Re: [AGA Contest] Re: more biotopes

["S. Hieber" <shieber@yahoo.com>]

--- roger <roger@spinn.net> wrote:
> 
> I can't see qualifying judges for the biotope category
> either.  That is part
> of the problem.

If I may pick lint -- it's not that we, or whoever, does
not qualify the judges; they certainly do. It's just not a
formal, codified qualification. If there were no
qualifying, I might even end up a judge ;-)  I'm sure you
meant qualify in the formal sense, but I just thought I'd
spell that out for the record.

> I took some time this morning and went through all of the
> biotope entries in
> all of the past contests.  I have a few observations.
> 
> The category is not "biotopes", it is "Biotope/Natural
> aquarium."  

Ah yes! Big diff. Good to point that out. I'm even less
sure what "natural" means.

> In reading
> the aquarists description it is sometimes possible to
> tell whether they intend
> the entry to be a biotope or whether they intend it to be
> a natural aquarium.
>  It isn't always possible to tell and surely those two
> things are not the same.  

I assume those tanks were not scored highly for being
biotypical or natural although they might still have scored
ell for being beauties if indeed they were.
> 
> Among all the entries in all the contests there are a
> handfull of actual
> biotopes, and most of those are rift lake rocky slope
> biotopes.  There are
> very few "Natural tanks."  I imagine we could argue about
> what does and does
> not constitute a natural tank.  One thing I suspect we
> could agree on is that
> CO2-injected tanks are probably not natural.

No Excel-treated either. Nor pruned for that matter -- but
that's where "natural" gets to be a really spongey term for
me.

> There are a few non-biotope/non-natural tanks that were
> entered that were
> probably entered as a mistake.  One in particular comes
> to mind because it was
> entered by someone who's native language is not English
> and who may have
> interpreted "natural aquarium" to be equivalent to
> Amano's "nature aquarium."

hmmmm. With enough translators, we can talk to the world.
But even then, someone will fail to follow directions.

>  Other tanks -- as Karen pointed out a few times -- are
> theme tanks, but not
> biotopes.  Most aren't even close to being either a
> biotope or a natural tank.
>  In some cases the aquarists' description leads one to
> believe that they
> conceived of a theme tank but simply failed to carry
> through; usually they
> include fish or plants that are not only from different
> biotopes but very
> often from entirely different continents.

Ah, then Customs/border inspections are doing a better job
than I thought ;-) Seriously, I see what you mean. But
those were just bad entries.

> 
> Based on judges' comments most of the judges are quick to
> recognize when a
> tank mixes fish and plants from different regions and
> some judges appreciate
> the difference between a biotope and a regional theme. 
> I'm not sure that all
> judges used that information in the same way.

I don't think we cen be sure all judges used any info the
same way. I think Judge George was way out there with
"Red".

> 
> Do the rules spell out any requirements for a
> "Biotope/Natural aquarium?"  If
> not then I suggest that they should.  Judges probably
> also need some guidance
> on how to rate a tank that is clearly not a biotope or a
> natural aquarium, but
> is entered in that category.
> 
> I can't see having Erik triage the incoming applications
> to see if they
> qualify.  I also wouldn't want to be the judge that
> disqualifies an entry for
> not fitting the description.

My suggstion would be not to disqualify it from being
entered just from the category -- or a less active
approach, just advise the sender that the tank doesn't
appear to be an accurate biotope and suggest that they
enter it in another cat. Even weak approach, jsut let it
enter and be graded accordingly by the judges.

>  On the other hand I also
> wouldn't want to award
> a prize to a tank in the "biotope/natural tank" category
> if it isn't really
> anything but an aquatic garden with mediocre aquascaping.

As near as I can tell, the prize isn't for great but for
rank. If there's only two, no matter how bad, at least one
is 1st.

> As a judge I felt like the category was a burden that
> contributed little to
> the contest.

But it seems to be picking up, in number of entrants and
beauty. 

The judges have really tough job with very little thanks
and from what I can hear, a very unhelpfully large amount
of second guessing.

Biotopes might be the very hardest of categories to judge,
but only on the technical issue.

I could support changing the category to "Biotope/Regional"
or "Biotope or Regional Theme".


sh

=====
-  -   -   -   -   -   -   -
Erik Olson annouces AGA 2004 Annual Aquascaping Awards
at the annual Convention Nov 12, 13 & 14; 
Details & Registration at www.aquatic-gardeners.org  & www.gwapa.org


        
                
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
  with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
  To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
  in the same message.
  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest
  When asked, log in as username is "aga-contest", and password "second".