We've heard many folks, including Jamil and Gordon Strong, make negative comments about the Cascadian Dark Ale style and that it should not become a BJCP style. However, that is all, just flippant comments, no concise realistic reasons why it should not. This I do not understand, but allow me to argue the point based on what I believe to be the root of the resistence.
1) The name seems to be the bulk of the resistence, beginning with Black IPA, where the argument was that black and pale are mutually exclusive. Fine; two alternatives have been suggested since: Cascadian Dark Ale (CDA) and India Black Ale (IBA). Lets move on.
IBA came from the Brewer's Association (BA). I've neither seen nor heard any complaints about this name.
I believe that CDA originated in Portland, a reference to the Cascade mountain range that spans from southern BC and into northern California. I do not understand the opposition to CDA, but I suspect the argument is whether the style in fact originated in the Pacific Northwest (PNW). I know that the first one that I had was roughly a decade ago at the Horse Brass Pub; Skull Splitter from Rogue was made for some beer festival in Portland around 2000. It was made once after that, about 2002, and I believe that Black Brutal is the more tame version of that. So, did the style originate in the PNW? From my point of view, yes. But, I am sure that someone will come out of the woodwork and tell us that some small brewery somewhere made it before Rogue.
Yes, I am from the PNW. Yes, it would be amazing to have a style that acknowledges the PNW's contribution to brewing tradition. Yes, I believe that the style began here, for lack of any evidence otherwise. Do I care if it is called CDA, IBA, or Black IPA - no. Who the hell cares. Call it ISA - India Stout Ale. Just pick a fucking name.
The major point here is that the name certainly should not prevent it from becoming a style.
2) Recipe is a close second, inspiring a fair amount of criticism, again with no concrete reasons. Jamil clearly referred to it a "just an IPA that is black." Take a moment to read the proposed style guidelines here:
http://www.byo.com/component/resource/a ... n-dark-ale
It is obviously not merely an IPA that is black, much like an Schwarz bier is so much more than a Pilsener that is black.
Lets suppose that it were merely an IPA that was black. Is a Black American Lager not simply an American Lager that is black? Well, no, it isn't according to the guidelines - it does not take much dark specialty malts to make a big difference in a pale or straw beer. So, why would this be a valid argument against CDA?
In a recent Brew Strong episode, Jamil made another flippant remark about CDA, then soiled his pants over hoppy red ales. This seems like a a complete contradiction. What is a hoppy red ale but an IPA with more 60 - 120L crystal malts or perhaps a light chocolate addition. It is an IPA or IIPA with a small change to create a new style, IRA and IIRA.
So, if we have Black American lager and some argue that IRA and/or IIRA should become a style, why not CDA/IBA?
Now, though I have not heard or read it, one could argue that they do not like the style. I don't like the style as proposed. I think that citrus flavors and roast and coffee flavors and aromas are a complete train wreck, like those wretched "Belgian IPAs." So, I do not like CDA, IRA, IIRA, or Belgian IPAs. Is that a valid argument against them becoming a BJCP style? It is far from a valid argument to prevent CDA/IBA or the others from becoming a style. To quote McDole, "Don't let the BJCP stand in your way to good beer," but not being a style inhibits competition among those would like the style.
Finally, put up, or shut up. If you care enough about the proposed guideline that it causes you to ralley against the style, then please redirect your effort to influencing the changes that you feel are necessary, rather than just making unsupported flippant remarks,
3) Gordon Strong, affirmed by Jamil I believe, indicated that styles are adopted into the BJCP as they see commercial versions appear, entries of the style in the specialty category, and similar demands.
There are at least five PNW breweries who make CDA/IBAs, though some of them are seasonals. Hopworks Urban Brewery makes the Secession Black Ale seasonal. I don't think it is very true to the proposed guidelines, but its excellent. Rogue makes the Black Brutal as special release; see MoreBeer.com for a kit for this beer. The Turmoil Cascadian Dark Ale that won the inaugurial year for the BA's IBA category is not a seasonal and it is excellent, though difficult to get. How many commercial examples are necessary?
We are seeing many CDA/IBA entries in competitions. There have been enough that about 2 years ago a Southern California club (sorry, forget which one) augmented the BJCP to include a specific category for it. How many entries in how many competitions are necessary?
If I am not mistaken, this will be the second year for the BA's IBA category. For that matter, they have had an hoppy red ale category since 2008. Why is the BJCP so reluctant to adopt CDA/IBA and IRA & IIRA?
Limiting the number of category and thereby the size and difficulty of arranging and judging competitions is not a valid reason to exclude these styles. As far as I know, no competition is required to accept all categories - and, in fact, some don't.
It is time that the BJCP added CDA/IBA, IRA, and IIRA so that those who enjoy those styles may compete with them. Or, perhaps we should abandon the BJCP and just use the BA's guidelines. Why do we need two sets of guidelines?
Cheers