JUDGING POULTRY

Taranaki Daily News, 13 July 1935, Page 12 (Supplement)

JUDGING POULTRY

THE QUALITIES NECESSARY. IMPORTANCE OF HONESTY. Beyond all the knowledge of what is j wanted in the ideal birds, a judge must I be of a fair, judicial, equitable mind so jas to arrive at truly balanced decisions. There is much in this solving the relative or distinctive points or properties of exhibits. A judge should be able and willing, to give a good reason for his awards; indeed, he should be pleased at the opportunity of giving reasonable, respectful inquirers an explanation of his decisions. I know for myself I have been able on sundry occasions to convert h disappointed exhibitor into friendly and cordial agreement. To a conscientious judge a little “heckling” is a golden opportunity for display of superior knowledge. The professor who cannot stand' it is not much of a judge! Besides this a good judge should be able to hold an argument and sustain a lengthy catechism upon any breed he professes to understand without having the actual living objects before him. The ideal should ever be fresh in his mind without recourse to the real for his replies; otherwise his qualifications ■are not perfect nor reliable. I should rule such a one out of his diploma. Beyond all this there is another qualification, an essential virtue without which no judge can be esteemed or of use to himself or others—absolutely honourable conduct, without which he soon falls a victim to his own misdeeds. He may be possessed of a full store of useful knowledge, but if he is not as straight as a line in his conduct and the use of his power he fails, and fails ignominiously. Yes, the judge who yields to any unworthy deviation from the path of rectitude becomes the tool of and at the mercy of the tempter. It is because I know of alluring baits being cast out by unscrupulous fanciers that I say "honesty is the best policy” in this subject as in every branch of life. QUESTION OF FAMILIARITY. In the course of a long spell of judging a judge becomes familiar with a number of prominent winning birds and their owners. Of course he does! If he did not he would ■be too obtuse, too stupid to be a good judge. But what if he does recognise them? That need not interfere with his honest judgment. Indeed, it is just an angle at which he can show his honesty of purpose and superiority of judgment. However, years ago some fanciers of a carping disposition thought that as a judge recognised some birds and their owners it was only right and fair that he should know all, and to meet this purpose it was suggested that judges be supplied with catalogues to judge by —a proposition too absurd, and insulting to any really competent judge who prides himself on his ability, integrity and dignity of the position. This idea, however, fell through, an I am glad of it, for I never could see the wisdom dr advantage of such a suspicious and useless suggestion. A good judge does not need to know the owners; he naturally prides himself on his ability to pick out and plac®. the best specimens, and is as proud, too, of the confidence placed in his judgments and honesty. Nor should a judge allow his awards to fee biased in any degree by previous decisions of his own or those of other judges. His duty is simply to judge them as he 'find? them, without studying previous records, good or bafi. Even under such bona-fide judgments there is always ample scope for grumbles at apparent inconsistencies according to the age, health and condition of the birds, for, remember, the higher the type of excellence a bird is when in health the more hideous does he appear in sickness. This is an admitted fact which often gives rise to suspicion of unsound judgment, whereas in fact it is where the sense of equity comes in and absolute justice is ensured. YESTERDAY AND TO-DAY. The prominent pioneer judges of 40 years ago were “all round” judges with <. complete knowledge of all kinds of poultry. At the same time they were Game specialists who studied their duties in every detail. Modem judges are a very numerous body. For the most part they are termed “specialists” by reason of their concentration, inclination, and, perhaps, knowledge being confined to one kind and its off-shoots. As club judges they are greatly in demand as they are expected to know the exact requirements of their associates, but even their awards do not always meet with approval, inasmuch as limited ideas are apt to become too cramped and narrow. Anyhow, the system is good and is working well, and that is a good test of its usefulness.

In my judging career I have had but little to grumble at and much to be thankful for. Out of my long list of appointments I can say that I never sought an engagement as judge, neither personally nor through, nor by, any other means. This is a pleasant reflection! I name it because I have had innumerable requests to use my influence on behalf of others, some competent, others incompetent. When men will so degrade themselves and cast dishonour and disgrace upon an honourable profession by offering their services—time, railway and other expenses for nothing, together with the gift of some “special prize”—one may be sure there is something likely to go wrong—some other axe to grind. I do not like such cheap judgments; they are subversive of the very interests they are intended to serve. A judge’s career is not always an enviable one. He may have to book his engagement three months in advance, probaby when the weather is bright and beautiful and he .is as “fit as a fiddle,” but when the day arrives, what a change. THE TROUBLE OF SPECIALS. It is not the large number of entries that takes up time and worries the judge; it is the special prizes for which there have to be separate lists made out. That is where the perplexing and wearisome work comes in. The judging of all the well-filled classes, with a “reasonable” number of “specials”—such as one for the best male and another for the best female in the show—or classes 1 and 2 bracketed for a special, best in 3 and 4, or 5 and 6, or classes from I to 10, or 10 to 20, and so on are quite rational “extras” which are easily determined as the judge proceeds with what I call his “straight-forward” duties; but there the straight course ends, and a system of “business tinkering” begins. This is where scheming, unsatisfactory awards are made, repugnant and unfair to any scrupulously careful adjudicator, and the whole business is changed from pleasure to painful anxiety and unsatisfactory labour.