Search

THE BU EDITORIAL

In retrospect, it seems obvious that the dual purpose of Amendment B -- the "Deviation Amendment" -- was to make uncropped ears more easily interpreted by judges as a "fault," and to delay (per AKC rules, which permit standard changes only every 5 years) any further attempt to make uncropped ears "allowable" in the U.S. boxer show ring. And the ploy worked...too well: Soon after the passage of "B," several AKC boxer judges proceeded to take the ABC at its word, and actually began excusing natural-eared boxers from the ring, apparently now feeling free to interpret natural ears as virtually equivalent to a disqualification!

Considering that turn of events, we at BU believe Amendment A -- the "Natural and Cropped Ears Amendment" -- should be revised by the ABC Standards Committee and incorporated into the standard as soon as it is "legally" possible for us to do so, early in 2004. And we think that the time for the Standards Committee and the ABC membership and interested fanciers to start reviewing the standard is NOW. Especially if additional changes are deemed necessary.

To that end, BU is sponsoring a "Boxer Standard Invitational," which will continue throughout 2002/03, and in which we invite all US boxer fanciers to participate. (Yes, even those who don’t agree with our take on Amendments A & B.:-) You’ll find plenty of inspiration in this issue for your own proposals, additions, or changes. Or perhaps, our treatment of the subject will only reinforce your belief that the standard is perfectly fine just as it is?

Whatever your opinion on "the state of the standard," we hope you will enjoy the two standard-related articles by Stephanie Abraham and Henning Lund, the ABC Standards Committee letter to judges on plain boxers, and the comparison of the current standard to the "Mystery Reviser’s" version.

WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK, SO BE SURE TO TAKE THE SURVEY AT THE END OF THE REVISION FEATURED IN THIS ISSUE!