I.R.D.A.
This article is copyright of the IRDA
Sinsheim 2003
by Mike Ashton
Presentation
How can one give an adequate idea to someone who has not been to one of these big European shows? Well, if you think of the Federation Show at Stafford or the Poultry Club Show at Stoneleigh, imagine something roughly five times bigger. It combines pigeons, ducks, geese, guinea fowl, turkeys and chickens with pens of wild fowl. All the cages are clean, in good condition and big—significantly more spacious than most of the British cages. They have to be. The ‘Greens’ are much more active politically in Germany and the birds are shown for four or five days at a time. The pens are all single-decked, making the presentation orderly and convenient. The aisles are clearly visible, so that you can find your way easily without having to wander between high ‘hedges’ of stacked cages amidst the labyrinthine gloom. You can therefore see the birds in proper lighting, not having to peer sore-eyed at Black East Indians and Cayugas cowering in the shadows. All the tabletops are the same height and the skirting adds a final touch of class to the overall effect. The other thing I noted was the lack of boxes, cartons and hampers under the tables. All these were removed at penning, preventing security risks and the inadvertent misappropriation of someone else’s exhibits, ‘bird-napping’ in other words, or just plain ‘stealing’.
Every cage has a sturdy galvanized drinker and feeder, including the goose pens, and teams of helpers with trolleys parade up and down the aisles watering the drinkers on either side by means of hoses from a tank. The efficiency is impressive. In spite of the lengthy duration of the show the vast majority of the waterfowl remained in pristine condition. The whole exhibition was remarkably clean. Large, spacious halls with high ceilings meant that the air did not become fetid or stuffy. Even the noise of the Call Ducks was lost in the spaciousness. It would be a valuable trip for British show committees to go to one of these big exhibitions. I accept that British shows are smaller, charge much less for penning, have limited opportunities for better cages and find it difficult to hire adequate space. Yet these may be excuses rather than reasons not to improve. Imagination and determination are also needed. I seem to remember Tom Bartlett and Debby Shinton (Marshall) setting up Malvern as the premier domestic waterfowl exhibition in the late 1980s after a similar trip to the continent. Their success was a beacon for future shows—but we have not stopped learning yet. Laurels are there to be earned, not sat upon!
Wildfowl
How else was the Sinsheim Show impressive? What do they do that we don’t? Well, they show wildfowl! No, not in grotty little cages but in individual enclosures, all with paddling pools, many with turf flooring, most with branches and plants to lend atmosphere, protection and a feel for habitat. One big pen even had a huge waterfall as a special feature. And then the birds are judged in pairs. Each exhibitor has an individual pen, anything from five metres by three metres and upward, and into this are pairs of different species. Little rectangular metal plates, one for each pair, hold the judging notes (the scores of which are also published in the catalogue printed after the first day of the exhibition!) Also in this catalogue are recorded the ‘asking prices’ of the exhibits. If you want to buy a pair of ‘ornamentals’ (as they used to be called, and shown, in Britain) or a single domestic bird, all you have to do is pay at the desk and the bird is reserved for you. Now, can you see why they are so keen on closed leg-ringing on the continent?
Judging
The judging system is something I admire without necessarily agreeing with it. Each bird is given a percentage score, based presumably on the Standard points. This is recorded on the pen, and in the catalogue, alongside an equivalent adjectival evaluation:
v vorzüglich 97
hv hervorragend 96
sg sehr gut 93–95
g gut 92
b befriedigend 90
u ungenügend 0
Comments are appended by the judge to give a series of critical explanations. At the end of the procedure no one is left in any doubt what the judge was looking for or how the exhibit matched up to the competition. This sounds a bit intimidating, if you are used to rank order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc), but it has hidden advantages. If all the birds are equally superb, or rubbish, there is nothing stopping the judge giving nearly all of them the same mark. Thus, just because you came 8th out of a class of thirty, it doesn’t mean your bird looked terrible. You might, in fact, have only been one point short of the champion, and everyone else can see that, on paper. That’s very fair. Also, if you have won with a mediocre bird against poor competition, that too is patently obvious on the score-card. Yes, it sounds excellent.
The drawbacks are equally significant. Each judge can manage only a small number of exhibits (60 or a few more). Shows would have to recruit more judges and, if that meant paying large expenses, it would also result in significantly higher penning charges. Then, of course, you need a complete day to do the judging in relative peace and tranquillity. One-day shows are consequently almost out of the question. A side issue, on top of this, is the tradition of judges convening at certain times to target specific judging criteria for specific breeds. If, for example, Cayugas are getting too small, or Abacot Rangers are losing secondary covert markings, the judges will look primarily at these areas. It has the effect of promoting ‘fashions’. When one year it may be good to have tall, yellow Pekins, the next might favour short bills and chubby cheeks. Judges are constrained by consensus and are not given the chance to be flexible. Perhaps Lewis Wright was indeed right when he wrote in 1901: ‘The proper use of the Standard is not to give birds a score, but to place them in correct order of merit.’
Where
next?
If we mean the German National, it is to be held in eastern Germany next year, in Leipzig. That’s a long way to travel for most western Europeans. In two year’s time, I gather, it is due to be in Dortmund, much closer to the Belgian and Dutch borders. Perhaps more Britons will be willing to make the trek, although I think it would be a massive endeavour (and cost) to take a large contingent of ducks and geese.
Can we learn anything? Undoubtedly. But what, though? Apart from the passing comments above, fundamental issues need to be confronted before anything the size of the German National could be staged in the UK.
Germany is a big country. It has thousands of keen exhibitors, as well as dozens of breed associations. It is also in the middle of Europe, so that it can attract visitors from Denmark, France, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Spain and eastern European states, all of whom can travel comfortably and quickly by land. Crossing the channel adds time, expense and constraints. If you have ever tried carrying ducks and geese over the water you will know that not all the transportation methods allow this; plus the fact that documentation is essential to get from GB to the continent, or vice versa. They do not even have customs posts between the other European countries. Just drive straight through.
Another issue might also be in the frame. Are there too many ‘national’ shows in the UK? I am not criticizing the sterling efforts of the Scots, Welsh or English to encourage their own bodies of exhibitors. These are probably essential to the health of the fancy. What a number of experienced exhibitors have observed over the last few years is the reduced competition in many of the major championship shows. Not only have the exhibits themselves got noticeably fewer in some breeds, especially the geese (which are more challenging to keep, prepare and exhibit), but also the number of exhibitors. Whether this is the result of fundamental splits in the waterfowl fancy, or simply too many big shows, remains at issue. One would have to look at all the old catalogues over a period of years to get a true idea of the problem. Certainly one cannot just blame the breed associations. Where Call Ducks and Runners are concerned, there seems to have been a blossoming of enthusiasm, and it is a good thing to see. Light Ducks and Geese, however, have suffered from neglect, or perhaps just difficulty. Keeping Runners and Calls in a small suburban garden is significantly easier than the other forms of waterfowl. Perhaps it is just the reflection of a social phenomenon: Britain is evolving from a rural, farming society into a suburban, pet-keeping one. I don’t honestly know.
Lastly, are the judges good enough? Do the exhibitors get a fair deal, and are there enough waterfowl specialists prepared to offer their services as judges? Both the BWA and the Poultry Club now provide specialist tests for new judges. There is no real excuse why championship shows in particular have to rely on inadequately trained and tested judges. Poor judging turns away exhibitors. In Belgium, I know, the judging tests are much more demanding than ours. Candidates are even tested on duck and goose anatomy as well as breed specifications. All you have to do in this country is reveal that you have read and have a good grasp of the written Standards (for your section) and then demonstrate practically that competence in the presence of an experienced judge. It is not difficult, even for those who find reading and writing a real problem. As in GCSE testing in the schools now, we provide ‘readers’ and ‘writers’ to ask the questions and jot down the answers. All the candidate has to do is get help in studying the Standards in advance. A good judge must know the Standards. They are what the rest of us are breeding towards. Even Johnny Wilkinson cannot score points if the referee cannot recognize the goal-posts!