Sumatra Thread!

[championsumatra]

Quote: you are not the only one getting advice from old time breeders. and if you think that breeding small is correct them that is not correct information. and don't be going around telling new people who don't know a thing about correct conformation is to breed sumatras game like or pheasant like that is way off...

 

[scottcaddy]

Quote:

you are not the only one getting advice from old time breeders. and if you think that breeding small is correct them that is not correct information. and don't be going around telling new people who don't know a thing about correct conformation is to breed sumatras game like or pheasant like that is way off...

Champion, Are you even talking about the quoted post?

Scott

 

[ramirezframing]

Quote:
First off, I have never said that I think breeding small is right. As I said there is a differnce in bantam size and large fowl size. Just as there is in being too big for the breed. Second, I have not told ANYONE how to breed their birds, you do that for everyone. Just because I like the more stream line look of some oppsed to the ones that look like a tank, does not mean I tell people to breed for the stream line look. I don't know why you are saying that I tell people to breed wrong when you were the one saying that Doug Ackers said to breed for bigger weights (when he infact did not mention the word weight in his whole post). You were the one a few pages back going on about your birds being SOP when they are not, from what you have said yourself. So please look at how you breed before you go telling people how to breed their birds!

 

[flyingmonkeypoop]

This thread almost makes me give up hope for the human race. We will continue to breed our sumatras to the standard and let the birds speak for themselves when show time comes. I know what is right and I know what is wrong when it comes to a quality sumatra and that's all that matters.

 

[ST3PH3N]

I feel I may have started a sort of misunderstanding when I posted that I thought sumatras should be "pheasant like" and personally breed toward those characteristics. My thoughts are that although the SOP does not use the word "pheasant", it is describing the bird choosing terms that also describe a pheasant's appearance. eg "fowl of graceful form and distinct carriage"

These fowl living wild in Sumatra would live very much like wild jungle pheasants do. Natural selection favored dark shiny plumage that blends into the deep forest shadows, and birds needed large eyes to see optimally in the dappled light. The birds would have run into dense bamboo thickets to escape predators weaving easily between the bamboo culms because of their "moderately long, firm, muscular, tapering body and compact stern". Because of human encroachment over a long period of time and the inevitable contact with domestic fowl possible crossbreeding occurred with the offspring raised wild and numerous colours developed.

When I go outside in the pouring rain and see my sumatras running through the garden enjoying themselves I am reminded that these are rainforest birds! They are not as domesticated as many breeds that were shaped by the desire or whim of the person breeding them, these birds were shaped by their environment. They can hatch and raise their own young, even still in feral settings. We should always let our sumatras hatch and raise their on broods as much as we can so we don't breed that out of them by accident because we only care about what they look like and forget who they are. And this brings me to the standard of perfection.

First of all, the whole reason for having the standard is to keep the birds the way they were when admitted to preserve the breed, end of story. So we have been given the physical description of the birds and we should use it to choose which birds to breed. But when I read the standard, I see a description of a wild bird. I see more then a "you win" or a "DQ" at a show, I see someone in the past trying to covey to us in the future with a mere physical description, the essence of the birds that we are now doing our best to preserve, the sumatra.

 

[Infnityhrt]

you are not the only one getting advice from old time breeders. and if you think that breeding small is correct them that is not correct information. and don't be going around telling new people who don't know a thing about correct conformation is to breed sumatras game like or pheasant like that is way off...

No one has said to breed them small that I have read, I have mentioned to breed to proper weight. Personally our birds have never been mistaken for bantams, most of ours have a little longer leg than the newer ones people are showing so they are taller, but less weight and body mass than what I have seen of the new ones, to me, they are more graceful and pheasant like alert. that is true, but I don't tell people how to breed their birds, I say how I have bred them, or what I like to see in them, or quote what the standard says about the birds. The standard does say of graceful form so that is interpretation, something we disagree with on what is graceful. but again, interpretation, so every breeder breeding to the standard will have to figure out for themselves. I would think that if they were originally used for fighting and living more like a wild bird on the island...... I don't picture a heavy fat bird, but if you do thats ok, its your interpretation. So each individual has to figure it out, and its better to have more than one opinion when breeding your own, take what works for you

 

[Infnityhrt]

I feel I may have started a sort of misunderstanding when I posted that I thought sumatras should be "pheasant like" and personally breed toward those characteristics. My thoughts are that although the SOP does not use the word "pheasant", it is describing the bird choosing terms that also describe a pheasant's appearance. eg "fowl of graceful form and distinct carriage"

These fowl living wild in Sumatra would live very much like wild jungle pheasants do. Natural selection favored dark shiny plumage that blends into the deep forest shadows, and birds needed large eyes to see optimally in the dappled light. The birds would have run into dense bamboo thickets to escape predators weaving easily between the bamboo culms because of their "moderately long, firm, muscular, tapering body and compact stern". Because of human encroachment over a long period of time and the inevitable contact with domestic fowl possible crossbreeding occurred with the offspring raised wild and numerous colours developed.

When I go outside in the pouring rain and see my sumatras running through the garden enjoying themselves I am reminded that these are rainforest birds! They are not as domesticated as many breeds that were shaped by the desire or whim of the person breeding them, these birds were shaped by their environment. They can hatch and raise their own young, even still in feral settings. We should always let our sumatras hatch and raise their on broods as much as we can so we don't breed that out of them by accident because we only care about what they look like and forget who they are. And this brings me to the standard of perfection.

First of all, the whole reason for having the standard is to keep the birds the way they were when admitted to preserve the breed, end of story. So we have been given the physical description of the birds and we should use it to choose which birds to breed. But when I read the standard, I see a description of a wild bird. I see more then a "you win" or a "DQ" at a show, I see someone in the past trying to covey to us in the future with a mere physical description, the essence of the birds that we are now doing our best to preserve, the sumatra.

AMEN!

 

[raph]

would you get DQ if you had a huge LF Sumatra, at the right weights?

And a week till one clutch should hatch, but I wont see them as I'm going to England tomorrow.

What have you guys been up to recently?

 

[Coop Scoop Boogie]

you are not the only one getting advice from old time breeders. and if you think that breeding small is correct them that is not correct information. and don't be going around telling new people who don't know a thing about correct conformation is to breed sumatras game like or pheasant like that is way off...

I did not see where they said to breed for smaller birds nor where they
gave out incorrect information. I did not see them telling folks how
they should breed their birds. Everyone has their own ideas of how
sumatras should look and since the standard wording on the body of
the bird is stated in a way that it could be interpreted in different ways,
breeders will present their idea of what it meant at the shows and each
bird will be different...........otherwise all birds would just be exact copies
of one another. Getting advice from different breeders of all size operations ,
big or small, is a good thing but it is up to each person to decide what
information is good for them and their birds and use the information
to help themselves. Maybe you should listen to your own advice here
and " don't be going around telling new people who don't know a thing
about correct conformation is to breed sumatras"

 

[ramirezframing]

I feel I may have started a sort of misunderstanding when I posted that I thought sumatras should be "pheasant like" and personally breed toward those characteristics. My thoughts are that although the SOP does not use the word "pheasant", it is describing the bird choosing terms that also describe a pheasant's appearance. eg "fowl of graceful form and distinct carriage"

These fowl living wild in Sumatra would live very much like wild jungle pheasants do. Natural selection favored dark shiny plumage that blends into the deep forest shadows, and birds needed large eyes to see optimally in the dappled light. The birds would have run into dense bamboo thickets to escape predators weaving easily between the bamboo culms because of their "moderately long, firm, muscular, tapering body and compact stern". Because of human encroachment over a long period of time and the inevitable contact with domestic fowl possible crossbreeding occurred with the offspring raised wild and numerous colours developed.

When I go outside in the pouring rain and see my sumatras running through the garden enjoying themselves I am reminded that these are rainforest birds! They are not as domesticated as many breeds that were shaped by the desire or whim of the person breeding them, these birds were shaped by their environment. They can hatch and raise their own young, even still in feral settings. We should always let our sumatras hatch and raise their on broods as much as we can so we don't breed that out of them by accident because we only care about what they look like and forget who they are. And this brings me to the standard of perfection.

First of all, the whole reason for having the standard is to keep the birds the way they were when admitted to preserve the breed, end of story. So we have been given the physical description of the birds and we should use it to choose which birds to breed. But when I read the standard, I see a description of a wild bird. I see more then a "you win" or a "DQ" at a show, I see someone in the past trying to covey to us in the future with a mere physical description, the essence of the birds that we are now doing our best to preserve, the sumatra.

Unfortunately, this is what this thread has come to in the last year. It's nothing you did. If you read back through the thread, you will see what I mean. Yesterday was the day that I had had enough of people getting jumped on for nothing, I am sorry that you feel it's your fault, it really isn't. I agree with you. I can look at a stream line or "pheasant like" sumatra and see were it could be wild, the more tank like ones I just can't. I don't know if it's the body that looks like it doesn't quite fit altogether or the overly done tail on some of them that kills the whole "wild bird" for me. I do hope you keep posting here.