Boxer Breeders Euthanising White Puppies

[trinabean]

I thought that whites could be limited registered with ANKC, but the breed clubs say white puppies must be euthanised. Can someone please confirm?

White Boxers are often sold at a much reduced price to pet homes, but are still microchipped etc. The cost of a white puppy through a registered breeder seems to be an amount that would cover their basics like microchipping etc. They are not put on limited or main register so they can't be shown/ bred (*BYB's don't care about that though). I don't think the breed clubs endorse/ say that white puppies must be euthanised, though it was accepted practice in the past.

[Lowenhart]

That doesn't mean to say that i think all breeders who choose to PTS puppies are wrong or unethical. Everyone has their reason's for PTS and every circumstance is different but knowingly breed something because it is desirable in the show ring and so what if you have to PTS some that are white. That just does not sit right with me. At all.

I'm glad you can see some perspective on this issue.

If anyone believes that breeders callously put to sleep puppies on a whim, they need to have their head read.

A breeder takes responsibility for a dog for LIFE. How did all those deaf dogs in rescue get there? Deaf dogs are not an easy placement. If you are talented enough to develop a group of potential owners that will understand the needs of deaf dogs, then that is brilliant. But the number of homes for them is not infinite.

There are alot of breeders who do try to minimise the chance of health issues, and when they do crop up they take responsibility for them. Dumping a puppy on rescue, when there are so many completely healthy dogs that they could be rehoming is unconscionable.

[Mystiqview]

That doesn't mean to say that i think all breeders who choose to PTS puppies are wrong or unethical. Everyone has their reason's for PTS and every circumstance is different but knowingly breed something because it is desirable in the show ring and so what if you have to PTS some that are white. That just does not sit right with me. At all.

I'm glad you can see some perspective on this issue.

If anyone believes that breeders callously put to sleep puppies on a whim, they need to have their head read.

A breeder takes responsibility for a dog for LIFE. How did all those deaf dogs in rescue get there? Deaf dogs are not an easy placement. If you are talented enough to develop a group of potential owners that will understand the needs of deaf dogs, then that is brilliant. But the number of homes for them is not infinite.

There are alot of breeders who do try to minimise the chance of health issues, and when they do crop up they take responsibility for them. Dumping a puppy on rescue, when there are so many completely healthy dogs that they could be rehoming is unconscionable.

Well Said

[Sheridan]

When did anyone say or do anything which made them a "tree hugging greenie"?

This forum is hilarious.

This forum IS hilarious.

Tree Hugging Greenie.. My definition. My words, for those who criticise ethical breeders for everything they do. Damned if a breeder does, Damned if a breeder doesn't.

I have no issue of breeders putting to sleep their white boxers, if they feel they need to do this. As long as it is done humanely and for the right reasons. At the end of the day, they have to live with those decisions.

Wuffles: I could don't care if you agree with me or not. You have your opinion, I have mine. I have produced half white faced puppies and I BAER tested them. If they were deaf, they would have been put to sleep. I have put to sleep puppies as old as 3 weeks and even put to sleep a 14 month dog I bred and later rescued back. Better I did it than the pound. Just because YOUR dog is not deaf, and it was from normally marked parents, and IS allowed in the standard, does not necessarily benchmark everything else for those in the Boxer breed.

I'm a bit confused. This thread established that breeders know the combination that produces white boxers. Can't the whole pts thing be avoided in the first place by not breeding that combination? How is it responsible to deliberately breed together two dogs knowing deaf dogs may well be the end result? Shouldn't the breed club dictate should not to pts white boxers but not breed for them in the first place?

As Ms Hanson put it so aptly, please explain?

[Mystiqview]

When did anyone say or do anything which made them a "tree hugging greenie"?

This forum is hilarious.

This forum IS hilarious.

Tree Hugging Greenie.. My definition. My words, for those who criticise ethical breeders for everything they do. Damned if a breeder does, Damned if a breeder doesn't.

I have no issue of breeders putting to sleep their white boxers, if they feel they need to do this. As long as it is done humanely and for the right reasons. At the end of the day, they have to live with those decisions.

Wuffles: I could don't care if you agree with me or not. You have your opinion, I have mine. I have produced half white faced puppies and I BAER tested them. If they were deaf, they would have been put to sleep. I have put to sleep puppies as old as 3 weeks and even put to sleep a 14 month dog I bred and later rescued back. Better I did it than the pound. Just because YOUR dog is not deaf, and it was from normally marked parents, and IS allowed in the standard, does not necessarily benchmark everything else for those in the Boxer breed.

I'm a bit confused. This thread established that breeders know the combination that produces white boxers. Can't the whole pts thing be avoided in the first place by not breeding that combination? How is it responsible to deliberately breed together two dogs knowing deaf dogs may well be the end result? Shouldn't the breed club dictate should not to pts white boxers but not breed for them in the first place?

As Ms Hanson put it so aptly, please explain?

This is best answered by the boxer club or someone connected there in that breed?

As Greatmate said in one of her posts, does anyone here REALLY know the instances and percentages of white boxers in Australia routinely PTS and how many are kept alive?

In my breed, we have a similar rule about NOT being allowed to breed Merle to Merle together as this does create deaf/blind animals. However the breeding of two merles is allowed in other collie breeds.

[Aetherglow]

When did anyone say or do anything which made them a "tree hugging greenie"?

This forum is hilarious.

This forum IS hilarious.

Tree Hugging Greenie.. My definition. My words, for those who criticise ethical breeders for everything they do. Damned if a breeder does, Damned if a breeder doesn't.

I have no issue of breeders putting to sleep their white boxers, if they feel they need to do this. As long as it is done humanely and for the right reasons. At the end of the day, they have to live with those decisions.

Wuffles: I could don't care if you agree with me or not. You have your opinion, I have mine. I have produced half white faced puppies and I BAER tested them. If they were deaf, they would have been put to sleep. I have put to sleep puppies as old as 3 weeks and even put to sleep a 14 month dog I bred and later rescued back. Better I did it than the pound. Just because YOUR dog is not deaf, and it was from normally marked parents, and IS allowed in the standard, does not necessarily benchmark everything else for those in the Boxer breed.

I'm a bit confused. This thread established that breeders know the combination that produces white boxers. Can't the whole pts thing be avoided in the first place by not breeding that combination? How is it responsible to deliberately breed together two dogs knowing deaf dogs may well be the end result? Shouldn't the breed club dictate should not to pts white boxers but not breed for them in the first place?

As Ms Hanson put it so aptly, please explain?

The only way to avoid the chance of white pups completely in boxers is to never breed flashy dogs. The dogs that show well are almost always flashy. Flashy x flashy = about a 1 in 4 chance of a white pup. In addition, some genetically flashy boxers do not show full flashy markings (white on the face and collar) due to modifiers, but may have only stockings. If bred to another flashy dog there will still be the same risk of producing white pups as any other flashy to flashy mating. So if you're a breeder who shows, your breeding stock is likely to mostly be flashy because that is what does well in the ring. You have the choice of keeping some plain dogs around, knowing that they probably won't be successful show dogs, or take the risk of white puppies. Given the limitations on numbers of dogs a breeder can keep these days, the choice to risk white pups is, unfortunately, often the more practical one.

Incidentally, a plain dog mated to a white will always produce nice flashy markings.

[melzawelza]

When did anyone say or do anything which made them a "tree hugging greenie"?

This forum is hilarious.

This forum IS hilarious.

Tree Hugging Greenie.. My definition. My words, for those who criticise ethical breeders for everything they do. Damned if a breeder does, Damned if a breeder doesn't.

I have no issue of breeders putting to sleep their white boxers, if they feel they need to do this. As long as it is done humanely and for the right reasons. At the end of the day, they have to live with those decisions.

Wuffles: I could don't care if you agree with me or not. You have your opinion, I have mine. I have produced half white faced puppies and I BAER tested them. If they were deaf, they would have been put to sleep. I have put to sleep puppies as old as 3 weeks and even put to sleep a 14 month dog I bred and later rescued back. Better I did it than the pound. Just because YOUR dog is not deaf, and it was from normally marked parents, and IS allowed in the standard, does not necessarily benchmark everything else for those in the Boxer breed.

I'm a bit confused. This thread established that breeders know the combination that produces white boxers. Can't the whole pts thing be avoided in the first place by not breeding that combination? How is it responsible to deliberately breed together two dogs knowing deaf dogs may well be the end result? Shouldn't the breed club dictate should not to pts white boxers but not breed for them in the first place?

As Ms Hanson put it so aptly, please explain?

The only way to avoid the chance of white pups completely in boxers is to never breed flashy dogs. The dogs that show well are almost always flashy. Flashy x flashy = about a 1 in 4 chance of a white pup. In addition, some genetically flashy boxers do not show full flashy markings (white on the face and collar) due to modifiers, but may have only stockings. If bred to another flashy dog there will still be the same risk of producing white pups as any other flashy to flashy mating. So if you're a breeder who shows, your breeding stock is likely to mostly be flashy because that is what does well in the ring. You have the choice of keeping some plain dogs around, knowing that they probably won't be successful show dogs, or take the risk of white puppies. Given the limitations on numbers of dogs a breeder can keep these days, the choice to risk white pups is, unfortunately, often the more practical one.

Incidentally, a plain dog mated to a white will always produce nice flashy markings.

So maybe the show ring attitude should change? This kind of thing is what is going to cause severe restrictions on pedigree dogs.

It is NOT ok to knowingly breed in a way that produces pups that will be euthanased at birth.

[Dame Aussie]

When did anyone say or do anything which made them a "tree hugging greenie"?

This forum is hilarious.

This forum IS hilarious.

Tree Hugging Greenie.. My definition. My words, for those who criticise ethical breeders for everything they do. Damned if a breeder does, Damned if a breeder doesn't.

I have no issue of breeders putting to sleep their white boxers, if they feel they need to do this. As long as it is done humanely and for the right reasons. At the end of the day, they have to live with those decisions.

Wuffles: I could don't care if you agree with me or not. You have your opinion, I have mine. I have produced half white faced puppies and I BAER tested them. If they were deaf, they would have been put to sleep. I have put to sleep puppies as old as 3 weeks and even put to sleep a 14 month dog I bred and later rescued back. Better I did it than the pound. Just because YOUR dog is not deaf, and it was from normally marked parents, and IS allowed in the standard, does not necessarily benchmark everything else for those in the Boxer breed.

I'm a bit confused. This thread established that breeders know the combination that produces white boxers. Can't the whole pts thing be avoided in the first place by not breeding that combination? How is it responsible to deliberately breed together two dogs knowing deaf dogs may well be the end result? Shouldn't the breed club dictate should not to pts white boxers but not breed for them in the first place?

As Ms Hanson put it so aptly, please explain?

The only way to avoid the chance of white pups completely in boxers is to never breed flashy dogs. The dogs that show well are almost always flashy. Flashy x flashy = about a 1 in 4 chance of a white pup. In addition, some genetically flashy boxers do not show full flashy markings (white on the face and collar) due to modifiers, but may have only stockings. If bred to another flashy dog there will still be the same risk of producing white pups as any other flashy to flashy mating. So if you're a breeder who shows, your breeding stock is likely to mostly be flashy because that is what does well in the ring. You have the choice of keeping some plain dogs around, knowing that they probably won't be successful show dogs, or take the risk of white puppies. Given the limitations on numbers of dogs a breeder can keep these days, the choice to risk white pups is, unfortunately, often the more practical one.

Incidentally, a plain dog mated to a white will always produce nice flashy markings.

So maybe the show ring attitude should change? This kind of thing is what is going to cause severe restrictions on pedigree dogs.

It is NOT ok to knowingly breed in a way that produces pups that will be euthanased at birth.

My thoughts exactly.

[espinay2]

I will ask again the question that seems to be being avoided. So does anyone here actually know first hand a breeder who euthanases white boxer pups or is this all an indignant storm over rumours and innuendo? Someone told someone that they heard it was done so it of course must be so.

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 ;)

[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.

[Crisovar]

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 ?

[WreckitWhippet]

I will ask again the question that seems to be being avoided. So does anyone here actually know first hand a breeder who euthanases white boxer pups or is this all an indignant storm over rumours and innuendo? Someone told someone that they heard it was done so it of course must be so.

Yes, two of them.

[RallyValley]

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.

[Aetherglow]

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.

Yes, it takes time to change in a way which won't severely damage the breed, one which I love and would hate to see disappear. More plain dogs doing well at shows, more good quality plain dogs being kept for breeding, perhaps an encouragement from the clubs for breeders to breed plain/flashy. The number of white pups born would decrease, but probably not disappear altogether. My boxer from my teens was a plain dog from a litter with five whites I don't know why whites should not be allowed on the limit register, either, perhaps with a BAER test pass - sure it's non-desirable, but disallowed colours can be limit registered in every other breed.

I've met several current boxer breeders, including one who I know euthanises whites after attempting to home whites in a litter and ending up with a disaster, one who definitely doesn't, and some that I'm not sure. The topic of white puppies is one which, while not the only factor, contributed to my decision to go with a different breed when I started looking for my current dog. Knowing that I wanted to try showing and possibly breeding down the track, I chose a breed with less potential for sad outcomes due to something so basic as coat pattern. I'd own a boxer again, but probably not breed, and my preference in colour is closer to plain than flashy - I like stockings, but prefer a full masked face or close to it and hate unpigmented eye rims with a passion.

[Steve]

I will ask again the question that seems to be being avoided. So does anyone here actually know first hand a breeder who euthanases white boxer pups or is this all an indignant storm over rumours and innuendo? Someone told someone that they heard it was done so it of course must be so.

Yes, two of them.

Yes many of them - not recently but back five years ago .

[3amigos]

I'm sure the actual tree-hugging greenies are probably wondering how they got dragged into this also?

Love it :D

[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?

[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?

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

Edited March 30, 2012 by espinay2

[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.

[wuffles]

If it makes any difference, the word "chrome" confused me at first because it doesn't mean white.