THE DUNEDIN BIRD SPECIALIST CLUB

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22365, 12 September 1934, Page 5

THE DUNEDIN BIRD SPECIALIST CLUB

TO THE EDITOR Sib, —May I crave space to correct a few of the inaccuracies and misstatements which appear in the letter by “ Straightforward ” in the Daily Times? As I can see that it is impossible, to get a straightforward answer from your correspondent, I shalL merely comment on his letter. I did not belittle the judge’s ability as I know he was quite capable of judging the class under discussion. Whether the class was of two exhibitors or 20 is immaterial. The judge should have disqualified the birds at once and thus prevented any friction over the matter. I did not mention either the number of exhibitors or their status, and “Straightforward ” deliberately misquotes me in stating that “ this class was competed for by novices only, not by the whole club a$ ‘ A Little Straighten ’ would have one believe.” Had the judge disqualified the birds and at the same time, drawn attention to * the fact that they were entered in the wrong class he would have carried out the rules in the way he should, arid would have assisted a novice by showing him where the birds failed, and finally, he would have treated the other novice concerned fairly. “ Straightforward ” says the judge did disqualify the birds immediately. That statement is contrary to fact as the judge said he did not like to disqualify the birds' without consulting the club. To prove, the inconsistency of your corre-

spondeut he afterwards states that the novice who owned the birds himself proposed a motion that the birds be disqualified. Why would any motion be necessary if the birds were disqualified by the judge? As a matter of fact, the member who first drew attention to the birds proposed the above motion, which was seconded by -the novice concerned. I did not at any time question the sportsmanship of this novice member. The above facts can be verified by the club’s minute book. In relation to the other matter under dispute, if your correspondent had read my letter carefully ho would have seen that I did not state that “ the president censured the committee.” What ,1 did state was that “ the president accepted a motion censuring the committee,” etc. As rule 10, winch I previously quoted, gives the members of the committee power to deal with the matter under dispute and definitely states that “ the matter shall be adjudicated upon by the committee only,” the president was obviously wrong in accepting any such motion which was out of order. With regard to dragging the club through the mire, I venture to suggest that this has already been accomplished by others than myself. I would, however, remind “ Straightforward” that if the club has nothing to fear it should not mind-the public eye being focussed on its activities. On the contrary, such publicity should be welcome. —I am, etc., A Little Straighter.