White boxer breedings

[gmacleod]

Originally Posted by BriaLeigh

But is it not true that the "boxer" was not a "boxer" untill the Brabanter Bullenbeisser was crossed with an english bulldog... creating the white dog. So it wasnt a boxer when it was the Bullenbeisser which wasnt white.

It wasn't a boxer after the Bullenbeiser/Bulldog crosses either The bulldog blood was introduced around 1830, wheras it was another 60 years before the "first" boxer was registered (when it was felt that a new breed had been established, if you like). So in 1830 we're still talking about dogs from whom the boxer is descended, not the actual boxer breed as we know it.

[bommy]

But correct me if Iam wrong but what I seem to understand is that the dogs bred in the 1830's were just regarded as a mixed breed dog by the various Canine Councils until it was a proven breed & registered in the late 1800's, so even though they are descendants they were not recognised until they were genetically bred into the beautiful creatures we have today & LOOOOVE sooooo much, regardless of the initial colorings, what the dominant colours were when the breed was recognised were fawn & brindle (in various shades).

White Boxers are beautiful as are all colours but standard is standard & it would take alot of movement to get it to vary....

Abit like how the bobtail boxers in the UK are genetic descendants of the Boxer but they are still a mixed breed dog because they are not genetically 100% Boxer?

Am I thinking along the right path???

[Alisha Mobley]

Abit like how the bobtail boxers in the UK are genetic descendants of the Boxer but they are still a mixed breed dog because they are not genetically 100% Boxer?

They are considered 100% Boxer now. The fourth generation of bob-tails were accepted by KC rules for registration as Boxers.

http://www.steynmere.com/ARTICLES5.html

[kassa]

Well, the Kennel Club certainly considers them 100% boxers

[gmacleod]

Originally Posted by kassa

Well, the Kennel Club certainly considers them 100% boxers

As do most, if not all, governing bodies around the world I know bobtails issued with a certified export pedigree by the KC are accepted as purebred boxers by the governing bodies in European and Scandinavian countries, the US and New Zealand - it would be surprising if Australia were to take a different stance (although I haven't yet explicitly read their rules on the subject).

[bommy]

I didnt know if they were or werenot recognised yet...i just meant it as an example..how the first few generations were not recognised...now that they are it is good...i know when i first came across them on the net they were trying to get them recognised... after all a boxer with a naturally short tail it's what we need here seeing as we can not dock!

[mara806]

It seems that many people have different opinions on the white dogs. My dog is white, and other than having almost too much energy to handle, there's nothing wrong with her. So theoretically, if she were to breed with lets say a plain boxer, would she have any white puppies? Is breeding of white boxers even allowed? She's registered now, so would they deny her the right to breed? I know it's been done before, and if the puppies wouldnt be used for showing but just for pets, what would be the harm in it? Just wondering.

[gmacleod]

If she were to "theoretically" be bred, she would very likely produce deaf puppies. Rather a more important consideration than their colour, don't you think?

If you actually read the information presented at the beginning of this thread by Marimat - and that is scientific fact, not a lay opinion - it would be patently obvious why white boxers should never be bred. Put simply, whether they are themselves deaf or not, their offspring very likely would be whether coloured or not. As Dr Strain stated "Breeding these dogs back into the boxer gene pool will very likely increase the overall incidence of deafness in ALL boxers (white or otherwise)." THAT is "what the harm in it" is.

Deliberately breeding a known defect into a dog breed is irresponsible in the extreme.

Frankly, I find it incredible that you are putting this issue in terms of a dog having a "right to breed". Dogs don't have rights to breed - they have (or should have) the right to be treated as loved pets and companions by owners who have put the best interests of their pet as the primary consideration. Well, being bred is not in the best interests of anyone's pet. It's a significant risk to their health.

What I think you really mean is that YOU just want to breed your dog. And ethics or the good of the breed be damned, you imagine you have a right to breed her. Well, breeding isn't a right, it's a responsibility.

95% of boxers, of any colour, should never be bred. They're the lucky ones. Your white bitch should be one of them.

[mara806]

Thanks for your reply. I'm a little offended that you think I dont care about the breed or about my dog. I didnt mean to make you upset by asking the question; once again I'm new here and I dont know EVERYTHING like some people.

[gmacleod]

All the information anyone who cared about the health of the breed would need to understand that whites shouldn't be bred is at the beginning of this thread. Yet you still asked what would be the harm would be. And whether her "right" to be bred could be denied... Only two possible conclusions: either you don't care, or you didn't bother to read this thread before challenging it.