Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I'm not trying to create a controversy here, just trying to find some good answers to a couple burning questions. Although I speak of boxers here, this post applies to all dog breeds who suffer from white gene maladies.

I've been reading up on breeding ethics, since at some point in the very distant future, I would like to breed boxers... Maybe... I've always read and been told that you should never breed white boxers, not should you breed boxers that may possibly produce white puppies. I.E., flashy with flashy...
It's not only that they could have defects (much research -I've been told- has been done to prove that while some percentages of white boxers could be deaf or blind, it is the same risk factor with other breeds and colors)... But it's also that these whites are simply substandard. And therefore, should not even be allowed to be registered with the AKC (according to the ABC, this is strictly forbidden). I'm not a big fan of the ABC, by the way.
Anyways, the subject came up on an email list I'm on and alot of feathers have been ruffled. Mainly by me By the way, this list contains about three hundred and fifty boxer owners, as well as a couple hundred breeders. These people claim that it is perfectly acceptable to breed flashy with flashy, and make no qualms that they do this and readily admit that they will most likely produce white puppies while doing this. They do this in order to get the "perfect" marking pattern for the flashy, since that's what alot of people prefer.
I thought the whole point of breeding is to better the breed and "strengthen the strain". So how would breeding, resulting in whites who are considered unsatisfactory possibly be bettering the breed??? These people claim that they are responsible breeders. The way they talk, TONS of breeders do this and it's ok, so long as they place the puppies in a good pet home.
HOWEVER, this goes against the ABC and all of the reading I've been doing on ethics. Are the documents I've been reading false? Or are these people simply unethical, even though they seem like perfectly good people who take good care of their animals.
If the research I've heard about the white gene not being responsible for the health risks associated with them, as previously thought, or that the risks are so low that white boxers share the same risk percentages of other colors, I would LOVE to see white boxers fully recognized by the ABC and the general population as acceptable dogs. I can't help but wonder why, if this research is true, that white boxers would continue to be discriminated against by the very breeders and associations that put them here in the first place.
I CAN'T go back to the list with these questions, as I've already got everyone riled up. I think I may even unsubscribe.
Does anyone have any input???

DestanyF

>>I'm not trying to create a controversy here, just trying to find some good answers to a couple burning questions. Although I speak of boxers here, this post applies to all dog breeds who suffer from white gene maladies.
>>
>>I've been reading up on breeding ethics, since at some point in the very distant future, I would like to breed boxers... Maybe... I've always read and been told that you should never breed white boxers, not should you breed boxers that may possibly produce white puppies. I.E., flashy with flashy...
>>It's not only that they could have defects (much research -I've been told- has been done to prove that while some percentages of white boxers could be deaf or blind, it is the same risk factor with other breeds and colors)... But it's also that these whites are simply substandard. And therefore, should not even be allowed to be registered with the AKC (according to the ABC, this is strictly forbidden). I'm not a big fan of the ABC, by the way.
>>Anyways, the subject came up on an email list I'm on and alot of feathers have been ruffled. Mainly by me By the way, this list contains about three hundred and fifty boxer owners, as well as a couple hundred breeders. These people claim that it is perfectly acceptable to breed flashy with flashy, and make no qualms that they do this and readily admit that they will most likely produce white puppies while doing this. They do this in order to get the "perfect" marking pattern for the flashy, since that's what alot of people prefer.
>>I thought the whole point of breeding is to better the breed and "strengthen the strain". So how would breeding, resulting in whites who are considered unsatisfactory possibly be bettering the breed??? These people claim that they are responsible breeders. The way they talk, TONS of breeders do this and it's ok, so long as they place the puppies in a good pet home.
>>HOWEVER, this goes against the ABC and all of the reading I've been doing on ethics. Are the documents I've been reading false? Or are these people simply unethical, even though they seem like perfectly good people who take good care of their animals.
>>If the research I've heard about the white gene not being responsible for the health risks associated with them, as previously thought, or that the risks are so low that white boxers share the same risk percentages of other colors, I would LOVE to see white boxers fully recognized by the ABC and the general population as acceptable dogs. I can't help but wonder why, if this research is true, that white boxers would continue to be discriminated against by the very breeders and associations that put them here in the first place.
>>I CAN'T go back to the list with these questions, as I've already got everyone riled up. I think I may even unsubscribe.
>>Does anyone have any input???
>>
>>DestanyF

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Here's the short answer to your question. If they breed just enough white to get flashy show Boxers and place the ones with too much white as spayed/neutered companion or working dogs who will never be bred, they probably can avoid producing sick or defective dogs who will suffer and put their owners through hell. If they deliberately breed Boxers for white color and if they breed the whites and continue on into those lines, they are likely to get the genetic disasters you've read about.

What's wrong, really, with some dogs being produced who have the potential for great lives and have lots of loving arms waiting for them, but simply can't have show careers or be responsibly bred.

I think what you're experiencing is kennel blindness. You are in love with your dog and want more like him. But his color is not what's important about him. Remember that. If you want to breed, breed to standard. Don't blame AKC for this. They're only following what the parent breed club wants.
-----
Kathy Diamond Davis, author, "Therapy Dogs: Training Your Dog to Reach Others," 2nd edition, and the free Canine Behavior Series at www.veterinaryforum.com

Thanks! I agree that the color of my dog is not what's important, but that I love him. I've simply been confused about what's considered ethical and what is not. I don't know if I will ever breed, it's alot of work involoved and as much as I would enjoy it, it's alot of responsibility that I would have to be prepared to handle.
The one thing that I see wrong with creating white pups who are discriminated against, isn't the fact that they can't be shown or responsibly bred. It isn't kennel blindness.
It's the fact that when you create a purebred animal (knowingly or not) that is considered unfit, or unsatisfactory, it places the animal at a high risk to wind up in unfit, unsatisfactory hands.
Of course, I'm fully aware that all animals, regardless of breed or color can wind up victims of abuse and neglect, and it truly breaks my heart.
I guess I just can't find the justification for intentionally breeding dogs that can result in white puppies, knowing the risks of genetical deformities that can occur, not to mention the fact that there are so many unwanted pets that are euthanized every year. I would expect the breeders to be more selective, that's all.
But on the other hand, I could be completely wrong, and would sure like to know if I am.

DestanyF

>>Thanks! I agree that the color of my dog is not what's important, but that I love him. I've simply been confused about what's considered ethical and what is not. I don't know if I will ever breed, it's alot of work involoved and as much as I would enjoy it, it's alot of responsibility that I would have to be prepared to handle.
>>The one thing that I see wrong with creating white pups who are discriminated against, isn't the fact that they can't be shown or responsibly bred. It isn't kennel blindness.
>>It's the fact that when you create a purebred animal (knowingly or not) that is considered unfit, or unsatisfactory, it places the animal at a high risk to wind up in unfit, unsatisfactory hands.
>>Of course, I'm fully aware that all animals, regardless of breed or color can wind up victims of abuse and neglect, and it truly breaks my heart.
>>I guess I just can't find the justification for intentionally breeding dogs that can result in white puppies, knowing the risks of genetical deformities that can occur, not to mention the fact that there are so many unwanted pets that are euthanized every year. I would expect the breeders to be more selective, that's all.
>>But on the other hand, I could be completely wrong, and would sure like to know if I am.
>>
>>DestanyF

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Destany, if we say that no one should produce any dogs that are not show and breeding quality, all breeding of purebred dogs would have to stop. Nearly every litter produces some percentage of dogs who are not show/breeding quality, no matter how good the genetics behind them. The people who are going to show a dog are a tiny percentage of the total number of people who adopt dogs. There are plenty of good homes from champion-bred litters. Good breeders have no trouble placing their non-show pups and dogs. The ones who have trouble placing their pups in good homes are the bad breeders, and that's a whole other group of people.

The problem in Boxers is the people who fall in love with a dog who happens to be white, and in their love for their dog are blind to what is genetically best for the breed. They insist on breeding their white dog, and these are the situations that risk producing dogs who will suffer genetic defects. The first-generation dogs who show up white from "flashy" breedings are fine. It's when you breed them on to future generations that the ethical issues start.

Destany, believe me, a show defect does NOT doom a dog to life with an unfit person. Responsible breeders place their dogs in good homes that fit those dogs, the right dog in the right home. If the home fails, responsible breeders take the dogs back and either keep them for life or place them in good homes. Don't waste time worrying about the dogs these people are producing. These breeders are NOT the problem. They are not providing puppies to pet shops, and it is a total fluke if one of their pups ever goes through an animal shelter. The instant they discover one of the dogs they produced is in trouble, they are in action to rescue that dog.

The greatest number of purebred dogs who are suffering in this country are those bred by people who just breed their female one time, because they want to make some money or show the kids or whatever. They don't know what they're doing, they don't place the pups responsibly, they reproduce nasty genetic problems, and their pups often wind up in shelters and in puppy mills living horrible lives cranking out puppies until they're dead. These are the people you need to be worrying about, not the show breeders. Seriously.
-----
Kathy Diamond Davis, author, "Therapy Dogs: Training Your Dog to Reach Others," 2nd edition, and the free Canine Behavior Series at www.veterinaryforum.com

Wow... That makes alot of sense. I guess I've just been hearing too many horror stories of animal rescue, lol. I just feel sorry for all the pets out there in the shelters being euthanized, as well as the ones that are dumped and abandoned, negleted, etc. So my problem is really not with breeders, it's with irresponsible people in general. That's all, people who have no business owning, let alone reproducing animals.
I think the best thing I can do is look into volunteering in pet rescue organizations. I want to help animals find loving safe homes, regardless of whether they're cats, dogs or exotic creatures.
Any advice on where to start?
DestanyF

.
>>Any advice on where to start?
The closest Humane society or animal shelter.

>>Wow... That makes alot of sense. I guess I've just been hearing too many horror stories of animal rescue, lol. I just feel sorry for all the pets out there in the shelters being euthanized, as well as the ones that are dumped and abandoned, negleted, etc. So my problem is really not with breeders, it's with irresponsible people in general. That's all, people who have no business owning, let alone reproducing animals.
>>I think the best thing I can do is look into volunteering in pet rescue organizations. I want to help animals find loving safe homes, regardless of whether they're cats, dogs or exotic creatures.
>>Any advice on where to start?
>>DestanyF

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Good question. Start by getting a copy of the book "Breed Rescue: How to Start and Run a Successful Program," by Sheila Webster Boneham. It's $30, but get it anyway, because you need your own copy for reference if you're going to be a serious force for good in this field. Study it, and then decide which end you want to be on, or somewhere in the middle. One approach would be to affiliate yourself with the very best breed rescue you possibly can, to learn how to do it well. Then when you're really good, you can take those skills and move into a rescue situation that needs an expert to straighten things out.

Or you could start with the worst rescue group you can find and try to help them improve. Be warned that sometimes they don't really want to improve! Or you could start with a group that's not doing well but really does want to learn, and grow along with them.
-----
Kathy Diamond Davis, author, "Therapy Dogs: Training Your Dog to Reach Others," 2nd edition, and the free Canine Behavior Series at www.veterinaryforum.com

Okay, I have a question, what is a flashy boxer? is it a coloring? as apose to (sp?) brintle or fawn boxers? I am a retriever-person but I think boxers are beautiful.

I don't have much info on boxers in general, or their genetics so I'm sorry I can't help you that way...

-----
Sara,
Owned by...
Macintosh and Finnegan (in spirit)

>>Okay, I have a question, what is a flashy boxer? is it a coloring? as apose to (sp?) brintle or fawn boxers? I am a retriever-person but I think boxers are beautiful.
>>
>>I don't have much info on boxers in general, or their genetics so I'm sorry I can't help you that way...
>>
>>
>>-----
>>Sara,
>>Owned by...
>>Macintosh and Finnegan (in spirit)
>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Boxers do better in the show ring with a "flashy" amount of white color, but if they have too much white they are disqualified from being shown or bred. The Boxer club is extremely serious about this rule because they're concerned that breeding the whites will cause dogs to suffer down the bloodline. They definitely have a point.
-----
Kathy Diamond Davis, author, "Therapy Dogs: Training Your Dog to Reach Others," 2nd edition, and the free Canine Behavior Series at www.veterinaryforum.com