There are shows, and then there are shows...

[CityChicker]

This has been an interesting thread. The fact is- There is a million and one reasons why a bird gets a "win" and doesn't deserve it and there are a million and one reasons why a bird doesn't get a "win" and really did deserve it. Showing is subjective. Quality is subjective. Judges are not perfect. Some varieties are not well represented. Some are. Some classes are stacked. Some aren't. And on and on and on....

We all have our own personal "pet peeves". Judges sometimes get a bad rap as well. It would be virtually impossible for *any* judge to be familiar enough with all breeds and varieties to judge them adequately. Impossible. They do their best and most do a pretty darn good job of it. A "win" in a class of 100 could be as invalid as in a class of 3 if 98 out of the 100 birds all are shown by the same person. Anyone that has shown *knows* this happens. I'm sorry, but it is a big pet peeve of mine. I will preface this with the fact that I don't show birds anymore and haven't been to a show for a few years, *however*, when I did show, I cannot tell you the number of times a single breeder would have 50 birds (maybe a little exaggeration, lol) entered in one variety and the birds would range in quality from pitiful, ludicrous examples of the variety to fairly decent birds. Is a win in that case "valid" or did the person simply pack up the farm and head to the show on a wing and a prayer for a good showing?

Anyway, we could all go on and on with this. There are so many reasons why one placing would have more or less credibility than another. If someone is looking to buy "show quality", it is up to that person to educate themselves about the breed/variety and not just expect that same random breeder is going to hand them a "show quality" bird on a silver platter for $5.

 

[Professional]

Quote:
I couldn't agree with you more, but you are a conscience breeder that takes great pride not only in your birds but you good name

This is a bit off topic but what are your thoughts on the term "show quality"? I'd love your feelings on this over used word......

Shari

Oh gosh, that's one of those terms that is SO overused at this point that it's almost devoid of meaning. It ties back into this thread, as there are shows, and then there are shows, you know? Personally, I don't feel a bird can be considered "show quality" until it has reached a certain level of maturity so that it can be evaluated. I think the idea of "show quality chicks" is worthless. There's no guarantee that any chick will mature to be a show quality bird. You can purchase chicks or hatching eggs from show quality parents, certainly. But no chick or hatching egg can be considered show quality, IMO. And there's no guarantee that two SQ birds will throw all SQ offspring, very unlikely in fact. There are always going to be some birds that have to be culled, that's the nature of the beast.

So basically, I feel it's one of those terms that gets slung around a lot, and one has to do one's homework before accepting that a SQ bird really is SQ. If I'm considering buying birds from someone, I want to see pictures. If they're young birds, I want to see the parents. I also like to see show results from breeders (which reminds me I need to update our website, heh heh), and I want to see rather consistent placements. Of course we all have our off days/weeks/months when showing, but someone who places regularly and has done so for a while is likely someone who can claim SQ birds. And I'm not talking county fairs here, I'm talking sanctioned APA/ABA shows. Wins from a county fair can't be considered for SQ in my book, unless the birds in question also win at a sanctioned show, ideally more than once. But that's just me, and I'm picky...

Just how I see things.

Bravo! You may be picky, but it's not just you, it's the way it IS, period. Anyone with any sense or any degree of sophistication can see that. Many who do not, do not. Now, I also get a kick out of the related term "pet quality" when referring to a chicken, taken obviously from the only other species which most people have any experience with for reference, their pet dogs and cats. Show cull dogs and cats can of course, and do often make wonderful pets. A few non-show quality dogs and cats also do make good breeder quality animals for the purpose of the continued improvement of the breed. Where chickens are concerned, and other livestock, there is no legitimate "pet quality" designation. It's show quality, breeder quality, commercial or production, or else culls. That's not to say that one cannot keep a chicken as "pet". Heck, you can do that with a Brahma bull or a rattlesnake, if that's the term that you wish to use to describe the animal you keep, but there is no widespread demand for show or production culls for use strictly as pets, as there are with dogs or cats. Many people, for lack of any other term at their disposal to describe these culls just assume that the lack of breeder or show quality by default makes a bird a "pet" quality. I worry that this association of livestock with pets eventually will have negative repercussions for livestock keepers, when the terms become interchangeable between species. Next thing you know, animal control authorities, who often have little or no knowledge of animals other than dogs or cats, (if even that) will be requiring chickens to be kept in heated facilities, and pampered like so many other "pets", if those among us continue to blur the line between pet animals and livestock animals.

 

[Katy]

Quote:
Those of us who consider our chickens as livestock are already in the minority here.

 

[Professional]

Those of us who consider our chickens as livestock are already in the minority here.

I know. I think it's sad.​

 

[Professional]

Quote:
All true. You hit on the best term, credibility.

 

[usschicago1]

I agree 100%

 

[CityChicker]

Quote:
I know. I think it's sad.

I 100%, completely, totally agree. Well, I guess I "recognize" that we are in the minority, more than I necessarily think it is sad per se. If someone wants to think of a chicken as a pet, I suppose that is totally up to them. Truth be told, I have some chickens and ducks that are tame and are treated perhaps a *little* better than some of the others, but I am never going to see them on the level of one of my dogs. It just isn't going to happen. I was raised on a farm and we were taught very early on in life that there are pets and there is livestock. We always treated the livestock well and took proper care of them, but I am not going to have them living in the house with me, sleeping in my bedroom in a diaper. Not likely to happen, unless I did purely as an experiment. To each their own I guess. The animals should all be treated respectively and taken care of properly, but not treating them like children is not neglect.

 

[Chris09]

Katy: Those of us who consider our chickens as livestock are already in the minority here

Sad to say this is very true.

Come on people. Chickens are a form of poultry and poultry are a form of livestock..
At my house chickens can do 1 of 3 things or all 3 to earn there keep. There either produce eggs, meat or bred for poultry shows...

Chris​

 

[Professional]

Quote:
I know. I think it's sad.

I 100%, completely, totally agree. Well, I guess I "recognize" that we are in the minority, more than I necessarily think it is sad per se. If someone wants to think of a chicken as a pet, I suppose that is totally up to them. Truth be told, I have some chickens and ducks that are tame and are treated perhaps a *little* better than some of the others, but I am never going to see them on the level of one of my dogs. It just isn't going to happen. I was raised on a farm and we were taught very early on in life that there are pets and there is livestock. We always treated the livestock well and took proper care of them, but I am not going to have them living in the house with me, sleeping in my bedroom in a diaper. Not likely to happen, unless I did purely as an experiment. To each their own I guess. The animals should all be treated respectively and taken care of properly, but not treating them like children is not neglect.

AMEN!

I also believe that those with strictly a pet mentality miss out on a lot of opportunities to increase their knowledge about animal behavior, among other things. Instead of laughing at all of the "kooky" things that Fluffy and Henrietta do, just sit and observe, and wonder why they do it, and how it helps them to survive, communicate, reproduce, whatever. But now I'm preaching to the choir....

 

[fancbrd4me02]

None of you treat your animals like livestock, either. What I mean is, you breed and show them, but for what reasons? There is no question that the accomplishments, accolades and awards recieved for raising and showing poultry are fulfilling emotional needs of the breeders/fanciers. There's really not as much difference between a person keeping a chicken for the emotional needs of wanting a pet or the emotional needs of accomplishment, superiority, ego, and noteritety. Just look at some of the comments here so far. I have seem obvious jealousy, people "ranking" each other, ego stroking, and reciprocal appreciation of said ego stroking, and petty contempt for individuals just starting out in showmanship and breeding. Those are not the comments of individuals who are not recieving emotional benefits from thier animals. You may think people keeping pet chickens are sad, but I think it is sad how unaware many of you are of how emotionally intwined you are with your poultry and how much emotional payoff you recieve from showing and raising them.