espinay2 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) Yes it is very sad that white boxers are PTS. I have spoken to Boxer Breeder in Melbourne and she states that she has been I'm Boxers for over 40 years and has never had deaf white pup and many have appeared in that time. It can depend on what people are breeding with what. I understand that breeding 'flashy' to 'flashy' (i.e. dogs with a large amount of white on them) is more likely to produce all white than breeding solid or with a small amount of white to flashy (or solid to solid etc). I understand many breeders try not to breed too many generations of just 'flashy' dogs as this can result in too much white and a higher percentage of all white dogs. I think flashy dogs have been popular though so some may not always take this into account when making breeding choices? A Boxer person would be best placed to answer that. Edited March 31, 2012 by espinay2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wuffles Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Sorry if this is getting too off topic as I obviously don't own a boxer. But for reference here is my dog as a wee pup compared to now. The visible pigment has come in over time. There would have been no way to tell as a baby whether she'd be deaf or not (except that she obviously responded to noises from a young age). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Just wondering if the white ones get cancer. Would anybody know? Pigment acts as a sunscreen against the UV rays that can cause cancer. The less pigment in the animal or human, and the more UV rays absorbed, the more they are prone to developing skin cancer. Further to this. In many animals and in humans, the body will attempt to produce the amount of pigment necessary to provide protection according to sunlight exposure. That is why some people's skin goes a darker shade of tan or brown after sun exposure, and some people will freckle up. But if the genetics say "no pigment at all" the skin will just burn. In some dog breeds, like dalmatians and greyhounds, sun exposure leads to white areas of dogs becoming more heavily freckled. I'm not sure if old white boxers go freckly or not, can anyone advise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espinay2 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) Pups can be tested for deafness when their hearing comes in. Most Dalmatian breeders for instance do it with every litter. You can test response to loud noises/startle response (from behind or when they are asleep and when separated from other littermates). You can also do BAER testing and a lot of breeders in a lot of breeds (Dalmatians, Bull Terriers, Australian Cattle Dogs etc) will do this often to whole litters before they are placed. Bilaterally deaf puppies are generally euthanased. Edited March 24, 2012 by espinay2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wuffles Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I think there is a different between euthanising because they are white, and euthanising because they are deaf... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nawnim Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) ... Edited June 9, 2012 by padraic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancinbcs Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Sorry if this is getting too off topic as I obviously don't own a boxer. But for reference here is my dog as a wee pup compared to now. The visible pigment has come in over time. There would have been no way to tell as a baby whether she'd be deaf or not (except that she obviously responded to noises from a young age). The fact that the nose is pigmenting early is a good sign that the dog will have more pigment and with a puppy like that many would wait until the hearing could be tested. Ultimately the decision lies with the breeder the same as the decision to euthanise oops crossbreds or some of a very large litter in breeds that are hard to sell. These are some of the tough decisions breeders have to make depending on how likely the puppies are to get good homes, not just any homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkhe Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I thought that there was also an issue with their internal organs being more prone to cancer too. Can anybody please confirm or elaborate on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Ultimately the decision lies with the breeder the same as the decision to euthanise oops crossbreds or some of a very large litter in breeds that are hard to sell. These are some of the tough decisions breeders have to make depending on how likely the puppies are to get good homes, not just any homes. Yes, that's why topics like this are important to discuss, even though they can get emotive. Nobody wants to put down puppies they have bred. Looking from another point of view, why would a person choose to buy a pet of higher health risk than its littermates? You would hope that puppy buyers want their dogs to have as long and comfortable lives as possible and would want to buy from breeders that felt that supplying only healthy, quality pups to puppy buyers was an important part of their breeding ethic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wuffles Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 It depends what "health issues" people want to accept. Despite her colour, my girl's conformation is excellent and so is her temperament. Those were the most important things to me, and all she needs is a bit of sunscreen so I am more than willing to deal with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nawnim Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) ... Edited June 9, 2012 by padraic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dotdashdot Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 It is a very emotive topic, one that tears at my heart and one at my head. I have a dalmatian, have showed her and contemplating breeding one day, therefore did my research. To be a member of the NSW Dalmatian Club, if you breed a deaf puppy, you have to euthanise it or break their COE. As much as my head can understand this, it would break my heart. That is one reason I haven't joined the club yet (if ever), would I be able to find perfect homes for a deaf pup? (these are few and far between) Im not so sure. Finding a home for a healthy, normal pup is hard enough. While I don't agree that non-deaf white boxers should just be put down at birth, I think that finding a suitable home would be VERY difficult, not everyone can cope with deaf dogs that need special attention given to sun exposure + the wonderful nature of boxer as well. I wasn't aware that they weren't registerable though...thats new info for me =] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nawnim Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I have attached a photo of a white boxer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkhe Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Ultimately the decision lies with the breeder the same as the decision to euthanise oops crossbreds or some of a very large litter in breeds that are hard to sell. These are some of the tough decisions breeders have to make depending on how likely the puppies are to get good homes, not just any homes. Yes, that's why topics like this are important to discuss, even though they can get emotive. Nobody wants to put down puppies they have bred. Looking from another point of view, why would a person choose to buy a pet of higher health risk than its littermates? You would hope that puppy buyers want their dogs to have as long and comfortable lives as possible and would want to buy from breeders that felt that supplying only healthy, quality pups to puppy buyers was an important part of their breeding ethic. I'm a little confused. Is this comment saying that white boxers have a higher health risk? I thought that had not yet been established. I have asked whether white boxers are more prone to cancer. No-one seems to know. I think it has been established that white boxers are not usually deaf. PD They're definitely more prone to skin cancer, due to being more prone to sunburn. I'm sure I've read some articles about them also being prone to other cancer, but not 100% sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nawnim Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) ... Edited June 9, 2012 by padraic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkhe Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) Ultimately the decision lies with the breeder the same as the decision to euthanise oops crossbreds or some of a very large litter in breeds that are hard to sell. These are some of the tough decisions breeders have to make depending on how likely the puppies are to get good homes, not just any homes. Yes, that's why topics like this are important to discuss, even though they can get emotive. Nobody wants to put down puppies they have bred. Looking from another point of view, why would a person choose to buy a pet of higher health risk than its littermates? You would hope that puppy buyers want their dogs to have as long and comfortable lives as possible and would want to buy from breeders that felt that supplying only healthy, quality pups to puppy buyers was an important part of their breeding ethic. I'm a little confused. Is this comment saying that white boxers have a higher health risk? I thought that had not yet been established. I have asked whether white boxers are more prone to cancer. No-one seems to know. I think it has been established that white boxers are not usually deaf. PD They're definitely more prone to skin cancer, due to being more prone to sunburn. I'm sure I've read some articles about them also being prone to other cancer, but not 100% sure. Are other white dogs - bulldogs, greyhounds, bull terriers - prone to cancer. My boxers who developed cancer were not white. Some breeds are, yes. It depends on why they are white, though, which is related to pigment of the skin rather than just the colour of the actual fur. So breeds like westies, samoyeds, Japanese spitzes, and others that someone mentioned in a previous post, which are always white, have darker skin pigmentation and are not at the same risk of cancer as other breeds. My understanding is that white dogs of other breeds can also be at a higher risk of skin cancer, including bull terriers and bulldogs. Basically, white dogs (like white cars!) are more likely to absorb the sun and this automatically puts them at a greater risk of skin cancer. It's the same for pale people who burn easily- not sure on the figures for that, but that's just a cause and effect thing. Dogs that have coloured pigment in their skin (think of white dogs with black noses and darker skin under their fur) are more protected from the sun, due to the pigment colour. It's the same for dark skinned people who are at a lower risk of skin cancer- eg African peoples. As far as I am aware, boxers are quite prone to cancer anyway. (Many breeds are). Just because they are prone to it doesn't mean that every dog will get cancer or die from it, just as white boxers being prone to skin cancer will not necessarily mean that every white boxer will actually GET skin cancer. Edit - I'm not an expert on any of this, I just spent many years poring over dog books and reading things online. If anyone has further information to clarify which breeds that can be whit eare more prone to cancer, and which aren't, please clarify! Edited March 24, 2012 by Alkhe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) I'm not going to offer an opinion beyond this: Breeding is emotionally HARD work. One of the hardest parts (from my observations of my friends) is homing puppies. If, in a breeder's opinion, euthanasia is a better option than an uncertain future (both in terms of home and health) then I can understand why they euthanase. The kinds of folk who want to "rescue" a pup with a physical disability AND have the stuff of a suitable life long home don't grow on trees. The only Boxer breeder I know that's homed a deaf white pup had it bounce back quickly enough. Would I PTS a deaf pup I bred. Yep. A dog that cannot be recalled will have an uncertain and limited future. But I'm sure none of this will stop folk here expressing strong views without a genuine understanding of all the issues to be considered in making such a decision. The more I learn about dog breeding, the more I take my hat off to those who do so responsibly. And between uninformed public condemnation and increased government regulation its no wonder so many are making the decision never to breed again. Edited March 24, 2012 by Haredown Whippets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I'm a little confused. Is this comment saying that white boxers have a higher health risk? I thought that had not yet been established. I have asked whether white boxers are more prone to cancer. No-one seems to know. I think it has been established that white boxers are not usually deaf. PD No, more of an assumption as to why boxer breeders traditionally euthed white boxers. I don't think we should dismiss something that was probably done for a reason. So, I spent the last hour on Google-scholar looking for studies, none I could find that establish exactly what the health risk is. However there are numerous studies about different cancer in dogs. One study did mention an increased risk of one type of cancer in pitbulls and white boxers but didn't go into specifics, others spoke about general increased risk in boxers and bostons that may have been inherited from the old English white terrier breeds they were developed from. Other studies talk about the skin pigments produced within some cancers. Unpigmented things are rare in nature, there is little evolutionary advantage to land animals being unpigmented (as opposed to being a highly reflective white-coated, dark-skinned animal in some environments) Pigments always have essential functions besides allowing us to see a colour, sunscreening being a very important one. I'm not sure how this would mean a white boxer is more at risk than a white bull terrier, but I would consider a white bull terrier also a high cancer risk. Much more so than any dog that had pigmented ears and muzzle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nawnim Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) ... Edited June 9, 2012 by padraic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polgara's Shadow Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 If she has perfect hearing it means that she has some pigment (colour) in her inner ears. Without that pigmentation, parts of the inner ear would be unable to function, and she would be deaf. Depending on the breed, the patterns of unpigmented areas can vary. In my breed (greyhound) you do get dogs that appear to be all white. But on close inspection most of the white ones have very faint pigment spots on the ear skin, and so deafness is rare in the breed. Other breeds have different distribution of pigments that result in a different variety of colours and so deafness can be much more common. Pure curiosity...why does a lack of pigment in the ear lead to deafness??? My basic biology knowlegde isn't helping me understand the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now