Cronaca of an Announced Death

The TAM TAM TAM Nigero is strong and insistent: everyone asks everyone what will be done with the tail. We juggling to provide answers on a truth that when we write nobody knows and, while anxiety grows at the rhythm of drums, all we know is that maybe, almost without the most people really realize, in these days for the Boxer (as for other German Races) we are rewriting history.

Magnificent history started in Germany in the second half of the 1800s when, for a strange alchemy, the ancestor of the modern Boxer, hidden under the gratiful appearance of intersections between Brabantini and Bulldogs, in vogue at that time, knew how to reveal himself to the sensitive eyes of some cynophiles of the time. Thus began, on that crude matter a difficult work of refinement that led, between 1895 and 1896, to the foundation of the German Boxer Klub and to the drawing up of the first description of the characteristics of Razza. Followed in 1902 the first Standard and in 1905 the second which, despite some revision (1920, 1925, 1938) remains until today the current one, the point of arrival, the model of the magnificent dog that we successfully rear today.

Tomorrow is uncertain and on our Race there are bad omens. All we hope is not to have to write the word end. Piero Scanziani argued: "The Standard is at the same time a gospel, a code, a mirage." A gospel because before his authority everyone bows down. Since the Boxer is a dog of German origin, in the whole world it is a text the Standard established by the Boxer Klub of Monaco, which is the only authorized to make any changes. It is a code, because on the basis of the Standard the Judges of each country express their verdicts, denounce imperfections and defects, report virtues and virtues. It is a mirage, because the ideal contained in the Standard and that the Breeders of the whole world pursue, is practically unreachable, since there is no perfect dog [...].

We hope that the standard, because of the revision that the BK is forced by the German government today to ask the F.C.I., does not become a will of Race. And that we do not seem an exaggeration: our Race today is in danger and for history could approach the final. Many say that with the tail integrates nothing will change, others claim that the situation is tragic but inevitable, others even rejoice, some already adapt by doing their calculations but actually raising now, out of standard.

In many sadly we admit that unfortunately a boxer with a tail and ears intact to the point where we are is a probable reality; but to us it will no longer look like a boxer and with great sadness we want to stop, despite us, to raise it (unless we raise it "out of law").

Many people are deceived that for a very long time no law will prohibit caudectomy and conchectomy in Italy. Perhaps so. But, in fact, if the standard changes, the professionals will be forced to keep to the rest of the day, while only the trader or private without ambitions es.22 could, paradoxically, still afford a boxer as we know it today and appreciate. This would be a way to encourage the development of an unofficial boxer, effectively obliging to the standard only a small percentage of subjects, that subject to cynotechnical activities (expositions, tests and morphological and health controls) and leaving others free to raise as they believe, out of standard, but in any case in compliance with the laws of the Italian State and many other European States.

And then will two races be required, one for the exhibitions and one for commercial? A Breed and a sub-race? Two Races and one Standard? Two Standard for a Breed? Let's be clear, we like the integral tail even less than the whole ears, for aesthetic, sanitary and practical reasons, but asking respect for this position we cannot fail to respect the convictions of others, especially if imposed by causes of force majeure (laws of the State). Nor can we remain the hell and passive to watch while untrained European Germans impose on us the image of a dog that we do not recognize.

Then it would not be better to fight for a civil solution and respectful of the two positions, a single open standard that contemplates the different solutions and recognizes equal value to the subjects with an integral tail or amputated? Why not ask loudly that the national sovereignty of each country be respected, including in the Standard the double option that provides with equal dignity both the amputated tail and the tail integrates? The F.C.I. has the duty to consider also the positions of the Countries and Clubs of Razza contrary to the aforementioned revision as the Boxer Club of Italy that has been promoted of a document against the prohibition of caudectomy and conchectomy (and in Italy at the present time no law prohibits such practice) undersigned, at a meeting held on 30 September 2000 in Alessandria, from the representatives of the Boxer Clubs of Austria, Belgium, France, Spain, Switzerland, Portugal, Hungary and, of course, Italy. But perhaps even before that, the F.CI. has the duty to safeguard such an important livestock heritage from one of the most serious threats: the disaffetion of race cules.

What we are asking for today for the queues of the rest has already been happening for a long time for the ears. On January 1, 1987 Germany, in fact, with a law of the state prohibited the aesthetic cut of the ears in all dogs (and therefore obviously also in all those races in which the conchectomy was provided by the standard) by in fact, alongside the position of other countries such as Britain, the Countries of Commonwelth, the Scandinavian countries, Holland and Switzerland. In the same year it is a Convention of the Council of Europe concerning the protection of animal welfare, signed by some States, that provides indications contrary to the conchectomy, the caudectomy and other so-called aesthetic interventions and considered useless and painful for the animals. The Member States were left free, in full respect of the right of National Sovereignty, to adapt or not to such indications, and that is why in many States they continued to amputate ears and tails, while in Italy, since there were no laws prohibiting it, the ENCI has allowed the breeding and participation in the exposures both of the standard subjects, which were not allowed to be in the subjects of the above.

And in fact, since June 25, 1990, there is a variant of the Standard FCI (No. 144) reworked by the German Boxer Klub that includes the amputated ear and the intact ear, including, in both cases, a detailed description. A curiosity: already from the year before (1st January.89) the B.K had varied its emblem by inserting the now famous double head of York v. Springbach with amputated and intact ears. Certainly we struggled not so much to accept the whole ears but, at the moment, this is an equally dignified reality. Isn't there for this two different races or varieties of boxers today; why, therefore, the attempt to arrive at a "Disperato" solution for the tails should appear on one side and the other "disrespectful towards the Race"? (Red Valley on Mon Ami) Irrespectful is to overturn a Race for political reasons. Irrespectful is passively accepting what is not shared.

In Italy, at the moment, the laws of the State do not provide any prohibition concerning the interventions of caudectomy or conchectomy. Although it appears among the signatory countries of the Convention for the protection of animal welfare of 1987, up to this moment, it has not transposed the indications on the non-cutting contained in the document, as instead the German, Swiss, Dutch Government, the Scandinavian countries, etc. This depends on the political orientation of the various States. Only the Lombardy region, on the initiative of a regional councilor, the green Carlo Monguzzi, has tried to anticipate the times, approving unanimously a prohibition measure at its Health Commission on 16 November 2000; this measure was not approved, on 21 November, by the Regional Council, then returns to Health for changes.

Today, because of a changed public sensibility, the word "amputation" is no longer welcome, European politics rides this and other hypocrisies taking on the cynophiles, the circus shows, the hunt for the fox with everything that traditionally puts us in relation to animals in a natural way and that, if done without forcing, does not harm anyone and does not disturb the biological balance; patience that the greatest hypocrisy is to forget that those we breed in batteries or places more similar to concentration camps than in pollai, stables, folds, in total darkness, crammed in cramped spaces, that we cast raw so that the meat does not stink, that we transport in creepy conditions, are also animals, before being chicken thighs, hams or slices without dignity.

The canine breeds represent a precious livestock and cultural heritage to be safeguarded (and this is the precise task of the National Cinophile Bodies, the Race Clubs and the F.C.I.); moreover, they are a conquest of the evolved man who, on the road of progress, still accompanies the oldest friend. Years, sometimes whole centuries of selection, careful work of the stool, of beveling, of refinement, risk being cancelled by an indiscriminate sponge strike, in the name of a goodness that makes easy use of non-attendants (news cinophiles, Sunday cinophiles, families with dogs or distracted frequenters of the city parks) and that often in times of electoral campaign translates in a large number of naive votes.

It is not important that, after the electoral batarre, the proposals of law, good or bad, end and this time there is to wish, in the place that in Italy they often compete: the forgotten. More serious would be if in this case in the forgotten noble races, loved of that prestige that only history confers, abandoned by former cultors who no longer recognize their own race and do not recognize you, nauseated by the controversy, rejected and disgusted by an image that no longer reflects the myth that fascinated us by children, making us as adult boxers, dobermanists, alanists, convinced. A specimen that expresses worthily the typicalness of our own race, whatever it is, is for us passionate our work of art, unique, inimitable, recognizable among thousands with its unchangeable, classical and yet alive connotations, is our living sculpture, as well as antennae, scodinzolii joyful expressed more than the appearance with the tail, with the mimic of the whole Schuzan, so that the radical of the whole of the Dozan, if they live, if it will be so, the whole of the radical, if they were to be the back of the Dozan, so, the whole, the whole, the radical, so, the whole of the electoral, so, the idea of the idea of the electoral, that it will be the proposals, the proposals, good or bad, good, good or bad, that are, that they are, that they are, and bad, and bad, that they are, and bad, and bad, and bad, and bad, and that they end, and end, and end, and end, and end, and this time, and this time, and this time, and this time, and this time it is to wish to wish to wish to wishful.

It is a pleasure or not, it is with these aesthetic images that we all fell in love and only after we learned to know and appreciate its character. And if, at the moment, in Italy we live reflected only what happens to the recognized Races of which Germany holds the Standard, it is useful to emphasize that obviously in that country it is forbidden by law to cut ears and tails to all dogs, of race and not, there raised (with the exception of some specimens destined to particular tasks: dogs of the police forces, etc.). But if our nation also decided to legislate in this sense, adapting to the indications of the Convention of '87, the problem would involve not only the garters of the German Races but many other cynophiles and then farewell to the codini of the Yorky and many other terriers and, above all, goodbye to the image of our Corso and the Neapolitan Mastino, so much to make two illustrious examples of Italian races that would suffer.

Let us not forget that "biologically" the puppies of these breeds are born with intact tails and ear pavilions more or less large and hanging, but the breed traditionally comes as the standard from its origins prescribes, with tail and amputated ears, erected. And moreover, there is canid in nature, from which every dog presumably descends, that does not bear erect ears? Sciacalli, coyote, lycaons, wolves, foxes, does not sovvenno any that has hanging ears. Will not the latter have been, at the origin, a selection vice? Do not better fulfill their primary natural function of the pavilions and buckets, open and mobile? And do not better satisfy the needs of facial mimics, so important in intraspecific communication?

We also believe it is superfluous to go further, since unfortunately every dog owner with intact ears and hangings knows how annoying and recurrent, until often becoming chronic, the otites in case the humid and poorly ventilated environment of the intact ear, is a predisposing factor. Not to mention the ears that are stuck in the near-appropriate (broad meshes) of the. And what about the tails, too often subject to trauma, ulcers and fractures and episodes of autotraumatism, until the drastic decision to amputate them in adult age?

We can therefore serenely say that in many cases the caudectomy and the conchectomy not only do not harm the dog that is subjected to it but rather improve the quality of life, whether it is a race for utility, hunting or shepherd, employed in specific tasks often in harsh environments, whether it is races or companions, forced to cut out their space next to man, in the often narrow and hectic human habitat.

With these premises comes to fall the same guiding principle of the law, which would be aimed at the protection of animal welfare. For what concerns the alleged tortures, "maltreatments, barbaric and cruel practices stupidly useless" (Corriere della Sera) we do not forget that it is, it is true, surgical interventions, but precisely for this reason performed in suitable environments and with the best techniques, refined and painless, of which modern veterinary medicine has. If you treat properly the wounds are healed absolutely in eight days (never thirty!) and the subsequent incoctations if performed with care (and always broken with ether!) involve only a little patience from the puppy and even more from its owner.

To establish the thesis of barbaric mutilation and of very painful and long dressings is, by some veterinarians who let themselves go to these statements, only a way to throw discredit on their professional category. It is not up to us to deepen the argument. By what terms then define the practice still in use with some Sardinian pastors settled in masserie of Salento, of which we bear direct witness, to amputate personally the ears to their dogs from work without anesthesia, by the use of brown knifes (surrogated of thermocautery) and healing and disinfecting the wound only with simple ash? Surely extreme aspects of life not seen that neither we nor our dogs would be able to endure for a constitutional weakness that today we are communa, men and dogs, making us more salottieri and unable to bear potentially stressful environmental stimuli.

The news that comes to us from the official information agency of the Enci if dated, would like to be reassuring. On No. 9 /2000 of "Our Canes" on page 20, in the section "News F.C.I.", in reference to the new standard of the Rottweiler, we read, literally: "The only reason why we do not speak in the new standard of queue amputated is that the German government no longer wants to make any reference to tail amputated in the standards of the German races and the F.C.I. can only accept this decision. However, the tail amputated does not appear in the standard (???) and our members are strongly invited to refer to the Regulations for the exhibitions p. 3: Subjects with tails and amputated ears must be admitted, in accordance with the laws of their countries of origin and of the country where the exhibition takes place (???). The judgment of dogs with tails and ears amputated or not must take place without any discrimination and solely according to the standard of Razza in force in force (?).

These news, however, if read carefully, are contradictory and paradoxically they are the opposite effect, disorienting the reader who ends up wondering: "in accordance with the legislation of which country the subjects must be admitted to exposure when the laws of the two States are in contrast? To what standard are we invited to hold ourselves, to the old one or to the one that is in force? Of course, to the one that is in force! But if the one in force establishes that the German Races in question must have a tail and ears intact what alternative remains? Is it an invitation to raise out of standard or to adhere to the standard and not to cut anymore?

So because the same text emphasizes that "an old circular of 1996 clearly states that no discrimination must be made in judging races to which traditionally they amputate tails and ears, because in the FCI countries there are different laws."Siembre would, at first sight, be the only thing clear, if then on the n° 10/ 2000 of the magazine ENCI (p. 14) it was not repeated that the FCI, with statement of 29/08/00, urging to admit in exposure the subjects with tail and ears amputated invites to judge them together with those integrity without any discrimination and only according to the standard in force. And then we are point and at the end!

Besides not to escape our doubts these few and inaccurate information of doubt generate another: it will not be that the F.C.I. wanted to do as Pontius Pilate? Today we had a nightmare: we saw our dogs, boxers, alans, dobermann, rottweiler, schnauzer, in a scenario that, not without anguish, we imagine possible but surreal, parade in a ring of the near future in a tragical parade so to speak of honor, all equal to the Pluto of Walt Disney, with long, fluaz 6, ears and tails, a little clumsy, certainly so sweet and above all "integri," but ungracious and without pride and elegance, without that quid conferred on us by the tradition that leads us, beyond any plausible reasoning, to consider necessary and inalignable this little suffering that we infliggi, only once in life, to our beloved dogs.