JUDGING AT AGRICULTURAL SHOWS.

Bruce Herald, Volume XVII, Issue 1801, 2 November 1886, Page 4

JUDGING AT AGRICULTURAL SHOWS.

As the season for holding the usual agricultural exhibitions approaches, the question of judging live stock is sure to crop up ', and it goes without saying that the system generally carried out at these shows does not give universal satisfaction. Whether the important duties of judging be relegated to one, two, or three men, there is invariably dissatis*- | faction felt at the results, and it is no unusual thing to hear of the " glorious uncertainties "of the show yard. In an article on the subject, some time ago, the ' Mark Lane Express ' among other remarks said :— " The whole thing lies in a nutshell. There should be a scale of points drawn up for judging all breeds of domesticated animals. The judges should work to such programme ; and the awards should be declared by fche stewards after reckoning up the | judges' books. The world should know ( why any particular animal was placed first and champion at one meeting and not noticed at another, or why any other anomalous decision had been arrived at. We can see no better way out of the difficulty. The time has evidently come for an entire change in our show system, and the more thorough it is made the more likely it will be give general satisfaction. If a scale of points had to be worked to, and the statement published, the result would be intelligible, whether one judge or three were employed, and the greater number of judges the greater would be the interest in the result. As matters stand now, either one, two, or three judges are set to work. If one man has the work to do, the result is simply a reflection of his own judgment, without reasons given for it. If two men are employed, the result is often based on a mere give-and-take policy. If three judges enter the ring, one of them continually stauds to be outvoted. The system of appointing two judges would be by far the best of all existing arrangements if umpires were appointed beforehand, and called in every time there was a difference of opinion between the judges. As it is, one man gives in to the other on one occasion, and expects the other to give in to him when the next disagreement occurs. There is neither justice nor common sense in this. Each of the judges has a right to maintain his own opinion, and it is only justice to the exhibitors that he should do so. Let the umpire decide, and take the responsibility. Two really good men will not call an umpire very often ; but they should call every time he is wanted, however often, and never give or take in respect of any point which they consider to be of material importance." It is strange that ere this, judging by points, so often recommended, has not been generally adopted. Is it because of some difficulty iu settling what the points shall be ? or is it because of the unpleasantess of getting out of the old ruts, and making a new departvire 1 — "Agricola," in 'Auckland Weekly News."