The APA Tail

[Suki]

Barbara Doddington has done some research on this issue and posted her results on the APA list on Fb.

Michael Gilbert, I've done some research about the standard female Ameraucana tail angle. It is listed at 40 degrees in the 1998 APA standard and then goes up to 45 degrees in 2001 and has been 45 degrees ever since. I believe Patrick Malone, Gerald Donnelly, and Walt Leonard were on the revision committee at that time so perhaps one of them can shed some light on why the change was made.

[Mike Gilbert]

It was a mistake, plain and simple. 

[Suki]

I don't see it that way.  The Ameraucana that won the APA National was judged on that standard,  that it seems no one here caught for what 10 years before complaining.  The APA states that the current Std is what birds should be judged by that.  To be judging by old stnd seems to be the real mistake.

[Mike Gilbert]

I don't see it that way.  The Ameraucana that won the APA National was judged on that standard,  that it seems no one here caught for what 10 years before complaining.  The APA states that the current Std is what birds should be judged by that.  To be judging by old stnd seems to be the real mistake.

If it was not a mistake, then how did it get changed?   We did not ask for it.   Are you saying somebody sabotaged the Standard on purpose?   I very much doubt that.  As for not catching it, why refer to the Standard when you have the essential points memorized?  Plus I raise mostly bantams, but only one variety of large fowl in Ameraucana.  So when I check the Standard it is under the bantam section, which has been correct all along with regard to the female tail angle.   There should be no reason to suspect a difference between the two except for weights. 

[Russ Blair]

I would have to agree with Mike. If the club voted on the standard, then proposed it for recognition. Then the only ones that should make the changes to the standard would be members/breeders. Which would require a proposal by the club. For the APA to make changes on there own accord is a mistake. Now the Ameraucana that won APA national, I must of missed where that is an issue? I do think we need to address this issue as a club. How many new breeders are breeding to the "new" standard? Worst yet how many judges are incorrectly judging Ameraucana? Apparently we know of one at a pretty big show?

[Suki]

If it was not a mistake, then how did it get changed?   We did not ask for it. [/quote]

I truly don't know the answer to that one.  But I do know that other standards were changed without club and/or sponsor approval, so this is not a one-off,  but it seems to happen, and no one in the APA takes credit/blame for it.   The reason for raising the APA Am, is I do not think that the APA will change it back, and that's my real point, because that bird, their pick, won on that std and their Stds Chairman has made it very publicly clear that this is the AM that they consider "correct".

 As for Russ's question, I am breeding to the new standard but I will enter a bird or two for now on the old standard as well to cover my bases.  I think that the 5 Degrees in discussion, can easily be within the "degree of tolerance", though when I've said that, no one from the APA has agreed, but I don't see how it could not. 

Brownie

[John W Blehm]

I agree it was a mistake.  The typos that are in some books and get carried over to the next edition would fit that explanation.  This is different.  It was correct in the Standard and I assume the text was copied and pasted from one edition to the next, hence the identical typos from one to the next.  For 40 to change to 45 someone would have to have purposely changed it, as I understand the process.  Why would anyone do that?  Maybe they took it upon themselves thinking it was wrong.  I doubt there was a conspiracy. 
I just went thru something similar with a magazine company where an employee(s) added a word to text in an article.  That one word made the sentence, in that article, false. 
They all need to learn from these type mistakes and make sure no one person makes a change, even it they think it is a correction, without proofing by two or more others.
Russ is correct about changes being made, to the Standard, when our breed club proposes them.  We've been able to work with the APA/ABA on those minor changes and corrections in the past.

[Mike Gilbert]

I would have to agree with Mike. If the club voted on the standard, then proposed it for recognition. Then the only ones that should make the changes to the standard would be members/breeders. Which would require a proposal by the club. For the APA to make changes on there own accord is a mistake. Now the Ameraucana that won APA national, I must of missed where that is an issue? I do think we need to address this issue as a club. How many new breeders are breeding to the "new" standard? Worst yet how many judges are incorrectly judging Ameraucana? Apparently we know of one at a pretty big show?

The problem is we have multiple Standards to choose from.   The ABA calls for 40 degrees on the female tail, as does the APA Standard for bantams, and yet the large fowl Standard calls for 45 degrees for females according to the APA.   Walt Leonard was approached about this when it was discovered, said he would get it corrected, and failed to do so.   As far as licensed judges who judge the Ameraucana correctly?   Few and far between, but there are a few.     

[John W Blehm]

As far as licensed judges who judge the Ameraucana correctly?   Few and far between, but there are a few.

Not to get off topic too far, but overall I think the newer judges that became judges not just since official recognition of the Ameraucana but after acceptance by most fanciers do better.  This is not just to say younger judges do better, but judges of any age that have been more recently licensed.  Yes, there are exceptions.  A few decades ago many judges, that didn't understand breeding and had their minds made up that all blue egg layers were mongrels, didn't bother going by the Standard when it came to birds called Araucana or Ameraucana.  They hurt the progress of these breeds by not disqualifying numerous birds that didn't come close to the Standard. 

[Mike Gilbert]

I don't see it that way.  The Ameraucana that won the APA National was judged on that standard,  that it seems no one here caught for what 10 years before complaining.  The APA states that the current Std is what birds should be judged by that.  To be judging by old stnd seems to be the real mistake.

That bird is a male, and there is no problem with the Standard for male Ameraucanas.  That said, the bird has a higher tail angle than 45 degrees, and I have seen at least a half dozen photos of him, all showing the same tail angle.   He is also too low in front and probably a little too short in the legs, though the latter may be hard to judge from photos.  Aside from that he is a long bodied bird instead of the medium called for in the Standard.   Since he came from Tom Kernan, I feel he probably has some Sumatra blood.   That is just one person's opinion.  Great feather width and condition though.  Certainly worthy as a breeder if the right females are chosen. 

[Suki]

I think fine points were raised by all, in particular the discrepancy between the ABA & APA standard being awkward.  Since Mike G. already raised this issue privately,  I think the Club following up officially with the APA is our best recourse so we can put this sticky wicket to rest.

Brownie
May the good news this Paschal season, be yours.