Meet Policy Update

[Russ Blair]

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.

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.

[Laurie Ashley - Selah Farms]

  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. 

[Mike Gilbert]

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.

[John W Blehm]

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.   

[Jessica Loree]

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!

[Mike Gilbert]

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.

[John W Blehm]

  ...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. 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.

[Mike Gilbert]

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. 

[Laurie Ashley - Selah Farms]

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. 

[Mike Gilbert]

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.

[John W Blehm]

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.

[Rebecca G Howie]

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.

[Mike Gilbert]

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. 

[Jessica Loree]

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. 

[Mike Gilbert]

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.