Editors note: since the ratification
of Amendment B to the Boxer Standard by the AKC, the "ears" discussions on the
Showboxer-L e-mail list have really heated up. Especially after reports that a judge in
one state excused a major-pointed, natural-eared dog from the ring, while a judge
in another state withheld a ribbon from a young puppy because its cropped ears were not
standing properly! What do the judges think about all this? The following are comments
from one of our most prominent all-rounders.*
More (!) on the those dreaded ears. . .
By Richard G. Beauchamp
As a Boxer judge and once-in-a-blue-moon
Boxer breeder, I feel I have to throw my three cents into the ring. If all this nonsense
of defending positions on the cropped and uncropped situation continues, it will serve to
seriously injure the breed.
When I saw that someone said in a post to
the SB-L that it is a perfectly fine to dismiss a dog because it has a "fault"
(whether it be a natural ear or a dip in its topline), I thought to myself, that is sheer
madness! All dogs have faults! If a judge walked into a ring and dismissed every
dog with a fault, he or she would wind up with an entry of zero. The ABC opted to make the
uncropped ear simply "another fault." It is now entirely up to the judge to
place the fault in its proper context.
The ABC answered the ear problem by not
really answering it, and in so doing, put the ball in the judge's court. If the
uncropped ear were a disqualification, it would be an entirely different matter. But since
it is not and only a fault, those who champion the natural ear will be unhappy when their
dog loses, and those who advocate the cropped ear will be unhappy if the dog with the
uncropped ear wins.
But then, no one ever told those of us who
judge (nor should they have) that this was about making people happy--it is supposed to be
about selecting the dogs best suited for BREEDING!
* Reprinted from the SB-L with the