JUDGING AT SHOWS.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2224, 9 October 1886, Page 2 (Supplement)

JUDGING AT SHOWS.

Of late years a great deal of dts satisfactiop. lias bden expressed in connecUon with the system— or, rather want of system—by which prizes are awarded for live stcrk at the exhibition meetings of our^agricultural societies. The constant reversals of decisions in respect of prominent animals tends to create ,miitrust in the educational advantages supposed to be derived fronts these competitions, and the present season has afforded an unusually long list of what have been termed the "glorious uncertainties" of the showyard. The cause is not far to seek ; there is no uniform system adopted in the appointmept of judges, a,nd no uniform system for them to pursue when appointed. The whole thing lies in, a nutahell ; there should be a scale of points drawn up for judging all our breeds of domesticated animals ; the judges should work to such programme; and the awards should be declared by the stewards after reckoning up the judges' books. The whole thing should be made public by the respective societies, and the world would know why any particular animal was placed first and champion a,t one meeting and not noticed at another, or why any other anomalous decision had been arrived at. We can see n6 better way out of the difficulty. The time has evidently come for a change our entire show system, and the more thorough it is made the more likely it will be to giro general satisfaction. If a scale of points had to be worked to, and the statement published, the result would be intelligible, Whether one judge or three were em* ployed, and the greater the number of judges the greater would be the interest in the result. As the matter stands now, either one, two, or tjhree judges are set to work. If one man has the work to do, the result is simply a reflection of his own judgment, without reasons given for it. If two men art employed, the result is often based on a mere give-and-take policy. If three judges enter the ring, ODe of them continually stands to be outvoted. The system of appointing two judges would te by far the best of all existing arrangements if umpires were appointed before-hand, and called in every time there was a difference of opinion between the judges. As it is, one man gives in to the other on on« occasion, and expects the other to give in to him when the next disagreement oqcurs. There is neither justice nor common sense in this. Each of the judges has a right to maintain his own opinion, and it is only justice to the exhibitors that he should do so. Let the umpire decide, and take the responsibility. Two really good men will not call an umpire very often ; but they should call every time he is wanted, hqwever often, and never give or take in respect of any point which they consider to be of material importance. Again, nothing gives so much dissatisfaction amongst exhibitors as the calling in of a breeder who represents a different school of opinions or antagonistic interests. Umpires chossn from amougst the stewards should be appointed to act ; and, unless any particular man should happen to be personally interested — when he would, of course, decline— such an arrangement would, we are convinced, give general satisfaction. fiut the names of the judges and stewards from whom the umpires are to be taken should invariably be published, if possible, with the prize schedule. We have reason to believe that the owners of valuable stud herds, who go to the expense of sending their cattle for exhibition to our best shows, and do not mind sacrificing a few good ones for the public good, will be amongst the first to recognise the necessity of a reform in our system of judging which would presumably tend to greater educational advantages arising therefrom. — Mark Lane Express. _______^___