Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #1745
Subject: Cider Digest #1745, 15 November 2012
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Cider Digest #1745 15 November 2012
Cider and Perry Discussion Forum
Contents:
Re: Proposed Cider Association Mission (Dick Dunn)
Re: Hard Cider Competitions ("David Houseman")
RE: Cider Digest #1744, 11 November 2012 (Dale Brown)
CHICAGO 2013 (Stephen Wood)
NOTE: Digest appears whenever there is enough material to send one.
Send ONLY articles for the digest to cider@talisman.com.
Use cider-request@talisman.com for subscribe/unsubscribe/admin requests.
Archives of the Digest are available at www.talisman.com/cider#Archives
Digest Janitor: Dick Dunn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Proposed Cider Association Mission
From: Dick Dunn <rcd@talisman.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:36:57 -0700
This proposal is a plain non-starter for me, for one specific reason:
There is no representation on the Board of Directors for the Rocky Mountain
region.
Good grief, we're large enough to have our own timezone! More to the
point, we have a regional cider association (which was actually formed
- -before- the previous Chicago Con). Our region has both opportunities
and challenges unique to it; therefore it needs a voice in a national
organization.
You might say, "But there aren't many cidermakers in that region." True,
but there are few cidermakers in the South compared to any of the other
three listed regions. So why should the South be represented on the Board?
That's simple, it's the same reason that the Rockies should be: challenges
and opportunities unique to their region.
There's another oddity in the board makeup: three at-large members. This
is an artifact of the legislative working group last February, where there
were four regional reps and three reps for "macro" (very large) producers.
But macro-producer doesn't translate into at-large director. This makeup
creates a very real problem: With a Board of seven, if one region became
dominant, it could elect all three at-large Directors. That plus its own
regional Director would give it control of the Board (4 of 7).
There's a simple enough solution to both of these: Change one of the
at-large Directors to a director representing the Rocky Mountain region.
With that change (and assuming the region is defined correctly:-) I could
get behind the proposal.
- --
Dick Dunn rcd@talisman.com Hygiene, Colorado USA
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Hard Cider Competitions
From: "David Houseman" <david.houseman@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 16:43:25 -0500
Corey,
While not a comprehensive list of all hard cider competitions, you will find
a number of them listed on the BJCP web site of scheduled competitions:
http://www.bjcp.org/apps/comp_schedule/competition_schedule.php. There
are cider competitions listed as well as beer and mead competitions. You
will find that most homebrew competitions do judge cider and mead as well
from home cider and mead makers. If you are a professional cider maker,
there are some commercial competitions listed as well since BJCP judges
receive judging credit for judging at sanctioned competitions, whether they
are home or commercial.
David Houseman
------------------------------
Subject: RE: Cider Digest #1744, 11 November 2012
From: Dale Brown <dr_citizen@msn.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:37:14 -0500
In response to Corey Haugen's question about a resource for locating cider
competitions and festivals, we attempt to provide this service at our
website https://cydermarket.com/Regional_Festivals_Tours.html.
We are always looking for additional cider gatherings to add to the website
and will update the latest information for 2013 as available. Please notify
us of any we are missing and we will certainly add. Hopefully these will
prove useful to anyone interested in finding great cider competitions and
festivals and along with the map and contacts to locating all cider
producers in the USA.
Thanks
Dale Brown,
dale.brown@cydermarket.com
www.cydermarket.com
------------------------------
Subject: CHICAGO 2013
From: Stephen Wood <swood@farnumhillciders.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:51:09 -0500
Over the past three years, James Kohn and Wandering Aengus have done a great
deal of work on our behalf, organizing three annual cider conferences. We
should thank them for their efforts.
But, for what it's worth, I entirely agree with Corrie Wolosin, Mark Boulos,
Mike Beck, Bill Barton, and various others who've written to the conference
organizers in recent weeks. If we are going to meet again in 2013, the
meeting should conclude the work we started last year in Chicago. The
entire meeting should be dedicated to two questions: 1) Are we going to form
a national professional organization or not? If so, we need to examine and
discuss the recommendations of the committee formed (somewhat chaotically)
in Chicago last year, and decide what form the association will take
(membership, voting, composition and authority of board, dues structure,
committees, etc.). This is not a brief undertaking, and it shouldn't be
interrupted or brought to a close by a scheduled talk about yeast strains,
apple growing, or whatever. 2) Should the recommendations of the
`legislative/regulatory group,' formed (also chaotically) last year in
Chicago, go ahead with the blessing of the newly-formed association (or
group, if there's no association), or not? This is another controversial
question, that will take time to discuss in a large group.
If there's time left for conversations or small group gatherings on other
subjects (marketing, fermentation, blending, fruit growing, etc.), I'm sure
a roomful of colleagues can manage to arrange those discussions on the fly.
But scheduling other talks, sessions, speakers, etc. will dilute what should
be the main effort of this meeting.
Last year in Chicago, we asked a group of three people to examine the
formation of a national cider organization, and to plan for another meeting
to discuss this topic in 2013. We asked another group of seven to examine
the federal legislative/regulatory/tax construct governing the production
and sale of cider, and to report back to us all. These two groups have been
working away over the past year. But the organizers of the currently
proposed 2013 conference have set up this proposed conference independently
of those two groups. There's a disconnect here that needs to be cured. This
should be an entirely collaborative effort, conducted in entire concert with
the people who have worked on our behalf, at our request, since February
2012.
Also, I'm a bit concerned about the cost of the proposed 2013 conference. I
think it's right to have this event in a place like Chicago (direct flights
from everywhere). But I'm not sure it should again be in an expensive
hotel, or that people should have to pay hundreds of dollars for the event
itself, above the cost of the room and travel. We should be trying to get
broad attendance/representation from all elements of the developing US cider
industry to this meeting. As the meeting has been proposed, many cider
folks won't be able to afford to attend.
Perhaps paid speakers, a trade show, break-out sessions, coffee cups with
logos, etc. will be desirable or appropriate for future meetings. But the
2013 national cider meeting should have only two items on its agenda, and it
should be accessible to as many US cider people as possible. Otherwise, we
waste the work of the past year.
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #1745
*************************
