Blue [gray] boxers

[debcadman]

I know discussion of black boxers is banned, but there is no mention of blue boxers. So I was wondering what everyone would make of these:

http://personal.inet.fi/koti/boxmann...boksu/Blue.htm


By the way, I am somewhat surprised that open discussion on any boxer is actively discouraged. How are people to learn, if discussion is not allowed? I understand fully that black boxers are deemed impossivble, that they are just extreme reverse brindles. However, you cannot dispute that some APPEAR to be black, no matter what their genetic makeup. It is only natural for people to ask about these beautiful dogs. Only by being allowed to ask would they learn the truth about them.

[JulieM]

I agree with the author of the article, that the blue is probably due to another breed, and the small population in Estonia has allowed it to proliferate.

By the way, I am somewhat surprised that open discussion on any boxer is actively discouraged.

Had you been here for some of the discussions on black Boxers, you probably would not be so surprised

How are people to learn, if discussion is not allowed?

By searching the forums, as the topic has come up in the past.

Here are two long threads on black Boxers - that might shed some light onto why discussion of them is no longer permitted:

Black Boxers - Again!

A very serious question about color.....

[debcadman]

I am very interested in these posts, thanks for the link to them. And although the debates were abit 'lively', I think mostly they were conducted well.

As someone with an open mind, I can see both sides. No one can dispute that there are boxers that APPEAR black at first glance. No one can dispute that there are fewer of these than other colours, so naturally people are curious / interested in them. I agree that technically, a true black is genetically impossible. [unless there is a mutation on the gene of course - the possibility of which no one has mentioned]

And I know that the original black boxers had a dubious background via another breed. But don't all boxers originate from different breeds wayyyyy back?

I myself have a mis mark brindle. He is just like a normal flashy brindle, but his blaze goes right over his head, to meet the collar of white, and he has some white on his ear. There are a couple of small triangles of white on his back, near his tail. [Yes he still has a tail and we are VERY proud of it!] He is unusual. He does not meet the standard - but that doesn't matter to me. He will not be bred, nor shown, he's just the best companion ever. He gets admiring comments wherever we go - from the average man on the street, you understand - who, lets face it, is the majority of the population! I had the pick of the litter, and could have had any one of the other 6 perfectly marked pups. I chose not to. Why? Mainly because Ben was so cute. Partly because I'd previously owned a white [another colour that people are interested in], Partly to ensure he had a good home, and wouldn't be bred. And, daft as it might seem, partly because if he ever got lost, he'd be easier to trace [hopefully]. [Before you ask - yes he is chipped]

Not everyone can be expected to be an expert. You don't need to understand genetics to be a good owner and love your dog.
There are many people who learn about their boxers from their boxers. They don't do loads of research, don't visit sites like this, but are still good owners. I'm not saying that you shouldn't learn about the breed, just stating that some don't - but do perfectly well with their pet.

If someone visits a site such as this, their views should be discussed sensitively, they are here because of an interest in the breed. Its a sad fact that some comments incite anger in others. From what I have read, this seems to be unintentional. Though I'm sure someone will put me right on this one.

If I have incited anyone to anger with my comments - I apologise. It was not intended. Just sharing my views, such as they are.

[JulieM]

I am very interested in these posts, thanks for the link to them. And although the debates were abit 'lively', I think mostly they were conducted well.

Yes - but this is only a small glimpse into what the discussion has been. There are several more threads - if you avail yourself of the search function you'll find enough to keep you occupied for some time! Some of the most inflammatory are no longer available for public viewing, of course.

As someone with an open mind, I can see both sides. No one can dispute that there are boxers that APPEAR black at first glance. No one can dispute that there are fewer of these than other colours, so naturally people are curious / interested in them.

No one does dispute this.

I agree that technically, a true black is genetically impossible. [unless there is a mutation on the gene of course - the possibility of which no one has mentioned]

A mutation is certainly a possibility, and if any of these "black" Boxers had occurred in a population of dogs that was known to have been carefully bred for conformation to the breed standard, it might receive more consideration. As it is, "black" Boxers are only found in poorly-bred populations where the standard (and often, parentage) is not a concern - and even those have shown some fawn ground color. The only truly black Boxers I've seen are very obvious mixed-breeds, that are mis-labeled.

Not everyone can be expected to be an expert. You don't need to understand genetics to be a good owner and love your dog.

No, you don't. You *do*, however, need to understand genetics to breed your dogs - or to argue with those who do understand them when they tell you that what you're claiming is a genetic impossibility.

There are many people who learn about their boxers from their boxers. They don't do loads of research, don't visit sites like this, but are still good owners. I'm not saying that you shouldn't learn about the breed, just stating that some don't - but do perfectly well with their pet.

And that is perfectly fine. I'm not sure I understand the point, though. Obviously, we are not here for those people (if they don't visit this site, how could we be?). We are here for those who want to learn about the breed - and what kind of disservice would we be doing, if we did not educate people on all aspects of the breed simply because their dog is "just a pet?" Are breeders, then, supposed to have information that the "general public" doesn't? I certainly don't think so - I think this can only damage the breed. The more people there are that know as much as they can about Boxers, the better for everyone - for the dogs, who will start to enjoy better health when people realize that certain practices are *not* necessarily the best, just because the vet said so - for the owners, who will get more joy out of their dogs when they start working with them instead of against them - and for the breed as a whole, when people start avoiding purchasing from backyard breeders, pet stores, or puppymills, and start demanding focus on the standard and health testing of the parents.

If I have incited anyone to anger with my comments - I apologise. It was not intended. Just sharing my views, such as they are.

Not incited to anger, but a bit curious as to what the purpose of the posting was. Certainly you may have different views of what should be done - but we who have been at this board for years have learned the characteristics of it, and know what topics are likely to start flame wars and cause hurt feelings - and so avoid these topics, as we want BoxerWorld to be a friendly and welcoming place. The rules are in place, not because we are trying to be "mean" or "controlling," but because rules are necessary for the peaceful conduct of any society - and because we strive to a higher standard, one that always focuses on the best interests of the breed, even if that means some people will not find a home here.

In observance of these rules, as this thread has become about black Boxers, it will be closed. If you want to continue the discussion of the blue Boxers, feel free to start a new thread.