White Boxer

[Cmatli]

I know white boxers can't be shown but does anybody know who made that rule up??? I've had my Pearl for about 3+ years and I think white boxers are just as good as any other colored boxer. Okay not that I would show her because I wouldn't know how to do it or what to do. But I was just curious about this white thing......

[Spotty's people]

(here I am, following your posts again!)

This standard has been around for ages. White dogs can be in agility & such, but not for show that is for breed standards.

I think that our dog is perfectly fine, too... But again, white. (With tons of speckles.)

Before we got Spotty, I did a lot of reading on the "white debate" (and you'll probably find that debate here, too), about the soundness of the white dogs. One more recent poll that I had read showed that white boxers showed no more tendency to deafness & health issues than other/flashy boxers.

Personally, I don't know who to believe. How long have they been allowed to live, so that studies can be done on them? Perhaps this debate needs more time for people to come around to accepting them (just like natural ears & undocked tails).

I'm very glad that my dog is healthy (& to hear that Pearl is, too!), & can hear very well.....

When we get a puppy (we are trying to find a white), I want to purchase one from a very reputable breeder with healthy dogs so that my chances of having a very healthy white dog are high.

A white boxer is STILL a boxer! Personality PLUS!

Susan

[Cmatli]

I agree with you about white boxers. I think that boxers in generally need a lot of work because they are so active. But white boxers after searching the internet when we got Pearl I think are very special -- I can't believe that they were put down just for being white. That's like saying I had a child that was "not perfect" for whatever reason and let's just put that child up for adoption or better yet let's just drown the child. I can't believe that white boxers were put down because of that reason. So I feel blessed that I have a white boxer because she has brought us so much joy.

[JulieM]

The practice of putting down white puppies started during the war, when food was rationed; any dog that could not be used as a war dog would not get a food ration. White Boxers, being highly visible at night, were unsuitable for war dog work. It was either put them down at birth or let them starve. The practice was continued after the war, and somewhere along the way the myth that whites are less healthy got started (my opinion is that someone wanted to ease their guilty conscience).

It is only in the last 10-15 years that the ABC has even allowed placement of white Boxers (they still do not allow the sale of them) - previously breeders either had to put them down or keep them all. There have, however, been *no* studies done on the health of white Boxers, and I don't expect there to be any in the near future. As more and more new breeders join the ranks of the ABC and the member clubs, the acceptance of white Boxers is growing - last year an amendment to allow the Limited Registration and sale (on a spay/neuter contract) of white Boxers was sent to the membership for a vote. Although it did not pass, it was almost a 50-50 split - I am positive that in the next decade this amendment will go through.

The High-In-Trial Agility dog at the ABC this year was a white Boxer named, appropriately, Justice Apparently his owner got lots of questions from those breeders who had blindly followed the majority in believing whites were less healthy....

Susan, I would be very interested in the survey you mentioned that shows whites are not more prone to deafness. I've seen a couple of surveys that show there are no increased health problems other than deafness and sunburn, but never one that did not show a higher incidence of deafness. It is basically accepted as genetic fact - although there actually have never been studies conducted on white Boxers. The information has been extrapolated from the knowledge of Boxer coat color genetics and the studies on Dalmatians (that carry the same piebald gene).

[Marimat]

Hello

One such poll was actually initiated by myself here about 2 months ago.

http://boxerworld.com/forums/showthr...3&goto=newpost

The link above will take you to that poll, but in summary the results of this one rather isolated poll it clearly shows that white boxers are more prone to deafness. The sampling was small, but large enough to at least theorise the conclusion that would be shown in a mush wider based poll.

There were 236 respondents, 48 people had known or owned a deaf boxer. 43 of those are white. That's 18.22% of white boxers in the poll that are deaf. And those figures are actually consistent with the expectation of deafness in Dalmations and the genetics of deafness in white boxers and dallies are the same.

You can read about this at the following link

http://clubs.akc.org/abc/white-deafness.htm

So anyway, what does it all mean?? Probably nothing in the big picture, all that has been said of white boxers previously in this thread is true. They are fine companions and working dogs granted but I do take issue with not recognising deafness because no formal study is actually needed to know that it is indeed a fact of life that a white boxer IS more prone to deafness

And why do I see it as so important to recognise this?

Because if the truth is ignored and one day white boxers are deemed suitable for the showring that will deem them suitable for breeding. If they are suitable for breeding then the deafness problem will escalate due the recessive nature of the genetics involved.

Matthew

Footnote

Whenever we speak of deafness in dogs in general we tend to be thinking of Bilateral deafness (both ears) However unilateral deafness is possible and these dogs are almost impossible to identify. One eared deafness has the same genetic basis as bilateral deafness. So in reality even the figures from my impromptu poll are possibly higher as has been shown in dallies

Matt

[JulieM]

Because if the truth is ignored and one day white boxers are deemed suitable for the showring that will deem them suitable for breeding. If they are suitable for breeding then the deafness problem will escalate due the recessive nature of the genetics involved.

Matthew, I wonder about this. Granted, breeding whites to whites will produce more whites, which will increase the chances of deaf dogs - but what if it were mandated that whites must always be bred to plains? That would result in 100% flashy litters, or "carriers" if you prefer. Of course, breeding flashy to flashy would produce whites but that's happening now. This, of course, means that plain dogs will have to gain more acceptance as well (which is not a bad thing!!).

The ethical Doberman breeders are capable of using white-factored dogs and not producing more white Dobes - why would ethical Boxer breeders not be?

Of course, I don't think this situation will ever occur in my lifetime - this is all theoretical - but it's an interesting concept. I certainly think it would behoove the Parent Clubs to perform controlled breeding trails with white Boxers, to lay to rest once and for all the speculation on health problems, and to verify that the Dal information does hold true for Boxers. (I also would be very interested in seeing if the white-white breedings might occasionally produce colored puppies, as I've heard has happened in Boxer litters....)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JulieM
[B]The practice of putting down white puppies started during the war, when food was rationed; any dog that could not be used as a war dog would not get a food ration. White Boxers, being highly visible at night, were unsuitable for war dog work. It was either put them down at birth or let them starve. The practice was continued after the war, and somewhere along the way the myth that whites are less healthy got started (my opinion is that someone wanted to ease their guilty conscience).

I find your statements interesting. Could you please post where you got this information? Have you read the Stockamn book? Many dogs regardless of color (or breed) were culled during the war years. The determining factor was ability to feed and not color or suitability for war. The culling of white Boxers has been around since there were Boxers. It was/is a tool to try to breed to the standard and white is a fault, they were/are trying to eliminate the fault. In Germany dog wardens would inspect litters culling all that did not meet the standard regardless of the fault.
White Boxers do suffer from a high rate of deafness, this is a problem with all white breeds.

"It is only in the last 10-15 years that the ABC has even allowed placement of white Boxers (they still do not allow the sale of them) - previously breeders either had to put them down or keep them all."

Again please refrence your information. Many breeders culled their white Boxers because they did not meet the standard. The probability of white Boxers increases when Boxers are bred for flash. The registration of Boxers is done by the AKC, white Boxers are not eligible for conformation but they can compete in obedience. Any responsible breeder would only allow a limited registration on a white Boxer so that it could not produce puppies that could be registered.

"There have, however, been *no* studies done on the health of white Boxers, and I don't expect there to be any in the near future. As more and more new breeders join the ranks of the ABC and the member clubs, the acceptance of white Boxers is growing - last year an amendment to allow the Limited Registration and sale (on a spay/neuter contract) of white Boxers was sent to the membership for a vote. Although it did not pass, it was almost a 50-50 split - I am positive that in the next decade this amendment will go through."

Boxer health studies have been done and white Boxers because they are Boxers have been included in it. There have also been at least informal polls about white Boxers in specific. Besides the hearing problem I believe they have a higher rate of skin problems when compared to colored Boxers. Again my information is that white Boxers can be registered by the AKC, I may be wrong and if you direct me to the refrence I would appreciate it. Thank you.

[Boxerworld]

"Terry R" or should I say "Boxer Rick" (from http://www.boxerworld.com/forums/sho...2111#post92111)?
I do not know what you have against Julie but you are tiring. And you still do not know how to quote a sentence. Oh well, I will try to find more links to keep you busy

Olly

[Marimat]

Julie

What about if we take a step back and make that mandate now with what we already have to work with and decree that we must not breed flashy/flashy. If we selected each litter to have at least one genetically solid coloured boxer the whole white thing would become a moot point :-))

[quote]The ethical Doberman breeders are capable of using white-factored dogs and not producing more white Dobes - why would ethical Boxer breeders not be?[/b]

Probably because ethical Dobermann breeders are not striving for flashy Dobermanns, as "ethical" boxer breeders do :-) The reason I put ethical in inverted commas, is not aimed at you Julie but more aimed at my favourite, the big picture. A good hard objective look at breeders the world over, especially done by an outside source might have one believing that to knowingly produce an animal with a possible genetic fault, deficiency or disease is downright unethical and irresponsible.

A boxer may be born with FVA or AS. We don't want this so we test the dogs and exclude effected animals from breeding. a boxer may be born with dysplastic hips so we get them screened, pay a lot of money for X Rays and if they are effected, we exclude them. A boxer may have Canine Hypothyroidism, PRA, JRA, Spondylosis. So we dutifully test for these diseases and if we come up with one of them, what do we do? We exclude them.............

A white boxer may be born with hereditary deafness so what do we do.........NOTHING

We keep to the same routine of breeding for flashy dogs using flashy parents and taking the risk of producing a puppy or puppies with a genetic deafness. Seems to be an omission of convenience for the sake of getting a show winner that we choose to ignore what would be one of the easiest things to avoid.

I'm sure you get my point. :-)

Another problem I see in allowing the breeding of whites, even if only to flashies is in your answer itself Julie. White/solid will give only flashies - right

But what of the amount of flash, a goodly percentage will likely be more than a third white, mismarked and so excluded from the ring and future breeding and also where will the next generation of plains come from if we go down the path of breeding white/solid just to get flashy puppies. It's be a self defeating exercise in some ways really. We woulddn't be producing any more plains to go on with. Unless we were able to get acceptance as you said and I see that as unlikely as me being President of the USA LOL LOL

Julie you touch on the possibilty of a white/white breeding producing a coloured puppy. I actually wrote on this in the last white thread. 1 or 2 coloured hairs on an otherwise white dog will genetically make that dog a coloured dog for fawn or brindle whatever the couple of hairs may be coloured. It's the same as 2 fawns producing brindles which has often happened. You only need a minute bit of ticking (brindling) for a dog to be genetically brindle as you know so it is possible.....nay, probable that white/white can = coloured because it would be easy to miss a few coloured hairs that may be, for arguments sake, between the toes of the dog......................

Next LOL LOL LOL

Matt

[Cmatli]

Have you been breeding for a long time?? You are a very knowledgable person. I've learned quite a bit in a short time.

[JulieM]

Although I think Terry/Rick/Jason/whoever is no longer posting, I have no doubt he'll be back under another name at some point, and since I hate to leave questions unanswered, I'll respond

I find it extremely interesting that, in another post, when I asked him for specific references/page numbers (which he offered to give), he turned around and asked me to provide mine. Perhaps he doesn't really have any? Certainly dogs *other* than white Boxers were culled during the war because of food rationing, I've never said otherwise nor intended to imply it. Again, if as Jason insists the Munich Boxer Club was founded in an attempt to rid the white coloring from the breed, why are there white Boxers registered in the early stud book? The first Boxer registered was the result of a cross between a check Boxer and a white Bulldog; the check Boxer bitch is Boxer #50 in the stud book. (This is from John Wagner's book, I believe, and the ABC website)
White was an allowable coat color in the original 1902 Breed standard - hardly seems as if they were trying to eliminate it at that time!!!

If anyone has a valid reference to back up Jason's claims, I'd be interested in seeing/reading them.

As for breeders only recently being allowed to place white puppies, this is from the ABC Code of Ethics, which until 1985 (I think) included as an infraction of the Code placing Boxers of any color not allowed by the standard.

If breeders were putting down white puppies because they did not meet the standard, wouldn't they also be putting down colored puppies with wry mouths, or light eyes, or bad toplines, or straight shoulders?

The AKC does allow the registration of white Boxers, although you have to call them to get the color code since it is not included on the registration application. The ABC - the Parent Club for the breed - does not allow the registration of white Boxers, and it is the ABC rules that ethical, responsible breeders follow.

Any responsible breeder would only allow a limited registration on a white Boxer so that it could not produce puppies that could be registered.

No - any responsible breeder would not allow registration of any kind on a white Boxer, in accordance with the ABC Code of Ethics, and would only place the puppy on a strict spay/neuter contract (or s/n before placement) so that it could not produce puppies *at all.*

And yes, I have read the Stockmann book; although I am unable to reference it right now since, as I've said before, my copy is on what it turning out to be permanent loan.

[JulieM]

Matthew,

You are so much more profitable to converse with

What about if we take a step back and make that mandate now with what we already have to work with and decree that we must not breed flashy/flashy. If we selected each litter to have at least one genetically solid coloured boxer the whole white thing would become a moot point :-))

Quite right, and Dr. Cattanach noted that the UK was looking into making that requirement, but I don't think it has ever come to fruition. Of course, there are those who feel that white Boxers are not an abomination, so there's no reason not to do a breeding that might produce them.

A good hard objective look at breeders the world over, especially done by an outside source might have one believing that to knowingly produce an animal with a possible genetic fault, deficiency or disease is downright unethical and irresponsible.

So no one should be breeding anything.

A boxer may be born with FVA or AS. We don't want this so we test the dogs and exclude effected animals from breeding. A boxer may be born with dysplastic hips so we get them screened, pay a lot of money for X Rays and if they are effected, we exclude them. A boxer may have Canine Hypothyroidism, PRA, JRA, Spondylosis. So we dutifully test for these diseases and if we come up with one of them, what do we do? We exclude them.............

And none of this eliminates the possibilty of a possible genetic fault. AS and HD are polygenic, a clear-clear breeding does not guarantee clear offspring. FVA can be a late-onset disease, a dog that tests clear for 6 years can turn up with 3000 VPCs at age 7. (Plus, of course, I'd say the majority of breeders in the US are not actually testing for these things....and PRA, JRA, and Spondylosis testing is basically unheard of.....although this does go back to the "ethical" issue.)

I do get your point, Matthew, I truly do - I just don't think it's as clear-cut as all that.

But what of the amount of flash, a goodly percentage will likely be more than a third white, mismarked and so excluded from the ring and future breeding and also where will the next generation of plains come from if we go down the path of breeding white/solid just to get flashy puppies. It's be a self defeating exercise in some ways really. We woulddn't be producing any more plains to go on with. Unless we were able to get acceptance as you said and I see that as unlikely as me being President of the USA LOL LOL

What a scary thought!! And yes, it would create problems, but there will always be those breeders who will not include whites in their breeding program; if it is a mandate that all breedings must include one plain parent, then we will still be getting plains from the flashy/plain breedings. And while plains probably won't be as accepted by all-around judges, the ABC is sending a message to all judges that lack of white markings is not a fault. (The newly issued "Judging the Boxer" booklet addresses this issue, as does a letter from the ABC, both of which were sent to all approved Boxer judges and will be sent to all new Boxer judges.)

Again, this is purely hypothetical because I don't for a second believe the AKC will allow the breeding of whites in my lifetime!

Julie you touch on the possibilty of a white/white breeding producing a coloured puppy. I actually wrote on this in the last white thread. 1 or 2 coloured hairs on an otherwise white dog will genetically make that dog a coloured dog for fawn or brindle whatever the couple of hairs may be coloured. It's the same as 2 fawns producing brindles which has often happened. You only need a minute bit of ticking (brindling) for a dog to be genetically brindle as you know so it is possible.....nay, probable that white/white can = coloured because it would be easy to miss a few coloured hairs that may be, for arguments sake, between the toes of the dog......................

Matthew, I am in full agreement with you that all "whites" are really colored Boxers with an extreme marking pattern. However, current popular belief, at least in this country, is that a white dog has a double-dose of the piebald gene, sW, and so breeding it to another white dog will only produce puppies that have double-doses of the piebald gene, thus only white puppies.

This is far better explained on Beth's site, which is down at the moment, but I think the information is also at Henning/Cecilie's site as well.

I'm not convinced that this is correct, and if white-white breedings are producing colored puppies it cannot be, but that is the generally accepted theory in the US today.