APA Reviewing Recognition process for New Breeds or Varieties...

There is a discussion on the APA Facebook group about changes the APA is thinking about making to the Admissions process for New Breeds or Varieties.

The APA is thinking about making a new requirement that all the breeders (5 minimum) must have been members to the APA for 5 years before they can submit the request to APA on starting the Admission Process. The (min 5) breeder would then be need to raise the breed/variety for 5 years (which was required previous).

The APA is also think of increasing the required number of birds shown in the Qualifying Meet from 50 to 100 birds. Previously the each of the breeders are required to show an equal number of each sex and age of birds. So this will now mean that if the minimum 5 breeders were to meet all other requirements, they would need to show 20 birds each that pass with out disqualifications and conform to the standard uniformly enough.

What are your thoughts on these potential changes that the APA is looking at implementing?

That does sound like they are making it much more difficult to get new breeds/varieties recognized.

JMO, I don't think it's a bad thing. I do think one should be a member of the APA in order to submit a breed or variety for recognition. Being a member of the organization for a minimum of 5 years is not a bad idea. I do think though, if a breeder joins and is working with a breed/variety, then after their 5 years probation, they should be able to submit their work for recognition without having to go another 5 years before doing so.

Just to throw out some ideas:
Along with their affidavit, proof can be their APA show record. Make it that within that 5 years, the breeder has shown their work by entering in X-number of shows each year. Proof can be pictures taken at a show with their show card. Maybe even the prosiding APA judge at the show can intital or sign something to say they judged that breeder's bird.

I read the FB discussion. I can see why they feel their is a need to update requirments. I feel it's taking into consideration what I am calling the "GreenFire Effect" which is the "Flavour of the Moment" poultry we are seeing more of now. One way it's great that people are discovering new breeds & varities of poultry. However, not all of them merit recongition to the APA. People jump on the bandwagon and maybe toy with trying to raise what's hot in poultry and then dropping it later when the novelty wears off. I see it with Tolbunt Polish. For every 1 breeder really working to develope the standard for this variety, I read way too many posts from people saying they are breeding X-to-Tolbunt to get Blue Tolbunts, Mottled Tolbunts, Neon Tolbunts [sarcasm], totally forgetting that Tolbunt is NOT A BREED but a VARIETY of Polish. Just because you get a pretty color putting birds together, doesn't mean you have a breed or variety that should be recoginized by the APA.

Now I will kick back with the popcorn and wait for the first post that gets up on the "Let's bash the SOP" soapbox as these discussions seem to bring.

Hope you will Share the Popcorn as I am going to sit with you this should get interesting and I loved the "Greenfire effect" "Flavour of the Moment"
Should I bring the Butter and Salt

Very good post Toybarons. Personally I agree that it is time for the APA to make some changes to how new breeds are recognized and I think at the very least said breeders should be previous members of the APA. I think this will improve the integrity of the process. Now of course as your district director for the APA I have to vote with what the general feeling of the members in this district, so a very good topic KRL, which I will be watching.

Heather

I don't think they should have to be a member, though the idea of showing poultry was started by gentlemen that had a lot of time and money across the pond. Not saying the APA is bad per say - but it has not done any good for farmers - different topic though.

Anyway's it can't help and it well only hinder the ability of the APA to grow as a whole - I am against the SOP personally IMO it makes people for get that chickens are livestock.

But one thing that Toybarons said that really ticks me off is this

Toybarons wrote: However, not all of them merit recognition to the APA

Who are you to say that not all merit recognition because they certainly had merit in other country's to add them to the standard. Some one had to find merit to add the Rhode Island red or Barred rock to the Brit's SOP and we had to find merit to add the Sussex and other English class like the Australorp to our SOP. Even though I am against SOP's in almost any form of livestock every new breed must show merit or they would not be new - they must show merit to some one so if they want to have it accepted into the SOP let them.

Mind you some are landfowl types that would not be able to be standardized with out work but landfowl races represent an idea that is much too great to loose. Really breeding a landrace fowl is one of the toughest things a hobbyist can do.

If it ain't broke don't fix it! And theres nothing shown that the current system is broke is their?

I had a look at the APA facebook discussion and it's going off in all sorts of directions like they always do. So I'm not going to bother trying to comment there and it is nice to see it open for discussion here.
I do agree the process should be stringent enough to deter those who are in one day and out the next. There needs to be a show of committment and dedication to ensure breeders will do the new variety justice and interest will carry on for the long term.

But my concern is for those who have been following the current set of rules, and now suddenly everything changes midstream. We know there are a group of dedicated breeders who have been working diligently towards getting the Buff Chantecler admitted...encouraging other breeders, contacting the APA, entering the birds in shows, promoting them and improving them. But if all those breeders are not currently APA members, it would mean starting all over again at year 0.

It would be my hope in cases like this that the APA would have a sort of grandfather clause to give recognition to the years that have been invested already. If new regulations are approved, maybe they could be brought in more gradually over a period of time.

Guess I better go sign up as an APA member in case I want to do something crazy in about five years ...

I have shown poultry for over 20 years, but neglected to become a member of the APA until 2 years ago.  I realized the inportance of my annual dues while watching the junior showmanship class at the Minnesota State Poultry Show.  There had to be 35 kids lined up waiting for their turn to show off their hard work, and be rewarded for their acomplishments.  Without the support of the fanciers, events like that would never be possible.
The APA is The governing body for purebred exhibition poultry in North America.  I do not agreee with everything, but without it, the number of poultry keepers in North America would be a fraction of what it is today.  Without the SOP, the genetic divesity we enjoy, would have been lost years ago.
That being said,  the APA has a responsibility to its members to ensure a breed has the sustainability to remain productive for years to come.  Without genetic diversity, a breed is easily destroyed by many different problems that may not be apparent until it is too late.  I believe the increase in the minimum requirements are only beneficial for everyone.  
Imagine you went to a poultry event and saw a breed that you had never seen before, and it blew you away.  You purchase 2 fine specimines, a perfectly matched pair, take them home, and dream of the day you hatch your first chick.  Little did you know the birds are so inbred the hen will only lay 2 or 3 eggs in a life time.  The male is not fertile, so none of the eggs have a chance of hatching, and by the second year you have lost both of them because they have such a weak immune system.  
Genetic diversity ensures this does not happen, by broadening the gene pool, and increasing the base in which to build the foundation the breed will need to sustain its self for years to come. It also ensures the new comer to poultry is not discouraged by such events.
I have personally seen several varieties fall in popularity and never be seen again, simply because too few people had them only long enough to get them recognized, and then disregarded them and moved on to the next shiney penney they found.  I wonder if anyone has seen a Golden Leghorn, a Lamona, RedCap, Birchen Rosecomb?  The list goes on and on.  
There is a lot of time and effort put into a new variety/breed.  Is that time and mone well represented, or could it be used to grow the hobby, provide more resources for its membesrs, even give more rewards to the juniors in the hobby.
Unfortunately, once the new is gone from many of these new varieties, the flocks will disapear also.  
Please share your opinions and keep this thread going!

Well Said Bryan

 

appway wrote: Well Said Bryan

  

call ducks wrote:
But one thing that Toybarons said that really ticks me off is this

Toybarons wrote: However, not all of them merit recognition to the APA

 

Who are you to say that not all merit recognition because they certainly had merit in other country's to add them to the standard. Some one had to find merit to add the Rhode Island red or Barred rock to the Brit's SOP and we had to find merit to add the Sussex and other English class like the Australorp to our SOP.  Even though I am against SOP's in almost any form of livestock every new breed must show merit or they would not be new - they must show merit to some one so if they want to have it accepted into the SOP let them.

Mind you some are landfowl types that would not be able to be standardized with out work but landfowl races represent an idea that is much too great to loose. Really breeding a landrace fowl is one of the toughest things a hobbyist can do.

If it ain't broke don't fix it! And theres nothing shown that the current system is broke is their?  

I think you sort of answered my point about merit.

All poultry is well & good. Barnies. Cross Breeds. Pure Breeds. They all lay eggs, some better than others. Some are good at meat. Best do both. They come little and big. They each have merit.

However, we are talking specifically about an organization. The fact the APA and its SOP have been around for nearly 150 years must mean they know a little something about poultry. Do they know everything? Are they always right? No. Certainly breeding an exhibition quality bird for its purpose, to represent a breed and or variety in a show may not be the qualities one would want, say if all that is needed is a bird for broiler production or as a pet that lays eggs.

Remember, we are talking about a North American organization. They are not representing what breeds & varities of poultry are standard in other countries. They don't pretend to. Likewise, The British Standards or Perfection does the exact same thing the APA does, as does other countries SOP. While I get your point as saying why one SOP recognizes something another does not, really isn't the point of this conversation. JMO.

toybarons wrote:

All poultry is well & good. Barnies. Cross Breeds. Pure Breeds. They all lay eggs, some better than others. Some are good at meat. Best do both. They come little and big. They each have merit.

What do you mean by Barnies?

APA and their SOP are only for Phenotype just a small part of the breeder job and I have never had a buyer asking if I was a APA member (i am not) even if my birds are very expensive...
I believe that buying birds from a breeder with records is the way to go for breeding.
And backyard keeper only need birds that give them pleasures. SOP in that case is useless.

I think it's fair to say I understand the intent but I disagree with aspects of how the APA is going about this. And I think perhaps this is just a visual symptom of a deeper concern I have with the APA.

Let me start by saying I am an fairly new APA member (for 3 years now I think). I own an SOP and reference it fairly often. I do respect the APA and it's long history in North America. And I see value in having breeds and varieties recognized by the APA. I am also pretty new to poultry, breeding poultry, showing poultry. I have a lot to learn but I do want to learn.

I am working with others (also all relatively new to breeding poultry, most not current members of the APA) and we are in the process (paperwork to the government has been submitted) of establishing a formal society for a new breed that we hoped to eventually have recognized by the APA. In general we are trying our best to set ourselves up in a way that will allow the APA to take us seriously.

As we quietly try to set up our breed society we have been working on a draft SOP, writting a breed history, develop a logo that will meet APA requirements (easy, round) and gather details on the process for APA recognition of new breeds and varieties as it is not spelled out with all details in the published SOP.

In my experience so far information is difficult to get from the the APA and correspondence to them so far has gone unanswered. I personally have also had a bad experience with an APA judge at a show making it clear he really wanting to have anything to do with my unrecognized breed. I do realize it is not fair to paint the APA with a broad brush as a result of one or two negative experience but it was very discouraging.

The reasons the APA wants to change the rules for recognition of new breeds and varieties to make it a longer process with a higher level of commitment shown to the APA and larger numbers of birds required for the qualifying meet do make sense to me. I believe I understand the behaviors and level of commitment that they hope to garner as a result of these changes. By requiring the breeders to be APA members for 5 years prior to anything else it would more or less prevents any groups that do not have close ties to the APA already from trying unless they are very patient and dedicated and willing to commit a decade to the process. By requiring larger numbers at the qualifying meet it should help ensure that the breed has sufficient depth to it so that it will be around for years to come. But it also means that either more breeders or bigger breeders must be very committed as each must be a 10 year APA member with 5 years experience with pretty large numbers of the breed.

As a person pretty new to all this who is trying, with a group of other pretty dedicated folks, to work with the current system I have to say the APA has already made me and my chosen breed feel pretty unworthy and unwelcome and we have not even really gotten started yet. I am sad to say if these new proposed changes are layered on top of the existing problems it may make the process so daunting that peoplewhist give up. I am not sure how many breeds and varieties will survive this ordeal and become recognized by the APA going forward if these changes are made. Is that also the intent, to make it almost impossible for new breeds and varieties to be added?

To summarize what I am trying to say, in my opinion, the APA really needs to take a hard look at what results they are trying to achieve and whether these changes will provide those results. If we want membership in the APA to grow, if we want new people to become poultry enthusiasts and to attend shows and ultimately help keep the APA alive then we need to meet people in the middle. It is easy to say "well just breed and show a breed and variety already recognized by the APA" but there are people out there that aren't interested in that. If the APA wants to make the process of having a new breed recognized more stringent and take longer than they need to provide more help and support to people for those years along the way. Make it fun, make people feel welcome, take the time to mentor, give new people the benefit of the doubt. Some people will disappoint of course but hopefully some will stick with it. With no change to the attitude and approach plus a change to the rules I unfortunately believe the result will be to further reduce and narrow the number or people interested in involvement in poultry through the APA. I hope that is not the intent.

Specific to the changes proposed I would suggest softening the changes. Instead of 5 years membership perhaps 2 years? Instead of 100 birds perhaps 75? And some consideration and perhaps tempering of the disappointment this will cause to people who have taken the time to understand the current rules and are already working towards having a new breed or variety recognized should also be given.

Piet wrote:

toybarons wrote:

All poultry is well & good. Barnies. Cross Breeds. Pure Breeds. They all lay eggs, some better than others. Some are good at meat. Best do both. They come little and big. They each have merit.

What do you mean by Barnies?

Mutts =)

poplar girl wrote:I think it's fair to say I understand the intent but I disagree with aspects of how the APA is going about this. And I think perhaps this is just a visual symptom of a deeper concern I have with the APA.

Let me start by saying I am an fairly new APA member (for 3 years now I think). I own an SOP and reference it fairly often. I do respect the APA and it's long history in North America. And I see value in having breeds and varieties recognized by the APA. I am also pretty new to poultry, breeding poultry, showing poultry. I have a lot to learn but I do want to learn.

I am working with others (also all relatively new to breeding poultry, most not current members of the APA) and we are in the process (paperwork to the government has been submitted) of establishing a formal society for a new breed that we hoped to eventually have recognized by the APA. In general we are trying our best to set ourselves up in a way that will allow the APA to take us seriously.

As we quietly try to set up our breed society we have been working on a draft SOP, writting a breed history, develop a logo that will meet APA requirements (easy, round) and gather details on the process for APA recognition of new breeds and varieties as it is not spelled out with all details in the published SOP.

In my experience so far information is difficult to get from the the APA and correspondence to them so far has gone unanswered. I personally have also had a bad experience with an APA judge at a show making it clear he really wanting to have anything to do with my unrecognized breed. I do realize it is not fair to paint the APA with a broad brush as a result of one or two negative experience but it was very discouraging.

The reasons the APA wants to change the rules for recognition of new breeds and varieties to make it a longer process with a higher level of commitment shown to the APA and larger numbers of birds required for the qualifying meet do make sense to me. I believe I understand the behaviors and level of commitment that they hope to garner as a result of these changes. By requiring the breeders to be APA members for 5 years prior to anything else it would more or less prevents any groups that do not have close ties to the APA already from trying unless they are very patient and dedicated and willing to commit a decade to the process. By requiring larger numbers at the qualifying meet it should help ensure that the breed has sufficient depth to it so that it will be around for years to come. But it also means that either more breeders or bigger breeders must be very committed as each must be a 10 year APA member with 5 years experience with pretty large numbers of the breed.

As a person pretty new to all this who is trying, with a group of other pretty dedicated folks, to work with the current system I have to say the APA has already made me and my chosen breed feel pretty unworthy and unwelcome and we have not even really gotten started yet. I am sad to say if these new proposed changes are layered on top of the existing problems it may make the process so daunting that peoplewhist give up. I am not sure how many breeds and varieties will survive this ordeal and become recognized by the APA going forward if these changes are made. Is that also the intent, to make it almost impossible for new breeds and varieties to be added?

To summarize what I am trying to say, in my opinion, the APA really needs to take a hard look at what results they are trying to achieve and whether these changes will provide those results. If we want membership in the APA to grow, if we want new people to become poultry enthusiasts and to attend shows and ultimately help keep the APA alive then we need to meet people in the middle. It is easy to say "well just breed and show a breed and variety already recognized by the APA" but there are people out there that aren't interested in that. If the APA wants to make the process of having a new breed recognized more stringent and take longer than they need to provide more help and support to people for those years along the way. Make it fun, make people feel welcome, take the time to mentor, give new people the benefit of the doubt. Some people will disappoint of course but hopefully some will stick with it. With no change to the attitude and approach plus a change to the rules I unfortunately believe the result will be to further reduce and narrow the number or people interested in involvement in poultry through the APA. I hope that is not the intent.

Specific to the changes proposed I would suggest softening the changes. Instead of 5 years membership perhaps 2 years? Instead of 100 birds perhaps 75? And some consideration and perhaps tempering of the disappointment this will cause to people who have taken the time to understand the current rules and are already working towards having a new breed or variety recognized should also be given.

   VERY MUCH!

Very interesting topic and good discussion.  Wow, a lot of personal feeling are coming out on this topic.  When I first started showing poultry I felt the same as many do about the harsh and tough rules to get new breeds/varieties into the APA.  As time has gone on I certainly understand why it should be hard to introduce new breeds/varieties because it is lots of work for the APA administration to document all the stuff and then not even seeing the variety at the shows in a few years.  Even in recent years varieties were accepted and soon after their acceptance the variety has never been seen again.  

Having been involved in judging and writing a report on a new proposed variety of poultry. One really appreciates the amount of work that went into writing a standard description for a breed/variety for the APA and breeders.  In order to get a new breed/variety accepted into the SOP should not be taken lightly.  Increasing the requirements to get a variety into the APA is certainly going to make it harder and will require more dedication on the submitting breeders.  I understand some of the reasoning on this.  
People who scuff at the APA and the SOP and say they don’t need it don’t really understand what it really stands for.  It is our bible that we all should adhere to if we take exhibition poultry serious and are showing our birds.  Yes, I agree that the SOP does need some small changes from time to time if the breeders insist that certain statements are incorrect and are wrong.

I believe that introducing a new variety should be made easier than introducing a new breed.  On the variety most of the work is already done, only the color and a few other items needs to be added.  If the breed already exists in the British SOP or European SOP then I think the requirement should be less than the proposed, keep it as is.  If the standard description is already written in another country for the SOP, it can be modified for the APA.  Introducing a completely new breed from scratch is a different story.  For this the process should be longer to make sure that we get it correct and the breed will stick around for a long time.  I agree that a person who wishes to introduce a new breed/variety should be members of the APA for a number of years.

I will be short but sweet.

The APA is thinking about making a new requirement that all the breeders (5 minimum) must have been members to the APA for 5 years before they can submit the request to APA on starting the Admission Process. The (min 5) breeder would then be need to raise the breed/variety for 5 years (which was required previous).


Sounds like either a way to increase club coffers...or perhaps a move to get people more involved. I hope it is not the former, but certainly agree if it is the latter.


The APA is also think of increasing the required number of birds shown in the Qualifying Meet from 50 to 100 birds. Previously the each of the breeders are required to show an equal number of each sex and age of birds. So this will now mean that if the minimum 5 breeders were to meet all other requirements, they would need to show 20 birds each that pass with out disqualifications and conform to the standard uniformly enough.


A larger number of birds may increase your gene pool and certainly goes further to prove your birds are breeding true.

toybarons wrote:

Piet wrote:

toybarons wrote:

All poultry is well & good. Barnies. Cross Breeds. Pure Breeds. They all lay eggs, some better than others. Some are good at meat. Best do both. They come little and big. They each have merit.

What do you mean by Barnies?

Mutts =)

Interesting, many Barnevelder breeders in English speaking countries call them "barnies" (short for Barnevelder) just never heard it as mutt before.

Sebas49 wrote:Very interesting topic and good discussion.  Wow, a lot of personal feeling are coming out on this topic.  When I first started showing poultry I felt the same as many do about the harsh and tough rules to get new breeds/varieties into the APA.  As time has gone on I certainly understand why it should be hard to introduce new breeds/varieties because it is lots of work for the APA administration to document all the stuff and then not even seeing the variety at the shows in a few years.  Even in recent years varieties were accepted and soon after their acceptance the variety has never been seen again.  

Having been involved in judging and writing a report on a new proposed variety of poultry. One really appreciates the amount of work that went into writing a standard description for a breed/variety for the APA and breeders.  In order to get a new breed/variety accepted into the SOP should not be taken lightly.  Increasing the requirements to get a variety into the APA is certainly going to make it harder and will require more dedication on the submitting breeders.  I understand some of the reasoning on this.  
People who scuff at the APA and the SOP and say they don’t need it don’t really understand what it really stands for.  It is our bible that we all should adhere to if we take exhibition poultry serious and are showing our birds.  Yes, I agree that the SOP does need some small changes from time to time if the breeders insist that certain statements are incorrect and are wrong.

I believe that introducing a new variety should be made easier than introducing a new breed.  On the variety most of the work is already done, only the color and a few other items needs to be added.  If the breed already exists in the British SOP or European SOP then I think the requirement should be less than the proposed, keep it as is.  If the standard description is already written in another country for the SOP, it can be modified for the APA.  Introducing a completely new breed from scratch is a different story.  For this the process should be longer to make sure that we get it correct and the breed will stick around for a long time.  I agree that a person who wishes to introduce a new breed/variety should be members of the APA for a number of years.

totally agree so x2 here on this one. Exactly what I believe it should be.
Piet

Piet wrote:

toybarons wrote:

Piet wrote:

toybarons wrote:

All poultry is well & good. Barnies. Cross Breeds. Pure Breeds. They all lay eggs, some better than others. Some are good at meat. Best do both. They come little and big. They each have merit.

What do you mean by Barnies?

Mutts =)

Interesting, many Barnevelder breeders in English speaking countries call them "barnies" (short for Barnevelder) just never heard it as mutt before.

I think TB's definition of Barnie= Barn chicken, not Barnevelder!

Poor Piet, your breed was not being dissed!   

Schipperkesue wrote:

Piet wrote:

toybarons wrote:

Piet wrote:

toybarons wrote:

All poultry is well & good. Barnies. Cross Breeds. Pure Breeds. They all lay eggs, some better than others. Some are good at meat. Best do both. They come little and big. They each have merit.

What do you mean by Barnies?

Mutts =)

Interesting, many Barnevelder breeders in English speaking countries call them "barnies" (short for Barnevelder) just never heard it as mutt before.

I think TB's definition of Barnie= Barn chicken, not Barnevelder!

Poor Piet, your breed was not being dissed!   

I get it. No Piet. I wasn't trying to disrespect Barnvelders.

It's like Sue says. A polite term for barn chickens of mixed breeds is Barnie. I tried not to say "Mutt" as I was certain I was going to offend someone if I did.

That will teach me. *lol*

I am in total agreement that introducing a new variety should not be as hard as introducing a new breed. Generally speaking in working with a new variety the type is already there for the most part but even then sometimes I wonder if you think back to the hype over the Self Blue Orpington, even with all the people who had them for a short while, in my opinion there is no way they would have qualified with out much work from breeders who were devoted to working on the type.

On the other hand the qualifying meet for the Ko-Shamo that I judged should be a play book for others. These people played by the rules and they really did have more than 7 owner breeders of this breed who indeed did breed them for 5 years. It showed too as they had 107+ birds entered all had great to outstanding type and I only DQ'ed 2 birds, 1 with a wry tail and another that was lacking the required split wing, that is a breed characteristic. They played by the rules and the quality of the birds showed this.

I do think however that in the development of either a new breed or variety with the "Intention" of having this color or breed accepted to the standard all of the 5 developers working on it should be members of the APA. I don't think that is asking too much.

I am reading all of you posts and jotting down notes for when the time comes for the board of directors to discuss any proposed changes.

Heather

[quote="call ducks"]I don't think they should have to be a member, though the idea of showing poultry was started by gentlemen that had a lot of time and money across the pond.

I agree just a game or sport Take any of the American breed APA birds and leave them free ranging for maybe 5 years (If they survive outside there cages) and nobody will probably be able to call them by there breed names reverting to ?
But probably a nice game for the one that go that way...