The Appointment of Show Judges.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 8101, 30 May 1906, Page 3

The Appointment of Show Judges.

« The N Z. Farmers' Weekly writes as follows :— A question which, might well engage the attention of our Agricultural and Pastoral Associations is that of the appomment of show judges. It too often happens—for no satisfactorilyexplainable reason tliat we have been able to grasp—that the committees make a point of selecting different judges each year. Where tlie judging is faulty or the judge appears to be either incompetent or partial in his decisions a change is certainly necessary, even imperative, for the honour of the Association is at stake. But the case is very different where the judge is seen to be competent and up to his work, and it is difficult 90 understand why the tried and proved man should be replaced by someone else with, perhaps, only half the knowledge of the man who is set on one side. Good judges are none too plentiful, and common-sense principles dictate that the services of the good men should be retained as long as possible. Some Associations, or their committees, rather, saem to delight in changing their judges as often as possible, and in doing so they lay the foundation of much subsequent discontent on the part of exhibitors, and that reacts very unfavourably upon the Society. Good judges are born rather than made, and the man who has approved himself as such should never be lost sight of Generally speaking, there is little or no difficulty in obtaining judges—of a sort. The real trouble is to obtain men who are competent to sit in judgment upon the exhibits and to justify their decisions when called upon to do so. Exhibitors are often discouraged by the wrongful judgment of incompetent men who are called upon to judge their stock or produce, as the case may be. The possibility of retaining the services of a really good judge is therefore one which should always be acted upon. In Victoria, some years ago, the Chamber of Agriculture undertook the compilation of a list of accredited judges for show work, inviting each Agricultural and Pastoral Association in the State to submit the names of gentlemen known to them to be competent judges of sheep, horses, cattle, poultry, dairy produce, grain, etc. Later on, the Agricultural Societies' Union took the matter up, but unfortunately many of the best-known judges were left out of the list. The idea was good, but its fulfilment was faulty. Could we not take action on somewhat similar lines in this colony, profiting by the Victorian experience and not repeating the mistake made there ? A complete and up-to-date list of the most competent judges in New Zealand would be invaluable to our Agricultural and Pastoral Asssciations. The Farmers' Union might profitably take the matter up and invite the several societies 10 send in the names of their best judges. Then, when the list was compiled, it could be revised from time to time and made available for all the societies, the work of selecting judges being thus greatly simplified. Another matter, and one which would greatly facilitate the work of the judges, worth considering is the desirability of adopting standards for championship prizes. The mere fact of a championship being offered in certain classes should noG of necessity entail an award being made, when the animals exhibited are not up to true championship form or quality. Just as the poultry men iiave adopted standards for their seVeral strains, so the sheepbreeders and cattlemen should adopt standards below which no championships should be awarded. Exhibitors and judges would profit alike by a clearer definition of a champion than is at present obtainable on our showgrounds. We trust ere long to see this question taken up by the societies in connection with the appointment of judges and a more satisfactory recognition of the standing of the latter than now prevails