My Community

Good evening,

As those of you that attended the Annual Meeting in Greenville, OH heard. The board of directors are currently updating current meet policy in the hopes to bring some clarification and clear expectations of our members regarding placing meets and sending in meet reports. We currently have 6 sanctioned meets that never had meet reports sent in, which can be found on our upcoming meet list https://www.ameraucana.org/Ameraucana%20Meets (https://www.ameraucana.org/Ameraucana%20Meets).

I am attaching a copy of the latest draft that received the most director votes, out of three that were composed. I would like to ask any and all members to please make any suggestions or needed clarifications in the replies below. That way this board can see them and take them into consideration. After fourteen days the board of directors will be asked to look them over and make modifications as they see fit.

  After taking this weekend to try to digest and assimilate these proposed changes, and try to see why you think they are needed, I must say I vehemently disagree with pretty much all of this.  I agree, strongly, that some changes need to be made to the current meet policy. But not the ones proposed.


So lets break down this new proposal:

First point of contention - Requests must include the names of 3 individuals who expect to be competing in Open class. The other two may/may not be Alliance members
Er say what?  Isn't the point of the meets to promote the Club and the breed?  so why wouldn't they have to also be members of this club?  If they aren't eligible to earn points or awards, why would they be able to request meets?
So that requires me to now go track down two other members - to request a meet for any given show...and it discounts Jr's who may also be wanting to request meets. 

I don't agree that there should have to be anyone else but MYSELF requesting a meet.

I put significant amount of thought and planning into my show schedule, including cost of entry per bird, hotels/restaurants in the area, how many hours of travel required to the show and back home, the judges panel at that show, if its a double card vs single card show, time of year and what age range my birds will be, molt status, breeding pen considerations (some varieties I breed at different times of year, to rotate my incubator and brooder capacity, record keeping, and other factors) and costs of breed club table (those can range $10-100 per show sometimes) time to set up, who we expect to see while there (is this going to be a good show to promote the club and breed at?) and other responsibilities I may have at that show - clerking and judges apprenticeship verbal tests?, my mentors Q&A?, Jr showmanship judging?, raffles, etc. and a variety of other things I have going on all at the same show.

Next Point - Each Alliance member is entitled to request no more that 3 meets per calendar year. In the case of double or triple judged shows, only the first show is sanctioned meet.

OK first off why would you limit your members to only requesting a few meets per year? Why make an already difficult achievement, EVEN HARDER? This stifles the clubs presence and promotion in a vast majority of shows to ONLY the select shows, and only if approved.   It strongly smacks of more active showing members being punished, if I am able and choose to attend multiple shows per year, and slants it in favor of those members that may only chose to show once or twice a year.  Limiting the number of meets available, will greatly reduce any members ability to gain points.  I find it highly suspicious that you want to throttle points gains now.  Why?

If there is no meet, there is no points awarded, and thus no reason for me to pay the table fee, haul the extra table supplies and banner, do the set up/tear down work, to promote the club or breed, or to even haul my birds 900+ miles, to a show.  So if your going to limit my ability to work towards master exhibitor/breeder, it strongly suggests for me to not show my Ameraucana anymore, there is no reason for me to work so hard to promote the club or breed any longer.  And let me tell you, I have been putting in the work for the past few years. I know I'm not the only one.  And I did it all because I sincerely love this breed, I believed in this breed club and I wanted wholeheartedly to promote it.  I had planned to continue on for many more years... but now? This ruins it for me. 

Only ONE card at a double card show is counted?  again - this makes no sense to me whatsoever.  Only one card counts as points?? Whats the reasoning here? It smacks of punishment and making it harder to gain exhibition points, for birds already entered and being judged at the show. 

What happens to your 3 requests, if you have used them all up, and none of your requests are granted? that's it, no more for this year? or do they get reset and you are then free to request again?  Seems like even more stuff to have to keep track of there - for the director who is already overwhelmed with this task, to add another point to track and a potential source of conflict should a member feel they were reset and direct says no?   Opens up for more appeals emails. 

And the other members, who I then have to convince to request a particular meet with me, does that count towards one of their 3 requests? So I have to convince two other members to give up their requests, in favor of my meet?  Horse-feathers!  It's all kinds of not happening. 

What happens if there are more than 3 members who request this same meet/show, like 6 or 7 members?  Do ALL of them then loose one of their requests?

Next Point:  Member who requests club meet MUST obtain an exhibitors list and fill out the meet report on their own, and have it signed by the show superintendent at conclusion of judging.

I'm in FULL AGREEMENT here. If you request the meet, YOU should do the show report, period.
However, if your going to require 3 people to request a meet, this now makes 3 people responsible for meet reports, and 3 different reports to be submitted to the director of meets.  More to track, more work.  Overwhelmed before?  here comes more.

Suggestions -  Only changes I see that needs to be made to the current meet policy:

**Remove the nonsense of having to have it run in quarterly newsletter ahead of time.  Yes, meets need to be placed in a reasonable time-frame in advance (say 6 weeks?).  But several months ahead is excessive and unnecessary, and needed information in making the choice to even request a meet at certain shows isn't available yet...  and doesn't allow for NEW shows either

**If you request the meet, you are responsible for the show reports. Get the needed signatures after counting birds and varieties and recording winners.  Show secretaries will actually ask for copies of your show report to add to their records, to cross check results. 

** Add a calendar to the forums where people can post what show they are going to ahead of time, add the closing dates for these shows, which can help others plan which shows to attend. 

Laurie, I will try to address most of your concerns.
Why mandate the potential of at least three persons who plan to show?   Because winning should mean something, and winning against oneself or maybe one other person means next to nothing.  We don't want to become a club of point chasers with little regard for advancement of the breed.  The latter is what this club is all about.   The club can be promoted with or without a meet.  For example, we can sponsor memberships, especially for juniors who show a genuine interest in the breed.  We can also use informative posters and/or sponsor cash or other awards for Ameraucana winners, and that does not take a meet to do either.  Engaging with others and telling them about Alliance is perhaps the best way to promote.  Also, under this proposal, only ONE person requests a meet.  That person simply furnishes the names of two other likely exhibitors.

Why can there be only one member of the three?  Because there are areas of the country where there are very few members, in some areas maybe only one member.  This rule makes it easier for a member in such areas to apply for a meet and have it approved.   We want to make it as fair as we can for all.    Then too competition, whether from another member or nonmembers, make wins more meaningful and satisfying.

Secondly, we have had examples of a litany of many meet requests made far in advance for different parts of the country when the requester has little idea of whether they can attend them or not.  If a person wants more than three, he or she can always ask for help from another member or members as the case may be.   The idea is to make our club meets more meaningful and something special, not routine or mundane.  Supply and demand, if you will, can make that happen.   I don't think this is an unreasonable policy at all.

One meet per venue is for the same reasons listed above.  We are about advancing and improving the breed, not chasing after points which have limited value.  The fact that double judged shows seldom end up with the same winners under two different judges is evidence of that. Judging is subjective; breeders are in a much better position to evaluate their birds because they can observe and handle them often, whereas a judge can take only a moment or two due to time constraints and the expectations of show management to judge a certain minimum number of entries.  Personally, I have had wins that should not have happened and lost out at times I had the best entry.  It's all part of the game. 

Next, I would interpret the proposed policy as counting only the three requests that are actually approved.  Seldom if ever is a request not approved - unless show reports are not turned in the previous year.  If more than one person requests a meet for the same show, it's first come, first served, and only the first member is counted as having requested the meet.  We could make that clearer, so thanks for bringing it up.

Your next objection is moot, because there would not be three meet requestors, just one.  Nowhere does the policy say that three people have to request the same meet.

Your next request is not about something that is nonsense.  The reason for publishing a meet in the newsletter well in advance is to give others a chance to learn that there even is a meet.  Schedules often need to be arranged well in advance, as well as motel reservations, etc.  This one has been a longstanding policy, and I don't see it being changed.

As to your final point, we do have a website forum.  Persons requesting a meet and having it approved should be using that forum (and they often do) to promote the meet by listing all the pertinent information that a prospective exhibitor would need to know to make their entry and make motel reservations if necessary.

Laurie, I want to thank you for bringing up these questions, as it gives us a better opportunity to explain our reasoning for the proposals.   Without knowing what the objections are, we would surely overlook some of them.

First I will say I haven't taken the time to read the proposes. I'd heard there was talk about a change due to show superintendents/secretaries not sending in meet reports and that has been a problem for many years. I made these two suggestions...

In the Club meets section, change to something like this...
"Members requesting club meets shall obtain an exhibitors list and fill out all applicable Alliance Meet Reports on their own assisted by at least one other Alliance member attending the show.  If  official Meet Reports aren't received from the show superintendent 30 days our member's reports will be used." 

Under National Meets, include something like...
"Two members from the national meet organizing committee shall obtain an exhibitors list and fill out all applicable Alliance Meet Reports.  If official Meet Reports aren't received from the show superintendent within 30 days our member's reports will be used." 

I've never been big into exhibiting and don't know that other changes should be made to our meet policy at this time. Most of our members will never enter a chicken in a show, but some are really into it and years ago we even started the exhibitor points system with awards to go along with it. "Chasing" points may sound like a negative to some, but no matter the verb it is fine with me since accumulating those points is part of the hobby for some. I opted out of of earning points, since breeding has been the more important part of the fancy for me.   

The whole purpose of the Ameraucana Alliance is to Promote Ameraucana.  It's even stated as our mission...  "...an alliance of folks focused on the promotion of standard bred Ameraucana chickens and positive support for those interested in standard bred Ameraucana chickens."

The "proposed" changes to the meet policy, completely undermine the club's whole mission and purpose.  NONE of these changes favor the promotion of anything, except a few people's own egos. 

One of the biggest excuses for the proposed changes is Show Reports.  I completely agree that whomever requested the meet should be responsible to see that a completed meet report is submitted, and within a timely manner.  Whether that person is who completes it and submits it, or if they find someone else to do it.  As long as it's done, it shouldn't matter who did it, but it should matter that the person who requested the meet is held responsible.  If that person fails in their obligations, then punish that individual for their dereliction of duty.  No meet report?  No points.  No meet report?  No meet requests for a year.  Make the punishment fit the crime, don't punish those who are truly trying to fulfill the clubs mission of promoting the breed.

It's evident that certain board members don't like or approve of "points chasers."  Hey now, you guys gave us the goal, let us complete our mission, and inspire others, just as you have inspired us.  For Grand Master and Supreme Grand Master Exhibitor, the points scale is pretty steep.  Rather than suddenly making points impossible to earn, why don't we just raise the minimum bar accordingly, and let those people continue to fulfill the clubs mission to promote Ameraucana, as well as draw in new members, while they are working to achieve their personal goals, and follow in your footsteps?

It's been said several times, that we don't need certain members, or even new members.  I wholeheartedly disagree.  Members are what funds the club.  Members donate to raffles, silent auctions, they pay dues, man tables, perform the duties, assist other members, and generate new members.  ALL members are important.  ALL members are valuable. 

A limit on how many meet requests a person can make?  That isn't promoting anything.  Not only does it hurt the show itself, by not having that person's entries, but also the entries of the newcomers, and friends of the person who would exhibit just to spend time with their mentor or friend.  In having an approved meet at any show, it also promotes the club, whose whole mission is to promote the breed.   Again, go back to the first paragraph.  The elders teach us younger people to do all we can, while we can, because some day in the near future, we won't be able to.  Don't punish those who are favored with the gift of youth.  Punish those who derelict their duties.  Let the people who want to attend the shows and promote the club and our breed do just that!  You want to go to 12 shows this year?  GREAT!  Don't forget to turn in those show reports!!

A mileage restriction?  Really?  As a truck driver, "I'll be home soon" is 3 states away.  I'd LOVE to be able to attend the Stevenson, WA show, Red Stick, Utah, or maybe even NE Poultry Congress.  How about Galesville, WI, one of my Favorite shows, is still 600 miles from me.  I live in an area where there aren't many shows.  Even your 2025 National Meet was 800 miles from me.  Speaking of National Meets, by the HUGE gaping hole in the LF, it's clearly obvious that I didn't attend. How much more fun and exciting would it have been, to have those 8 blanks filled on your meet report, and another 80 Ameraucana added to your total count for the National Meet?

Are the Directors feeling "overwhelmed"?  Well, he / she signed up for that job and all that comes with it.  There's obviously no policy that says that the directors can't have "helpers", so either allow a member to assist the director, or find a director who will DO THE JOB...  There are plenty of little old retired ladies that would love some secretarial duties.  It gives them PURPOSE...  Everyone needs Purpose.  So far, two Directors have resigned this year, and NO replacement Directors have been installed to do those duties.  Why are we not filling those holes in our Board?  It's NOT because nobody wants to help, as there have been people who offered to volunteer and were declined.  Give those people who want to help, something to do, and relieve or replace those that feel overwhelmed or overburdened. 

Meet requests would need 3 people?  Rather than punish those who like small shows, and promoting our breed in areas where there aren't as many, Why don't you as a club, ask that individual what the club can do to support their efforts of promoting?  Want to set up a club table?  GREAT, let's get you connected with a director who can lend you a table-kit.  Do you need promotional materials?  GREAT, let's get you loaded with stuff to hand out.  Let's get our breed in those places that don't usually get to see them.  As someone who favors rare & patterned varieties, I know I like to get my birds out there in places that don't usually see so much color.  Don't punish me for wanting to shout to the world that Silver, Wheaten, Blue Wheaten, Splash, Self Blue, Buff, and Brown Red varieties are totally AWESOME!!!  After all, how does anyone know if they want them, if they never SEE them???

There's sooooo much good that can be done, by just letting people actually use the energy they are willing to donate, to do good for the club.  Just sit back and let those people do it!  Help them, help the club!

Jessica, I'm afraid you are imputing sinister motives that do not exist.  Nobody is getting an ego boost over this.   We are trying to do what is best for the club and for the breed.  We don't believe unlimited meets are in the best interest of either.  I explained why unlimited meets are counterproductive in my original post on this thread, and I would encourage you go back and read it again.   If you are not satisfied with three meets, you could always ask another member for help.  You could even ask me, as it is doubtful I would ever be requesting any meets.  Or you could ask any member in the general proximity of a favorite show that you would definitely attend.  For example, you could ask John Blehm for a meet at Fowlfest, and I'm quite sure he would be more than happy to comply.  I spoke with Carl by phone tonight, and he is okay with three requests.  Actually, they could have six requests approved, as Carl and Daniel are both members.  If everybody is playing by the same rules, where is the penalty you are referring to?  Goals are fine, but the easier they are to attain, the less the achievement in the eyes of most people, and therefore the less value.  Also, I have heard no complaints from Scott about the amount of work he has due to keeping track of meets, and my job of sending out ribbons is easy.  So I think you are way off base with that implication.  If winning points is your primary motivation for showing, the key to that is breeding better birds. That is what advances the breed, not showing mediocre specimens that few people would care to own.  There is little merit in showing birds that somebody else bred and raised.  Conditioning is important, but that's only part of it.  Showing someone else's work is for children and rank beginners.  Take Rachel for example.  She has accumulated a lot of points in the past couple of years but does not attend anywhere near the number of shows that some do.  She breeds and shows one variety, and they are tops as evidenced by her results.  Her mother shows Wheatens and Blue Wheatens btw, and I notice her name is on the national meet winners list too.   By the way, who said anything about a mileage restriction?  I think you must have misinterpreted something that was said.  I would like to suggest you give this some thought over at least a few days and think about these things some more.  I know you are involved in several other breed clubs, so if they are doing anything better than Alliance, we are ready and willing to consider changes that make sense.  We just have to know what the change would entail.  Like John says about Fowlfest, we may not be the biggest, but we think we are the best. Actually, as breed clubs go, I think we are one of the larger ones in terms of numbers.  So, we must be doing something right.

Quote from: Laurie Ashley - Selah Farms on October 07, 2025, 02:23:59 PM
  ...I vehemently disagree with pretty much all of this...
First point of contention - Requests must include the names of 3 individuals who expect to be competing in Open class. The other two may/may not be Alliance members
Er say what?...I don't agree that there should have to be anyone else but MYSELF requesting a meet.
Next Point - Each Alliance member is entitled to request no more that 3 meets per calendar year. In the case of double or triple judged shows, only the first show is sanctioned meet.
OK first off why would you limit your members to only requesting a few meets per year? Why make an already difficult achievement, EVEN HARDER?...
holeheartedly to promote it.  I had planned to continue on for many more years... but now? This ruins it for me. 
Only ONE card at a double card show is counted?  again - this makes no sense to me whatsoever.  Only one card counts as points?? Whats the reasoning here? It smacks of punishment and making it harder to gain exhibition points, for birds already entered and being judged at the show...
What happens to your 3 requests, if you have used them all up, and none of your requests are granted? that's it, no more for this year?...
Suggestions -  Only changes I see that needs to be made to the current meet policy:
**If you request the meet, you are responsible for the show reports....

Eight members already have earned enough points to be Master Exhibitors, under the current rules (https://ameraucana.org/Exhibitor%20Points). Now some want to put more hoops in the way of other members that want that same status. I've quoted some of what Laurie said that I agree with so I can keep this post shorter. Russ did the right thing to post this subject here for member comments. This is the official place for it, but even a 30 day comment period would be nice for such a huge proposal. The only area of the Meet Policy that needs changing is about having members file the reports and I've posted my proposal, above. If the proposal that Russ posted a link to passes it can only hurt the Alliance, even though it would only directly affect maybe a couple dozen members that into exhibiting and earning points. Input from each board member is requested here. As representatives of the membership that will be voting on our behalf they certainly should want to know our thoughts on the matter. If you don't want to post your opinions/thought on the matter or ask questions, then at least post a reply to let us know you are in the loop with what is being said. And, how about all you members that are in favor of the proposed changes? Where are they? Arguments/comments for and against should be posted here and read by the board of directors, before a such a big proposal as this is brought up for a vote.

John, if you read my posts thoroughly, you will see that I responded to both Laurie's and Jessica's comments.    Or did you not bother to read them?  Three APPROVED meets per year per member is not at all unreasonable, and they can work together to get many more than that.  You don't know all the reasons behind this move, and I'm not going to disclose them on a public forum for reasons of preventing embarrassment.  I will say the system as originally designed was flawed from day one.  Points awarded with little to no competition are meaningless. That isn't the way the APA and ABA point systems are set up, which explains why they have some value behind them.
If it makes anyone feel better, I will have my name and points removed from the so called "Master Exhibitor" list, because it means nothing to me in the long run scheme of things anyway.  Quite obviously you feel the same since you opted out of the point system.  I should have done the same from the get-go, but I will do that now. 

Could we maybe change the requirements for awarding variety points to say: 2 exhibitors per variety, with at least 3 birds judged.  I believe there is already something along those lines present, but maybe clarification would help. 
  This would ensure one person can not arbitrarily rack up "empty" points in any variety, because they must have at least one other exhibitor to compete against? Most of my other breed clubs I serve with have this kind of requirement in place. (Nankins, Phoenix, White Face black Spanish, and Sicilian Buttercups).

I am in agreement that meets should encourage more participation, and that is why I try to place one at every show I travel to.  I know a good majority of people don't attend as many as I do, but it is my passion, it is my joy. 

I will have to accept a limit on meets, as it appears its going to happen no matter what I feel or say about the matter. 

Laurie suggested:  "Could we maybe change the requirements for awarding variety points to say: 2 exhibitors per variety, with at least 3 birds judged.  I believe there is already something along those lines present, but maybe clarification would help."

I agree.  That would be a step in the right direction.  We would have to exclude family members as a 2nd exhibitor, as that would be too easy to manipulate.

Quote from: Mike Gilbert on October 09, 2025, 12:25:52 PM
Three APPROVED meets per year per member is not at all unreasonable,...
I will say the system as originally designed was flawed from day one.  Points awarded with little to no competition are meaningless. That isn't the way the APA and ABA point systems are set up, which explains why they have some value behind them...

I don't recall reading any benefit to a limit of meets a member can request. The more they attend and exhibit, the more points they can earn quicker and that is what some want. Trying to limit being able to earn points to one show when there are two the same weekend at the same venue is a big disappointment to me for much the same reason. The Alliance has never been a follower and I don't think we should necessarily do things because the ABA and/or APA does something that way, but in the case of double shows that they sanction with points/awards to their members for each separate show we should continue with that also. If a show club hosts a spring and fall show, should we say an Alliance member can only earn points at one of those shows?
When we came up with the current policy, I remember explaining that judges only judge the birds and the birds are the ones in competition with each other. Who owns those birds is another matter and one that should not be considered by any judge. Three bantam black Ameraucanas will be placed 1, 2 and 3 whether entered by one, two or three different exhibitors. A chicken is earning points based on the number of other chickens it beats, and the Alliance member that exhibited that bird should be credited with any and all points it made/earned for him. When a member's bird is Champion Ameraucana at an Ameraucana National Meet the owner receives points based on the number of all other Ameraucanas entered. We don't subtract the number of other Ameraucanas he had entered from the points he earns. Our current requirement of "three or more birds in competition" makes a lot more sense than "ten or more birds and three or more individuals competing". [edited 10/10/25] Let the chickens compete and let our members that own them earn the points toward Master Exhibitor awards that they are after.

Quote from: John W Blehm on October 09, 2025, 10:50:16 AM

Russ did the right thing to post this subject here for member comments. This is the official place for it, but even a 30 day comment period would be nice for such a huge proposal. The only area of the Meet Policy that needs changing is about having members file the reports and I've posted my proposal, above. If the proposal that Russ posted a link to passes it can only hurt the Alliance, even though it would only directly affect maybe a couple dozen members that into exhibiting and earning points. Input from each board member is requested here. As representatives of the membership that will be voting on our behalf they certainly should want to know our thoughts on the matter. If you don't want to post your opinions/thought on the matter or ask questions, then at least post a reply to let us know you are in the loop with what is being said. And, how about all you members that are in favor of the proposed changes? Where are they? Arguments/comments for and against should be posted here and read by the board of directors, before a such a big proposal as this is brought up for a vote.

I agree with John Blehm's statement that a 30 day comments period is more appropriate for a major change like this to the Meet Policy. I also agree that the only change should be that the requesting member should be responsible for submitting the show report. I also agree that the current proposal would hurt the Ameraucana Alliance.

Becky, please explain your reasons for your positions.  How does the policy proposal hurt the Alliance?   Have you read my comments above?

Looking at the current list of club meets approved yet for this fall (about 19 listed of which 2 were at a show that has been cancelled), and considering that we have well over 200 members, many of them actively showing birds, I don't see where the problem is with a limit of 3 per member.  You know, it is good to communicate with one another and help each other out!  Another thing.  Why are we requesting club meets whose dates conflict with the national meet only two or three states away?  And who is going to fill out a show report when the requesting party has been banned from the show? The latter is not a hypothetical!  I will not get into specifics, so don't ask. 

Perhaps in the case of Black, having 2 exhibitors and 3 birds exhibited might be reasonable.  But as for the less common varieties such as Silver LF & Bantam, Wheaten LF, Blue Wheaten LF, Brown Red LF & Bantam, Buff LF & Bantam, Splash LF & Bantam, and White Bantam, I feel that the 2 exhibitors and 3 birds is hurting the promotion of those varieties.  The National Meet was a GREAT example.  People were actually upset with me for not driving 800 miles to a two-day show, where I would have been the ONLY one with those varieties.  If after all that it takes to enter a show like that, especially for it to be a National Meet, having my 3 of each of the above varieties Not counted for awards, points, or the like, I would have been upset. 

Quote from: John W Blehm on October 09, 2025, 03:38:23 PM


I don't recall reading any benefit to a limit of meets a member can request. The more they attend and exhibit, the more points they can earn quicker and that is what some want. Trying to limit being able to earn points to one show when there are two the same weekend at the same venue is a big disappointment to me for much the same reason. The Alliance has never been a follower and I don't think we should necessarily do things because the ABA and/or APA does something that way, but in the case of double shows that they sanction with points/awards to their members for each separate show we should continue with that also. If a show club hosts a spring and fall show, should we say an Alliance member can only earn points at one of those shows?
When we came up with the current policy, I remember explaining that judges only judge the birds and the birds are the ones in competition with each other. Who owns those birds is another matter and one that should not be considered by any judge. Three bantam black Ameraucanas will be placed 1, 2 and 3 whether entered by one, two or three different exhibitors. A chicken is earning points based on the number of other chickens it beats, and the Alliance member that exhibited that bird should be credited with any and all points it made/earned for him. When a member's bird is Champion Ameraucana at an Ameraucana National Meet the owner receives points based on the number of all other Ameraucanas entered. We don't subtract the number of other Ameraucanas he had entered from the points he earns. Our current requirement of "three or more birds in competition" makes a lot more sense than "ten or more birds and three or more individuals competing". Let the chickens compete and let our members that own them earn the points toward Master Exhibitor awards that they are after.

John, that might be the way you set it up, but I have never liked it.  In fact, I have supported you on a lot of issues I didn't agree with, just to keep the peace and unity.  The chickens don't get the points, the exhibitor does.  And if the exhibitor has no competition, he or she has achieved nothing.    I remember the late Dan Karasek, a good friend, entering over 50 Silver Wyandotte bantams in a show so he could qualify as an ABA or APA Master Exhibitor. Not that many were show quality either.  In the eyes of many, he didn't deserve it.  He bought it through entry fees. It's the same way with our system.  The more in a class, the more points, even if there is zero competition. We don't advance the breed or accomplish much of anything by entering the maximum numbers of birds.  We get respect from others and promote the breed by entering QUALITY birds.  Besides that, nobody has suggested "ten or more birds and three or more individuals competing."   What has been suggested is three or more birds with at least two competing.  That is very reasonable and I will continue to support it. 

Quote from: Mike Gilbert on October 09, 2025, 06:02:06 PM
...nobody has suggested "ten or more birds and three or more individuals competing."...

OK, I took those numbers from Russ' "AA Proposed Meet Policy Draft 1.docx" he linked to, above, and it is for ribbons, not points.
Yes, I remember this is one those areas we didn't agree on. 

I edited some of this comment now that I had a little free time at break.

First off let me say that I am glad to see so many members getting involved in this discussion. This is why I started it and I truly welcome everyone's ideas and thoughts on these matters, as do the board of directors. Unfortunately, I do not have much time to spare before i leave tomorrow for fowl fest, but I wanted to chime in to help keep this from spiraling into something it is not. After seeing some post on Facebook, comments on here and a phone call or two I wanted to set the record straight on a few things to help keep this a constructive discussion.

1 The proposed meet policy changes that I included in this discussion are just one of three proposals that I drafted, with the help of one other director to get it started, to have the directors vote on. When none of them passed by absolute majority it was suggested to present it to the members attending the annual meeting. Which I thought was a great idea and is why I did it and chose to present this proposal due to it receiving the most votes. Some members might argue my tactics and delivery methods. So please allow me to explain why I did not allow much to any discussion at the annual meeting. According to our By-Laws it states in Article 4 – Ameraucana Newsletter
Our Ameraucana Newsletter is our official means to disseminate information to our membership, but since it is
only received quarterly the board may also use our Ameraucana Forum (Ameraucana.org) and/or email to
communicate information it feels is relevant.  I value all members input in matters of importance, and it became clear this would fall into that category. So, I wanted to use our second means of disseminating club information to our members as it reads in our By-Laws. More importantly I wanted to start a discussion where all our members could participate instead of just a handful that attended our annual dinner.

2. These proposed changes are just the starting point for opening this discussion. I truly welcome everyone's thoughts on these matters. I am looking for what needs clarification, what needs added, and also what do our members want removed or changed.

3. I am not looking to punish members, make requesting meets harder, or singling any of our members out with any of these changes. I do feel there are some serious issues that warrants some needed changes and i will discuss them later on. With this said I will not sit back and allow anyone to run our club in the mud or any of directors, charter members, honorary vice presidents or members of this Alliance in any way shape or form through text messages, messenger or social media platforms. This discussion was started here with our members, in good faith to give full transparency in hopes of finding solutions and that is how we will conduct this discussion. No one benefits from any unneeded drama in the poultry world, and it truly is counterproductive to the task at hand. So please reframe from such behavior and instead please bring your thoughts and ideas here instead, thank you.

Now I have much more to say but as I mentioned I am short on time right now. Before I go, I would like to share what caused me to start this discussion with the board of directors four months ago or so.
1. First off, most show superintendents/secretaries refuse to send in meet reports. After receiving complaints about members not receiving ribbons I started looking into these matters. I found 6 sanctioned meets that have not received meet reports.
2. Within the first month of this board assuming office I witnessed meet request be submitted by a member for a 600 bird show over 1,000 miles from them that they have never attended and they did not attend after it was accepted.
3. I also received complaints that meet request were not being sent in or accepted. Which this board of directors, or director in charge of placing meets, cannot force show superintendents to acknowledge or accept any meet request for sanctioned shows. No more than we can force them to fill out meet reports and send them in.
4. I had a member complain when I denied there meet request when it was sent in after the publishing date of the newsletter that would have printed after the post mark entry date. Which is a direct violation of our current meet policy.

I only bring this up to validate my concerns and need to start the discussion about making some changes to the current meet policy. There are some flaws in the current meet policy and I stand behind my decision to address this to help bring clarification and fairness to the process, not just for our members but also for the members that volunteer to hold a director position. I would like to say that after witnessing the concerns many of you are presenting, I feel we should extend the discussion deadline. I would propose we extend it to 14 days after the winter newsletter publishing date of December 1, 2025, that way I can include this topic in my presidents' report. That way members that do not frequent this forum are informed of what is transpiring (meet policy changes) allowing them to log in and voice any concerns.

With all this said I also want to say I feel much like Mike Gilbert, where is the value of our meets or our master exhibitor status if there is only one member attending and competing against themselves? It might look like we are changing the rules to make it harder but the reality is that if you want to win points and achieve your master exhibitor status that takes putting in the work of breeding better birds and attending big shows with lots of competition. It surely doesn't mean going in debt from entering a lot of birds in shows with no competition. The only time I really cared about points is when Debbie Hogan and I were racing to be the first recipient of our master exhibitor award, which she beat me to it lol. If anyone wants to know how any of the 8 current members reached this milestone I strongly encourage them to reference our archived newsletters where we publish all our meet reports. I guarantee you won't see any fast earners but instead you will see members who dedicated their time and resources in creating better Ameraucana that could win at any level of competition.

Thanks for reading this and please continue any and all discussions, but please try to see this for its intent instead of a reason to argue. Like I said earlier, I am looking for solutions not arguments or punishment. I will be back but I have to go to Chesaning to try and put some Ameraucana on Champion row, not to mention type up a report/article for the poultry press October 10th deadline  ;)

I will just say, I think the points are a fun thing to see, but I do not strive to solely gain more points. I have never requested a meet, mostly due to I do not want to be the one responsible if it gets messed up (like the meet reports that have not been turned in).

I have read most of the posts made in this thread and have a few thoughts. Please correct me if I missed, misread, misinterpreted or misunderstood anything that has already been stated.

1) Accountability - If you have sent in and have had your meet request accepted, you will be the one to either fill out the meet report or have your signature on the meet report if another member fills it out. If you do not do either of these, all other meet requests you send in will be denied for the remainder of the calendar year/the following year (as you send in meet requests 3+ months early)

2) Limiting Meet Requests - there should be no limit on how many meet requests one person can send in for the year. All limiting people does is create a system where people find loopholes. If you are going to attend a show you should be able to make a request for it.

3) Denial - This may hurt some people's feelings but there should be some meet requests that are turned down. Such as like Mike said if the "National Meet" is happening, there should be no other "Club Meets" that same weekend. The National is THE club meet of all club meets. Now if there is going to be 2 National Meets there should be some border that is regional to each national meet.

4) Point Chasing (Varirties) - There should be no minimum on how many exhibitors (in a variety) it takes to get points. If you are going to put in the time and effort to raise LF Silver you should be able to obtain points. Just because no one else isn't willing to put in the work required with a more difficult variety doesn't mean the person who raises them should be "punished". If the only reason you raise certain varieties is for points that's more of a moral issue than a club issue. Most people would be lucky to even witness a LF Silver, Brown Red or Wheaten at one show a year. If you say that's not worth giving someone 5 points for bringing 5 of them to a show you might as well take them out of the standard.

5) Point Chasing (Exhibitors) - There should be a minimum of 2 Ameraucana Alliance MEMBERS (Jr and/or Open) at a show to gain points at a meet. If it's just one member there it would be called a solo. You're not meeting with anyone to promote the breed. (Might be taking this a little too literal)

6) Newsletter - All meets should be requested in a timely manner for it to be published in the newsletter for all members to be informed of upcoming meets.

In my whole hearted opinion a "Club Meet" doesn't make "an alliance of folks focused on the promotion of standard bred Ameraucana chickens and positive support for those interested in standard bred Ameraucana chickens" , bringing quality birds out to shows and sharing the knowledge you have about the breed does (as many of you so kindly have done).

I have gone through and made changes to the meet policy proposal Russ originally attached to this discussion. Some edits are simple, such as formatting. I've rearranging sections of the proposal so it reads easier. Attached is my newly edited version. All areas highlighted in yellow indicate grammatical additions/changes. All areas highlighted in blue indicate the newly proposed changes. All areas highlighted in orange indicate additions or corrections suggested by other members or myself. Finally, the areas highlighted in red indicate sections that need to be changed to better describe their intentions.

I do whole-heartedly believe that all members ARE earning points when entering their birds in shows. Now, as far as what the bare minimum requirement is for exhibits/exhibitors - I like the idea of at least three birds per variety exhibited by at least two individuals. This would truly be the absolute bare minimum to not be competing only against oneself. With that being said, I do understand that there are areas with very few members and some varieties that almost don't exist.

Some members are satisfied with their status and have earned their points, while others are just beginning to show in the breed. Though, we must admit, that by earning one or two points by having an BV/RV bird in a very small class will not get us very far or very quickly. If members are truly "chasing points" they would be seeking out shows with large amounts of Ameraucana, or be entering large amounts of Ameraucana hoping to have the only ones. Even then, they would need to have Ameraucana of good quality to be placing well against any others shown.

As far as promoting the breed/club goes, I believe that simply by entering Ameraucana in a show we are promoting the breed. Whether that show is an Alliance meet or not. And, by being a members of the Alliance, we are promoting the club. All simply by showing up, being present, and discussing with other poultry fanciers at shows. In my opinion, one of the large points of discussion with these changes is to encourage members (and non-members) to communicate with one another - share with each other where and when you plan to go, and what you plan to take.

I know there is a lot of controversy around them, but I personally like double-card shows. I still have to breed, raise, feed, condition, and prepare my birds all the same whether a show is today, last week, tomorrow, yesterday, in three months from now, or one in the morning and another in the afternoon. It is always one judges opinion, in one moment of the day. To tie this back to members earning their points, you may notice a section on the attached PDF. I'm suggesting "In the case of double or triple judged shows, meet requests must list an additional Ameraucana exhibitor, per each additional show, for each additional show judged to qualify as a sanctioned meet." Essentially meaning, for a single judged show we are suggesting three exhibitors expected to compete would be listed on the meet request. If it is a double judged show, four exhibitors expected to compete would be listed on the meet request. And so on if this is the way we wish to go.

I hope more good discussion can continue on this subject.

I like Rachel's write-up for proposed changes to meet policy.  The only clarification I would make is to allow more than three requests per member per year in the event that one or more are turned down by our meets director.  Each person should be able to request three meets that are actually approved.   Thank you Rachel!  Your support is appreciated!

Quote from: Russ Blair on October 09, 2025, 08:12:16 PM
...I feel we should extend the discussion deadline. I would propose we extend it to 14 days after the winter newsletter publishing date of December 1, 2025,... ;)

Good, but since I've not seen anyone opposed to a requirement that a member(s) fills out and turns in a meet report(s), I suggest you agree on the language for that change in the meet policy now. Vote on it and get that out of the way as soon as possible to try to eliminate that problem. I also suggest you don't include a requirement that a show superintendent sign it. They are way too busy to actually verify a meet report during a show, so I see no value to their signature. Two Alliance members should be able to able to handle the task.

Quote from: John W Blehm on October 10, 2025, 10:05:23 AM

Quote from: Russ Blair on October 09, 2025, 08:12:16 PM
...I feel we should extend the discussion deadline. I would propose we extend it to 14 days after the winter newsletter publishing date of December 1, 2025,... ;)

Good, but since I've not seen anyone opposed to a requirement that a member(s) fills out and turns in a meet report(s), I suggest you agree on the language for that change in the meet policy now. Vote on it and get that out of the way as soon as possible to try to eliminate that problem. I also suggest you don't include a requirement that a show superintendent sign it. They are way too busy to actually verify a meet report during a show, so I see no value to their signature. Two Alliance members should be able to able to handle the task.

Because of our current meet policy, there may not be two Alliance members present to sign.  Even none if the requesting member does not show up.  But say there is one.  Would that be sufficient?   Or??

Quote from: Mike Gilbert on October 10, 2025, 11:32:16 AM
Because of our current meet policy, there may not be two Alliance members present to sign.  Even none if the requesting member does not show up.  But say there is one.  Would that be sufficient?   Or??

Mike,

If the show superintendent actually sends in reports within 30, 60 or what number of days, then the report(s) of the member(s) aren't even needed. If no member exhibits, we have no use for a report. If only one shows up, that could be covered in the revised language saying one would then be sufficient or whatever.

I actually AGREE with Kyle (Reply #17)

With the exception of not having a Club Meet on the same weekend as the National Meet, but would be willing to compromise with a Mileage requirement for a Club meet to be held the same weekend as the National Meet. 

Example:  National Meet in Dayton, OH...  PROPOSAL:  No club meets within a 600 mile radius.  This would allow CA, TX, FL, and other people in far away places to still exhibit their birds, if they can't travel 800+ miles to the National Meet. 


edited to add:  Also, as of yet, we do not know where the 2026 National Meet is.  If someone requests a show before the location of the National Meet is announced, do they lose their request?  I'd like to think on this thought a little bit more...

Could the Total Ameraucana Exhibited count required to be an accepted meet be combined for both LF AND Bantams?  An Ameraucana is an Ameraucana, and some of us have both, and some only have one or the other. 

In Rachel's 4th Draft of the proposal, it appears this is open for discussion.


Also, I'm still concerned about having 3 names for the meet REQUEST to be accepted.  Can we change that to TWO, and require that they NOT be within the same household?

My reasoning for this is: New people simply don't know anyone when they first start out.  There is no actual membership list provided to the members, with the exception of those few that are listed in the Breeders Directory.  How can we as a group, help those that are new and don't know any one?  Being new is scary.  Cold-Calling is scary.  Having to call those who aren't on our friends list is annoying.  And, meets help new members build relationships. 

I would also like to request an addendum to the policy to state:  If you are the one the birds are entered under, YOU have to be physically the one at the show actually cooping in and showing the birds. Jr and Open classes both.

A number of times in the past couple of years, and even recently, I have noticed birds being entered in both LF and Bantam varieties but the person who entered them isn't even actually at the show.  I've heard everything from "had to work"  "Had a birthday party"  "got sick" "went camping with family" "Had to study for exams".  If I send in my entries, but something comes up and I am unable to attend, my birds don't get taken to the show for me.  Someone else doesn't coop them in, or groom/prep and feed/water them for me, and I am ineligible for any wins as I am not there, nor are my birds.
  This has occurred in both Open and in Jr classes.  Yet those exhibitors were still awarded points for the birds placements.  How is that fair and good sportsmanlike conduct for other exhibitors who did take the time off of work, take time away from other activities, to participate in the poultry show?

Next question - is there a policy in place regarding meets placed at Bantam only shows?
I have noticed several shows down by my next of the woods that only allow Bantams.  Would I be allowed to request a meet for these shows? It would be a great show option for being able to promote the breed, and I know I could have at least 4 other exhibitors with bantam Ameraucana with a decent sized entry in the various varieties (at least 3 in most recognized variety). 

But is this fair to LF breeders?

There is nothing in either the old or the proposed meet policies to prevent a meet from being held at bantam-only shows.   Accumulating points is not a competition, so I don't know why anyone would care.   If they object they can take it up with show management. 

That was a lot of information to read and digest.  I believe I have a clear understanding of what is written in the new proposed changes.
 
1) The AA forum is difficult to navigate.  Unless you have lots of time and patience you leave the page before you find what you are looking for.   If this is the only location we can discuss meeting or other pertinent information this site needs to be updated.  I get tired of clicking around to find what I need.

2) "points for multiple card shows" I only show a couple times a year and I normally travel more than 600 miles for a show.  I feel if I have put in the time and effort to attend a show I should receive points for multiple cards.  Each card will have different judges. That means I showed my birds at multiple shows on the same day. 


3) "show reports" I agree that the person to request the show should be responsible for the report if one is not turned in by the show secretary.

4) "only 3 shows requested per member "  I can understand why some breeders believe this proposal should be approved, but I am think we should not put a limit on shows that are requested per member.  If that member is attending shows they request then why limit the shows ?  If you have to put a limit on shows that number needs to be increased. 


5). "3 members per show with secretary signature ".   Some states only have 1 show per year with limited member in that area.  If myself and one other member have taken the time to attend that show and have agreed to help with the AA then points should be applied.   The Secretary and judges are very busy.  Many times they don't have the time to chat much less sign a piece of paper that the AA may never see.

More to come, just need to read over everything again

6) "show request before the quarterly news letter". Most show are scheduled well in advance so I agree with a request needing to be made before the newsletter is published, but I feel their needs to be wording added to include how to proceed if a AA meeting is canceled at short notice. If that was to happen I would like for there to be a way another AA club meeting could be approved within 30 days.   That would mean it could not be announced in the News letter.

7) when the annual meetings are discussed we need to be sure that all states are included in that request.   Every Annual AA meeting I have attended, I have had to travel more than 600 miles.  I would like for more Southern States to be discussed.  Such as Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia or even South Carolina.   There are breeders on the South East Coast that are not able to attend meetings because of the distance they will have to drive. 

8) "showing another breeders birds".  Laura is correct, there are people that take advantage of this topic.  I, myself could see where this would help another breeder in case of an emergency.  This is just an example:  let say Stan had his birds prepared and ready for the show but an emergency came up and he was not able to show.  I would happy to take his birds and place them in the cages.  I do not want to be responsible for show forms, payments, bathing, and he would be willing to crate his birds. I would be willing to accept the responsibility of placing his birds in the cage safety and then bringing the home after the show.  Those would still be his birds.  I would just be a transporter.


9) Again I'm going to reiterate the fact that this site is NOT user friendly.   If this is the only forum we can use it needs to be updated and ALL members need to be aware of that fact.  If this site cannot be updated the Alliance needs to come up with a website that is more user friendly.   

Becky, you seem to be using it just fine.  What exactly is not to like?   Where are you running into problems?  We can't fix things if we don't know what the problem is.

I see there have been plenty of suggestions over the weekend. I also see some members are mistaking this discussion about MEET POLICY changes as a discussion to voice other complaints. I would just like to ask that they please start another topic if there are issues they would like to discuss OTHER than meet policy changes in order to keep this discussion on track.

I will also like to add that this discussion is my way of allowing our members to ad input to any changes to our current meet policy and also to bring up any areas that they feel would benefit with some clarification. Our by laws do not require that I or any board of directors allow this type of discussion be held when changing policies as article 3 of our by laws state "Policy decisions require the President to allow a discussion period by the board followed by a vote, with only a consensus needed for issues of lesser importance. " . So please remember this is truly an act of good faith, not a requirement governed by our constitution or its by laws.

One last note before I go back to work, when I begin this discussion with the current elected board members and we finalize our new meet policy please don't get upset when or if your suggestion is not included. With all of the suggestions made so far, I am sure that there will be some wording a member may not agree with.

I believe there is room for some compromise and ways of improving our initial proposal, but I will admit that my thoughts and thinking align with Mike Gilbert's thoughts and beliefs. There are some things that I feel need to be implemented to ensure our sanctioned meets hold value, merit and worth. Just like our Master Exhibitor status should hold some value and worth. This is not 2015 and we are not a newly founded organization. Our Ameraucana Alliance is one of the largest and most active breed specific clubs out there right now. We do not need the publicity that we needed when we started this Alliance in 2015, so requiring more to have sanctioned meets than we did when we started just makes sense to me. I am not saying this is what will happen, this board has not even begun discussing this. One of the board members is studying for midterms and we are in no hurry to rush our decision.

I am still reading all the suggestions, and I will be starting a discussion with the remaining board members very soon. I apologize for the confusion my original post may have created.

Thanks

So Russ what you are saying is basically it does not matter what the members say, the board along with your self are going to do as you please and make the final decision.  Please explain to me why you even opened the discussion if it does not matter what we say.   Seems to me like you are running this group as more of a dictatorship then a democracy.  I feel in matters such as this every member that wants to be heard needs to have  input in the way this Alliance is run. 

Quote from: Mike Gilbert on October 12, 2025, 10:05:45 PM
Becky, you seem to be using it just fine.  What exactly is not to like?   Where are you running into problems?  We can't fix things if we don't know what the problem is.

I'm going to open another post as requested by Russ

Quote from: Becky J Pelton on October 13, 2025, 01:29:44 PM
So Russ what you are saying is basically it does not matter what the members say, the board along with your self are going to do as you please and make the final decision.  Please explain to me why you even opened the discussion if it does not matter what we say.   Seems to me like you are running this group as more of a dictatorship then a democracy.  I feel in matters such as this every member that wants to be heard needs to have  input in the way this Alliance is run.

Becky, I don't think that is fair to Russ or to the rest of the Board.  It does matter what members say, but not all members are going to agree on every topic or policy.  Besides that, the club according to our Constitution (which is available to read on the website btw) does say the affairs of the club shall be governed by the Board of Directors at all times.  We want and need member input (which is not actually required by the Constitution) so we can make better informed decisions.  That said, our current Board is comprised of four Directors and the president (Russ) and we have not yet taken a final vote on this subject.  Dictatorships are not comprised of a Board of Directors, but of a single dictator.  We are NOT a democracy.  Neither is our federal government; we were created as a Constitutional Republic.   We, the Alliance, must abide by our Constitution and Bylaws.  There is a method by which they can be amended detailed in our Constitution.   Also, we have an election once every two years in which all members can vote for their president and directors.  If enough don't like the way things are going, they can vote to "throw the bums out" and elect new representatives. Unfortunately, many of our otherwise well-qualified members hold dual membership with another Ameraucana club, so they are not eligible to run for office.   

Another question for you guys:  If the limit is imposed of only 3 "approved" requests per member.  How would the member know if the meet is approved or not, in time to not miss deadlines for other shows they may also like to see as a potential meet, if its like a month later, etc? 
Example:  I submitted a request for the upcoming January show, North East Poultry Congress.  NEPC has their own catalogue deadline (which is passed now) which required our club representative in charge of meet placement to confirm the meet requests, send in our media information for printing in the catalogue, etc.
I, as the requestor, am left completely out of the loop to even know if this was done or not? I wouldn't even know if this was an accepted meet or not for a couple of months still as I have to wait for the upcoming AA Newsletter to find out if its printed in there, and in the mean time I am sitting on my other two requests, not wanting to waste them on other shows, if this one gets approved.  And if it doesn't get approved, then I have let other deadlines pass by, and missed those other show opportunities.
 
In the past, I basically shot-gun approached it by sending in all of my future show meet requests, all at the beginning of the year, to ensure I had those in with ample time and advance notice of any newsletter and host show committee deadlines.
 
So how the board feels it should work is: I just pick 3 shows for the year, and hope it all works out?  Am I understanding this correctly?

Laurie, if Scott acts on your request promptly, he should probably notify you by email or text as soon as he has confirmation.  Can you think of or suggest a better solution?  Keep in mind he is a volunteer and has a job and a life outside of Ameraucana Alliance.  He may travel or take vacations from time to time.  But I know Scott and feel he is as capable and diligent as anyone.  Also articulate I might add - maybe you saw his article on the front page of Poultry Press?
Once you are notified, it should be your responsibility as the requestor to make a post on the Alliance Forum (and FB if you felt that would help) that details all the relevant information a prospective exhibitor at that show would need to know in order to make his/her entry and lodging accommodations.
As a practical matter, have you ever had a meet request turned down?   That would be very rare in my estimation.  There will be some circumstances we just can't control.  For example, the Beaver Pigeon and Bantam Club show recently had their show shut down during the week before it was to be held - due to HPAI in the same county.  There was supposed to be an Alliance meet at that show.  Also, I previously suggested folks who like a lot of meets and would actually participate in them can enlist the help of other members to apply for meets.   That doesn't solve the problem of new members who may not know of others to help out, but newer members should probably get a couple of shows under their belt before requesting meets anyway.  There is no substitute for experience.

Mike, then can I suggest another change to the By-Laws ?  I fell if you are taking into consideration all member we should be allowed to vote on changes to the By-laws and Constitution.  Because at this point any changes to the Constitution and its By-Laws are only able to be changed by a very small portion of our members and not the entire body.   Should I open another forum for this comment also ?

You can if you like, but any changes to the Constitution and Bylaws must be voted on by the entire membership.  That is one thing the Board of Directors can not do on their own.  Policy changes are made by the Board, but they are not part of the Constitution and Bylaws.  Perhaps it would be a good idea to go to the website and open the tab where the Constitution and Bylaws can be read?

Quote from: Becky J Pelton on October 13, 2025, 05:53:00 PM
Mike, then can I suggest another change to the By-Laws ?  I fell if you are taking into consideration all member we should be allowed to vote on changes to the By-laws and Constitution.  Because at this point any changes to the Constitution and its By-Laws are only able to be changed by a very small portion of our members and not the entire body.   Should I open another forum for this comment also ?

The topic is about the Meet Policy. As Mike said, the Constitution/By-Laws is not part of this discussion. Go to our Alliance site, Ameraucana.org (https://ameraucana.org/). A tab there will take you to the Constitution and the Downloads tab will reveal the club's Policies and other documents.  ;)

Becky, I assure you that running this club like a dictator is the farthest thing from my intent. In fact, I was running this club per Article 1 of our By-Laws.

Article 1 - President
The President shall be Chairman of the Board and responsible for the execution of the Constitution & Bylaws
[/b]

I hastily written my reply and I can see where my statement could appear harsher than I meant. I truly believe this current board will definitely take all the suggestions into consideration when we resume discussions about a new meet policy. I just don't want anyone to get upset if there's something in it, they do not agree with. It truly is our constitution, by-laws and our policies that Govern our Ameraucana Alliance. I strongly recommend all our members go to our website Ameraucana.org (http://ameraucana.org) and read them. That is where everything is downloaded for all our members to access and read.

Becky you also asked about changing our constitution and by-laws.

Quote from: Becky J Pelton on October 13, 2025, 05:53:00 PM
Mike, then can I suggest another change to the By-Laws ?  I fell if you are taking into consideration all member we should be allowed to vote on changes to the By-laws and Constitution.  Because at this point any changes to the Constitution and its By-Laws are only able to be changed by a very small portion of our members and not the entire body.   Should I open another forum for this comment also ?

Here is Article 10 of the by-laws that governs that

"Article 10 - Amendments
Any proposal to amend or alter the Constitution and/or Bylaws of the Ameraucana Alliance shall be submitted to the President by October 1st of an election year.  He or she will in turn submit the proposal to the entire Board of Directors who will vote whether to place the proposal before the membership for a vote.  Proposals passed favorably by the Board of Directors shall be included on the ballot with the biennial election of officers. If adopted the amendment shall become effective on January 1st following the election. The amended Constitution and Bylaws shall be included with the Winter Newsletter."

Laurie Ashley you asked "How would the member know if the meet is approved or not, in time to not miss deadlines for other shows they may also like to see as a potential meet, if it's like a month later, etc"

I assure you that Scott has carbon copied me on every meet request he has sent out. He has also carbon copied me on all his confirmation emails that he sends to the members that requested the meet when he receives confirmation where he also asks them to start a topic on our forum to promote the new meet. Scott has always been quick to send them out after he receives them. The problem is not Scott; the issue is 1. Superintendents are not responding to his emails acknowledging they have been accepted or 2. members have accidently given the wrong contact information. Which may be due to the wrong information being posted elsewhere where they obtained their information for all we know. (yes, this has actually happened) All any director can do is send out the request to the "person of contact" they are given, we cannot force them to respond or confirm the meet was accepted. We are actually dealing with a show now that published in their catalog that they were hosting a sanctioned meet when it was never accepted by them. The director at that time sent it out to the contact information provided but they never responded or confirmed the meet request was accepted and that a sanctioned meet was placed, so it was never published in one of our newsletters. Try explaining to the member that requested a meet and then sees it advertised in a catalog, but the meet was never confirmed and published in a newsletter, so it is not sanctioned.  which the current meet policy states it has to be in order for it to be a sanctioned meet. 

" Club meets may be placed by the Director in charge of meets when a member requests a meet for a specific show, he/she
plans to exhibit Ameraucana at, in time for the meet to be publicized in the quarterly Ameraucana Newsletter prior to the
show's entry deadline. "

I truly appreciate you asking, perhaps the director in charge of placing meets should also start carbon copying the members that request meets when they send out meet request. That way our members know when the director sends out the meet request, and when the contact person confirms the meet. This is exactly what this discussion was started for  ;)

I would think adding the Requesting Member as a CC would be sufficient, that way we would at least know when it was sent to the host club.  And allow us to be a bit more aware and involved in the process, instead of just left out in left field hoping things align right  :-X

I can also volunteer to be a helper for meet requests, if that would be beneficial to the board.  I have a good many contacts with a majority of shows all over the country, and can donate a few hours a week to helping track down contact information, emails, phone numbers, forms, whatever is needed or may be missing. 
(have noticed myself information for listed show contacts are often out of date, or incorrect people listed...heck our OWN meet form we send out to the host club has incorrect names still on them in places :) )
I am willing to help if its genuinely needed. I don't want to impugn honor, or step on toes. But truth is we as general membership were told at the meeting dinner that we were overwhelming the director in charge of meets, thus the reason for the limitations on number of requests allowed per member.  So... allowing the workload to be shared and delegated, would eliminate the need to limit requests, yes?

I officially think no major changes are needed to current Meet policy as is, if people are required to be personally responsible for their own show reports, and their own follow ups with host clubs. 

Laurie I truly appreciate your willingness to help it is much appreciated and I will relay this to the board members when we resume our discussions on this matter. I do need to clarify one thing you mentioned

"But truth is we as general membership were told at the meeting dinner that we were overwhelming the director in charge of meets, thus the reason for the limitations on number of requests allowed per member."

I never said meet request were overwhelming the director, Scott Lepak, at our annual meeting. What I said was "one of the reasons I started the discussion on needed changes to our current meet policy with the board of directors was due to the fact in the first month of the new board assuming their responsibilities, there were three members that all sent meet request in within the same week. Some of those meet request emails contained 8-12 meet request with one member requesting a meet to be placed at a 600 entry show 1,000 miles from their house that they have never attended and did not attend." I don't recall mentioning anything about Scott being overwhelmed, in fact Scott has never complained one time of having to uphold his duties. He has actually went above and beyond in his attempts to place meets. Meaning I have witnessed him send multiple emails and not receive any replies from the show contact given. Again I truly appreciate your willingness to help and it will be mentioned to the board, thanks.

Over the past two years I have seen multiple instances where the owner/breeder/exhibitor was not present at the show. The birds were brought and shown by another person in the owner's name. In a real emergency (sudden illness, broken limb, birth or death) I can understand that. It should be a rare event. We have plenty of time to make arrangements in our work, school and social lives to determine whether we can attend a specific show before sending in an entry form. Multiple occurrences of an exhibitor not present is not acceptable and not fair to other exhibitors present.

I suggest that a requirement be added that the exhibitor MUST be present at a show to receive awards. As a side note I have seen that statement in some show catalogs.

Quote from: Rebecca G Howie on October 16, 2025, 03:33:21 PM
Over the past two years I have seen multiple instances where the owner/breeder/exhibitor was not present at the show. The birds were brought and shown by another person in the owner's name. In a real emergency (sudden illness, broken limb, birth or death) I can understand that. It should be a rare event. We have plenty of time to make arrangements in our work, school and social lives to determine whether we can attend a specific show before sending in an entry form. Multiple occurrences of an exhibitor not present is not acceptable and not fair to other exhibitors present.
I suggest that a requirement be added that the exhibitor MUST be present at a show to receive awards. As a side note I have seen that statement in some show catalogs.

Becky, I think your concept is a good one.   But how do you propose such a rule would be enforced?   I struggle with that, envisioning all the different scenarios that could come into play.  For example, what happens when no one reports it?  How would we know for sure if reported emergencies were real or not?  What about juniors, who often have conflicting school events?  What if it is a newer exhibitor at the show that other members don't know yet, and don't meet them at the show for some reason?  What happens to relationships when someone games the system and finds out or suspects who snitched?  Perhaps you have good answers to these questions; if so, please share them here.

To keep it simple, I would say that exhibitors MUST be present, period. I understand that emergencies happen, but that is just how it goes sometimes. I would not burden someone with hauling my birds to a show, along with all the work and responsibility involved with that. It creates opportunity for hard feelings if something were to go wrong, such as if a bird dies or gets sick or even stolen. Just my two cents...  ;)

Quote from: Max Strawn on October 17, 2025, 11:22:44 AM
To keep it simple, I would say that exhibitors MUST be present, period. I understand that emergencies happen, but that is just how it goes sometimes. I would not burden someone with hauling my birds to a show, along with all the work and responsibility involved with that. It creates opportunity for hard feelings if something were to go wrong, such as if a bird dies or gets sick or even stolen. Just my two cents...  ;)

Max, so you are saying just have that as part of the policy and don't worry about enforcing it as a hard and fast rule?  We could do that.  Hopefully no one would complain or snitch.

There will always be some that will try to bend the rules. If someone wins a prize and they are not present, then the prize would go to the next place down.

I think it is really very simple. With that rule in the Meet Policy, an exhibitor will be aware that he/she must present to get Alliance awards/points. We all get to know one another pretty quickly at the shows, the person responsible for the meet report is going to get around to know if exhibitors are present. I don't think that is a problem. Then they can simply note on the report that the exhibitor is not present.

There is no snitching to it, the exhibitor is present or not present.

Agreed, some people will try to circumvent a rule, but that speaks to the person's character. Eventually it will be seen by others, either way it is their burden to carry.

I just spoke to Carl Cook.   He sometimes has to take Daniel's birds to a show when Daniel has to work.    Daniel does all the work with his birds, including feeding, conditioning, and prepping for exhibition.  This rule, if implemented, would affect Daniel in a negative way.  He is a fine young man with excellent LF Blacks.  I say this based on his show records and achievements.   So this is an example to let you know why I can't support adding this proposal to the meet policy.   

Well i see i have missed some suggestions since I logged in last. I see now there has been a suggestion that

"the exhibitor MUST be present at a show to receive awards."

I am not going to pretend that I do not know what this pertains to. I do have some questions though before I give my personal thoughts on this matter. My first thought, like Mike mentioned, is "how would we police this". Better yet what are all the stipulations that we consider when enforcing this new requirement?  Do we allow a father (who is a due paying member) to bring his 18-year-old son's (who is a lifetime member) entries when he is called in to work last minute when an employee calls in sick? Or should that member be ineligible for awards?

What about the co-op breeders, the breeders that share birds and occasionally bring each other's birds to shows when the other partner just can't make it? Are they now also ineligible for awards because they couldn't attend the show? 

What about the breeder that cannot make the trip to enter birds into a show that is hosting a "pre-qualifying meet or qualifying meet" for getting that project variety recognized but wants to send birds with another member to help the petition. Are they not allowed awards??

So, if the board decides to implement this rule, I need to ask should we also require the member condition the bird in order to be eligible for awards? Do we require that a member raises and conditions the bird in order to be eligible for our awards? Better yet do we require that our member Breed, Raise and Condition the bird in order to be eligible for awards? I only ask because some breeders don't show birds that they buy because winning with bought birds don't hold any value to them. Much like winning BB or RB at a show where there is only one exhibitor does not hold much value or worth to a serious breeder.

While I am asking what about members that have other members pay their entry fees? Are those members now also disqualified from being awarded any points or awards as well? What if another member pays the hotel fees for another member that enters birds at a meet? Do we not allow that member to receive awards now too?

I have never heard of a show that requires the person that sends in an entry be present to receive any awards. I also don't know of the ABA or APA having any rule that requires this? If I am wrong, please correct me. 

Now for my personal thoughts, I get it, we have some members that are upset that Daniel Cook won Champion Ameraucana Overall this year when he was not present. Has any of these members reached out to Daniel to ask him why he was unable to attend this year's national meet? The sad part is that I was blessed with Reserve Champion Ameraucana Overall and I was not upset that he was not present. In fact, I shook Carl Cooks hand and told him to congratulate Daniel, I love seeing new breeders win that title.

I do not agree with this, but I will recommend that each board member look at each and every suggestion made when we resume our discussions.

In the interest of keeping the youth in the hobby, I would be okay with them not being present for a legitimate reason.

For co-op breeders, as long as one is present,  they would qualify for awards.

I do not believe that the member has to be present to earn awards. You cannot police this without an unbiased individual being present at every show. Otherwise you're just putting one persons word against another.
The work put into your birds is started long before the show weekend


This is also portraying a double standard. If you're not going to allow family/farm names to be members based on the fact that multiple people can show at different shows on the same weekend and receive awards/points at both. M&M poultry was the example of this scenario.

What's the difference if I am showing under my name in Louisiana and Michigan the same weekend but someone brings my birds to Louisiana and I'm showing in Michigan? Should i still be eligible for awards at both shows? Or what if im not present at either show?

You can't say that one is ok and the other is not.

           Just a couple of my opinions.. I see no good reason why someone else can not cage my birds under my name even if I am not present at the show.. my birds, my conditioning, my reward...
            as for the 3 show request max idea.. I think I know why that came about and I would suggest that 3 shows per quarter would be more in line with solving that issue.. Shows must be requested in the quarter before the show date and not before..
           I think if there is no competition in a particular variety, then points should not be awarded unless the variety goes BB or RB. 1 or 2 points for a variety is meaningless anyway..
           One thing I would like to add is that a rare variety like Brown Red winning BB should never get fewer points than any other Ameraucana shown in that show.. if there are 3 Brown Reds and one takes BB, and 12 Blacks and one is RV, currently the Black would earn more points even though the Brown Red was awarded the better bird.
          One more thought.. double card shows... both shows are judged by different judges and should both be counted as elegible for points... it is two shows!

 The vote on these changes needs to be extended past the 14 days.. there is too much still needing to be worked out and too much confusion needing to be resolved..

 "One thing I would like to add is that a rare variety like Brown Red winning BB should never get fewer points than any other Ameraucana shown in that show.. if there are 3 Brown Reds and one takes BB, and 12 Blacks and one is RV, currently the Black would earn more points even though the Brown Red was awarded the better bird."

Stan, actually the Brown Red (that took BB) actually gets points for every Bantam entered along with the BV points earned by placing higher than the other 6 Brown Reds that were entered. Just like my Splash Hen that placed reserve of breed is awarded points for every bantam entered minus one (the brown red that placed BB). Also I just want to remind everyone that the only policy that I have recommended any changes to the board was the meet policy. There hasn't been any suggestions or discussion on changes the our exhibitor points policy  ;)

Quote from: Russ Blair on October 19, 2025, 11:51:33 AM
...I just want to remind everyone that the only policy that I have recommended any changes to the board was the meet policy. There hasn't been any suggestions or discussion on changes the our exhibitor points policy...

Yes, but those changes to the Meet Policy (http://ameraucana.org/DnLd/Ameraucana%20Alliance%20Meet%20Policy%204.7.2024.pdf) greatly affect the Points Policy (http://ameraucana.org/DnLd/Points%20Policy.pdf) and that is why so many are against much/most of what is being proposed. The Meet Policy has served us well for many years, because it was well thought out and discussed before being approved. We even included language way back then about members being "strongly encouraged" to fill out Meet Reports, since some show clubs weren't furnishing them or at least not in a timely manner. If Meet Reports for Club Meets aren't being reported in our Newsletters, it is because our members that are requesting the meets haven't taken the time to do what has been requested of them. So, yes "strongly encouraged" needs to be changed to "shall" since the problem with show clubs has gotten worse.
My proposed changes are in a previous post, in this topic, with a little revision. (https://ameraucanaalliance.org/forum/index.php?topic=2107.msg11827#msg11827)

No other breed club I belong to cares how many meets you request, nor do they care if you are a points chaser or not, because at the end of every show, you are exhibiting and promoting the breed, which is kind of the point, right?   So I am still failing to grasp or comprehend here why these proposed changes need to be made.  All I can see it doing is causing many to no longer exhibit nearly as many Ameraucana, as there would be far fewer meets to be able to gain exhibition points at.

I will restate:

I do not agree that changes to the number of meets requested need to be made.
 
I do agree that each member shall be responsible for their own show report, if they requested the meet.  (and heck, if they didn't request it, it doesn't hurt to learn to complete show reports as back ups and cross reference information).

I do agree that being Cc'd in on meet requests sent to host clubs would be a great way to include requestor in the process.

I do agree that each exhibitor should be physically present if their birds are being shown. (barring accidents/illness) But not being able to get off work? sorry that one doesn't fly.  We have to schedule time off from work too. If we don't get that time off scheduled, we don't get to go show.  (I would love to be able to send my birds off to show with someone else all the time, that would enable me to show simultaneously in multiple locations... hummm... professional handlers occupation opening, like horses and dogs?...)
If your not going to enforce being responsible for cooping your own birds in at a show, then why the stance against farm memberships and allowing people to show under a farm mantle at multiple locations?

Stan, actually the Brown Red (that took BB) actually gets points for every Bantam entered along with the BV points earned by placing higher than the other 6 Brown Reds that were entered.....

Russ... this is the point I am trying to make.. The Brown red got  6 points for variety plus say 20 BB points for the breed entries.. total of 26 points ...the Black that was RB got 12 points for BV and 19 points for RB.. total of 31 points, so the Reserve of breed received a total of 5 points more than the BB.. am I calculating this wrong???

I do not think an exhibitor must be present at a show to get his awards.  There is no way to enforce such a rule equitably, and it could lead to all kinds of disputes and hard feelings.  There are kids like Daniel, who has a supervisory position for his shift, who is responsible enough to know that recreational activities do NOT come before more important duties.  Someone could actually get fired for doing that, especially now when good help is hard to come by.  Someone could get seriously ill just before a show and have a friend take his entries.  For example, I have experienced vertigo that comes on suddenly and lasts for days; it leaves me unable to drive or even function sometimes.   It comes and goes.  Does that mean I would have to get a written excuse from my doctor?  They don't work for free.  As far as limiting the number of meets to three per person per year, lets at least be honest here.  Right now our meets mean very little.  Who even reads the results in the newsletter?  This is not 2015 anymore, and our priorities need to change accordingly.  The Ameraucana is already one of the most popular breeds in the country according to the APA yearbook reports.  What do we gain by showing mediocre (or less) birds?  Nothing.  In fact, we go backwards in some cases.  Yet that is exactly what the present point system encourages.   Show lots of birds, no matter their quality, to get more points.  That is ridiculous and works against our mission statement.  It's time for an overhaul of the system, and that is what I hope happens.  There have been many good suggestions here, and they will be taken into account.  But unlimited meets and requiring physical presence are two that I will oppose.  I encourage others to put their egos aside and do what is best for the breed.  In my opinion, it has always been about the birds and their improvement, and everything else is secondary.  For the last 50 years. 

Quote from: Mike Gilbert on October 23, 2025, 12:01:31 PM.  It's time for an overhaul of the system, and that is what I hope happens.

You want an overhaul? I got a lot of ideas, probably not great ideas, but a lot of them

(These are all going to be separate ideas, not intended to be all put in place)

1) Points only to the best of breed and best of variety. If you're not 1st, you're last.
-minimum 3 exhibitors for points in breed and/or variety
-2 levels of "master" one for breed at a higher value and one for variety at the current value
-current status to be grandfathered in

2) One meet allowed per state, per year. If Wisconsin has the coulee show as the state meet, no other show in the state of Wisconsin will be awarded points.
-no exceptions - if the national meet is in your state, you will not have a state meet

3) Free for fall - no changes to the current policy

4) Make the meets mean something. Whoever requests the meet, has to promote the meet, put up a table/donate awards towards ameraucanas/write a short snippet of why people should attend the show in the newsletter

5) Delete the whole points system. Dare to be different. If there was no point system in this club I can guarantee I personally would still be a member. I can't speak for everyone, but the words "master breeder/exhibitor" are just more meaningless titles. I go to work and the people with the highest titles are typically the dumbest.
The club isn't about points, just throw them out the window. The APA, ABA and most other clubs give points. Shouldn't mean we need to as well.

If you need more dumb ideas, feel free to ask. My brain runs at a million miles a minute. 😂

Thanks for your ideas, Kyle.  I like someone who thinks "outside the box" so to speak.  I will not be able to respond again until at least Monday, as we are headed to the show at Hutchinson, Minnesota, tomorrow morning.  It's one of my favorite venues, but there is no Ameraucana OR Chantecler meet this year.

In my other breed club, any member can receive points from any show they attend. Single or double, it doesn't matter. Meet or not, it doesn't matter. You get your points if you submit a report. We do have a minimum bird and exhibitor number for meets, technically, but they have never been an unmoveable cement block for anyone to request a meet or have their points counted. We also give points for winning the class and advancing further in the show rankings because those things matter too to many members. Club rosettes and awards are only given out only at sanctioned meets, but they are nice rosettes that more expensive for the club to provide than a flat ribbon.

For breed and club promotion, I think we should find ways to encourage members to attend any and all shows they are able to, and to show their best birds (we all start somewhere), as we know it's not easy, especially in areas where shows are few and far between like here out West. The closest shows to me personally are a 3-6 hour drive one direction and there are only a handful a year. None of those options are large shows. A few are double shows, so that helps give more opportunities to have birds looked at by different judges, which can be more helpful to my breeding program. I personally feel that if members are making the effort to attend shows, even small ones or double shows, there's no good reason they shouldn't get club points. Even if there was little breed competition at a particular show, it doesn't mean that BB bird wasn't exceptional. Assuming birds are "mediocre" because there is less competition is problematic and discouraging, as many times even with little Ameraucana presence at a show, the Ameraucanas winning BB go on to win the class or beyond.

The APA points policy allows that even if the class doesn't have the 25 birds to qualify for class Champion points, if a bird places higher, like Show Champion or Champion LF, they still get the class points. The Alliance only gives points within the breed itself- a bird is only earning points for every bird they place over. If there's only 2 birds shown, that's only 2 points. Who cares? I don't really see the point in making things more complicated for those requesting meets, attending shows, and for the board members keeping track of it all.

I agree that we need to clarify that the POST MARKED entry deadline is what counts for the newsletter. And that those requesting meets need to fill out and turn in the meet report/s. I don't see any of the rest as being helpful.
That's my two cents, for whatever they are worth.

Quote from: Kyle Porosky on October 23, 2025, 08:49:14 PM

Quote from: Mike Gilbert on October 23, 2025, 12:01:31 PM.  It's time for an overhaul of the system, and that is what I hope happens.

1) Points only to the best of breed and best of variety. If you're not 1st, you're last.
-minimum 3 exhibitors for points in breed and/or variety 

-2 levels of "master" one for breed at a higher value and one for variety at the current value
-current status to be grandfathered in

2) One meet allowed per state, per year. If Wisconsin has the coulee show as the state meet, no other show in the state of Wisconsin will be awarded points.
-no exceptions - if the national meet is in your state, you will not have a state meet

3) Free for fall - no changes to the current policy

4) Make the meets mean something. Whoever requests the meet, has to promote the meet, put up a table/donate awards towards ameraucanas/write a short snippet of why people should attend the show in the newsletter

5) Delete the whole points system. Dare to be different. If there was no point system in this club I can guarantee I personally would still be a member. I can't speak for everyone, but the words "master breeder/exhibitor" are just more meaningless titles. I go to work and the people with the highest titles are typically the dumbest.
The club isn't about points, just throw them out the window. The APA, ABA and most other clubs give points. Shouldn't mean we need to as well.

I see a number of workable ideas here. 
1.  In agreement here.  However, it will be tough to find 3 other exhibitors for several of our recognized varieties (Silvers, whites, buffs... even brown red sometimes). Or did you mean 3 exhibitors total, across all Ameraucana shown?  This can open up coordination between members to work together to make sure 3 people show up with Ameraucana.  Can do.

2.  In agreement here as well.  One meet per state works well for us as we already travel for a large majority of our chosen shows.  However it can make it tough to have meaningful meets with sufficient exhibitors when some members do all the traveling to support meets, and others can't or wont.  Still a workable idea. 

3.  I certainly hope they don't cancel already set meets this fall :-\ 

4.  In agreement.  Already doing it :) I added up how much I spent on table fees last year.. oiy.  Wasn't pretty.   :o :-[   But if I only have to worry about my states meet, then that saves me a large burden right there :) Workable idea!

5.  OK.  I can see your point on this.  I have already come to my own conclusion here that "breed club points" are going to become nonexistent to me now.

Kyle you just made my morning, I thought I would check in before work and this is what I read

"I go to work and the people with the highest titles are typically the dumbest."


That my friend is the truest statement I have seen yet 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Quote from: Russ Blair on October 25, 2025, 06:56:47 AM
Kyle you just made my morning, I thought I would check in before work and this is what I read

"I go to work and the people with the highest titles are typically the dumbest."


That my friend is the truest statement I have seen yet 🤣🤣🤣🤣

This made my day as well! I encounter this a lot, and I believe what happens is someone has an idiot that they know is an idiot but for some reason or another can't get rid of him, so they make him the Director of Nothing Important, stick him somewhere he can't do too much harm, tell everyone how great he is, and pray some headhunter steals him.

I've been following this thread and have been trying to organize my scattered thoughts into something that makes sense - will post more later.

Looks like I can still kill a thread! ;)

I've been reading and trying to keep up, but this thread has been moving quicker than my brain so I am just now getting around to commenting.

I haven't done any showing in quite a while. I believe the last time I took birds to a show was the first or second AA national in Indiana. I still have a few out here and even hatched a handful last spring just to try to keep them going, but don't see myself showing again any time soon, so these are just my general thoughts - I don't really have skin in the game.

First off, I like lots of meets, providing the people calling them attend. When I first became interested in this breed, the first thing I did was check the website and look for activities near me and I was very discouraged to find absolutely nothing less than 12 hours away. Once I joined and discovered all I needed to do to have a meet closer was to request it myself, I did every chance I got. There weren't a lot of Ameraucanas in NC back then and in the beginning mine were often the only ones at a show. But there were other Ameraucana folks around. I met Don Cash and John Marshall who both had a great deal of experience in the hobby, and through them I met others. We showed our birds and people started asking about them and where they could get some and over time we started seeing bigger classes, more people raising Ameraucanas, and more club members from the Carolinas. I credit much of that growth to Don and it would have certainly been possible without meets or even a club, but I firmly believe calling those early meets helped by giving us an official presence in a region where we had not previously been visible. I'm glad the ability to use that valuable tool was not restricted.

However, just as I believe that tool should not be restricted, I believe just as strongly that it should not be abused. If I had called those meets and not shown up, anyone who made the trip to the show in the hope of meeting other Ameraucana enthusiasts, learning about the birds, club, etc. would have been left with a very bad impression. I believe that anyone who is willing to condition, groom, load, and haul birds across the state (or several states), spend money they often can't afford on gas, lodging, in my case usually a rental car (telling the agent with a straight face I won't have any "pets" in it), entry fees, etc. for non-cash awards deserves to have a meet for each time they do it. But anyone who calls a meet and does not show up had better have a darn good reason (think calling out sick at Walmart on Black Friday) or face suspension from calling meets for a period of time that would increase substantially for repeat offenders. But only penalize the offenders. Those who have been calling meets and showing up, doing what they are supposed to all along should be allowed to continue without infringement.

The "expectation " of 3 or more people showing: in the early days I'd have fallen short of 3 people even if you counted the EEs that were DQ'd. If I hadn't called meets knowing I'd be the only one there, we would never have worked up to class sizes with actual competition. Call them and they will come. Eventually.

Show secretaries that don't submit reports make my hair hurt. It's maddening, especially when you finally receive it and it's incorrect (which, in my experience, is at least half the time). One member had the same issue with the same show club, same secretary, spring and fall shows, year after year. The only option was to refuse meets, which would have hurt our member, who didn't deserve it, and had very little impact on the show club. In order to save our Director of Meets' sanity without penalizing a member for something that wasn't their fault, we came up with a backup plan where the member does their own report and, if the show secretary doesn't submit one within 30 days, we use the member's. In the interest of avoiding any appearance of impropriety, we ask that the member get a signature from someone else to verify the report. (Show secretary, another member, etc.) I haven't read the current policy but being part of the original discussion, I know the spirit of the rule had less to do with *who* signed it and more to do with *someone* verifying it (obviously not your spouse, kid, etc.). This wasn't done to make it harder for the exhibitors, it was done to give them a back up plan when dealing with an impossible show club that was often the only option within driving distance.

I can't add much with regard to points as by the time we started doing that I wasn't showing much, but as  far as being present at a show vs sending birds with someone else, I honestly don't see a problem. If a bird is better than mine it deserves to win over mine. I've talked people into sending birds to a show they couldn't attend just to get enough entries to make it count, and they ended up beating me. I thought it was funny then and it still makes me laugh.  Besides,  the hard work is done well before the show. If you bred it, raised it, conditioned it, groomed it, taught it to be handled, did the testing, paid the entry fees, etc. what does it matter if someone else stuck it in the show cage? Now, that's just my opinion and, as I said, I really don't have skin in the game, but before implementing a new rule, I suggest considering it from all angles. For example, say Joe can't attend a show but he sends his birds with his friend. If we decide that Joe can't earn points/awards if his birds do well, what happens if Joe's birds don't do so well? If Joe can't earn points if he wins because he isn't there, it isn't fair for someone else to earn points from beating a guy who isn't there, so the winner's points would have to be calculated as if Joe's birds weren't there (and maybe he sent a bunch). Resulting in fewer points for the other competitors and additional headaches for the Director of Meets. And what if Joe is that third guy needed to have a meet? Does he count then? I personally think it's a slippery slope.

As far as the website/forum, I've always found both easy to navigate and the search feature on our forum works far better than other sites I use - it's gotten me a bit spoiled. My only complaint is with the pictures. I don't think I've ever been able to upload a picture to the forum, I've always had to upload them to a 3rd party site and link them. I haven't tried in a long time, maybe it's better now.

Did I miss anything?

Beth you didn't kill the topic, we all just waited to hear your words of wisdom 😉.

A lot of what you said has merit, and I will strongly encourage every board member to review all of the suggestions posted in this discussion. I hope to begin the conversation about our meet policy with our current board of directors as soon as we hash out our 2026 National Meet Bids.

It seems i may be way late to the party, and a decision might of already been made....... butttttt Im new and was just reading through some of the threads and familiarizing myself with the club....

While going through this proposed update i had a thought.......

instead of only counting the first shows points and requiring at least 3 exhibitors... would you support a "solo exhibitor and two exhibitors cap on points" call it the "dan karasek provision" since he was used as an example lol.... instead of requiring there to be more than 1 exhibitor just cap the number of points they can earn PER VARIETY when showing against themselves... increase the cap when there are 2 exhibitors... no cap if 3 or more exhibitors are present. My thoughts on this are 1.) It gets birds in front of people and a judge... being in front of people promotes the breed and it's varieties. Being in front of a judge helps the exhibitor see flaws they might of missed and gets another view on the interpretation of the SOP.  2.) It would keep someone from taking an over adbundance of a variety just to chase points. 3.) It gives exhibitors a reason to still go to shows. 4.) Removes the need to try and find other people showing amerecauna in an area. 5.) Its a bit of a middle ground for everyone... especially people like me who knows no one and has limited shows nearby.

Personally i don't think a change is necessary, or fair even without a complete redistribution of points. But anyway.... just my 5 cents.... i had to round up since pennies are no longer a thing.

In reading over a number of posts on this thread it appears there is a prevailing opinion that entering shows with some kind of birds that qualify as Ameraucana is somehow "promoting the breed."   That may have been true 10 or 20 years ago, but today the Ameraucana is already one of most popular breeds.  The APA published reports in their Yearbook two years in a row that ranked recognized breeds by their numbers entered in sanctioned APA Meets.  Guess which breed was ranked number 1 for large fowl?  It was the Ameraucana!  Bantams ranked about in the middle of the pack.   But how many times does the Ameraucana get picked for best of show, or even top large fowl or bantam?  Or reserve?  Very few times, unless it happens to be one of our national meets.  That should tell us we need to focus more on quality and less on total numbers.  Showing birds that are not good representatives of the breed and variety is not promoting anything, just the reverse in fact.  A system that rewards numbers instead of prioritizing quality is counterproductive in my opinion.  That means we should all be showing our very best birds and leaving the "breeder quality" and lesser birds at home.   I believe that would result in a higher level of respect for the breed among judges and other exhibitors.  I understand there is going to be a learning curve among new fanciers and junior exhibitors.  We should stand ready to help these folks with sound advice and better stock when that is desired and warranted.  And I know some of this has already been happening.  To conclude, I hope this better explains why I tend to discourage point chasing.  I believe it encourages entering specimens that are less than good show quality or not in top condition.  And that is not promoting the breed. 

I'm just seeing this.  Before I chime in with any input I'm just wondering if the topic is still open to discussion.  There's a lot here and I'm seeing some good input.  I just don't wanna put a bunch of effort and thought into five pages of comments and something that's already been decided.

I will say here say that the idea of only counting one card on a double show makes no sense to me at all. Due to all my birds being put down and the subsequent health problems it's been 3yrs I think since I've attended a show.  Prior to that I regularly attended two shows in the state and at least one of them went to having a double show.  At those shows there were two individual different judges for each show.  Coop cards are flipped so the one judge can't see what the other judge did. If all parameters stayed the same and the show was held a week later it would be no different than if held the next day or even later in the same day.  So logically I just don't see the reasoning behind the decision to only allow for one card.

More later if I find this is still open to discussion.

Royce this topic is still open for discussion. After I get the winter newsletter formatted and published this will be the first topic of discussion I present the board of directors 😊

Quote from: Mike Gilbert on November 18, 2025, 09:08:58 PM
In reading over a number of posts on this thread it appears... And that is not promoting the breed.

I started out to reply that I wholeheartedly 100% agree with everything you said there, Mike, but as I started to type that caught a couple of things that caused me pause.  Generally speaking I think you're spot on.  I'm just not sure I could paint that with such a broad brush.

The whole APA system has been pretty disenchanted and disillusioned.  For context, keep in mind that I only showed for about 15yrs and the same two shows every year.  I'd really have to put a lot more thought into this to give a good cogent reply but here are a few things that come quickly to mind that hopefully folks can get the meaning of.

1) For most of those 15yrs it was the same 2 judges every year.
2) You could bet the farm that a White bird would take Best of Show.
3) If it wasn't a White bird it was a solid colored bird.  Usually Black. (I still remember - which is a feat itself these days - a particular judge, who shall remain unnamed, telling me if I wanted to get on Champion Row I need to show a solid-colored bird.  When asked why he literally told me that parti-colored birds were harder to judge).
4) Back before the Lavenders were accepted a judge gave a rooster BV for AOV and RB!
5) There was a bird that was molting put on Champion Row as Best of Class.  The coop cage was littered with feathers and more feathers lost just while in the coop cage on Champion Row.  When I asked the judge why he picked that molting bird over a couple of others in the class he said, "It's just a prettier bird".
6) I've seen several times where birds with an obvious DQ were placed above others instead of being DQ'd.
7) At the last show I attended I was told by one of the "Old Timers" that there are a couple of young kids going to the shows, throwing a ton of money to buy the BoS bird, and then showing it until they lost interest in it and went and bought another bird.  Seems to be that's "point chasing" at it's worst.

Hopefully that explains why I became and am so disenchanted and disillusioned with the whole "showing" stuff.  My two greatest "rewards" I've gotten that I'll hold to is #1) seeing that BW pullet of mine selected by you, Mike, for your book, and 2) seeing that BW pullet that I posted pics of over on the Members Forum in my "It's Been Awhile" post.  That bird is what I had been working towards for 15yrs.  I honestly thought I had finally "arrived".  I'd have definitely found a way to get her to the AA and the APA Nationals just to see how she'd have done.

So, it has occurred to me that perhaps people do not understand why "points chasing" should matter all that much.  I can't speak for others on this, but for me, it mattered greatly when I went looking to purchase a good starter flock of breeder birds, and was turned down multiple times, by many "top end" and respected breeders.  When I inquired why, I was told point blank, my name wasn't found anywhere in the APA/ABA points lists, thus I wasn't to be taken as a serious exhibitor.  It feels very much like gatekeeping going on.  It has been incredibly frustrating.  But I also make it a point not to treat others in this manner now.

Your instructed to only exhibit your best birds.  But then your also instructed to leave your best at home, for fear of exposing them to who knows what at any shows, and "the smart breeder never brings their best out, but instead brings an example of their breeding program".   
OK... how do you do that if what you have is considered to be subpar examples of the breed? Do you just continually show up as "points fodder" for those you know have superior birds, and hope that eventually you will be considered serious enough? 

Add to that, your told "just show/breed what you like".  What if "what I like" doesn't measure up to what someone else's interpretation of the SOP is? My birds are still considered subpar examples of the breed then? 

Even though I have made it to Best Variety, Best of Breed, and even Ch Row, multiple times, under several different APA/ABA Judges, in several areas of the country.  I have also gotten humbled quite a bit, and learned to ask for other breeders input and guidance on problem areas I have identified on my birds.  It is the biggest part of enjoyment of showing for me, is getting to talk to and learn from other breeders and exhibitors.  Ideas shared, guidance and input given.

What makes showing fun for me, is that *chance* at winning not just Variety, but potentially Breed.  To win, is to earn those points, and points gives me a record for the year to be able to gauge how I am doing, not just in my little area of shows, but against many breeders all over the country.