Are you saying in general lighter feathers are looser, and darker feathers are tighter, or just in Rhode Island Reds? Rhode Island Reds have never been intended to be a hardfeathered breed like a Malay, Cornish, or Modern Game. Why change the color of the bird because people have a different preference? Today, there is more black than was originally intended and desired, so that fine line has been crossed.
Why does the Standard have to change based on what people choose to breed at a given time? People who breed to the standard say they are trying to preserve the breed, but if people keeping changing the Standard, that is not preserving anything. Worst of all, it is changing just for aesthetics, not for something worthwhile like production. Actually, just about everything on a Rhode Island Red has changed, not just the comb and tail. Maybe since the last standard revision.
The Dominique is in a different position. Breeders are wanting to return that breed back to what it was, and what it was intended to be. It is sad to me that people want to turn a once great breed, the Rhode Island Red into something it was never intended, and not even trying to improve production, so what is the point?
Rhode Island Reds are not hard feathered, they are not soft feathered, they are a medium feathered fowl... with both Malay (hard) and Asiatic (soft) heritage, as well as Leghorn. Is it true that many production reds have feathers that are soft? Yes. Is this genetic? Yes. Is it color related? Perhaps. Is it an absolute truth that lighter colored fowl have harder feathers? No. Gamefowl and soft feathered breeds come in both dark and light colors.
Has the feather type been changed over time? Not that I know of? The breed was never intended (as you said) to be hard feathered... and it is not hard-feathered! The breed was never intended to be soft feathered, and it is not soft feathered.
Has the color changed over time? Yes, and it does in many color varieties. Saying that the first Reds were lighter in color isn't shocking. It takes a long time to get a unified type and coloration when making a breed, and the standard can change color.
People can bred and create whatever they want. When they submit their birds to be recognized by the American Poultry Association, they give up a lot of their power. They do not create the standard, they also don't have the right to pick the bred they created's name... The APA takes that right.
Examples:
1) APA decided Brahmas with vulture hawks have a dq. In Europe and Asia, Brahmas have vulture hawks.
2) APA decided that Marans would have feathered legs, instead of non-feathered legs. Both varieties exists, they just picked what they wanted.
3) The Partridge Chantecler was submitted as a Partridge Albertain... the APA decided that they would follow the same standard and be recognized as another variety of Chantecler instead.
4) APA decided they like a different shade of Partridge vs. what is common in Europe.
Is this right or wrong? Does it matter? The APA creates a standard to unify breeders. Breeders decide what they are going to do.
The APA was created for exhibitors and breeders alike. In a show, birds are judged by size, feather condition, body type and color. This doesn't mean that heritage breeders should forget a breeds original purpose.
What is the point if you are not trying to improve production? Not only are we trying to improve our birds, we are trying to keep these birds Dual-Purpose, which is what the standard say's they were created for. This means we try to keep weight proper, and egg production steady. We aren't looking to turn them into egg machines, or cause them to weigh more. Many of us celebrate a broody hen, it makes them very homestead friendly. Some of us like slower growing birds, I personally think it gives the meat better flavor and texture, and enjoy the quality of my birds meat.
Production Reds exist. If you want to raise them, go for it. If you want to raise the old heritage variety, go for it. Is the heritage variety different than what it was intended? Perhaps? Is that sad? I don't feel sad when I look at my birds.
