In recent months there has been a lot of debate over the question of uncropped boxers being shown in the conformation ring. Once again our breed is being divided by controversy. To borrow a quote from Abraham Lincoln, "a house divided against itself cannot stand."
We spend entirely too much time disagreeing amongst ourselves. Cropping ears, plain verses flashy, brindle verses fawn and the always argumentative white boxers are always hot topics with tempers flaring on both sides of these issues. About the only thing many of us can agree on is that we disagree. Sad isn't it?
Even more alarming is that when we spend all our energy fighting among ourselves, we leave ourselves and our breed vulnerable to the animal right extremists to just love to prey on the weak or confused. Some argue that if we allow uncropped boxers to continue to be exhibited we will soon be forced by these extremists to stop docking tails and removing dewclaws. In today's politically correct climate such arguments are trivial, why should they settle for just that when they could successfully do away with the breed entirely while its supporters fight among themselves. The winds of change are blowing people and it's time for our breed to enter the next century, that's assuming we want it to survive. The animal rights agenda is clear, do away with breeding, breeders and the purebred dog.
Why is there such an objection to the showing of uncropped boxers? We've all heard both sides of this argument for years. Yes, the present standard reads, "Set at the highest points of the sides of the skull are cropped, cut rather long and tapering, raised when alert." Yes, there is no mention or description of an uncropped ear in the present standard. Yes, there is no mention of faults regarding the ear. We all know these things and there should, therefore, be no argument. Where do we go from here?
- Do we continue to ignore the matter and hope it will die an early death?
- Do we change the standard to include the uncropped boxer?
- Do we change the standard to read that uncropped ears are a disqualification? (You notice I didn't say a fault. As many of you may have realized already by doing that we would be admitting that all our boxers are born with a natural fault and cropping the ear would then be considered a cosmetic surgery. Cosmetic surgery is not permitted by present AKC rules and regulations.)
For whatever it's worth, I offer my own observations. How the parent club chooses to address it is still up for grabs.
- Ignoring the issue is not a valid answer. We already have several uncropped champions in this country with more on the way. Ignoring the problem will just add to the confusion. A number of AKC judges have obviously ignored the cropped notation in the written standard and put up these dogs. Their opinion apparently was based on the overall dog and the set of the ears was not significant enough to sway their comparison of the dogs presented to them against our present standard. Others have asked our parent club for clarification and received nothing of substance to guide them in their decisions in the ring. We must provide the judges with a clear and concise answer.
- Do we change the standard to include the uncropped option and description of the proper uncropped ear? This seems the most practical of our choices. Changing the standard does not mean those who like the cropped look will be required to now leave their dogs natural. Changing the standard would allow those who prefer not to crop an option to exhibit these dogs without prejudice in the show ring. With an inclusion of the proper ear set for uncropped in the standard, the judges would now have a written way of comparing the animal to the written standard rather than against a cropped dog. It's no secret, I personally prefer the elegant look of the cropped boxer and I would defend to the death my right to pursue that look. On the other hand, I've also had my heart stolen a time or two by a beguiling uncropped boxer and if we are to be fair, their admirers are entitled to the same rights. It's obvious to all of us who love this breed so passionately that the boxer soul remains intact regardless of where its ears sit on its head. The standard should be amended by a vote of the membership of the parent club in a timely manner.
- Changing the standard to indicate that uncropped ears are a fault would be a disaster to the breed and would put the parent club and members into a line of fire that could injure us all. Our puppies are born uncropped so not only would our dogs be disqualified for uncropped ears but they would be disqualified for cropped ears as well. Cropping is an artificial procedure and today we would have a very difficult time explaining the reason for cropping in the first place. Our boxers are no longer used in "wild game hunts." Today the most common reason we give is, they must crop if they want to show. Boxers don't need cropped ears to be a companion animal or guard dogs. They can hear with the ears up or down. The animal rights folks would have a party after this one, and we'd be our own doomsday machine!
So, here we are. Do we stand divided and fall or do we unite and solve this problem with intelligence and compassion? You see, it's not a question of crop or not to crop; it's really a question on whether we want our breed to survive at all?
Return To Articles & Books
|
