Please Excuse The Natural Ear!
Katherine Nevius,
Minstrel Boxers
Wouldn't it be delightful if
the non-dog show meaning of that verb were in effect in the ring of the respected judge
who currently makes it her practice to send from the ring all natural eared exhibits who
come before her? If only she would excuse, in the positive sense of the term, this
frankly meaningless feature of the dogs she is occasionally asked to judge, and look
instead at the animal's intrinsic value!
Many in the boxer fancy were
affronted recently by a trend that's alarming to those who fervently believe that cosmetic
surgery does not make the dog and, thus, most assuredly should not break it.
This judge’s message is
not one we feel ought to be sent to other judges. Since we cannot count on our own
national breed club to intervene and do the right thing, it's up to those of us who
understand the fundamental nonsense involved here to step up to the plate and bat. Many
have already written to the judge and to the American Kennel Club in hopes of redress.
Here's the letter I sent on the issue. I encourage you to go forth and do likewise. :-)
Dear Ms. -------------,
I hope you'll forgive this
intrusion into your private time, but I feel deeply that it's important for me to
communicate with you on a matter near and dear to my soul. I also hope that you haven't
been inundated with thoughtless prose as a result of your e-mail address having been
shared on the Internet. I promise that mine will be respectful, if you'll just bear with
me.
Let me mention, first of all,
that a number of those who have shown under you have said that you are an exceptional
judge -- one of intellect and kindness, who's done her homework vis-a-vis the breeds she
adjudicates, and whose ring is more than competently run. I have no doubt that the praises
I've heard sung are absolutely honest -- and as we all know, many exhibitors often don't
have rosy assessments to offer about those under whom they enter. You appear to inspire
great goodwill in your exhibitor constituency -- that is, with a small but terribly
important exception. I hope that patience is among those virtues with which folks claim
you're endowed, because I tend to go on at length when I embrace a cause. Deep breath...
Before I lay my argument
before you, I'd like to present my own credentials, in hopes that I can inspire you to
take me at least a tad seriously. ;-) I'm a member of the American Boxer Club, and the
breeder of the 2000 ABC National Specialty Best of Winners. I write for the Boxer
Review and have a bi-monthly column in The Boxer Underground. In my relatively
brief time in boxers, I've had more happy results than I probably ever imagined I would in
a whole career of breeding. But I've also become disturbed by some of what I've seen.
During the eight years of my association with this delightful breed, I've made it my habit
to get up on a now well-worn soap box about two issues that face our dogs: The frightening
lack of heart health, and the senseless cosmetic alteration of boxer ears. You will have
surmised that I'm going to subject you to one of my now infamous lectures on one of those
subjects. <G>
As I mentioned, many have
written in support of your judging style. Honestly, it's the fact of the testimonials to
your ethics and critical thinking ability that confuses me, because in the past year, at
least twice you have done something in your boxer ring that has occasioned enormous uproar
on the Showboxer List. In fact, we are continuing to debate it even as I write this, as
its nature is immensely disturbing to many of us who care about this breed.
You've excused a natural eared
dog -- once in Hawaii and once in New Jersey this past weekend. I understand you may have
done so on at least one other occasion. I hope you'll listen to my complaint about that
action with the open heart it appears you possess; it's critically important to us that
you hear why it is we feel you've erred badly in the practice you've espoused.
In my own continuing education
program where the boxer standard is concerned, I've noted that nowhere in that standard is
the uncropped ear listed as a fault. We may, I suppose, then consider it to be a
"deviation." But nowhere is it highlighted as being a consideration even worthy
of mention. On the Top Twenty judges' form at each year's National, the state of the ears
receives evaluation in the amounts of zero, one or two relative to the far greater
percentages given to items that meaningfully bear on the breed-worthiness of the animal,
such as topline, proportions of head and muzzle, angulation, et cetera. And I feel certain
that you'll admit that never has it even occurred to you to excuse a dog whose topline
isn't "smooth, firm and slightly sloping," nor one about whom it cannot be
claimed that the "incisor teeth of the lower jaw are in a straight line." In
terms of the criteria that suggest that this working dog is capable of doing the job for
which it was bred, it's certain that these and other considerations should weigh heavily
in the assessment of its ring worthiness. Whether or not a veterinarian has cut off half
of its ears and forced them to stand unnaturally clearly cannot be considered even
remotely germane. Yet, currently, in your ring this appears to be the litmus test of breed
merit. And that, I respectfully suggest, is an unfortunate state of affairs.
Here is the irony many of us
see: Cosmetic alteration of ANY item of a dog's anatomy save its tail and its ears is
strictly forbidden. Yet removing ears is, to many, not only requisite, but sacrament. When
looking for the sense in that fact, I and a great many others can find none.
Of course, we all understand
that a judge may, in fact, do pretty much whatever he or she cares to. And the American
Kennel Cub is predisposed to back it up, whatever it may be. But that doesn't always mean
that the judge is, in fact, doing the right or the reasonable thing. I am convinced that,
in excusing natural eared animals from the boxer ring, you are sending a message to us
that you may wish to reconsider. In a recent ballot in which we were invited to vote on
including a description of the natural ear in the official standard, 41% of us voted to do
so. That nearly half of the membership of the American Boxer Club feels this way should be
salutary. And there are hundreds of non-members who embrace the idea similarly. Many of us
are disturbed at the stand you continue to take, and ask you please to re-think this facet
of your belief system as regards the boxer standard. It simply does not allow for the
action you take.
The natural ear is certainly a
deviation from that standard, but our standard exhorts a judge to weigh such deviations
according to their degree. In excusing each natural eared boxer that comes before you, you
are saying that the condition of its ears outweighs all other considerations. I submit
that you are not doing a service to the advancement of the breed, nor to the fancy in
general, in taking so radical a stand. With the exception of ours, in civilized countries
the natural ear has been not only embraced, but made mandatory. There's a reason for that.
The practice of performing surgery to enhance an animal's looks simply cannot be
considered to bear on its fitness to reproduce beautiful, conformationally correct
progeny. Yet you are, in effect, telling us that that's not so.
You may have heard by now that
Red Dawn's Rogue Wave took the Winners Dog honors at two two-point shows but a couple of
weeks before you dismissed him from your ring. Honestly, we see no way to reconcile these
two events. Please look at this practice again and reconsider. Judge the dogs presented
you according to the standard, and, if natural ears disturb you sufficiently, leave the
dog out of the ribbons. But refusing to evaluate it because it lacks an unnatural
attribute -- one that has no bearing on its value as a specimen of its breed and one with
which it was not, in fact, even born -- a great many feel is a significant injustice.
Thank you so very much for
taking the time to consider my verbose exposition. I appreciate it very much.
Katherine Nevius
Minstrel Boxers
BoxerKate@earthlink.net
http://www.minstrelboxers.com
Top of Page |
