A member of an Internet mailing list, The Showboxer Forum, recently wrote that even her dogs that may appear shy still have the good instinct to protect her and her family no matter what. She claimed that they have proved that, and wondered if there might not be "other 'shy' dogs out there that would also rise to the occasion should their family need them."

Virginia Zurflieh, editor of The Boxer Underground, replied:

"There is plenty of need in this day and age for them to be brave enough to do so…
The key to boxers' being capable of that kind of *work* is a sound temperament -- no shyness, no viciousness. This ‘theory’ is nothing new:  Friederun Stockmann decried shyness in working boxers in My Life with Boxers nearly a half-century ago."

This is the distinction that so many, including, apparently, the author of the first concept to which I referred above, miss entirely.  Being aggressive with strangers is NOT part of the definition of good temperament – even occasionally, I'd suggest, if it appears to be in defense of family.  And a dog that appears shy but isn't?  In my opinion, that’s not likely.

The worry I have about the dogs in that original example lies in the shy dog's ability to discriminate appropriately between real and imagined foe. 

A local Boxer friend of mine wrote to me in response both to a post I’d sent to the Forum about the temperament of my English import (Faerdorn Dust Devil, "Eliza") and to her having spent some time with the then-thirteen-month-old at the Regional in October.  Here's what she wrote on the subject:

"All in all, she is quality and it shows through in the physical sense and temperament sense.

As far as what I observe in the temperament department, I am seeing (North American) Boxers that I would describe as fearful. I don't so much see aggressiveness, it is the fear factor. I saw this past week too many dogs and bitches with tails tucked and looking quite worried as they walked around. Also, I saw Boxers who backed away from people way too much. The increase in this type of behavior tells me that it is more than socializing that has caused it. I also noticed that these same Boxers were uncomfortable with certain environmental things, i.e. the mirrors.

It isn't bad for a Boxer to be a bit concerned initially, but some of these dogs were not pups and couldn't seem to get past these kinds of distractions.

In my view, a Boxer, being a guard dog SHOULD want to investigate and be curious and perhaps even momentarily concerned about things, but also have the good judgment to decide that a person or something in the environment is not a threat and react accordingly."

It's that last bit that is of such concern to those of us who beat the temperament drum:  Given the goofy nature of the Boxer personality *I* personally love, I imagine it'd be difficult for one of my current crew to assess a human being as a threat -- possibly even if he/she WERE one (and honestly, how often would a dog be placed in a position to?).   Yet we see in the ring, over and over, such insecure, sad animals who seem to recognize EVERYTHING as a threat – tent awnings flapping in the breeze, male judges, trash cans, crates being set up – even a friendly proffered hand.

One day during Regional Week 2004, Eliza and I were standing in front of the enormous mirrored wall in the ballroom at the Holiday Inn FSK.  Next to us stood another Boxer girl of the same approximate age.  A couple of hotel staff members literally opened the wall behind where we were standing.  The difference in the two girls' reactions was stark:

The other bitch whirled at the sound, and then crouched, struggling at the end of her lead in a terrified attempt to get herself anywhere but where she was.  Eliza's reaction was entirely the opposite.  Of course, at the immediate moment of the noise, she, too, turned in the direction of the sound.  But then she stretched out to the end of her lead TOWARD the opening chasm in fascination.  She wanted to MEET the challenge of the new thing in her environment instead of flee from it.

This, I submit, is what we should see in all Boxers.  This, I submit, is what we see too infrequently.  And it's a shame, because it's not the Boxer's fault that he's frightened of his shadow; it's his breeder's fault for putting him in the show ring when he should be left at home on a comfy couch in an environment that will not inspire and exacerbate his genetically-imposed misfortune.

Stephanie Abraham wrote, also in a post to the Forum:

I agree with what Virginia and Katherine have said on the subject of temperament. 

For those interested, you might want to read my October  'AKC Gazette' column, dealing with this very issue. "Excuses Excuses" can be found at www.americanboxerclub.org

I've been going to dog shows for about twelve years, now.  I've bred six champions in the eight years I've been a breeder, so I've been to a lot of them.

I regret that my recollection says I've witnessed with my own eyes, in all that time, at all of those shows, two – perhaps three – judges excuse a Boxer for improper temperament.  And the only judge I’ve seen do it with consistency is Stephanie Abraham. I first saw her excuse a Boxer five years ago. The dog snapped at her, and that was that. As it should have been. Most recently, she excused three bitches during her assignment at the 2004 ABC National when they would not allow her to examine them. Precisely as she should have done – as ALL judges should do when faced with such behavior in their rings.

Refusing to excuse such animals encourages their owners to try and try again. Eventually, perhaps, the dog can become adequately accustomed to being examined and trotted about. Then he’ll win points, and perhaps a championship, and then, of course, be bred. And the sad cycle continues.

In the past five or six years, I have seen what appears to me to be an enormous upswing of cowardice in our breed.  And still – way too few judges of my acquaintance have addressed this crucial issue at all, much less with forceful confidence.

Whence comes this avoidance behavior on the part of so many charged with rewarding those who exemplify the breed standard, and penalizing those who don’t? I cannot believe it's ignorance of the standard's requirements.  I suspect it's more likely a cowardice of its own. In the end, those who need to be liked more than they need to work to better the fate of the breed have a tremendous and cumulatively deleterious effect.

The irony of these people’s failing to do what they know they ought to because they fear disapproval is that doing the right thing would likely, in fact, earn them respect.

I can't place all of the blame on the judges' shoulders, though. It's a breeder's responsibility to put their bitches only to temperamentally-sound stud dogs, and to place only the brave-hearted of their produce in the ring. What mystifies me so thoroughly is that not only are people willing to risk it, but they appear actually to relish the chance to show off the poor temperaments they've helped create.

Human nature being what it is, I suppose there are stranger things in heaven and earth.  But as far as I'm concerned, not all that many.

I suspect they do this for a number of reasons, misplaced pride being the leading contender. Some who do present their spooky dogs to the eyes of the Boxer world are also the ones who boldly declare that temperament is not genetic. Some claim that there are no empirical data available to lead the way in selecting for temperament (as if it were any more of a trick than selecting for a good topline or a pretty face!). Or that we can’t agree on precisely what constitutes inappropriate temperament in a Boxer.

I view bad temperament the way the Supreme Court did pornography.  It may defy precise definition, but I know it when I see it. A judge ought to know it when he sees it, too. And it’s his job to do something about it, so that the Boxer doesn’t lose its characteristic and crucial joie de vivre. I greatly fear that, given the over-use of certain stud dogs whose temperaments don’t match the one described in the standard, we’re descending a path that can’t lead to anywhere we’d want to go.

Katherine Nevius