I just wanted to throw in a few comments about this whole ARBA Standards Committee, new colors, and declining memberships debate. Sure, there are a lot of reasons that the ARBA is in decline relating to zoning and all that. I think, however, though the standards committee is not to blame for declining memberships, it certainly is not helping. The reason I got into rabbits 20 odd years ago, and as I see it the reason most people get into it, is because it is FUN!!! I don’t know many kids who start showing rabbits because they think it is going to make them a million dollars, or for some higher aim of "improving the breed." Most new members are kids and the families of kids-that is why most people get into rabbits. Kids like fun, kids like variety, and kids don’t like being told that there rabbits are "inferior" or "crossbred" simply because they come out with a color that is not "accepted."

I don’t buy this whole "Quality" argument in the sense that if "WE" prevent new colors from being accepted until they are "perfect" it will improve the "quality" of the breed. The way the variety presentation requirements are written, the varieties can NOT be improved until they are accepted, that does not make any sense, at least to me. If you think about what made many of the breeds great, such as dwarfs and mini lops, sure the small size is a factor, but so were all the colors! Back in the "good old days," you could show any color of lop or angora you got. This did not lead to "inferior" animals-I would say the opposite was true-because you did not have to cull a beautiful rabbit that was a rare color. If you remember that all colors have a genetic basis, then you will realize that no color is "inferior" to any other.

Think about it, the people with the best animals of any given breed today are very busy with their own lines. Not many of them are messing with "unaccented" colors thus the new colors are not coming out of the "top" herds and generally don’t compare to them in quality. Not to say that is always the case, but generally it is. As far as there being too many colors, I obviously disagree. If you are worried about not getting legs on your animals, specialize in one or two colors and show more in those colors. Offer specialty money for the classes, that is a way to insure that there will be plenty shown. Just because a rabbit wins a "tough class" but there were not five shown by three exhibitors, they don’t get a leg, that is the way it has always been.

The reason that many presentation animals are disqualified or eliminated at convention are not because of the "inherent inferiority" of them as Tex and others are implying, but just because of the way the presentation process is. How many rabbits, even great show rabbits, can stand up to being shown 3-5 years while also being bred? I am sure that everyone has a story to counter this, but the facts are that most great show animals (especially does) don’t hop with ease between the show table and breeding pen. Also, the people who spend time developing colors are also expected to invest far too much time, energy, and MONEY than the end result will be worth. Presenting is pure torture as it stands now-why would anyone put themselves through it for a hobby! I can tell you it is much more FUN to just raise rabbits and not worry about the continually changing standard.

My suggestions to improve the situation are as follows (I expect quite a response to this-privately please) Hold one showing at the next ARBA convention (open to any exhibitor) of all varieties genetically probable from current varieties. If at least 10 are shown by 10 exhibitors, have a specialty club vote and, if approved by the Specialty club, accept the variety. I think many varieties would be accepted under these rules. For varieties not currently genetically possible, leave the old system in force. This would solve a lot of problems for a lot of people. Break them up and show them in groups instead of individual colors if too many classes is the concern, for we need to give SOME control back to the specialty clubs.

Like the issue raised about many breeds acquiring the identical type-when 1 organization writes the standards for all breeds, 1 basic standard results, and the breeds loose there individuality. Some clubs are more resistant to these problems, but that is because there are only moderate numbers of these breeds raised by individuals with a firm handle on their breeds. New breeds, popular breeds, and very rare breeds succumb to the most ARBA pressure. I was a member of the harlequin club when the ARBA arbitrarily changed the standard, against the wishes of the majority of the membership! Many arguments can be made about this, but I feel it is wrong.

I feel we are having the same problems talked about with the AKC "taking over" dog breeds. Anyone who has been to a dog show lately, please comment on the appearance of the Labs, Retrievers, Spaniels, (not to mention the Collies and Dobermans) and other breeds that have been traditionally been large working dogs. Now many of these breeds are unnaturally short, stocky, and small-too small to do the job they are intended to do! This results from breeders selecting for the fads of the AKC judges, not on the actual merits of the dogs.

I see the same situation developing with out commercial breeds. Show lines of satins, NZ, Cal,… are getting so short and tight you can’t even get the skin off to butcher them, and even so, there loin is so short you don’t get much dressout. I don’t mean to offend you pet people, but realize many breeds of rabbits are bred for meat-that is what they are for! Despite the intensive efforts of Pat and the Commercial Dept., when you have the wrong type of rabbits winning, you have the wrong type of rabbits getting bred. When they should be culled for being too short, they are going into the breeding pen to produce more "winners" and the breeds are suffering. You can have a commercial rabbit that is smooth over the back with enough length to produce reasonable carcass quality, but these show winners generally do not qualify.

I don’t understand the ARBA’s take on this whole issue. As an organization that does little more that administrate shows, why do they make it so difficult for people to show more rabbits? This whole "quality improvement" issue is not the issue at all in my opinion. I think that the will of the breeders, as expressed through the specialty clubs, should dictate the turns the standards take, not the ARBA. Offering guidance is one thing, but the heavy-handed rules are something else. These are just opinions of course, but I feel that if the ARBA is worried about declining memberships, they should examine their role in this dynamic industry, and until they offer more than show guidelines, examine their attitudes about the members and the members rabbits.

Shelly Whelan

Mystic Elegance Rabbitry