WHEN IS A GOOD HOLTER REPORT NOT A GOOD HOLTER REPORT?

The short answer to the title question is, “When the Holter recording wasn’t read and interpreted by a board certified veterinary cardiologist.”  But actually, it’s not nearly as simple as that, and this blog is going to be neither a paean to all board certified cardiologists nor an exposé of the commercial services that provide inexpensive, technician-read holter reports with a super-fast turnaround. Hopefully, this account will give other Boxer breeders the same kind of “heads up” I got recently when I had occasion to send the same Holter tape, first to a commercial Holter reading service, and then to a board certified veterinary cardiologist.

A Tale of Two Holter Reports

Before I begin this little cautionary tale, let me say that I don’t pretend to be an expert on heart disease. In fact, beyond a short CPR course that I’ve mostly forgotten, I’ve had no medical training whatsoever. What I’ve learned about Boxer Cardiomyopathy, or ARVC as it’s now called, was “absorbed” from listening (and taking notes) to the presentations of researchers and other experts as secretary to the ABC Health & Research Committee and the ABCF Board of Trustees, and by taking advantage of the expert knowledge of the cardiologist who treats my own dogs and who is never too busy to answer questions or explain heart disease to his clients.

This saga began with a 5 year-old health-tested bitch that had never been bred and a very promising young dog whose parents had been health tested and who had “passed” several health tests himself (DM clear, SAS clear & Thyroid normal), but had not yet been Holtered. The two prospective breeding partners complemented each other perfectly, so I threw a Holter monitor on the young dog and sent it off to one of the commercial Holter reading services, asking that they return the tape to me after reading it.  I usually send my Holter tapes to a cardiologist for interpretation due to a friend’s sad experience with one of the “quickie” services, but I wanted a faster turnaround than the cardiologist provided for a pre-breeding clearance.

In only a few days, I had a report that showed 5 VPCs and zero (0) supraventricular ectopics (also called APCs, or Atrial Premature Contractions). The tape was returned shortly thereafter. Because the early days of my breeding program were haunted by Boxer Cardiomyopathy (before anyone knew what it was), I wasn’t completely happy with 5 VPCs in such a young dog, but it was now or never for my bitch, so I proceeded with the breeding. Then I mailed the tape to the cardiologist to whom I usually send Holter recordings for interpretation, hoping that some of those 5 VPCs were just artifacts.

The cardiologist’s report was sent to me within two weeks and read, in part:

 “There were a total of 4, Ventricular Premature Beats (VPC’s or PVC’s) during the monitoring period. There were frequent singular atrial premature beats during the recording period. There were runs of supraventricular tachycardia during the monitoring period. The singular APCs are not as concerning as the runs of SVT at fast rates. The longest run of SVT was 9 beats duration…”

“Diagnosis: Abnormal 24 hour holter study”

“Recommendations: I recommend treatment of these arrhythmias specifically to try to slow down or abolish the runs of fast SVT. I suggest we begin Atenolol 25 mg tabs --1/2 tab by mouth twice daily....This type of arrhythmia is not the classic arrhythmia noted in Boxers affected with Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy in that they are usually ventricular in origin. Some Boxers will have this rhythm as the first sign of ARVC and follow up holter studies may show the development of ventricular arrhythmias. Alternatively this can be an arrhythmia problem noted in Boxers or other breeds which is not associated with ARVC.”

Whoa! Only 4 VPCs – fewer than on the report from the commercial service – but runs of supraventricular tachycardia and a cardiologist’s recommendation of treatment with Atenolol?  Where did that come from?!  The first report said there were zero supraventricular ectopics!

A Third Holter Report + an Echo

I immediately called my own cardiologist to discuss the second Holter report, and to arrange for rental of a digital Holter monitor (my own monitor is analog, and my cardiologist no longer processes analog recordings or tapes). Shortly after the monitor was returned to the second cardiologist, the doctor called personally to give me the bad news: Although interpretation of the recording wasn’t yet complete, the third Holter report looked very much like the second. At that point, I made an appointment for a face-to-face consult at the cardiologist’s clinic, which included an echo to rule out structural heart disease.

After reviewing the third Holter report at my cardiologist’s clinic a week or so later, it became obvious that there was something very, very wrong with the first Holter reading done by the commercial service. Remember the zero (0) Supraventricular Ectopics noted on the first report? My cardiologist recorded 23,689 isolated (single) supraventricular events plus 5 Couplets and 20 Runs. That’s 23,825 supraventricular ectopics, or 18% of the dog’s total heartbeats!  Cardiologist # 2 also suggested that we consider medication (sotalol) to slow the fast heart rate.

Frankly, I was blown away. How could that first Holter have been so completely out of the ballpark? Had the Holter service sent some other dog’s report?  But that couldn’t be, because the same tape had been returned to me and sent on to the first cardiologist; and the second cardiologist had produced a similar report from a different (digital) recording!

As soon as I got home, I fired off an email to the commercial Holter reading service to which I had originally sent the tape.  I attached a copy of their Holter report showing 5 VPCs and zero supraventricular ectopics and excerpts from the reports generated by the cardiologists. A company rep answered in short order, and said he was going to look into what had happened and would get back to me.

The next morning, I received a phone call from the manager of the Holter service. We talked for about 30 minutes.  His attitude was both apologetic and defensive. At the end of our conversation, I understood what had happened but was – there’s no other word for it – incredulous.

Apparently, because a few supraventricular ectopics (Atrial Premature Contractions) are no big deal (both cardiologists had said much the same thing), and because part of the canine side of the business came from individual owners who were primarily concerned about VPCs and ARVC and didn’t know what supraventricular ectopics were (I certainly hadn’t known), those concerned owners tended to call the service for an explanation when they saw numbers in the “Supraventricular Ectopics” column of the report. So the people who dealt with dog owners (rather than with the human and veterinary cardiologists who used the service, presumably) decided that they would stop confusing their customers with irrelevant information and simply stopped collecting and reporting ANY supraventricular activity to individual dog owners.

As noted, the representative I spoke with was both defensive and apologetic. He repeatedly made the point that a little atrial arrhythmia was usually nothing to be worried about, but admitted that there was nothing usual about nearly twenty-four thousand atrial ectopics. He also admitted that the report generated by his company had, in effect, given my young dog a “pass,” when the dog clearly had a condition that needed to be addressed by a cardiologist and that would have been immediately obvious if the “Supraventricular Ectopics” column had not shown zeros across the board.

By the end of our conversation, the Holter company representative had assured me that in the future, their reports would include supraventricular ectopics; and I was left of two minds about the whole experience: On the one hand, I believe that in the absence of a reliable gene test, all North American Boxer breeders and owners should Holter their breeding animals at least once a year and that these fast, inexpensive Holter services make it possible for everyone to do that – no excuses!  And I understand that my dog presented an unusual situation that I may never encounter again. I still don’t know exactly what’s wrong with him, or whether the problem is hereditary or might be atrial myocarditis caused by something like Lyme disease.

On the other hand, it was unsettling to find that the management of a Holter reading service had felt their customers were incapable of understanding all the information the service had been paid to provide and so decided not to provide some of it; and it’s only human nature to ask, what else did they miss? 

The fact is, while some veterinary cardiologists are prohibitively expensive, some are quite reasonable and are willing to work with breeders. My inclination at this point is to say, if you really care about Boxer heart disease, find one of those “reasonable” cardiologists. Or at the very least, the next time you send a Holter recording to one of the fast, cheap Holter reading services, ask that their in-house cardiologist read and interpret your tape, even if it costs a little extra.

The 2013 ABC: One Down, One to Go…

One Down…

INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, May 4-10 – First the bad news: mostly gray skies and an on-again, off-again drizzle the whole time we were there.  No restaurants within walking distance of the host hotel and glacially slow service in the hotel restaurant throughout the week. No matting in the ring for the first two specialties –  all the available mats were being used for ABC Obedience, which ran concurrently with the specialties on Saturday & Sunday. The slippery plush green carpet that had been put down in the place of mats was an accident waiting to happen (ringside complained about it all day, to no avail), and sure enough, a handler tripped on a poorly-taped seam and was injured when she hit the floor face-first during BOB on Saturday. For the second specialty on Sunday morning, the green rug had disappeared, but the wall-to-wall carpet that covered the ring wasn’t much better. Note to show chair and superintendent: Conformation dogs and their handlers need secure footing, too!

The show site was definitely a work in progress, but the good news – especially from this headhunter’s perspective – was that class after class featured some of the most beautiful heads and expressions I’ve seen at the ABC in many a year. And there were quite a few dogs and bitches, especially in the younger classes, that I would have loved to take home. What’s more, overtly shy dogs were few and far between, and the judges, who had some very tough choices to make, consistently selected many of the same competitors for their top class placements. Our breed appears to be in very good hands, and after all, we go to the ABC to see the beautiful Boxers…not the beautiful show site.

More good news came in the form of a decision by the ABC BOD to listen to membership, ah...“feedback” on the newly created ABC Judges Selection Committee (JSC). The JSC’s procedures threatened to spark an outright revolt on the part of the ABC membership when they were outlined in the Regional Board Meeting Minutes published in the Winter 2012 edition of The ABC Bulletin and members learned that they would no longer be able to nominate judges for the ABC shows.

By the time the general membership meeting convened on Wednesday evening, May 8, the JSC procedures announced at the meeting had been completely revamped in response to the outpouring of angry protests and negative comments from the Boxer email lists and from the ABC Member Club Presidents Meeting, which took place on Monday, May 6 at the ABC. The “new” procedures announced at the membership meeting  ensure that ABC members will continue to be able to nominate ABC judges directly as we have always done, instead of having our nominating privileges usurped by a panel of five unelected zone directors and two appointed committee chairs. Rather than selecting the ABC judges for us, the new committee will instead work on streamlining the selection process by establishing criteria for prospective judges (a sorely needed reform) and holding primary elections.

All’s well that ends well, but this might not have ended well if so many people hadn’t protested long and loud to the ABC BOD; and if so many of the directors hadn’t been equally opposed when they finally got the straight scoop and realized that the JSC was going to disenfranchise the entire membership!  It’s a shame that the board members who were doing their best all along to represent the members had to take so much flak because of the few directors who thought they knew better than anyone else what was good for the rest of us. Hopefully, next time something comes up that potentially affects the membership, someone will ask the members what they think of it first, before proceeding full speed ahead…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One to Go…

Per the title of this blog, “One to Go” is the fact that the ABC is still not accessible to the members and exhibitors who live in the westernmost part of the US. The ABC directors know that, and they know why: Most airlines will no longer fly “snub-nosed breeds,” and those that still do – as airfreight, not excess baggage – charge a small fortune to ship a Boxer-size dog across the country.  A West Coast handler told me the airline had charged her $3000 round-trip to fly 3 Boxers from California to Indiana and back. How many of us could afford to pay $1000 just to get one dog to the ABC and back home?

At the board meeting on Tuesday, May 7, the chair of the Site Committee reported to the directors that the Topeka site was not suitable because there were too few rooms available and it was an hour and twenty minutes drive from the airport to the hotel. The site committee therefore recommended a 2-year extension on our contract with the Wyndham. After a discussion of the committee’s recommendation (Oh, to have been a fly on the wall!) the board ultimately voted to extend the contract for 1 year, through 2015. There were only 3 dissenting votes, from 3 of the directors who live west of the Mississippi.

So here we are, 15 years later, back to square one. And by the way, it’s true that “Tornado Alley” runs right through the Midwest during March, April and May, but it’s also true that you can’t get more Midwest than Indiana. Check out the stats at the following URL: http://indianadoes.blogspot.com/2012/01/tornadoes-by-month-for-1950-2010.html

You know, it’s often said that where there’s a will there’s a way. The ABC BOD is a very smart group of people. If they have the will, they’ll find a way. Soon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Coming Next Month:

WHEN IS A GOOD HOLTER REPORT NOT A GOOD HOLTER REPORT?

If you’re as frustrated by ARVC as I am, you won’t want to miss it!

*THE MOST IMPORTANT [ABC] ELECTION OF THE YEAR*

Because the mid-March ABC mailing that contains the Board of Directors ballot and questionnaires was delayed, I’ve taken the list of nominees from the ABC website and copied it below. The Board election is especially important this year because of two controversial issues that will be decided by the current BOD and implemented, or not, by future directors – issues we’ve discussed to death on Facebook and the Boxer email lists in the last few months. If you feel strongly about these issues one way or the other, you need to read the BOD questionnaire that was filled out by each nominee.  (If you’re an ABC member, log in to the ABC website, click on “INFORMATION,” then on “SECRETARY REPORT” and finally on “March 2013.” If you’re a member club member, write to me at vzboxers@gmail.com, and I’ll send you a copy of the questionnaires.)

The first issue is one that – if approved by the BOD – would mean that ABC members could no longer nominate judges for the ABC Specialty, Futurity or Regional. The ABC President has proposed an ABC Judges Selection Committee (JSC) comprised of the five unelected zone directors, who would accept suggestions, NOT nominations, from ABC members and winnow those suggestions, no matter how many, down to three (3) names.  If as an ABC member you don’t want to be completely disenfranchised by this proposal, you need to vote for the Board candidates who pledge to protect your rights and privileges. And then hold them to their pledge.

The 12 people listed below have been nominated to fill four (4) open positions. After reading the Board questionnaires on the ABC website, I conducted my own little informal survey: Two (2) of the nominees specifically stated that they were opposed to a judges selection committee that takes rights away from the membership; only one (1) nominee said she was in favor of it. A number of the other candidates said they believed, as one candidate put it, “No significant policy decisions affecting the Members should be made without first consulting them if at all possible.” IMO, that’s just a gentler way of saying no to this very unpopular proposal.  Again, before you put an “X” in the box next to a candidate’s name, read his/her Board questionnaire and see where s/he stands on this issue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Stephanie Abraham                Thomas Latta 

Steve Anderson                      Betty Mentzer-Cope

Mary Frances Burleson          Jeff Phillips

Ann Gilbert                              Virginia (Ginny) Shames

Marilyn Grayson                     Korinne Vanderpool

Jeannie Hoffman                    Judy Voran

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The second issue is one we’ve been batting back and forth since 1998 – moving the ABC to the center of the country so that our National specialty show is accessible to western ABC members and exhibitors, too, not just those who live east of the Mississippi. On this one, I’m sure I don’t have to remind anyone who tried to fly a dog to the 2012 ABC in Kentucky that in the last few years, new airline regulations and policies have made it practically impossible and prohibitively expensive to fly dogs, especially boxers (a “snub-nosed” breed), anywhere. Knowing that, what the officers and BOD are in effect saying to the western half of the nation at this point is, “Frankly my dears, we don’t give a damn!”

Entitling this blog “THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF THE YEAR” really isn't hyperbole. There really is a big split between the ABC leaders who believe in transparency and are responsive to the general membership and those who support secrecy and think they know better than the majority of the membership how the ABC should be run. These new Board members will determine whether the ABC becomes a more, or less, democratic organization; and whether the elected leadership listens to the membership or not. Read those questionnaires!   

IF IT AIN'T BROKE...

DON’T FIX IT!

A week or so ago, I received a package from the ABC, containing ballots for the 2014 Specialty and Futurity judges and a nomination form for the ABC Board of Directors. Coincidentally, there are two hugely important issues before the ABC board at this time: 1) whether ABC members will be able to continue to nominate judges of OUR choice in the future to judge our Specialty and Futurity; and 2) where our National will be held in 2015.

1) Let’s talk about nomination of ABC judges first: at the 2012 Regional, the ABC president announced at the membership meeting that a new ABC Judges’ Selection Committee (JSC) had been created, but didn’t explain who the members would be or what the JSC would do.  Apparently all the details hadn’t been worked out yet. However, I had heard this issue discussed before I went off the board in July 2012, and from what I understood at the time, was strongly opposed to it.  

In the meantime, I got a phone call from Phillip Koenig, the co-chair of the new committee.  Phillip called to try to convince me that the new JSC was the fairest and most efficient way to select judges for our National & Regional Specialties. He explained that the JSC would be co-chaired by two people appointed by the ABC president (or the ABC show chair?) and would consist of the 5 unelected Regional Directors, who would accept “suggestions” from ABC members, and would then winnow those suggested judges’ names down to three (3!) names that would appear on a ballot for us to vote on. In other words, even if ABC members “suggested” 12 names for the Specialty, as we did this year, only 3 names would make it onto a ballot. Needless to say, despite that I have the greatest respect for Phillip and all the hard work he does for the ABC, I was not convinced.

Take a look at the 12 names on the 2014 Specialty ballot. Most of the candidates are well-known breeder-judges and the rest are respected all-rounders who often judge our breed. Which 9 names would YOU eliminate from that ballot?

Now look at the 8 names on the Futurity ballot – which 5 or 6 noted breeders would YOU consign to the “circular file”? Which of the people on either ballot did not deserve the honor of being nominated to judge our National Specialty & Futurity? Could you have chosen which people to eliminate?  I couldn’t have.  But I do have an idea that might allow all of us to have our cake and eat it too:

There is currently a nominating committee appointed by the ABC president that is responsible for nominating 3 or 4 people to run for the ABC board each year. The committee’s nominees are frequently elected, but not always. ABC members can also nominate candidates (hence the nominating form in the package I received), and the membership is thereby given the opportunity to infuse some “new blood” into the board, if a majority of ABC members agrees with the nominations from the floor.

If the ABC leadership doesn't think the current judges’ selection process is fair and doesn't trust ABC members to nominate good candidates, why not set up the proposed judges’ selection committee like the BOD nominating committee? Let the new judges’ nominating committee nominate three judges for the Specialty and two for the Futurity each year, but let the members continue to make their own nominations as usual, and may the best man or woman win!  And to make it even more of a win-win situation and introduce some fresh faces into the ABC show rings, make a rule that an individual cannot judge the ABC National or Regional more than once every 6-8 years (or 10 years, or whatever). But please, please, PLEASE, don’t give 5 unelected directors and 2 appointees the authority to decide who’s going to judge at the ABC!!!

2) The second issue we need to consider is the fact that most airlines have banned air travel for our boxers, and the ones that still accept “snub-nosed dogs” charge prohibitively expensive shipping fees even for excess baggage, and change their rules and regulations on what seems to be a flight by flight basis. Will the ABC BOD *finally* put the show in the center of the country in 2015 (it’s only been 15 years since we voted to do that) and make the ABC National accessible to western ABC members and exhibitors?

In the representative democracy that is the American Boxer Club, the solution to the above mentioned urgent problems lies with YOU, the ABC membership. We’re about to elect 4 new board members. Contact the board nominees and ASK if they are committed to making the ABC accessible to western members and exhibitors by moving the show to Topeka or some other central location by 2015. Then ASK if they will vote for or against allowing an unelected committee to determine who is allowed to judge at the ABC Specialty, Futurity and Regional.

If you don’t like their answers, then nominate a candidate who represents YOUR best interests. Board nominations must be in the hands of the ABC secretary by Feb 1. It’s as simple as all that! 

The Boxer--What Judges Look For…

Editor's note: This article was originally published in the January 2012 issue of ShowSight Magazine.

--Stephanie Abraham

Judges’ Education Chair:  American Boxer Club

                                                        

      

               Some years ago, a well known multi-breed judge stated to me in consternation, “This breed is so hard to judge—why, you have 16 points in the Standard on ‘head’ alone!”  As I thought about her remarks, it occurred to me that she might be technically correct, but that no one judging the Boxer ought to be dissecting the Standard (and the breed) by despairing that she might not be able to appreciate all “16 points.”  While our Standard is, I believe, an intelligent and defining document, and of the greatest value to judges and breeders alike, it is the overall “sense” of it that all of us should take away after reading it.  It actually defines essential breed type. And isn’t it ‘type’ that remains the most important characteristic of any breed, and one that is often the most elusive?

                   Type is actually detailed in the opening paragraph of the Standard, revised by the parent club in 2005, telling us that the Boxer is a medium size, square dog, combining “strength and agility with elegance and style…  In judging the Boxer first consideration is given to general appearance and overall balance. Special attention is then devoted to the head, after which the individual body components are examined for their correct construction, and the gait evaluated for efficiency.”

             SOooo...the Boxer is square and medium sized, elegant, stylish, and balanced. We then pay special attention to the head (all 16 points!) and evaluate the overall dog. Several considerations come to mind:

            First, what does “medium size” mean?  We have all seen many very tall dogs and bitches in the ring in recent years.  Yet we have no size disqualification.  The recommended heights are 21 ½-23 ½ for bitches and 23-25 for males.  It is up to the individual judge if he wants to reward a 26” or even taller dog, or whether he penalizes a 22” one …all sizes are acceptable under the breed Standard. The parent club did not raise the height limits in its 2005 revision of the Standard—except at the LOWER end, therefore stating its preference to keep the sizes moderate.  Nonetheless, a glorious taller dog or bitch may prove irresistible to both judge and breeder alike—and is perfectly “legal” under the Standard.

           Squareness in the Boxer should be greatly prized.  The “form and function” adage never more clearly applies than in this concept.  The Boxer was used to run down and hold fierce wild game—bear and boar—and had to be square to make quick turns through the forest at breakneck speed when pursuing his prey around trees and boulders over uneven terrain.  So the “squareness” proviso has a historical precedent and should be heeded by the modern judge, even though the dog is no longer used as a hunter.  Again, it comes down to a sense of how well the Boxer in front of us is likely to do the job for which he was bred.

      The Boxer’s lines are clean and easily analyzed—there is no long hair to disguise the outline for good or ill.  Therefore ‘style,’ or how the judge interprets that, is evident at a glance. To me, taut musculature without coarseness, all contributing to ‘strength,’ the long arched neck properly set as it flows into the shoulders, and balanced angulation front and rear all contribute to this elusive notion of ‘style and elegance.’

      Certainly the most difficult portion of the Standard to understand is proper head type. Indeed, across the country excellent heads are sadly becoming harder and harder to find, and too many of us are forgetting that form follows function in head type as well as body type—i.e.: we are not valuing the construction that allowed the Boxer to be an efficient hunter.

         First, the Boxer’s jaws are not those of a ‘slasher’ with a scissors bite.  Instead, the Boxer’s undershot jaw, ideally wide and straight across for greater gripping power, was used to catch hold of a struggling prey animal and keep it under control until the human hunter arrived on the scene to dispatch it.   I am often asked “What amount of space should there be between upper and lower rows of teeth?”  The answer is that there is no exact measure—if the jaw is too undershot, then teeth or tongue will show when the mouth is closed. If the dog is barely undershot, he may be afflicted with an overlip that may make him look like Andy Gump (the upper lip covering all or part of the chin).  But if the lips meet evenly, the upper one just touching and lying on top of (not over) the other, and the chin is perceptible from the front and the side—he is probably ok.  Don’t worry about precise distances. All of the contours of the head accommodate these many features in a unique way.  Once you see an outstanding head, you will always remember it. We do not count teeth in the Boxer, but wider jaws are preferred to narrow ones that would have less ability to ‘hold’ simply because they would grip a lesser amount of skin and flesh.

      When viewing the Boxer head from the front, the first thing that should be apparent is that the expression is sweet and kind—the jaws are formidable, but the eyes impart a gentle look, have plenty of ‘fill’ under them, and are frontally placed (as are our own).  They are generous, dark, and full—all so that the dog could see his fleeing prey better. There is nothing harsh or sharp in a Boxer’s facial features, and definitely no slanted or almond-shaped eyes on the side of the head.  It may seem odd that such a fierce pursuer would have a sweet expression, but we must remember that the Boxer was never a killer, but rather a ‘holder.’  The ears (cropped or uncropped) are set on high to catch every nuance of sound in the forest.  Wrinkling on the forehead is moderate and contributes to the gentleness of expression.  Most critically, the tip of the nose lies higher than the ‘stop,’ which allowed the dog to breathe while holding a mouthful of moving fur. This is an essential breed characteristic, and one that is most obvious in profile.  The fact that the blunt muzzle is approx. 2/3 the width of the skull and 1/3 the length of the head from the occiput to the tip of the nose will help to define a ‘look’ that will become apparent to you without ever having to actually think in terms of measurements again.

        No proper hunter could accomplish his goals without essential soundness.  The Boxer should be balanced for efficiency of gait, and have excellent reach and drive for propelling power at the gallop and the trot.  His movement, however, does not differ appreciably from many other working dogs—it is the square outline and the head that sets him apart in the show ring.  The slightly sloping topline levels out in motion, and as speed increases the head and neck stretch forward unless (sadly) pulled up by handlers in the ring.  The Boxer definitely single tracks, and imbalances of angulation are evident in those dogs who sidewind or move wide behind or have a hackney gait in front.  Those compensations are due to structural flaws and should at once be a red flag to the judge that something is not right—often a lack of correct balance.

        The Boxer must be as fearless in the ring as he was at the hunt—and we implore judges NOT to reward timid specimens.  To that effect, any dogs that shy away from the judge should be severely penalized, as the Standard advises.  While obvious displays of shyness are clear, some are more subtle. For example, in the Boxer, the tail is carried erect in motion, and a tail held in a tucked position indicates an unhappy, insecure animal.  Likewise, the nervous dog that is constantly swiveling around, looking for bogeymen behind every chair, is not of sound temperament.  We do tolerate modest displays of aggression towards other dogs, so long as they are controlled.  Thankfully, such displays are rather infrequent, and you will almost never see a Boxer who is aggressive towards people. 

       When the Boxers enter the ring to be judged, it should be evident at a seemingly casual glance which specimens are to be most prized.  Balance is clear; square outline is clear; attitude is clear.  When you come up close to the dog, head type and expression are obvious—you must educate your “eye” so that you do not have to think twice about what all those “points” really mean.  Markings (or lack thereof) are not so important, and we usually advise judges to be ‘colorblind’ in the ring.  While attractive white markings may appeal, they are not required in any way, and the so-called ‘plain or classic’ Boxer should enjoy parity with his flashier cousins.  In other words, as the old tale advises, just imagine an elephant and chip away all the parts of him that are not “Boxer.” Then you will see your near-perfect specimen materialize before you, and can rely on your good judgment to reward him properly so that he makes his mark on this glorious breed.

Sheep thrills!

by Louise Watson, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

tazra@shaw.ca

I’ve been involved in the purebred dog world for 40 years but have only had boxers in my life for the last 15 years.  In 2004, I decided to approach Cheryl Jennings of JEMS Boxers about her litter by “Jam” out of her beloved girl “Brier”.  I didn’t know Cheryl well, but we had mutual friends and I hoped that she would find me worthy of one of her pups.  Hands trembling, I dialed her telephone number, cleared my throat, took a deep breath and got ready to make my case as to why I would be worthy!  I needn’t have worried.  Those who know Cheryl know that she is a gregarious and warm person and she soon put me at ease.  And so a 12 week old flashy brindle boxer puppy made the trip to my home in Vancouver, British Columbia.  He was to be named “George”.  The support and friendship of Cheryl Jennings and Dianna Emmons (JEMS Boxers U.S.A.) throughout George’s “career” has been tremendous.  Dianna and Cheryl refer to George simply as “Alphabet Boy” in recognition of the multitude of letters after his name.

At the age of 10 months George was first introduced to herding sheep.  He was very enthusiastic.  Actually, truth be told, he was a little wild.  Fast forward to the current day and George continues to maintain his enthusiasm but has the necessary skills to work livestock calmly and effectively – without scattering them like popcorn!

Although not nearly as flamboyant as his namesake, Boy George (the lead singer of the band “Culture Club”), George does things with great flair.  George’s herding career has exceeded my wildest expectations.  George’s obedience and rally titles were also earned with multiple high in class awards.  But it’s in herding where he’s a bit of an over achiever!

George’s herding record to date:

·         #1 all breed Intermediate Canadian Kennel Club herding dog - 2010

·         8 High in Trial awards

·         4 Reserve High in Trial awards

·         12 High in Class awards

·         1 High Combined Score award (arena)

·         1 High Combined Score award (stock dog)

·         High in Trial awards won on both cattle and sheep

·         High in Class awards won on cattle, sheep and ducks

·         13 championship points earned to date (including his majors) – just 2 more to go!

·         7 Herding Excellent (HX) points earned to date – just 3 more to go!

·         Championship points earned on all types of stock used in CKC trials (cattle, sheep, ducks)

·         1^st boxer to earn an Advanced herding title

·         Has earned Advanced herding titles on both sheep and ducks

George is trained and handled by Lynn Leach.  She is an AKC, CKC and AHBA (American Herding Breed Association) judge and is a much sought after clinician and travels extensively worldwide judging and teaching clinics.  Lynn and her husband, Jim, own Downriver Farm in the beautiful Fraser Valley in British Columbia.  www.downriver.org

George LOVES Lynn and to witness the teamwork between them is magical.  With Lynn at the helm, George has earned two scores of 98/100 – the highest scores Lynn has earned with a dog of ANY breed in her 20++ years of trialing.  Lynn, thank you so much for making my Boy George shine!

Herding competitors are supportive of each other and have been very accepting of George who, as a boxer, is definitely the odd man out among all the Aussies, Cattle Dogs, Border Collies, etc.  I will always remember a trial weekend when a group of fellow competitors said they adored George and wanted to wear “I heart George” T-shirts.  It was one of those weekends which makes you smile until it hurts!

I've spent umpteen hours in my role as a “hockey mum” chauffeuring George to lessons with Lynn and observing and learning.  All my time observing Lynn's interaction with George has definitely helped me in my current “journey” with the first dog I'm working with myself in herding (my dog, Jet).  However, “seeing” and “doing” are two different things and I've certainly stumbled along the way!  But now, after a few months, Jet and I are becoming more simpatico and the training frustrations are becoming less and the celebrations becoming more frequent.  One day you'll be euphoric about your beautiful run or training session and the next day your ego will be squashed like a bug!  This sport keeps you humble that's for sure.  But, it's the days when you and your dog are working as a team or when you make a training breakthrough that keep you coming back.

Unlike in conformation and other performance sports, in herding there is the additional factor of the livestock to consider.  The livestock are intelligent, thinking creatures.  They are affected by the weather, the time of day, the “draws” on the field, how they were treated by a dog and handler the last time they were worked, their perception of the dog, their confidence in the handler's ability to control the dog and numerous other factors.  Also, on the last day of a trial weekend, the livestock may be cranky and be more likely to challenge the dog.  These are factors which just don't come into play in any other dog sport!

In May 2012 Lynn Leach and I embarked on a 3 week herding road trip down the west coast of the U.S.  Lynn was scheduled to teach a number of herding clinics enroute – including a herding clinic for boxers!  It was going to be a real highlight of the trip and a breed first.  I was soooo looking forward to it!

Sadly, George was unable to participate in that boxer herding clinic due to the events that transpired.  A couple of days before the boxer herding clinic, Lynn and I discovered George having cluster seizures.  George had never had seizures before.  To make a long story short, George was diagnosed in California with a brain tumour by three different veterinarians (including a neurologist).  I was completely and utterly devastated.

Upon my return home to Vancouver, I took George to my own vet to discuss palliative care and the timing of euthanasia.  After examining George, my vet excused himself from the exam room and returned holding a pharmacology book opened to a particular page.  Pointing at the page, he said “read this”.  I read the indicated passage and things started clicking into place.  George’s seizures, goose stepping and stiffness were text book symptoms of Metronidazole (Flagyl) toxicity!  Since being diagnosed the previous year with Irritable Bowel Disease, George had been prescribed Flagyl and he was no longer tolerating it.  No brain tumour!

My vet has always been a superstar in my eyes and he really came through for George this time.  Unfortunately, George had been prescribed Phenobarbital by one of the vets in California.  The process then began to wean George from the Phenobarbital, a long process which in itself can cause seizures.  During that time, George was to be kept quiet and his activity was to be restricted to leash walks only.  Nine long weeks later, the weaning process was complete.

Lynn Leach spent the summer of 2012 in Europe teaching herding clinics and judging.  She returned back to British Columbia in time to work with George for only 2 brief training sessions and then we headed out on a road trip for a weekend of CKC trials.  We really weren’t expecting much from George that weekend because he’d been sidelined for so long.  But, with CKC herding trials being so few and far between, off we went!

George was dubbed "The Comeback Kid" by fellow competitors that weekend!  I was BEYOND thrilled to see George back working and enjoying his favourite activity after his recent trials and tribulations.  After such a long hiatus from training and activity, George’s stamina wasn’t great.  But he tried hard - and came through in spades.  He won the coveted award of High Combined Score!  His combined score for the weekend was a whopping 71.5 points ahead of the next highest scoring dog.  George also won a Reserve High in Trial, earned another 7 points towards his Herding Championship and another 5 points towards his Herding Excellent title!  To say that he surpassed our expectations would be an understatement!  Good Boy George!

The 2012 CKC herding trial season is now over.  The next opportunity to enter CKC trials will be in May 2013 and George will be 9 years old then.  And, God willing, George will be there!

It’s wonderful to see more and more people giving herding a try with their boxers.  Boxers are “wicked smart” and truly a versatile breed!

It may appear to the uninitiated that herding folk are crazy.  Why else would we don multiple layers of clothing and smelly rain gear to traipse out into a mucky field?  And to have our sometimes “overly enthusiastic” dog push the sheep into us - and sometimes over us!  To finish our training session with mud and muck in unmentionable places.  It’s not because we’re fashionistas that’s for darn sure.  It’s because herding is an addiction, that’s why.  Pure and simple.  And, thankfully, it’s an addiction for which there is no cure.

Photo #1:

“George” is also known as JEMS Culture Club CGN CD RA HA HAsd SDS Am. RA RLFI‑s HTDI‑s HRDII‑s VB VBX

By MBIS/MBISS Am. Ch. JEMS Pearl Jam LOM ex MBIS/BISS Am. Can. Ch. Stevenstars-N-JEMS Crown Royal DOM DOMC HIC

Bred by Cheryl Jennings (JEMS Canada), Dianna Emmons (JEMS U.S.A.), Marcella Mushovic and Beth Ann Mushovic

Photo #2:

May 2010, Laidlaw, British Columbia:  2 High in Trial awards (cattle and sheep), 1 Reserve High in Trial, High Combined Stockdog!  L to R - Judge Terry Kenney (California), Lynn Leach (Downriver Farm), George, Judge Steve Waltenburg (California)

Photo #3:

"The Standoff"

George (60 pounds) faces off with a North Country Cheviot ewe (180 pounds)

Score: George-1, Ewe-0

Photo #4:

Celebrating Boy George’s “Comeback Tour”!

September 2012

Our happiness about George’s wins took a definite back seat to our joy about his return to good health!

L to R - Judge Nancy Ward (Washington), Louise Watson, George, Lynn Leach (trainer/handler extraordinaire), Judge Ron Fischer (Washington)

Urgent Message for California Regional Goers!

Once again we're approaching the dates for an ABC show, the 2012 California Regional. Fortunately for those of us in the West we are within driving distance this time, some still a ways away, but doable.

We know however that in the not too distant future loom at least two years of shows in Indianapolis – right at 2200 miles for me. Did anyone happen to catch the price of gas today? Over $5.00 a gallon here in CA. 

We westerners have been patient – more than patient – for some 14 years, and the time is NOW to implement a change. Everyone PLEASE, if you are going to be at the Regional and are an ABC member, make it to the membership meeting. Another motion is going to be made re contracting with the Topeka site to begin with the year following the two now contracted for in Indiana (2015). Not around the corner, but the 1640 plus or minus miles from here to Topeka and essentially the same from the other coast is drivable in a reasonable amount of time.

Let's put this long overdue issue to rest and implement the change the ABC membership voted for in 1998.

Cheryl A. Cates
All Breed Professional Handler
www.EncoreBoxers.com/