk and discuss with people with very differing opinions. It all helps add to the knowledge base, but at the end of the day, I'm content because my house contains my ideal. That's what I bring to the world, that's what I contribute, that's enough for me. I can't control what other do, trying would make me crazy. 
I personally wouldn't like to see you leave, especially with hard feelings, as I feel you bring a lot to the club - but you have to do what feels right to you. I enjoy your conversation as you will say what you think, not what you think I want to hear. I do value your stance on championing the Iowa Blue as it existed in Logsdon's flock, and it adds to the conversation. I still feel the pool is big enough for everyone, and I would love to have Glenn come and express his views, opinions, and insights. However, it IS up to you. Fracturing the resources decreases the ability of the whole. However, it has happened in every facet of "clubdom" I've ever seen, especially when it gets personal. It's sad to see it coming to pass, but I can't say I haven't been waiting and wondering when it would. It always does and that's a travesty.
after every sentence, but there ya go. (Mostly as a note for anyone worrying about fighting in the ranks - from my end (which is all I can speak from) no ill will is implied or intended.)
I am genuinely trying to understand the viewpoint of the various people involved and explore the thoughts in my head. I like to hear all viewpoints, it helps me solidify my own thought processes, which are rarely concrete as knowledge is fluid.
I'm a little taken aback by the inference that somehow "we're" (whoever that we includes) are trying to hijack the breed and destroy it and bum rush everything to get "our" way. I've never gotten that tone from the participants in the standards committee or this thread, and it disheartens me to think about lines being drawn as I don't believe anyone has called a duel, a vote, or an us vs. them. We're not electing homecoming queen and we don't all have to have the exact same opinion, that would be boring. I'm really good at "agree to disagree, let's have a beer" as long as I've done my level best to try to understand another's viewpoint and have made my best effort to let them understand mine.
Again, I am trying to speak for myself and my opinion alone. I am not a die hard absolute purist- I'll admit this as I find purity to be something unobtainable in the animal world and subject to many variations in definitions of pure by each individual's standard. However, I understand people who value and try to define "purity" and respect their passion and right to do so. I don't feel that my view is any more right (or wrong) than anyone else's. At the end of the day, these are chickens, my family is healthy, and I have clucks to toss corn to.
For further clarification, I'll type out my view so you know where I'm coming from.
In this particular case, I feel we are speaking of a breed that was created by blending some very different genes and that the state at which the originator quit working with them he had a group of chickens that had formed enough similarities to be what I consider worthy of the title "a breed". This breed, however, was still in a state of flux as evidenced by the variety of reported chick types and adult appearances...much as the breed is now, quite frankly if you discount the weedy, gold birchen stuff. If Mr. Logsdon had another 40 years with the breed (as he is the only one that knows what his mental image of Iowa Blue perfection was) the breed may have drifted closer to his ideal or may have become more refined, as he was holding back the best to breed to the best (best, being towards his mental standard, as otherwise there is no best vs. not). I guess my point is that at no time in history has the Iowa Blue ever been solid/pure in form or type, which really muddies the ability to state that "these" are the real Iowa Blues. I perceive the "Iowa Blue" breed to encompass a set of characteristics (such as the broodiness, the proud carriage, the hawk fighting) and a general appearance, but we really don't have much more to go on from "way back when" other than recollection and a few vague photos with a sprinkle of opinion. I feel the hazy picture of the Iowa Blue is coming more into focus, but we don't have an HD view of the breed back then and we never will. We have interpretation and opinion, which is helpful, but that is what it is.
I don't slight or disdain people who value the "purist" ideal and simply ask for the same courtesy. In my world nothing is black and white, whether I like it or not, so I try to group the gray with minimal overlap when possible. Taxonomy and breeds are all human generated categorizations which are of great help, but breeds (and species for that matter) are not made up of absolutely identical individuals. It's more of a bell curve, with some breeds having wider bell curves than others. As far as I can tell, the Iowa Blue curve has never been very tight by anyone's account. The challenge for standards-makers is to try to define the center of the bell curve without narrowing the curve too far, too fast.
I have not heard anyone state that the standard can never be changed. In fact at the last meeting 3 or 4 changes were made with discussion to reassess these next generations and assess further. This is why I'm confused. I guess I don't see where the standard is favoring (intentionally or otherwise) Ideal over Sandhill type of birds across the board. In fact, I had thought we had tried to do the opposite.
My take on the list:
Size - Sandhill 10-11 lb cockbirds, 8-9 lb hens Ideal 5-7 pound cockbirds, 4-5.5 lb hens.
Standard currently written: Cock 7, Cockerel 6, Hen 6, Pullet 5 - These weights were selected at the time based on what we knew at the time. We all agreed ideally we'd like to see them larger, but were unsure if it was in the genes to get to 11 pound cock birds. I really need to weigh my guys, but I know they are getting bigger and I know I'm planning to select for even bigger. We've talked about upping the weights for the standard but had decided to wait this generation and see what was achieved. This was also before you went to see Glenn's birds, obviously. With the new info, I would (personally) be in favor of raising the standard weights. I doubt many would fight this.
Coloration -Sandhil- Lt.Mealy Grey, Mealy Grey, Dk. Mealy Grey Ideal - Birchen, Mealy Grey, Silver Duckwing
Standard currently written: Birchen and Silver Penciled, proposed change to Gray and Silver Penciled with potential to add in Silver Duckwing (or whatever name is chosen) as well, numbers are so low right now, it hasn't gone far yet. - Gray being the equivalent to Dark Mealy Grey and Silver Penciled being the equivalent to Mealy Grey, but holding enough lattitude to allow for Lt. Mealy Grey, Mealy Grey, and potentially Dark Mealy Grey. The APA doesn't refine the coloration to that extreme.
The change from Birchen to Gray has been proposed as a more accurate representation of the original flocks as well as to slant towards the heavier laced ideal. To me, this is a positive step to bring the standard towards the Sandhill and away from Ideal As for Silver Penciled vs. Mealy Gray, neither is dead on accurate. If we are saying Sandhill represents the closest to original stock - the straight up "mealy grays" I've been able to find photos of showed very little penciling, whereas I the Sandhill hen in Storey's book does. To my eyes, she's at least as much silver penciled as she is mealy gray, therein lies the quandry. As I stated before, I don't personally care what name is chosen, neither are 100% dead center to type, but both carry the Iowa Blue within their bell curve of appearances. In looking at this photo, it seems an intermediate between the two types. I thought we had tried to reflect that in the IB SP standard. Where people go with their birds in regards to coloration is their personal choice, but as I read through the standard again, this bird seems to fall within that description to me other than potentially leg color. I can't tell in the photo. The general consensus was try to focus on the SP (mealy gray) variety first, being what seems to be the center of the original Iowa Blue bell curve, and go from there. In the meantime, the birchen standard was put into place as a placeholder to not alienate 97% of the IB population that seemed to be out there at the time. These were voted and accepted mainly so we could begin the year counts towards approval in the future, not as "the final answer".
To me, looking at the photo below, I would call it predominantly Silver Penciled (since the pattern gene is clearly at work here) rather than Mealy Gray which doesn't seem to have much of the pattern. However, to me, it's a bit like arguing that green is more blue than yellow. It's a case of this look not having a specific name that means this look other than Iowa Blue.
Back - Sandhill - Level, long and wide Ideal - Sloping and medium length, med. width
Current standard - BACK: Medium length, strong, broad, and slightly sloping, blending well into the tail.
Current standard lists a medium length, which to me looking at the bird above seems accurate, it's not an overly long backed bird, but not short. I guess I wouldn't call that bird "long" but leave that up to interpretation. Strong, broad = wide. Slightly sloping vs. level - that's a hard one. The darn birds are so alert their back changes by the milisecond. As I'm seeing more mature birds, I am seeing more and more level stances than sloped when at rest. I know we've talked and revised this issue more than most and could see it getting revised again. Right now standard appears to be favoring Sandhill other than the intermitediate 'slightly sloping' which is intermediate between Idea and Sandhill.
Body Shape - Sandhill - rectangular Ideal - Tridangular (like a Leghorn) Although our standard does call for rectangular, they just aren't showing it in any consistancy yet.
Current standard - Body – full, rectangular in shape, moderately deep.
Favors Sandhill
Breast - Sandhill - Full Ideal - Shallow and Leghorn in type
Current Standard - BREAST: Strong, moderately deep, and well-rounded.
Favors Sandhill
Legs - Sandhill - long, toes long (to hold up the large frame) and Slate Ideal - medium, toes med. and Willow
Current standard - LEGS AND TOES: Legs set well apart, straight when viewed from the front.
Lower Thighs – large, medium length, well feathered, smooth.
Shanks –medium in length, smooth.
Toes – four on each foot, medium length, straight, well-spread.
Set well apart - favors a bigger, wider bird (Sandhill), thighs large.
Medium length thighs, shanks, toes was chosen for a moderate bird, not too big to not be a free ranger, not too stocky. Was based on what we knew at the time. If we feel that should be revised, I don't see why that can't happen. I would argue that the Sandhill birds posted in this post are not long legged. To me, long legged is in relation to the body. Proportionally, I would call these birds medium-legged. Long to me denotes lanky and tall, short - frumpy, bantamish. I would argue that the Sandhill birds are medium legged, but again, leave it up to discussion.
Color - willow - still unclear what was the original, vague memories mostly. Willow was chosen as the majority ruler at the time, and because we couldn't have both slate and willow in the standard. Personally, the only thing I have to add is that the chicks I got from Sandhill look like they had willow legs (note the yellow cast):
I don't know what he has now, but these were chicks straight from him. I wish I had more photos to look at.
Willow can be bred out from current stock if we should so desire. It's recessive and both colors still exist, so easy enough to see the ones that carry the white-skinned gene and select to it.
Tail - Sandhill - 70-75 Degrees Ideal - 80-90 Degrees
Current Standard - TAIL: Medium length, full, carried at an angle of eighty degrees (80˚) above horizontal.
Main Tail – moderately long, broad and overlapping
Based on the only evidence I have from Sandhill (the photo above and my previous birds), I would argue that tail angle is variable. The photo above from Sandhill flock definitely is closer to 90 than 70, as is the cock below. 80 degrees was selected by the committee based on what we knew and the birds we had at the time. If it needs to be revisited, nothing says we can't. I can say that personally my birds sit somewhere in the 80 degree range and I plan to breed away from 90, towards 70-75, especially since they raise their tails higher when they are excited (at a show).
So, this is where I become confused. There seems to be a lot of variance in perception and I'm failing at seeing that the breed club is favoring Ideal birds and away from the "true" Iowa Blue. That hasn't been my perception at all, but I'm trying to understand. It's always been said we have our work cut out for us and I, personally, still see us as being at the beginning of the journey. I guess I don't see that the standard/club has suddenly veered off course.
I would propose that we continue as we have in the past to modify our descriptions and upgrade the standard as we learn more, both in Curt's running down leads, as well as reviewing of various flocks and birds as we continue to learn our own breed. A good next step would be a meeting with face to face discussion and review of birds. Again, we're so in our infancy of resurrecting the breed, we're still trying to find out what we have. I can't comment on anything other than the "silver pencileds" and "birchen/grays" as these are what I have in my flock.
In my personal opinion, the primary thing we need right now is numbers to review to see what we've got before we get hard set on anything. Especially if you're saying Sandhill has only a handful, the sample size is woefully too small to make sweeping generalizations without the benefit of potential for revision. We're talking about a breed that still is nearly extinct, we have to get these numbers up, let the genes in the lines show themselves, and determine what we have.
Regarding color preferences and degree of pattern vs. mealy preferences (which I get the feeling is the big sticking point), the standard as written doesn't get that specific and leaves a lot of wiggle room for personal preference. Everyone sees beauty differently and we can't expect everyone to have the exact same picture in their head defining perfect. Arguing beauty is arguing religion and politics. You won't convince someone that your ideal is right and their ideal is wrong, they aren't. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The original flock was trending towards Mr. Logsdon's ideal of beauty, but he too was working to perfect them during his time. That's all any breed fancier looks for, improvement of their breed and this breed needs every one of us, desperately. We've all got great strengths to contribute and it would be a shame to lose that.
Edited to address the recent edit in Curt's post above:
Sorry if this post adds to the strain. I understand where you are coming from when you care so much about particular points when others value other particular points. It's doubly hard when it's taken personally. As I said above, I'm pretty even keeled...I'm also pretty tough.
I'm ok if someone else doesn't see the breed as I do, I stay true to my ideals and that's the way I breed. Trust me on this one, in the Australian Shepherd world, this battle has raged for years, at 1,000 times the decibel, hurt feelings, etc. I stay out of that. I pick my group of a few people with lines of the breed I like and that's where I place my focus. It doesn't mean I leave the breed club, it doesn't mean I don't show, it doesn't mean I don't talk and discuss with people with very differing opinions. It all helps add to the knowledge base, but at the end of the day, I'm content because my house contains my ideal. That's what I bring to the world, that's what I contribute, that's enough for me. I can't control what other do, trying would make me crazy. I personally wouldn't like to see you leave, especially with hard feelings, as I feel you bring a lot to the club - but you have to do what feels right to you. I enjoy your conversation as you will say what you think, not what you think I want to hear. I do value your stance on championing the Iowa Blue as it existed in Logsdon's flock, and it adds to the conversation. I still feel the pool is big enough for everyone, and I would love to have Glenn come and express his views, opinions, and insights. However, it IS up to you. Fracturing the resources decreases the ability of the whole. However, it has happened in every facet of "clubdom" I've ever seen, especially when it gets personal. It's sad to see it coming to pass, but I can't say I haven't been waiting and wondering when it would. It always does and that's a travesty.
Last edited:
Something is not right here. How can you two be so far apart in your perceptions. I keep coming back to the "dual purpose" aspect that was heavily touted back at the first of the year. There is no 4 to 7 lb. chicken gonna fit that description, I'm sorry. I threw my support behind the standard because I believed that the two camps - modern and traditional - had come together and worked out the best for the breed.
The next glaring difference that confuses me is that Curt sites actual eye witness accounts and characteristics that are not reflected in the breed standard, while Connie states that there are no birds alive that enable anyone to draw any positive conclusion, that it is all speculation; or at least that's the way I'm reading your post Connie, forgive me if I've misunderstood. Those two views stand in direct conflict. I really don't know what to say at this point. Both of you make compelling arguments and Curt claims to have first hand knowledge plus over ten years experience with the breed.
I suppose I am now regretting that I put all my efforts into the IB this year at the expense of my Australorps. I won't make that mistake again LOL.
I'm still wanting that dual purpose IB as stated in the original lore that I read. Also, I was thinking that based on some of the posts I read earlier in the year, the birchen would fade away and leave only the sp variety. There are lots of "pretty" show birds, and there are some fairly homely ones as well. If the original IB was so great, and Sand Hill has even a thread of that line it seems to me that they should be given a lot of weight when considering a standard. As far as Curt's claim that the standard was rushed, I seem to recall more than once reading comments that we were going to take whatever time needed to get it right. I felt like celebrating when I thought there had been a meeting of the minds with respect to the standard, and it did happen fairly quickly because if I'm correct, there was a deadline to be met for application to APA or something?
Where are the other board members? Could we hear from them as well.
Curt, please don't drop out. Differences of opinion are bound to happen, as difficult and hopeless as this may seem to you at the moment.
The next glaring difference that confuses me is that Curt sites actual eye witness accounts and characteristics that are not reflected in the breed standard, while Connie states that there are no birds alive that enable anyone to draw any positive conclusion, that it is all speculation; or at least that's the way I'm reading your post Connie, forgive me if I've misunderstood. Those two views stand in direct conflict. I really don't know what to say at this point. Both of you make compelling arguments and Curt claims to have first hand knowledge plus over ten years experience with the breed.
I suppose I am now regretting that I put all my efforts into the IB this year at the expense of my Australorps. I won't make that mistake again LOL.
I'm still wanting that dual purpose IB as stated in the original lore that I read. Also, I was thinking that based on some of the posts I read earlier in the year, the birchen would fade away and leave only the sp variety. There are lots of "pretty" show birds, and there are some fairly homely ones as well. If the original IB was so great, and Sand Hill has even a thread of that line it seems to me that they should be given a lot of weight when considering a standard. As far as Curt's claim that the standard was rushed, I seem to recall more than once reading comments that we were going to take whatever time needed to get it right. I felt like celebrating when I thought there had been a meeting of the minds with respect to the standard, and it did happen fairly quickly because if I'm correct, there was a deadline to be met for application to APA or something?
Where are the other board members? Could we hear from them as well.
Curt, please don't drop out. Differences of opinion are bound to happen, as difficult and hopeless as this may seem to you at the moment.
- Thread starter
- #1,848
Something is not right here. How can you two be so far apart in your perceptions. I keep coming back to the "dual purpose" aspect that was heavily touted back at the first of the year. There is no 4 to 7 lb. chicken gonna fit that description, I'm sorry. I threw my support behind the standard because I believed that the two camps - modern and traditional - had come together and worked out the best for the breed.
The next glaring difference that confuses me is that Curt sites actual eye witness accounts and characteristics that are not reflected in the breed standard, while Connie states that there are no birds alive that enable anyone to draw any positive conclusion, that it is all speculation; or at least that's the way I'm reading your post Connie, forgive me if I've misunderstood. Those two views stand in direct conflict. I really don't know what to say at this point. Both of you make compelling arguments and Curt claims to have first hand knowledge plus over ten years experience with the breed.
Hmm. Arguments - I wouldn't call it that, nor would I say I'm opposing Curt on some opposite line. Quite frankly I was trying to bring the parties back together to try to reach an acceptable cooperation. For the record, I have had no recent conversations (other than what you have read here) with Curt or anyone else on this discussion and am not in opposition of revising the standard, so I guess I must really be missing the point. I've tried to respond my thoughts on the concerns above about those particular features. As I said, there is room for change/revision, but I just don't see that the words I'm reading are so far off. The weight, yes, I agree, we need to reconsider the weight. We've known weight was an issue and we bumped up the weight from the origins, but seems like we needed to bump higher. I don't see anyone opposing that. We need a meeting to discuss the concerns, review the new information, and revise. I don't see the problem. The standard as it is currently is not set in stone, it is a starting point and the best we could do with the information present at the time. If we've got more information, we need to compile it, review and discuss it, and see what needs to be revamped.
What I was trying to do above (perhaps unsuccessfully) was temper some of the emotions and try to take a logical, level look at what we know and what we don't. Emotions add exaggeration, vehemence, and cloud the actual discussion. Yes, we have some interviews on record, still posted for everyone to read. They are awesome work by Curt, he's the man. Read through them again, though, listen to the tone, listen to the confidence (or lack of) of the various parties. Many of them were fairly vague, with tones of "those were grandfather's birds, but from what I remember" which is not that confidence building in rock solid accuracy. There is also some confliction in accounts, so when I say it's speculation, that's what I mean. I'm not saying that discounts these interviews, not at all, but I don't take every word as fact. You have to factor in human error of the memory. It's interpretation of hear say of their interpretation of birds from memory, which degrades and changes with time (love those studies on people's recollections and recounts of the same event and how vastly different they can be). The actual photos we have are black and white and so grainy that they give us only a glimpse, an idea, but those photos are probably the closest thing we have to fact. The best photos we have are Phil Roe's, which again are better but still not at angles or clarity to give us a really good impression of outline and body shape. The accounts and stories don't all match up, as you would expect when you are polling various people at various levels of involvement with the breed. Heck, even the origin story doesn't match up. You have Dolly Logsdon's story vs. Fenton's on the origin. See what I mean? So to take every word of the interviews as fact - you have to discount the inconsistencies, so then it's us making a choice on the appearance, which brings us back around this circle. I think the recounts should weigh heavily into our recreation of a mental picture of the Iowa Blue, but it IS subjective when we have to interpret what they meant and choose which fact is THE fact. A ton of information has been garnered, but you do have to apply a filter to organize it and reconcile the inconsistencies.
What I'd like to see is us review and revise, work on bringing the working standard up to speed with the current scope of knowledge. It's unfair to claim foul on a standard written prior to information that is being used as proof. See what I mean? Curt obviously has garnered more information (woot, always love it) but if we don't all have privy to it, it's hard to discuss the pros and cons of where we need to go with the standard/breed. No, I'm not saying he's holding out. What I'm saying is he's seen these flocks, has formed strong opinions, but the information the rest of us has is snippets and his interpretation. He's talked with Glenn (which is great. I never got replies when I made inquiries) and apparently has spoken with ALBC and such (this is the first I've heard of it). I have no way of knowing what else he has that he is basing his opinions on, otherwise. Photos of Glenn's stock would be very helpful. Having him critique the birds we have in existence and help us mold the standard would be helpful. Giving points of discussion is helpful. I've made an attempt to discuss the ones listed above, but I can't reason with "it's describing a different bird than was meant to be". I don't know what specifically is so wrong with the standard that can't be addressed. As I say to my husband, "I'm not in your head". (He loves to start speaking in the middle of a conversation in his head that I have no reference for. It's a running joke.)
So, anyway, somehow I feel like I'm up on a soapbox when I have no intention of trying to be. I'm not trying to rally troops to "my" side or whatever. I don't want sides at all. Somehow this has been interpreted as me vs. Curt, which isn't it at all, and I would hope Curt isn't taking it like that. Stupid typed forums, much better speaking in person.
Maybe best said - Help me, help you?
Ah well, the more I try not to argue, I'm sure the more it looks like I am.
Just wanted to answer to the comment above about mutually exclusive viewpoints. I don't think so, I think it's two different ways of looking at the same information. My background makes me never stop looking for the possible ways a hypothesis isn't true. Explore all possibilities, decipher fact from opinion, decide how much weight to give to each piece. Heck, I get it every single day that even people in the same family, experiencing the same event, with the same pet can't even remotely tell the same story. That's what I mean by it's subjective. We don't have fact. We have interpretation, which depends heavily on the individual. A movie of the birds would be fact. The photos are fact, but unfortunately the quality then requires interpretation. Every piece of the puzzle helps, and the more pieces, the more clear the central theme of the story becomes.
In my opinion, the best thing for the good of the breed would be to get all of the major proponents of the breed to unite in the promotion of the Iowa Blue. I would like to see that happen. If it doesn't, I'll accept that and go on trying to promote the love of the breed and breed true to the best of my ability with the knowledge I'm given. In the end, that's enough for me. Politics, I don't get into. I claim "political atheism". I do care about is that splitting and secretting information unfortunately hurts the breed's chances of recovery, I care that Curt seems to be hurt (and I'm not entirely sure of where the back-story comes in, nor is it my place to know) as he's a good guy with obvious passion for the breed. I care that this whole conversation went from exploring possibilities and great discussion to somehow people trying to call and form sides, it looks bad.
So, on that note, I'm done with contributing to that notion and make the suggestion that we take it to a meeting at one of the shows where we can hopefully get the majority of us in person to discuss. Perhaps Curt will share some of the new info with us. Maybe we could arrange to get Glenn there or arrange a field trip TO Glenn's? Would love to hear his opinion, view face to face and hear his thoughts on what we have (or don't). At the very least would love to see some photos of his flock. It's a black hole in my knowledge base, other than the chicks I got from Sandhill and the Storey's photos.
Edit to add: Also would like to see photos of his chicks/juvenile plumage. Would help us make educated judgements early on trying to select to same type.
Let's get back to enjoying our birds!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On a happy note, I've got pips!
They are due to hatch tomorrow, but there are at least 3 pips in there (8 eggs). Can't wait to see what pops out. I need some more SP boys!
Also can't wait until my youngest pullet matures. This girl is showing some way nice white of the head and neck, reminding me of the white manes of the photos. Getting better and better all the time!
The next glaring difference that confuses me is that Curt sites actual eye witness accounts and characteristics that are not reflected in the breed standard, while Connie states that there are no birds alive that enable anyone to draw any positive conclusion, that it is all speculation; or at least that's the way I'm reading your post Connie, forgive me if I've misunderstood. Those two views stand in direct conflict. I really don't know what to say at this point. Both of you make compelling arguments and Curt claims to have first hand knowledge plus over ten years experience with the breed.
Hmm. Arguments - I wouldn't call it that, nor would I say I'm opposing Curt on some opposite line. Quite frankly I was trying to bring the parties back together to try to reach an acceptable cooperation. For the record, I have had no recent conversations (other than what you have read here) with Curt or anyone else on this discussion and am not in opposition of revising the standard, so I guess I must really be missing the point. I've tried to respond my thoughts on the concerns above about those particular features. As I said, there is room for change/revision, but I just don't see that the words I'm reading are so far off. The weight, yes, I agree, we need to reconsider the weight. We've known weight was an issue and we bumped up the weight from the origins, but seems like we needed to bump higher. I don't see anyone opposing that. We need a meeting to discuss the concerns, review the new information, and revise. I don't see the problem. The standard as it is currently is not set in stone, it is a starting point and the best we could do with the information present at the time. If we've got more information, we need to compile it, review and discuss it, and see what needs to be revamped.
What I was trying to do above (perhaps unsuccessfully) was temper some of the emotions and try to take a logical, level look at what we know and what we don't. Emotions add exaggeration, vehemence, and cloud the actual discussion. Yes, we have some interviews on record, still posted for everyone to read. They are awesome work by Curt, he's the man. Read through them again, though, listen to the tone, listen to the confidence (or lack of) of the various parties. Many of them were fairly vague, with tones of "those were grandfather's birds, but from what I remember" which is not that confidence building in rock solid accuracy. There is also some confliction in accounts, so when I say it's speculation, that's what I mean. I'm not saying that discounts these interviews, not at all, but I don't take every word as fact. You have to factor in human error of the memory. It's interpretation of hear say of their interpretation of birds from memory, which degrades and changes with time (love those studies on people's recollections and recounts of the same event and how vastly different they can be). The actual photos we have are black and white and so grainy that they give us only a glimpse, an idea, but those photos are probably the closest thing we have to fact. The best photos we have are Phil Roe's, which again are better but still not at angles or clarity to give us a really good impression of outline and body shape. The accounts and stories don't all match up, as you would expect when you are polling various people at various levels of involvement with the breed. Heck, even the origin story doesn't match up. You have Dolly Logsdon's story vs. Fenton's on the origin. See what I mean? So to take every word of the interviews as fact - you have to discount the inconsistencies, so then it's us making a choice on the appearance, which brings us back around this circle. I think the recounts should weigh heavily into our recreation of a mental picture of the Iowa Blue, but it IS subjective when we have to interpret what they meant and choose which fact is THE fact. A ton of information has been garnered, but you do have to apply a filter to organize it and reconcile the inconsistencies.
What I'd like to see is us review and revise, work on bringing the working standard up to speed with the current scope of knowledge. It's unfair to claim foul on a standard written prior to information that is being used as proof. See what I mean? Curt obviously has garnered more information (woot, always love it) but if we don't all have privy to it, it's hard to discuss the pros and cons of where we need to go with the standard/breed. No, I'm not saying he's holding out. What I'm saying is he's seen these flocks, has formed strong opinions, but the information the rest of us has is snippets and his interpretation. He's talked with Glenn (which is great. I never got replies when I made inquiries) and apparently has spoken with ALBC and such (this is the first I've heard of it). I have no way of knowing what else he has that he is basing his opinions on, otherwise. Photos of Glenn's stock would be very helpful. Having him critique the birds we have in existence and help us mold the standard would be helpful. Giving points of discussion is helpful. I've made an attempt to discuss the ones listed above, but I can't reason with "it's describing a different bird than was meant to be". I don't know what specifically is so wrong with the standard that can't be addressed. As I say to my husband, "I'm not in your head". (He loves to start speaking in the middle of a conversation in his head that I have no reference for. It's a running joke.)
So, anyway, somehow I feel like I'm up on a soapbox when I have no intention of trying to be. I'm not trying to rally troops to "my" side or whatever. I don't want sides at all. Somehow this has been interpreted as me vs. Curt, which isn't it at all, and I would hope Curt isn't taking it like that. Stupid typed forums, much better speaking in person.
Maybe best said - Help me, help you?
Ah well, the more I try not to argue, I'm sure the more it looks like I am.
Just wanted to answer to the comment above about mutually exclusive viewpoints. I don't think so, I think it's two different ways of looking at the same information. My background makes me never stop looking for the possible ways a hypothesis isn't true. Explore all possibilities, decipher fact from opinion, decide how much weight to give to each piece. Heck, I get it every single day that even people in the same family, experiencing the same event, with the same pet can't even remotely tell the same story. That's what I mean by it's subjective. We don't have fact. We have interpretation, which depends heavily on the individual. A movie of the birds would be fact. The photos are fact, but unfortunately the quality then requires interpretation. Every piece of the puzzle helps, and the more pieces, the more clear the central theme of the story becomes.
In my opinion, the best thing for the good of the breed would be to get all of the major proponents of the breed to unite in the promotion of the Iowa Blue. I would like to see that happen. If it doesn't, I'll accept that and go on trying to promote the love of the breed and breed true to the best of my ability with the knowledge I'm given. In the end, that's enough for me.
Politics, I don't get into. I claim "political atheism". I do care about is that splitting and secretting information unfortunately hurts the breed's chances of recovery, I care that Curt seems to be hurt (and I'm not entirely sure of where the back-story comes in, nor is it my place to know) as he's a good guy with obvious passion for the breed. I care that this whole conversation went from exploring possibilities and great discussion to somehow people trying to call and form sides, it looks bad. So, on that note, I'm done with contributing to that notion and make the suggestion that we take it to a meeting at one of the shows where we can hopefully get the majority of us in person to discuss. Perhaps Curt will share some of the new info with us. Maybe we could arrange to get Glenn there or arrange a field trip TO Glenn's? Would love to hear his opinion, view face to face and hear his thoughts on what we have (or don't). At the very least would love to see some photos of his flock. It's a black hole in my knowledge base, other than the chicks I got from Sandhill and the Storey's photos.
Edit to add: Also would like to see photos of his chicks/juvenile plumage. Would help us make educated judgements early on trying to select to same type.
Let's get back to enjoying our birds!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On a happy note, I've got pips!
They are due to hatch tomorrow, but there are at least 3 pips in there (8 eggs). Can't wait to see what pops out. I need some more SP boys!
Also can't wait until my youngest pullet matures. This girl is showing some way nice white of the head and neck, reminding me of the white manes of the photos. Getting better and better all the time!
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #1,849
The last little batch of chicks contained 2 SP. One looks typical, cocoa brown. The other one is much more red. Have you had any like this? It's the first one I've had pop up looking red like that. Photos are the best I could get tonight in the dark with their light on, but you can see the difference in the photos.
Well, to mix metaphors, it seems to me that with the present numbers of birds that we have, the pros and cons that are going on strike me as those in a life boat boat arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Right now, to me, pros and cons seem major moot.
Looking in my pen, I have two distinctly different color morphs, and a variation that has little to do with either. And of course at their age I dont have a clue as to what the mature size will be. So, I am taking a wait and see mode, and see what I have before I decide what I am going to do. Period.
I would suggest that all reading this do likewise.
As those who have read my signature block know I like homestead breeds of chickens, dual purpose birds that lay well and provide meat. Anyone notice that color isnt involved in EITHER of those?
How many of you know what the egg production of your birds is on a yearly basis?
Right now I really dont give a good diddly squat what the colors of my birds are. I suspect that the first couple people to have any of these didnt either. Just my guess. Practicality in those days had more weight then fine points of color. As the birds became an identifiable strain then the colors became a handle to identify with. Just my guess. Having some idea of priorities of farmers of that era. Of which my immediate family were.
We seem to have a lot of definite opinions being expressed here, that seems a little precipitate to me. What I see us having is a maybe, not yet a definite maybe, just a general garden variety maybe.
Nuff, time to go out and feed my chicken mutts.
FWIW, I think that the Standard as proposed is an excellent start. Start. Not finish.
Right now, to me, pros and cons seem major moot.
Looking in my pen, I have two distinctly different color morphs, and a variation that has little to do with either. And of course at their age I dont have a clue as to what the mature size will be. So, I am taking a wait and see mode, and see what I have before I decide what I am going to do. Period.
I would suggest that all reading this do likewise.
As those who have read my signature block know I like homestead breeds of chickens, dual purpose birds that lay well and provide meat. Anyone notice that color isnt involved in EITHER of those?
How many of you know what the egg production of your birds is on a yearly basis?
Right now I really dont give a good diddly squat what the colors of my birds are. I suspect that the first couple people to have any of these didnt either. Just my guess. Practicality in those days had more weight then fine points of color. As the birds became an identifiable strain then the colors became a handle to identify with. Just my guess. Having some idea of priorities of farmers of that era. Of which my immediate family were.
We seem to have a lot of definite opinions being expressed here, that seems a little precipitate to me. What I see us having is a maybe, not yet a definite maybe, just a general garden variety maybe.
Nuff, time to go out and feed my chicken mutts.
FWIW, I think that the Standard as proposed is an excellent start. Start. Not finish.
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
Wondering about the personality of bantam wyandottes...- Started by Omelette-in-progress
- Replies: 0
-
What is this poop indicating? Please help
- Started by Magsy
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
I'm Probably Gonna Need My Hand Held Quail Hatch-A-Long- Started by Sefirothe
- Replies: 108
-
BYC's 52-week Photography Challenge. Week 1: (Jan 5-11, 2026). Theme: SUNSET- Started by azurbanclucker
- Replies: 101
-
Open Contest Cutest Couples Photo Contest—Poultry Edition- Started by Lacy Duckwing
- Replies: 84
-
BYC's 52-week Photography Challenge. Week 2: (Jan 12-18, 2026). Theme: "Flock Star!
- Started by Lacy Duckwing
- Replies: 64
-
