Boxer Breeders Euthanising White Puppies

[nawnim]

...

Edited June 9, 2012 by padraic

[Dame Aussie]

It doesn't hurt an animal to be put down...

Doesn't it? Depends how its done I guess - sorry I am a bit cynical about whether its always humanely done.

I am wondering also whether the unwanted white puppies are pts humanely. I have just checked with my vet and it costs $75 to have a pup pts if you take the body home with you and dispose of it yourself. Some posters here have mentioned economic concerns that have influenced their decisions and flashy to flashy matings may have more than one white pup. Would I be right in suggesting that for economic reasons some breeders also take care of their white pups themselves?

I am also concerned that some posters have said many find this forum hilarious. (This was before the post about the tree hugging greenies) and I'm not sure why. I must wonder what sort of twisted sense of humour could find the fate of unwanted white boxer pups amusing.

What really does happen to these pups? From now on whenever I see in the showring a flashy marked boxer bred from two flashy parents I am going to wonder about the fate of its white siblings.

The boxer associations need to clean up their act and do something about it. They don't have to be born in the first place.

If you mean me, I said the forum was hilarious in reference to the Tree Hugging Greenie comment. I didn't see anyone say that before that comment? Nowhere did I say that puppies being PTS was hilarious. In fact my posts have been the opposite.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Aussie3

[espinay2]

A note on the term 'chrome' referred to earlier. The saying 'a lot of chrome' is one often used in the horse world and transferred to the dog world when referring to an animal with a lot of white on it's legs and face. I.e. The 'shiny bits' on the wheels and grill ;)

Yes I know what was meant. But using the term is confusing or misleading in a discussion about colour and pigments.

Confusing to who ? you ?

To people that do not understand colour genetics. Not me.

It is incorrect to say it, and using the name of a well-known pigment for what is a result of a lack of pigment is ignorant. We are trying to educate people on this site aren't we?

What a storm in a teacup. It is a well known colloquial term and IMO nothing to get bent out of shape about.Nothing 'ignorant' about it!

I don't see any storm. In a topic that discusses why a dog appears white it isn't helpful to use terms that are based in ignorance. The only people getting bent out of shape are those that can't handle having it pointed out. Get over it and try to use terms that are based in fact in future. Myths are not helpful to those that are genuinely trying to understand the topic.

Again I strongly object to the term 'ignorance'. Using a colloquial is not 'ignorant' even if it is not technically correct, and yes I understand why some who have not heard the term may be confused (which is why I posted an explanation of the term - for those who did not understand its context). Calling those who know the term (many of those who may be used to hearing it used widely in the horse world) 'ignorant' though is very much uncalled for and rather rude.

Edited March 30, 2012 by espinay2

[nawnim]

...

Edited June 9, 2012 by padraic

[Mystiqview]

Re "Tree Hugging Greenies"

I don't care if a few of you have found this comment offensive, hilarious or what. I don't care if you think you are an Animal Lib, lover or what. If the shoe fits, then what's in a name??

Frustration about the comment "lets just put those white boxers in rescue because they will find them a home". WTF????

I am not certainly a heartless bitch. I have worked in pounds, put animals to sleep after three days and tried my damnedest to find homes for dogs that come into the pound. It is damn heartbreaking to put down a dog who you have tracked down the owner or original breeder who does not give a damn that their dog is going to be PTS tomorrow because they can't be bothered to come in. We had overnight drop off boxes at the pound I worked in. I have had people come in claiming they "Found" this animal, when you know damn well it is theirs. Others who want to surrender it just before school holidays, and then get up you because you charge for surrender, only to find the same animal in the overnight box. Track them down through a microchip and they don't know what you are talking about.. "I sold that dog months ago"

I have also had to put to sleep my own dogs and puppies, and cried at every one.

Breeders are constantly being dictated to by those who are "lovers of the breed" or similar who have never bred a litter before nor plan to because they do not have the will or fortification to do what is needed if it is needed. Some criticism is good, and hopefully brings into line those breeders who are not doing the right thing. However we still need to remain practical, logical and pragmatic in our approach rather than just going off with the heart strings strumming loudly.

There were some excellent posts by those in the breed and those who know the colour genetics and some of the reasons to WHY these pups were being put down. Just because ONE dog here or ONE dog there is fine and the person decided to keep it is not a benchmark for the whole breed. Of those white pups being put to sleep, they may have been deaf and/or deafness is known to run in that line. That was not shared or possibly known when this topic was started.

I know of lines in my breed who produce heavily white factored puppies who are deaf, and other lines who produce the same who for some reason avoid deafness. The same can be possible in boxers as it is the same or similar gene.

If the breed club is demanding this, then the breeder may feel they have no choice. IF this is the case, then maybe look at the source and seek to change this. It will not happen overnight.

In topics like these, there are those who will naturally think with their hearts rather than their brains. Some will not have any clue or idea and base their arguments in rumour and innuendo rather than fact. And even when presented with fact, will ignore it.

The reference was not made to any particular person in this thread, rather than the collective whole of those who judge breeders for that they do and that they don't do. "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't".

Go back to a post I made ages ago in this thread about genetics. If there is a way to prevent or limit the chances then this should be the way to go. Sometimes things do not work out, and breeders should be able to have the option to PTS HUMANELY those pups who would not have a fulfilling life due to some problem. If a breeder chooses to PTS their entire litter, then it is their conscience it rides on, not mine, not yours. I would ask however why this was necessary and would sincerely hope they have damn good reason to do it.

I certainly do not advocate the unnecessary PTS of puppies. Sometimes it has to be done. If in this case, they are, then maybe the people here should start lobbying the breed club and controlling bodies to prevent this from happening and seek about changing the source not the outcome.

Wuffles: Not a dig at you, but in your breed, they still allow Merle to Merle matings. In this combination, breeders produce deaf and white puppies. Other breeds have banned this mating for this reason. Your breeder kept your dog. Great. But do they also do Merle to Merle matings? If so, then this is not a good breeding practice. If they don't then this is great news.

Each breed have breeders who do not do the right thing and those who do a damn excellent job and should be praised and recognised. Some take ownership and responsibility for each and every pup they sell until that pup dies of hopefully old age or natural attrition. Others don't give a damn once it leaves their possession at 8 weeks (or earlier).

The welfare groups and some of their extreme views are making those breeders who DO it right harder and harder to operate. You can legislate to the hilt, but then you need the resources to follow up and police it. Controlling bodies are not doing enough to control those members who are doing the wrong thing and turning a blind eye. Fuelling the fire and ammunition to the welfare agencies.

Some breeds do need to clean up their act. Some breeders should not be breeding. I know some BYB who breed the occasional litter and do a better job than some registered breeders. (Not that I am supporting the BYB either)

[espinay2]

Re "Tree Hugging Greenies"

I don't care if a few of you have found this comment offensive, hilarious or what. I don't care if you think you are an Animal Lib, lover or what. If the shoe fits, then what's in a name??

Frustration about the comment "lets just put those white boxers in rescue because they will find them a home". WTF????

I am not certainly a heartless bitch. I have worked in pounds, put animals to sleep after three days and tried my damnedest to find homes for dogs that come into the pound. It is damn heartbreaking to put down a dog who you have tracked down the owner or original breeder who does not give a damn that their dog is going to be PTS tomorrow because they can't be bothered to come in. We had overnight drop off boxes at the pound I worked in. I have had people come in claiming they "Found" this animal, when you know damn well it is theirs. Others who want to surrender it just before school holidays, and then get up you because you charge for surrender, only to find the same animal in the overnight box. Track them down through a microchip and they don't know what you are talking about.. "I sold that dog months ago"

I have also had to put to sleep my own dogs and puppies, and cried at every one.

Breeders are constantly being dictated to by those who are "lovers of the breed" or similar who have never bred a litter before nor plan to because they do not have the will or fortification to do what is needed if it is needed. Some criticism is good, and hopefully brings into line those breeders who are not doing the right thing. However we still need to remain practical, logical and pragmatic in our approach rather than just going off with the heart strings strumming loudly.

There were some excellent posts by those in the breed and those who know the colour genetics and some of the reasons to WHY these pups were being put down. Just because ONE dog here or ONE dog there is fine and the person decided to keep it is not a benchmark for the whole breed. Of those white pups being put to sleep, they may have been deaf and/or deafness is known to run in that line. That was not shared or possibly known when this topic was started.

I know of lines in my breed who produce heavily white factored puppies who are deaf, and other lines who produce the same who for some reason avoid deafness. The same can be possible in boxers as it is the same or similar gene.

If the breed club is demanding this, then the breeder may feel they have no choice. IF this is the case, then maybe look at the source and seek to change this. It will not happen overnight.

In topics like these, there are those who will naturally think with their hearts rather than their brains. Some will not have any clue or idea and base their arguments in rumour and innuendo rather than fact. And even when presented with fact, will ignore it.

The reference was not made to any particular person in this thread, rather than the collective whole of those who judge breeders for that they do and that they don't do. "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't".

Go back to a post I made ages ago in this thread about genetics. If there is a way to prevent or limit the chances then this should be the way to go. Sometimes things do not work out, and breeders should be able to have the option to PTS HUMANELY those pups who would not have a fulfilling life due to some problem. If a breeder chooses to PTS their entire litter, then it is their conscience it rides on, not mine, not yours. I would ask however why this was necessary and would sincerely hope they have damn good reason to do it.

I certainly do not advocate the unnecessary PTS of puppies. Sometimes it has to be done. If in this case, they are, then maybe the people here should start lobbying the breed club and controlling bodies to prevent this from happening and seek about changing the source not the outcome.

Wuffles: Not a dig at you, but in your breed, they still allow Merle to Merle matings. In this combination, breeders produce deaf and white puppies. Other breeds have banned this mating for this reason. Your breeder kept your dog. Great. But do they also do Merle to Merle matings? If so, then this is not a good breeding practice. If they don't then this is great news.

Each breed have breeders who do not do the right thing and those who do a damn excellent job and should be praised and recognised. Some take ownership and responsibility for each and every pup they sell until that pup dies of hopefully old age or natural attrition. Others don't give a damn once it leaves their possession at 8 weeks (or earlier).

The welfare groups and some of their extreme views are making those breeders who DO it right harder and harder to operate. You can legislate to the hilt, but then you need the resources to follow up and police it. Controlling bodies are not doing enough to control those members who are doing the wrong thing and turning a blind eye. Fuelling the fire and ammunition to the welfare agencies.

Some breeds do need to clean up their act. Some breeders should not be breeding. I know some BYB who breed the occasional litter and do a better job than some registered breeders. (Not that I am supporting the BYB either)

(from someone who is proud to be a 'tree hugging greenie' :laugh: )

Edited March 30, 2012 by espinay2

[wuffles]

Wuffles: Not a dig at you, but in your breed, they still allow Merle to Merle matings. In this combination, breeders produce deaf and white puppies. Other breeds have banned this mating for this reason. Your breeder kept your dog. Great. But do they also do Merle to Merle matings? If so, then this is not a good breeding practice. If they don't then this is great news.

No they absolutely do not. Do you really think I'd buy from a breeder who did merle x merle matings when I'm against PTS puppies at birth "just in case"??? My dog's breeder is the most ethical breeder, in my eyes, that I have ever met. They think with both their head AND their heart which is EXACTLY the way it should be IMO.

Only one person in this whole thread mentioned giving white boxers to rescue and not one person agreed.

As far as I recall, no-one in this thread has posted about boxers personally known to have deafness and/or skin/cancer issues. I don't deny they are out there, but the whole thing just confirms that my opinion is not going to change.

[dancinbcs]

White markings genetics

This website has a pretty good explanation of why white Boxers occur. The genetics is different to other breeds with white markings so any reference to what happens in other breeds is quite irrelevant.

I really would be surprised if this is a big problem among registered breeders here. Looking through the top 20 or so dogs on the Boxer Pointscore here on DOL there are only 2 dogs that would be described as flashy. If the majority are not flashy then there is no need to do flashy to flashy matings. I think the situation is different in the US where flashy tends to be more common.

More of a problem is the unregistered BYBs that think it is a good idea to breed white boxers and promote them as something desirable. The bottom line is they should never be born.

[leopuppy04]

One thing not many people are thinking of - most flashy to flashy matings are probably unavoidable when trying to find the best match structurally who has had all the relevant health tests done. I doubt there would be many solid coloured stud dogs out there which would narrow the gene pool a lot if people avoided all flashy to flashy.

I will also add that you can breed flashy x flashy and get perfectly fine puppies, and then breed non flashy to non flashy and still get mismarks.

I have a 6wk old litter and bred a non flashy to moderate flashy. I got a mismark - how did that happen - don't know, don't really care... the pup is healthy and make a great pet... what is important is that you are breeding for the betterment and the health of the breed. Interpret that how you will :)

[dancinbcs]

One thing not many people are thinking of - most flashy to flashy matings are probably unavoidable when trying to find the best match structurally who has had all the relevant health tests done. I doubt there would be many solid coloured stud dogs out there which would narrow the gene pool a lot if people avoided all flashy to flashy.

I will also add that you can breed flashy x flashy and get perfectly fine puppies, and then breed non flashy to non flashy and still get mismarks.

I have a 6wk old litter and bred a non flashy to moderate flashy. I got a mismark - how did that happen - don't know, don't really care... the pup is healthy and make a great pet... what is important is that you are breeding for the betterment and the health of the breed. Interpret that how you will :)

Look at the link I posted. Markings in Boxers are completely different to other breeds like Aussies and Borders. With Boxers the markings are predictable, with the others they aren't but we don't get all whites either.

[Aetherglow]

White markings genetics

This website has a pretty good explanation of why white Boxers occur. The genetics is different to other breeds with white markings so any reference to what happens in other breeds is quite irrelevant.

I really would be surprised if this is a big problem among registered breeders here. Looking through the top 20 or so dogs on the Boxer Pointscore here on DOL there are only 2 dogs that would be described as flashy. If the majority are not flashy then there is no need to do flashy to flashy matings. I think the situation is different in the US where flashy tends to be more common.

More of a problem is the unregistered BYBs that think it is a good idea to breed white boxers and promote them as something desirable. The bottom line is they should never be born.

A quick look through the DOL pointscore showed only one dog that was truly a 'plain' boxer. Most of them had at least two feet white well above the paw and some white on the face, and a lot of them had four stockings and white on the neck even if they didn't have the full or half collar. Genetically, that's flashy, although probably with some modifiers which may reduce the overall chance of fully white pups if bred to a really flashy, white collar, high stockings and face blaze dog (the genetics are not fully worked out for that). There was only one dog with a complete black face and white only on throat, chest, belly and toe tips, and it was a natural bob tail which is a whole other controversy :)

You can breed flashy to flashy and get plain dogs. You can breed moderate flashy to moderately plain and get white pups. There's more than one gene involved, I think.

Incidentally, to Espinay, I applaud what you said. I would like to see some things in boxers, but as I have chosen not to breed this particular breed I hope I confine my opinions to that only, and leave the harder decisions to those who actually do the job. It's not easy being a breeder, particularly if your breed has dilemmas attached, and I don't feel that my opinion should force boxer clubs in this case. It'd be nice to see some changes, but even that is not going to eliminate this particular issue in this breed and sometimes breeders will have to decide between two undesireable outcomes. That is something that will happen to any breeder for some reason or other - I have bred cats, and I've been through the dilemma of whether to euthanise a sickly kitten or treat and cause suffering which may not in the end save a life. A boxer breeder who has come to an ethical decision to euthanise white pups will not find me standing outside their door with a pitchfork and flaming torch, and neither will one who homes whites.

I still don't understand why whites can't be limit registered, though!

Edited March 30, 2012 by LappieHappy

[dancinbcs]

White markings genetics

This website has a pretty good explanation of why white Boxers occur. The genetics is different to other breeds with white markings so any reference to what happens in other breeds is quite irrelevant.

I really would be surprised if this is a big problem among registered breeders here. Looking through the top 20 or so dogs on the Boxer Pointscore here on DOL there are only 2 dogs that would be described as flashy. If the majority are not flashy then there is no need to do flashy to flashy matings. I think the situation is different in the US where flashy tends to be more common.

More of a problem is the unregistered BYBs that think it is a good idea to breed white boxers and promote them as something desirable. The bottom line is they should never be born.

A quick look through the DOL pointscore showed only one dog that was truly a 'plain' boxer. Most of them had at least two feet white well above the paw and some white on the face, and a lot of them had four stockings and white on the neck even if they didn't have the full or half collar. Genetically, that's flashy, although probably with some modifiers which may reduce the overall chance of fully white pups if bred to a really flashy, white collar, high stockings and face blaze dog (the genetics are not fully worked out for that). There was only one dog with a complete black face and white only on throat, chest, belly and toe tips, and it was a natural bob tail which is a whole other controversy :)

You can breed flashy to flashy and get plain dogs. You can breed moderate flashy to moderately plain and get white pups. There's more than one gene involved, I think.

Incidentally, to Espinay, I applaud what you said. I would like to see some things in boxers, but as I have chosen not to breed this particular breed I hope I confine my opinions to that only, and leave the harder decisions to those who actually do the job. It's not easy being a breeder, particularly if your breed has dilemmas attached, and I don't feel that my opinion should force boxer clubs in this case. It'd be nice to see some changes, but even that is not going to eliminate this particular issue in this breed and sometimes breeders will have to decide between two undesireable outcomes. That is something that will happen to any breeder for some reason or other - I have bred cats, and I've been through the dilemma of whether to euthanise a sickly kitten or treat and cause suffering which may not in the end save a life. A boxer breeder who has come to an ethical decision to euthanise white pups will not find me standing outside their door with a pitchfork and flaming torch, and neither will one who homes whites.

I still don't understand why whites can't be limit registered, though!

If you read the genetics info you will see the dogs with white chests and legs are sisi or plain, and the dogs with full collars are sisw flashy and these are the dogs that can produce swsw extreme white. Two sisi cannot produce white.

[3amigos]

When I was in my teens the boxer breeders worked very hard on the heart health problems the dogs had. I trust the breeders to do what they think is right. I dont and never will breed dogs. all dog breeds can have health problems, known and unknown. This is my dog history...

Borris GSD cancer 6yrs

Maxi GSD pts 4yrs

Chloe Boxer spindle cell carcinoma 18mths

Smooch Boxer cancer 6yrs made it to 10yrs (very happy got one to doulbe digits,was starting to think someone put a hex on us) :)

Ike Boxer arthritis under 1yr ACL? 3yrs 5yrs still going

Xena Boxer 14mths touch wood

Gracie Greyhound 3yrs touch wood

I thank the breeders for all their hard work and hope they continue to breed as I wish to have more Boxers in my life. If people research the boxer breed they go in with thier eyes open.

[Greytmate]

A note on the term 'chrome' referred to earlier. The saying 'a lot of chrome' is one often used in the horse world and transferred to the dog world when referring to an animal with a lot of white on it's legs and face. I.e. The 'shiny bits' on the wheels and grill ;)

Yes I know what was meant. But using the term is confusing or misleading in a discussion about colour and pigments.

Confusing to who ? you ?

To people that do not understand colour genetics. Not me.

It is incorrect to say it, and using the name of a well-known pigment for what is a result of a lack of pigment is ignorant. We are trying to educate people on this site aren't we?

What a storm in a teacup. It is a well known colloquial term and IMO nothing to get bent out of shape about.Nothing 'ignorant' about it!

I don't see any storm. In a topic that discusses why a dog appears white it isn't helpful to use terms that are based in ignorance. The only people getting bent out of shape are those that can't handle having it pointed out. Get over it and try to use terms that are based in fact in future. Myths are not helpful to those that are genuinely trying to understand the topic.

Again I strongly object to the term 'ignorance'. Using a colloquial is not 'ignorant' even if it is not technically correct, and yes I understand why some who have not heard the term may be confused (which is why I posted an explanation of the term - for those who did not understand its context). Calling those who know the term (many of those who may be used to hearing it used widely in the horse world) 'ignorant' though is very much uncalled for and rather rude.

If dog breeders spent more time learning facts and less time listening to utter rubbish from 'horse people', the welfare of dogs might actually improve, and breeders might get less criticism than they are getting now.

Your response and attitude and refusal to let go of a misleading colloquialism exemplifies why some dog breeders are not accorded much respect in our community.

I urge you get over it, and think about improving your knowledge of dogs genetics, instead of defending your poor choice of terms and having a go at me or anyone else that makes the effort to provide factual information here.

I make no apology, just because you are embarrassed at being corrected, doesn't make me rude.

People are obviously really upset that a boxer would be euthanised for its coat colour. How disingenuous to be ascribing positive qualities to the colour that do not exist!

It is really offensive to hear your arguments trying to justify the practice - because it is this sort of misleading and false information that causes welfare problems in the first place.

[Crisovar]

Referring to flashy white markings as chrome is as Espinay has stated a colloquial term and does not in any way relate to a persons knowledge or ability to understand the genetics concerning the coat colour of their Breed.

Be offended all you like, but it is not going to change the fact that some Boxers have white markings, some people call it chrome good grief.

Personally I would be more concerned that the Breeder is health testing their stock and only Breeding from clear animals. Some people can recite genetics books backwards an still not have the ability to breed good animals.

What they call the white markings on their dogs is irrelevant.

I

Edited March 30, 2012 by Troy
Some comments removed

[Greytmate]

Referring to flashy white markings as chrome is as Espinay has stated a colloquial term and does not in any way relate to a persons knowledge or ability to understand the genetics concerning the coat colour of their Breed.

It reflects misunderstanding of the pigments that affect coat colour.

I would hope that people reading this topic would now have a better understanding that the white areas of some breeds are lacking the pigments that provide health benefits to solid coloured dogs.

Boxer puppies are not culled for cosmetic reasons, they are not culled for their colour, they are culled because of a lack of pigment. Whether that is right or wrong is very debatable, but people need to first have an understanding that the white is caused by an absence of pigment, and this is not replaced by any other properties.

[OSoSwift]

If dog breeders spent more time learning facts and less time listening to utter rubbish from 'horse people', the welfare of dogs might actually improve, and breeders might get less criticism than they are getting now.

Utter rubbish from horse people.....nice, many horse people have a great eye for a good dog and many dog people have a great eye for a good horse. What they choose to call white markings have no bearing on there ability to breed good dogs (or horses) and really it is a red herring in this discussion.

I am quite sure the welfare of dogs or the percieved welfare of dogs has very little if possibly nothing to do with dog people listening to horse people. I am also quite sure using such a saying as lots of chrome would have littl eor no bearing on the respect the general public holds for the dog fancy, infact many of the general public would know what you were talking about I suspect.

It is fine to get fired about about things, I just think it is best using that energy for the things that need it.

[espinay2]

A note on the term 'chrome' referred to earlier. The saying 'a lot of chrome' is one often used in the horse world and transferred to the dog world when referring to an animal with a lot of white on it's legs and face. I.e. The 'shiny bits' on the wheels and grill ;)

Yes I know what was meant. But using the term is confusing or misleading in a discussion about colour and pigments.

Confusing to who ? you ?

To people that do not understand colour genetics. Not me.

It is incorrect to say it, and using the name of a well-known pigment for what is a result of a lack of pigment is ignorant. We are trying to educate people on this site aren't we?

What a storm in a teacup. It is a well known colloquial term and IMO nothing to get bent out of shape about.Nothing 'ignorant' about it!

I don't see any storm. In a topic that discusses why a dog appears white it isn't helpful to use terms that are based in ignorance. The only people getting bent out of shape are those that can't handle having it pointed out. Get over it and try to use terms that are based in fact in future. Myths are not helpful to those that are genuinely trying to understand the topic.

Again I strongly object to the term 'ignorance'. Using a colloquial is not 'ignorant' even if it is not technically correct, and yes I understand why some who have not heard the term may be confused (which is why I posted an explanation of the term - for those who did not understand its context). Calling those who know the term (many of those who may be used to hearing it used widely in the horse world) 'ignorant' though is very much uncalled for and rather rude.

If dog breeders spent more time learning facts and less time listening to utter rubbish from 'horse people', the welfare of dogs might actually improve, and breeders might get less criticism than they are getting now.

Your response and attitude and refusal to let go of a misleading colloquialism exemplifies why some dog breeders are not accorded much respect in our community.

I urge you get over it, and think about improving your knowledge of dogs genetics, instead of defending your poor choice of terms and having a go at me or anyone else that makes the effort to provide factual information here.

I make no apology, just because you are embarrassed at being corrected, doesn't make me rude.

People are obviously really upset that a boxer would be euthanised for its coat colour. How disingenuous to be ascribing positive qualities to the colour that do not exist!

It is really offensive to hear your arguments trying to justify the practice - because it is this sort of misleading and false information that causes welfare problems in the first place.

My knowledge of dog genetics, including that of white (lack of) pigment (having two breeds for which this is relevant) is quite fine thank you, and maybe you might wish to read my other posts further up the thread in this regard.

I am not embarrassed as I understand completely the difference between a colloquialism and the genetic intricacies of coat colour pigments. BTW, it was not me who originally used the term 'chrome' - I merely explained it for others who may not understand it. I am not the one making a big deal of its use. Knowing what the term means and its general usage does not in any way display ignorance and in this respect the issue has been blown way out of proportion.

BTW, 'chrome' (yes, yes I know, 'lack of pigment') in horses is also not always a good thing depending on the breed and its extent, and horse breeders recognise this.

,

Edited March 31, 2012 by espinay2

[Jed]

Quite a lot of misinformation has been disseminated in this thread, by people who have not owned boxers, and do not breed.

For anyone who is genuinely interested, I suggest you contact your state canine control and ask them about the situation regarding white boxers and registration, or no registration, and the status of any breeder who produces white boxers.

NOT the state breed club, which does not make the rules. The thoughts of the breed club are immaterial in this regard. Nothing against any breed club, but that is how it is.

I also suggest you read up colour genetics, the white in the boxer is different from other breeds. I also suggest reading some credible sites, or a book which contains information on white boxers.

Some of the founding dogs of this breed were white.

Whites were excluded from the breed register and shows in the late 1800s or early 1900s, (not sure without checking - it is not important) after a decision by the Boxer Club. It is believed that this decision was made because boxers were guard dogs (and were used extensively by the German Army in World Wars) and a white dog was too obvious to the enemy or an intruder.

However, it may also have been that some white dogs were deaf, and the club excluded them from the stud books because the committee of the time thought that allowing white boxers to interbreed with the general boxer population may have increased the incidence of deafness in the general boxer population.

The latter is still a valid reason in the opinion of many breeders not to allow the whites to interbreed. This matter is under consideration by the breed club in the country of origin

Now there are fewer boxer breeders, and fewer stud dogs, breeders as always are seeking foremost, dogs which are healthy, with good conformation and temperament. Colour does not affect health or function, and most breeders would prefer to breed a litter with the possibility of some whites, than an ugly unhealthy litter, so they will use the best dog possible. Bearing in mind that most breeders would prefer not to produce white.

And to not throw white, the dogs must be genetically plain. Because there are so few boxers around, it is very difficult to ascertain which dogs are genetically plain, and those breeders wanting genetically plain are seeking semen from overseas where it is possible to advertise dogs as genetically plain.

I also suggest that you check out the puppy listings on DOL, and see how many white boxers are offered for sale.

Yes some breeders do euth the whites, but many do not.

And rather than being concerned about what may amount to a very few boxers being euthed by responsible breeders annually, and some of them being raised to 6 - 8 weeks and then being euthed because they are deaf, it would be more productive to be concerned about, and take some action on the many dogs being euthed in pounds every week or dumped on the side of the road.

Incidentally, anyone familiar with purebred dogs, particularly boxers and some other breeds, knows that "chrome" refers to white markings, as it does in horses. It is possible to have a good knowledge of both horses and dogs, as Crisovar has, having constantly won at high levels with both, and having bred successfully. People who spend time at dog and horse events, and people who have done some basic reading are aware of the meaning of "chrome". It is by no means either an obscure or new term.

In fact, I would suggest that only people who aspire to be artistic would be aware of any other meaning (apart from "chrome" on cars!)

[mantis]

My brother imported a white boxer from a breeder in NZ - he has to put sunscreen on him and he has to put 'doggles' - dog goggles - on him on sunny days because of his blue eye

I know it's slightly off topic and I'm no expert either...but...the boxer in this pic looks a little strange, like his face is just not squishy enough to be a pure boxer.

Also in regard to white boxers there are a few people in this part of SA that think it's a good idea to breed a white and a white together...I dunno if the pups would have any issues but these pups are backyard bred and they ask around $800 each for the puppies. When I was looking for a boxer puppy I saw plenty of white ones from registered breeders for way less than that.

Just wondering about deaf dogs too...not just white dogs but any deaf dogs, I imagine they would be incredibly challenging to train. Imagine them running towards a main road or some other threat and no re-call argh!

Anyone with brains wouldn't walk a deaf dog off lead. I'm not a fan of walking any dog of lead though, except in designated fenced off parks.