White boxers - what's wrong?

[ZOE*BOXER]

Originally Posted by Louie's Mom

How can they knowingly be creating these animals and then shunning them at the same time?

In my opinion, it is because some people are so money driven and greedy, they do not care who or what they are hurting in the process of making more money. They do not have to live with the consequences of their actions.

[gmacleod]

Originally Posted by Louie's Mom

If they really wanted it to be nipped in the bud - they wouldn't breed flashy boxers - BECAUSE THAT IS HOW YOU GET WHITE BOXERS!!

I think it's insane to think it's ok to breed 2 dogs with dilute genes (flashy) and KNOW that you are probably going to get a dilute puppy or puppies(white).

How can they knowingly be creating these animals and then shunning them at the same time?

Classic coats should be preferred to flashy coats in the show ring - but its health backwards

Well, that's one way of looking at it. IF you want to eliminate white boxers from existence.

Fortunately, most people are rather less extreme and recognise the value of whites as perfectly good pets, companions, agility and working dogs. They simply aren't breeding material (as neither are most coloureds).

Saying that you should exclude the breeding of flashy-to-flashy so that whites will no longer be produced is short sighted. Why? Because most boxers in North America are flashy. It's no good bemoaning the preferences and policies of the past that brought that about. Breeding is all about the future. And if you exclude all those animals from the potential breeding pool - sure, there will be no more white boxers. But at the same time, you eliminate most of the best and the healthiest (that is - those who're actually breed-worthy in the first place) animals from the breeding pool. Shall we lower the standards in respect of hip dysplasia or heart defects that can be accepted just so we can avoid producing any whites? That would be a bit "backward", don't you think... Far more so than accepting that a proportion of PET dogs may be white, and that a proportion of those (who will never be included in the gene pool so long as people accept the need to breed responsibly, anyway) may be deaf and need to be placed in loving homes.

Without any doubt, flash should not be prefered just because it exists. There is no boxer standard in the world that suggests it is necessary. On the contrary, in fact, most simply state that it isn't undesirabe/can be attractive and shouldn't be penalised (suggesting that it is acceptable at best). And anyone breeding two flashy dogs together for the sole purpose of producing flashy puppies is irresponsible. But most responsible people don't actually do that. They breed together the best specimens they can find, who're close to the breed standard and who complement each others strong points without doubling up on the weak. And who make the grade from a health perspective. Very often, as you'd expect anywhere where the majority of dogs are flashy, that also means they're breeding two flashy dogs together. In those cases, they have to accept that on average, that means they will produce 25% white puppies, and 1.25% (20% of the 25%) of their pups will be deaf.

1.25% deaf puppies. For that, you're suggesting excluding the majority of good dogs from the breeding pool, simply because they're flashy, which WILL lead to an increase in serious diseases such as hip dysplasia and cardiomyopathy? Seems rather more "backward" to me than the status quo

As ever, you need to look at the wider picture and it's implications. Otherwise, you run the risk of letting emotion get the better of common sense.

No, white boxers should not be exterminated from existence. Doing so anywhere where there is a high proportion of flashy dogs would be as detrimental to the overall health of the breed as using whites for breeding would be - probably more so. White boxers are perfectly good dogs, who make perfectly good pets and working animals. The single thing they are NOT good for is use as breeding animals. And quite frankly, that makes them the LUCKY ones. Why on earth anyone should think that it somehow impinges the dog's "rights" r makes them a second class citizen if cared for enough to be spayed/neutered, to avoid the risk of serious disease associated with remaining intact, and NOT to be used as some sort of puppy machine is beyond me

[RMMRKK]

I am not sure I can post the book that I have that I found this passage in, and if I can please someone let me know and I will give the book name, author and page number, but here is an excerpt from the book...........
"A stud book, a record of all dogs in the breed who produce offspring, was established with the registration of Muhlbauer's Flocki in 1904, a dog whose sire was a white Bulldog known as Dr. Toneissen's Tom"

Could this possibly be where the white on any boxer originated from?

[gmacleod]

It is widely accepted that the white colour was introduced via the inclusion of early English bulldog genes in the mix that created the boxer. You would find that same information posted many times on this site, and also articulated on the ABC site: http://www.americanboxerclub.org/boxer_history.html Where it originated from is not, however, amongst the reasons why whites should not be used for breeding

[RMMRKK]

Originally Posted by gmacleod

It is widely accepted that the white colour was introduced via the inclusion of early English bulldog genes in the mix that created the boxer. You would find that same information posted many times on this site, and also articulated on the ABC site: http://www.americanboxerclub.org/boxer_history.html Where it originated from is not, however, amongst the reasons why whites should not be used for breeding

Thankyou for that website, I hadn't run across that.

[Louie's Mom]

Yes, I agree that it is too late to exclude the dogs now - I don't want to wipe the white dogs out of existance.

I actually am more concerned with their skin and eyes (if they are blue) being more sensiitve to light - I think it's horrible to knowingly create an animal that was meant to be able to run and play in the sunlight - that LOVES the sunshine and not be able to without coating them in sunblock.

I agree that the breeders can't go back now -because it would cut out too many healthy dogs from the gene pool.

I guess I am just griping about the past

No matter what happens people are always going to do something backwards

[liamsmom]

Originally Posted by gmacleod

The single, solitary purpose of the show ring is selection of specimens who are close enough representatives of the breed standard to be used for breeding.
...That would mean, amongst other things, that the incidence of deafness within the breed would rise. With whites excluded from breeding, deafness in this breed is small - less than 2%. Within the white population it's 20%. Deliberately breeding a known defect into a dog breed would be irresponsible in the extreme (what would you say about someone deliberately breeding a heart defect, or epilepsy? It's no different). The above percentages only relate to bilateral deafness, btw - very likely the figure is double for unilateral. And it does not require that a white dog be affected for his offspring to be.

THAT is why the colour is excluded from the standard. And that is why they cannot enter a contest for selection of breeding stock.

Hubby and I are proudly owned by three Boxers. One is fawn and the other two are whites......BOTH DEAF. I agree that they are beautiful. However, I also agree with the breed standard.
We've had our deaf girl for 8 years. She is a rescue and was rescued because the breeder was going to put her down because 1) she is white and 2) she is deaf. Our second deaf-white boy is only 5 months old and came into rescue because he was bred by someone who didn't show her dogs at all. Just decided that she would breed her dog to a friends boxer. she had no idea Boxers could be born white....let alone be deaf. Had this person shown her dogs and bred responsibly, she would have known about these issues...or at least understood a tiny bit of the standard. We aren't even sure the Boxers she "bred" would even meet the breed standards to begin with.
Being a rescue volunteer, I am partial to the deaf white Boxers. However, I would not go out of my way to breed them and do not hold any respect for those who do.
I understand how you feel. I think my two white babies are the most beautiful dogs in the world. Yet, at the same time, I climb up on my soap box when people want to know where to get one. there are a lot of people that think white Boxers are rare so we try to educate people whenever we can.
Hug your fur-baby and enjoy every minute you have together. It doesn't matter if you show him or not. He's all yours and is certainly handsome. As it should be......he is certainly 1st Place in your heart!!!...and that's better than the largest blue ribbon in the world!

[SandwashZina]

i totally agree why cant you show them but a white boxer is a recessive gene and this means that the whites are a fault in the gene either due to too much white on the parents or interbreeding. i thinks its wrong tho because a boxer is a boxer white or coloured, with or without a tail, and it frustrates me that they have all these 'rules' that we have too follow!!
i call it racism in the doggie world because they are saying that we cant show them because of their colours, its the same with the poms they wont pick many black poms because not many judges like the colour!!!

[gmacleod]

Originally Posted by SandwashZina

i totally agree why cant you show them but... i call it racism in the doggie world because they are saying that we cant show them because of their colours...

You do, hmm? An you don't consider that's just a bit contradictory? You've just "totally agreed" with why they can't be entered in a contest for selection of breeding stock (just as any other animal that cannot be used for breeding cannot be entered) and at the same time are calling this "racism"? That sort of statement is both nonsensical and pointlessly inflamatory. This is not a site for generating useless arguments, and I suggest you check the rules carefully before making posts of that nature.

Btw: the genetics of white coat colour in the boxer breed are well documented and have nothing to do with recessive genes.

[erin7669]

Whoever said "showing is not a beauty contest" is spot on. The purpose is for breeding stock selection. The judge criqtues your dog to see if meets the standard, the dog that *most* meets the standard out of all the competitors gets the BOB. The judge looks at topline, tailset, head, eyes, ear set, rear angulation, depth of chest, feet, bite, movement... color is of lesser importance. As long as the color meets the standard.
Showing is a very competitive hobby, its not so that owners can say " my dog is the prettiest!" its so that the breeder can be confident that the dog is suitable to be bred and it takes a number of judges to look at that one dog to award it points... it's not an easy thing. Competition in the boxer breed is stiff, and sure there are inequalities at times, sometimes the best dog doesnt win...
I don't think anyone here would say that white boxers are not worthy of showing, there was a discusssion on this recently on the show boxer list, and many people even argued on the list that you should be able to breed their whites if they are to breed standard ( with the exception of the color )... but the issue lies there in promotion of a known genetic fault.
And after the dog finishes it championship, it STILL has to go through various health tests! Holters, eyes, hips at a minimum... even allergies IMO should rule a dog out from being bred.

[sarah_bailey]

Originally Posted by Lola's mum

There is a Boxer show near me at 'Woodgreen animal shelter' in Godmanchester on March 25th (I think that's the correct date) if you're not too far away and would like to go see one. I go and watch Lola's breeder in the ring with her tribe

I'm in Leicester, I'll try and get there!

[Lola's mum]

Crufts eat your heart out