On the website Ohotniki.ru 8 Jun 2016 was published an article by President Vladimir Lobanov CLASPIN “Selection of the Russian decoy”. The following is an attempt to have a critical understanding of the above, because, firstly, despite the name, about the breeding speeches it almost does not go, and secondly, more fundamentally, the author’s vision of the exterior decoy, to put it mildly, controversial.
This vision, of course, is quite right to exist, if it was presented as a private opinion. In this case, in the pages of “HORN” unequivocally and categorically served a kind of strategy that, by default, must be accepted by the reader as a guide to the management of the breed. I would like a more detailed examination is included under “breed standard” for this edition of its publication, in my opinion, unacceptable. In order to avoid allegations of distortion of facts, “debriefing” will be held pozitano with one exception: present in the source material grammatical and punctuation errors sometimes corrected, because often simply distort the meaning of the phrase.
So, first the author writes:
“Breed Russian decoy-duck in the mid 50-ies of the last century was included in the list of the breeds of ducks bred in Russia, N.. Goryunov (1955)…”.
Then:
“In 2002, at a General meeting of the club of fans of hunting with decoy birds and manami” decoy duck, bred EN masse and used in rifle hunting on the territory of Russia, was given the name of the Russian decoy-duck. Later was developed a Draft standard for the breed Russian decoy-duck”.
More below:
“The name of this breed was awarded by decision of the meeting of the club of fans of hunting with decoy birds and manami 29 April 2000.
Finally, at the end:
“Note: the Standard approved at the General meeting of the club of fans of hunting with decoy birds and manami March 20, 2001.
Well said! That is, first, in 1955, Goryunov includes the breed in the breed list in Russia, but the old man turns out to include something included, but I forgot her name, assign, and indeed, what the duck, to describe. However, as he then this breed could be somewhere to turn, history is silent, but scientists are not Laspina, they will not be silent! After half a century this unfortunate misunderstanding is corrected, and the name was given, and the standard is approved. How could we have lived without it, no high rated Assembly names? However, in the testimony there is some confusion when this remarkable event occurred: whether in 2002 or in 2000, or in 2001, but this is mere trifles compared with the global solved problem!
“At the same time together with the breed of the Russian decoy-duck breed is bred throughout the home duck.
But this is truly a new word in animal husbandry! About this “breed” I should add that she described for the first time!
“As a result of the studies also identified significant differences mallards and Russian decoy”.
All right. Almost. Except for the fact that these studies were conducted nearly 30 years ago. Comrades by Abusalim, Polyakov, Fokin and rough. And before comrades Larionov and Pankratyev — 60 years ago. Well, to them something I wrote about this Darwin’s grandfather — not even going to consider when. You won’t believe, but none of them was to Clopine.
“Attractants”.
On pinzhake. And so do attractant. And it’s not Opechatka.
“At the end of VIII (apparently, nevertheless, the XVIII — beginning of XIX centuries in connection with the invention and mass production of hunting weapons and shot”.
In fact, between invention and mass production of one and the other took nearly three centuries. Too wide how to write “and”.
“The Russian decoy — agricultural, non-productive, sports hunting sporting bird.”
The breed can not be both agricultural and non-productive. Because the task of agriculture is to produce products and not to obtain aesthetic satisfaction.
Agricultural and unproductive sport-hunting gun — it is all enchanting! Almost as a decorative guard agroukraina dog and dairy-draught cow legacyvisa.
“The Russian decoy-duck … must … behave like a full member of the hunt… to endure all the hardships of field life.”
And vigilantly to observe moral norms in communication with the drakes, to show awareness and responsibility in the execution of his duty, with honor and dignity to hold high the name of true Russian decoy. Just a song! It should be written in the breed standard!
“The first description of two populations of decoy ducks leads, Darwin (1854)”.
Hitherto scientific bibliography was not aware of the works of Darwin, published in 1854, with the exception of work on the taxonomy of crustaceans. Apparently, the author has access to hitherto unknown archives of the father of evolutionary theory.
“Thus, its significance decoy duck can be compared to a sporting hunting dog special working qualities of which mainly determine the success of a hunt. So hunters are highly valued decoy, which have these working qualities.
The purpose of breeding: the preservation of the original domestic breed.”
If you write about the special working qualities, it is obvious that it is what you and divorce. And for anything else, including some abstract “save the breed”. To preserve the breed of animals bred in the collections of the kennels, and shooting drakes originality and otechestvennoi” breed totally unprincipled. The section “purpose of breeding” the standard exists to indicate the purpose of the animal, not to debate the preservation of its gene pool. For this there are other places.
“Pre-prepared decoy duck landed on a special leash to the pond”.
It is also, of course, is directly related to the exterior and certainly deserves to be reflected in the breed standard. Well, in standards of sheep can’t do without a description of the technology of their shearing and cow — milking. Here and no “special yoke” and a duck-not a duck at all!
“Planted on the water decoy shows two sound variations: recruiting signal “quacko” and a signal of greeting — “upset”, causing Drake Mallard to respond to a characteristic “vacanies””.
Besides all this the lyrics again no side to the standard of the breed not molded, it is doubtful that the author himself could explain the difference between a greeting and an appeal in this office. Because if you mean the mating call and greeting the flying duck, where between them is so significant difference between Quacky and upset? Now, sediment is the calling signal, namely, the call to a SPECIFIC duck down and continued Dating. But Kvachkov signal indicative meaning — “guys, I’m here, I’m waiting” and is aimed at the drakes at all, at all, who can hear. Apparently, this obvious fact researchers from Klopina have not yet obeyed.
Well, “guacal” Drake, as we know, not in response to the draft, but just from search-oriented reasons, in order, in turn, to inform females about their mood and location. In response to the upset it is going to decrease, that here zvakati.
“On the inside of the upper mandible must be clearly visible bumps in an amount of not less than three. It is believed that a large number of tubercles is a sign of good voice qualities of a duck, but in practice it is not confirmed.
What do you mean “should”? The bumps visible in different ways- both good and not so. Their is two. It does not make a duck a goose. And about the dubious connection of their number with the voice of the author himself writes — so what if it’s all cut to the chase in a FORMAL DOCUMENT — the breed standard? This type of standard or author’s note about what he heard about the stool?
“The trunk is short, dense, elongated”.
Still short or long? Or just as a short stretched? Maybe then long-cropped?
And in General the bird’s body in the exterior is a geometric figure, it is not dense or not dense. Tight maybe
for example, the plumage, but not the torso. Because triangle a triangle and not soft.
Back narrow, long, almost horizontal”.
The back is horizontal or vertical. It can be wide or narrow, straight or humped (with a curved top line), short or long, and, as they say, is white or not white. And the horizontal can be suppliers of the body, but not the back.
“Wings long, reaching half of the tail, high-set, narrow wing feathers tight to the body.”
In fact, it is itself proportional to the wing feathers are tight to each other, and not to the body. And then there will be nothing to swing.
And then it “mid-tail”, because otherwise you had to write up about the eye on the side of the head”.
“Belly long.
The stomach may be flat or rounded, or with strong/weak pronounced underbelly, or sunken, what else, but not for long. Long belly is you envision? It’s like “deep leg”.
“Without a keel and Podkrepa (hypogastric)”.
Another pseudo-scientific attempt to show off. Well, actually, no hypogastria no animal (including humans) can not live (as, indeed, and without a keel, if widely involve the sternum). Because hypogastruridae area is just the lower part of the abdomen, below the line connecting the superior iliac spine. No more. So you do not need to swear such a terrible word, and just in Russian to write: abdomen without pronounced underbelly.
“The tibia is completely covered in feathers, only visible only in its lower part. The feathers covering the lower leg, is horizontal and snug against the body.
Hocks: short”.
So after all completely covered or the lower part is not covered? Then it is called “coated to 1/4”, but not “completely” —feel, as they say, the difference. And generally to write about the hocks of poultry anatomically incorrect, at least in an official document. For below intertarsal joint distal elements of the Tarsus, the whole Tarsus entirely merge into a single bone, the Tarsus. Therefore, in poultry correctly in this case to specify: the Tarsus is shortened.
Further analysis of the “standard” would take too much space and obviously does not fit into a newspaper article. Not be kept just to mention two remarkable fragment.
“First description of these populations is given by L. P. Sabaneev (1989)”.
As they say, Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin was very much alive!
And such is the selection of geographic flourish:
“Local Semenovskaya duck (Osinovka)”.
And just below:
“…with the exception of the population of Saratov duck (Osinovka), which in a small number of more divorces in the Saratov region”.
Understand hurt feelings Nizhny Novgorod breeders.
In short, here it is what aspen Semenivka (small Saratovka). Or Saratova Osinovka (Semenovka). Well, you understand.
And finally, the last. The establishment of the working group on hunting with a duck decoy including, not least, to develop the standard thereof, and lighted on the pages of “HORN” № 20, assumes by default a reasoned debate. I mean the presentation and further discussion of the facts, opinions, research results and personal/club developments with a view to adopting the correct CONSOLIDATED solutions. Otherwise it is not a group. And any documents with the claim to normativity and the common (and the breed standard — this document) must be published at least after discussion and approval by the working group, and in the good — so do on its behalf. I request that this comment be considered open official appeal to the head of the working group V. M. Kirjakulov and all of its participants.
