Quote:
Honestly I did find that to be a little too harsh, so I'm going to try to step back and not take it personally. The picture I'm referring to as sort of deformed was one in which there was very much a fold in between the bird neck and chest, like it's neck was twisted all the way back and somehow it was still able to breathe.
The American Serama is still overall a very vertical bird. Unless I'm mistaken, the standard emphasizes this. I fail to see how the American type is "horizontal".....
I'm not particularly interested in other types of chickens....but I'm also not interested in something that I find aesthetically displeasing, or personally displeasing, should it be found that the box training is part and parcel with the true hardcore Malaysian type. I also don't see anything wrong with adaptation, which is why there is now the division between the AMERICAN Serama and the MALAYSIAN Serama. To each his own.
I agree with you, Nekhebet, and I felt your post was very well-stated.
I love the look of the American serama, and I just think the Malaysian birds just get a bit too much for me at times. In some of them I do suspect that they had to have been box trained because they simply don't look natural. It doesn't mean I don't love typey seramas, because I do--I want my seramas vertical and looking like the American standard, I just prefer they not have the super squished, head at the base of the tail look. I just don't find it appealing. Doesn't mean I don't want seramas to look like seramas, I just prefer for them to look like American seramas when they're in my flock.
Nothing wrong with people preferring the Malaysian types, it's just not my cup of tea, and I know I'm not alone in feeling that way.
And I'm into OEGBs as well--I like both breeds of bird for what they are! I like my vertical seramas and my horizontal OEGBs. They're both great in their own ways!
I certainly didn't mean to offend any one particular person, certainly not either of you. But with SCNA and the American Serama as they now call them, they have historically promoted that A birds do not produce, type of Malaysian is too extreme, and that C & the old D class birds are of more value than the smaller more Malaysian birds. I had been a long standing member of the forums and SCNA for many, many years until this last year, and these ideas are promoted from the founder himself as well as many others. It is possible to have a very typey Malaysian bird without box training as they do in Malaysia. The grotesquely mutated birds you are referring to I
assume are the dragon type birds, of which there are very few of. I don't condone box training, I like a natural bird with a Malaysian or as some American promoters prefer extreme pose, but without the dragon aspect. I was just trying to reiterate that why take a good thing and change it, especially when the breed is still a landrace. IMHO opinion SCNA has flip flopped back and forth so much with what they deem ideal that it is too early from the association level to be seeking acceptance with the ABA. But that's just my opinion gathered from the years of being a member. Leave the breed for what it is, what it was brought to America for. I fought the term American when it first started because behind the scenes that some of the newer members are not aware of is much more than the eye beholds. But that's for those who want to go back in the history of SCNA and do the research themselves. Not for here. It's true, you either love them or hate them. But (as an entirely general statement to the serama keeper population) please don't try to change what they originally were, a living work of art with extreme being the focal point. Especially at this critical point with bidding for ABA acceptance. That's why I said for those who think the true Malaysian style is too extreme, perhaps a less extreme type of bantam would be more to one's liking. Or perhaps, there will soon come a time when the American Serama doesn't much resemble it's Malaysian ancestors.
Didn't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers.
