White Boxer

[BoxerWB]

You can't take this forum as an accurate indicator of the breed as a whole - remember that most breeders on here know each other, and some have invited each other to join because they have used each other's dogs.

I can't speak to linebreeding, but I don't believe it's damaging the gene pool when it's done correctly. In fact, it seems to do positive things for the breed because you not only get more conformationally correct dogs, but also more good health results too.  It isn't the only thing done, so it isn't like you're creating a bottleneck.

[fairview Boxers]

NO ONE on this forum uses frequently used sires... We just all invited each other to this forum because of our line similarities and our interests and beliefs in the breed... 
If anything quite the opposite, a frequently used sire is truly what has caused most of the breeds problems, and MOST of the breeders on this forum are or have added imports to diversify their lines...

I think adding different LINES not color patterns will diversify the breed moreso than anything..  It adds a different quality to what most US lines have, and it adds TOTALLY different drives and temperments (some have to be watched of course)...
I don't think there is ANY quick answer to our breeds problems, and I don't think there is any "smoking gun" (like adding whites to the pool) that will help us out right a way... I think educations and research are better tools than anything...

[Rob T]

Is our standard endorsing them? No, it's not.

However, now the BK is endorsing whites for no better reason than "the old purpose of being able to see them at night while at war doesn't apply anymore". Well, by that same token, much of the rest of the standard doesn't apply, so maybe they should just disregard those things as well?

This entire thing is just ridiculous.

I agree with this post, as well as the others you have made in this thread.  The reason given is ridiculous and doesn't make any sense at all.

[markwantsaboxer]

Is our standard endorsing them? No, it's not.

However, now the BK is endorsing whites for no better reason than "the old purpose of being able to see them at night while at war doesn't apply anymore". Well, by that same token, much of the rest of the standard doesn't apply, so maybe they should just disregard those things as well?

This entire thing is just ridiculous.

I agree with this post, as well as the others you have made in this thread.  The reason given is ridiculous and doesn't make any sense at all.

Now if the 'old purposes' that dogs were once bred for is no longer relevant today and therefore the breed standards can be considered obsolete, then basically most dog breeds today would no longer need to conform to their breed standards.  Perhaps Dobermans and German Shepherds as working dogs used in policework and protection would have to remain the same (although even those breeds have diverged from their traditional standard), but most shepherding dogs and hunting dogs could be considered alterable from their written standards. 

Moreover, we can turn this line of argument in the other direction: Does the new standard serve any real purpose?  Who really needs white Boxers for any task?  American Bulldogs and Dogo Argentinos are white because it makes them more visible during a boar hunt?  But Boxers?  Something like one-tenth of Dogos and AmBulls are deaf -- that's a steep price to pay for white dogs, but boar hunters find it a price worth paying.  But the Boxer is the quintessential family dog that is a bit good at everything, but not a hunter (anymore).   

One could make the argument that having more dogs to breed with the acceptance of white Boxers would diversify the gene pool leading to greater genetic health.  But the Boxer is already the eighth most popular dog in the United States -- that's a rather large gene pool to begin with.  In fact, one could argue that popularity is the bane of a breed's health, as popular dogs like the Boxer, German Shepherd and Labrador Retriever are burdened with health issues because of prevalent "backyard breeding" (breeding with health clearances).  The most popular breeds and the least popular breeds have reputations for health problems, one because of too many dogs out there and the other because of too few.  It's the breeds in between that have a better reputation. In fact, I read on a Rottweiler forum that as their breed has become less popular because of liability concerns and the general poor health reputation that has grown up around the breed ever since it became popular in the US (since the movie _The Omen_), the health of the breed is improving. Long live unpopularity!!  (I might have to change my handle to MarkWantsaStandardSchnauzer....)

Another issue is breed identity.  Next time you take your white Boxer to the dog park, people might shout out "Hey, no Dogos in the park!! That's a fighting dog!!"
(Here's a sad story about a probably Dogo mistaken for a Boxer:
http://www.petfinder.com/petnote/displaypet.cgi?petid=10815230
There is a discussion on this here:
http://epettalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=492973)

[Newcastle]

If whites are thrown into the gene pool then genetically speaking I feel that because of the prevalence of flashy dogs that whites will outnumber the colored dogs.

I'm not so sure.  After all, the "byb" population has been breeding whites to plain, flashy, and other whites for decades and they're still not overrun with white dogs.  If anything, allowing responsible breeders to breed whites might end the "rare white Boxer" myth once and for all.

If you breed white to flashy then 75 percent of the litter will be white in the same manner.

Actually you'd expect 50% of the litter to be white, not 75%.

Not to be paranoid but if the supporters of no crop and dock succeed the boxer will look an American bulldog.

If ears/tail and white coloring makes a Boxer look like an American Bulldog, there are far more serious problems in the breed than ears/tail and color!

Unfortunately breeders are a small voice compared to the public at large. In a democracy majority rules.

Yes, but the public at large has no say in whether the Boxer clubs allow whites to be bred or not; they've always been breeding whites, and always will.

Now, we get to watch and see what happens!

Yes, it should be an interesting few years.  Hopefully the many perceived issues, on either side of the argument, will be settled in time!

PLUS, they changed our standard to allow for the "taller and more elegant" Boxers to finish....

They really didn't.   The upper height guideline has not changed since 1968.  The lower height was increased half an inch - I'm still not sure why that change was necessary, but since it affects probably less than five percent of adult Boxers I'm not sure it's really that much of an issue.

I don't think there is ANY quick answer to our breeds problems, and I don't think there is any "smoking gun" (like adding whites to the pool) that will help us out right a way...

No, I don't think anyone thinks allowing whites to be bred will be an immediate fix.  What it will do is allow us to use the best dogs from our litters, regardless of color/markings, which can only serve to improve the breed as a whole over time.

Who really needs white Boxers for any task? 

Who really needs fawn or brindle Boxers for any task? 

One could make the argument that having more dogs to breed with the acceptance of white Boxers would diversify the gene pool leading to greater genetic health.

People do make that argument, but it's not an accurate one.  White Boxers come from the same gene pool as their fawn or brindle littermates; there's no more diversity than there is between any puppies in a litter.  However, allowing whites to be bred would allow us to choose the best combination of genes - whether that combination is fawn or brindle or white - instead of at times having to choose the second-best, because the best has the wrong paint job.

Although the Boxer is a popular breed, the gene pool isn't that large; almost every Boxer in North America traces back to one or more of several bottleneck sires, although the last major bottleneck is now many generations removed.  Still, that doesn't make the gene pool diverse - it's the same genes coming down through the generations.  The influx of foreign dogs is helping with this - there will always be limited diversity, since all Boxers trace back to the same founding dogs, but different countries have focused on different lines coming down from those founders; bringing the various, largely isolated lines together will increase the diversity to some extent.

The reason given is ridiculous and doesn't make any sense at all.

Which is exactly what the BK has now said about excluding whites in the first place.  

I know the common perception is that whites were excluded because they were more visible at night during the war, but I'm really not sure that's accurate.  For one thing, the standard wasn't changed to exclude whites until 1925 - seven years after World War I ended.  (And I can't imagine the breeders in Germany at the time knew World War II would come along 14 years later, and were being proactive.)  For another, in the winter months the white coloring might have given the dogs an advantage.  From many of the historical accounts I've read, the reason whites were excluded was because the "more powerful" group of Boxer fanciers in Germany in the early to mid-1920s thought that Bulldog traits were linked to the white gene, and they wanted to breed away from those more extreme traits.  Nearly a century later, we understand that conformational traits are not directly linked to any color - and so, as the BK said, the reasons for excluding whites are no longer valid. 

One only need look at the many gorgeous white puppies we've seen in members' litters to see that they are just as typey as their fawn and brindle littermates.   

I think, as I've said before, that the ABC should institute a test breeding program with a certain number of responsible member breeders, using a variety of lines, doing thorough health testing (including BAER) and long-term follow-up.  (This is what the Doberman people did when white showed up in their breed.  Of course, it's an entirely different scenario, because we know exactly where the white came from, and we know that it's not a form of albinism which correlates to several health issues.  Still, the long-standing prejudice against whites would, I fell, be better served by a controlled breeding program initially, to disprove (or prove, as the case may be) the many myths and predictions regarding breeding whites.)  The German situation will give us some information, but they don't do as much health testing as we do so that element will still be an issue for those who choose to make it one. 

[BurningRiver]

Right, so I think what it all boils down (or up?) to is this:

Proponents for including whites say we should change the standard because there's no reason for excluding whites.

People who are against changing the standard to include whites are opposed because they feel that there is no reason for including whites.

Bottom line. I'm with the latter, as I'm not a proponent of change for the sake of change.

[Newcastle]

Nice nutshell, Jess.  

Of course both camps will go back to what the "founders" of the breed intended, and both have reasonable arguments, given that white was originally included in the standard but removed a mere 20-some years later. 

Really I think the root of issue is how people view whites: those who consider them to be "lesser" than their colored littermates are understandably opposed to allowing them to be bred; those who feel they are equal to their colored littermates find no logical reason to exclude them from breeding.  It all comes down to a difference of opinion.

I'm still on the fence, to be honest - however since the logic of excluding whites has not yet made itself apparent to me, I tend more toward the former of Jess' camps.  From my point of view, however, the change for the sake of change was done 85 years ago, and this change is just correcting an old error.   (I may well have a very very different viewpoint if white was not originally an accepted part of the breed; I certainly would never support adding black as an allowed color!)

[markwantsaboxer]

Right, so I think what it all boils down (or up?) to is this:

Proponents for including whites say we should change the standard because there's no reason for excluding whites.

People who are against changing the standard to include whites are opposed because they feel that there is no reason for including whites.

Bottom line. I'm with the latter, as I'm not a proponent of change for the sake of change.

If white Boxers are recognized by the standard because a kennel club no longer feels a reason for why they should be excluded, maybe we can follow another line of reasoning that other alterations in the standard could be made because they would serve a purpose.

Take the Boxer coat length, for example, which is short and sleek according to the breed standard. 

What if a thick, dense coat like the kind found on Smooth Collies were allowed? This would insulate the dog not only against the cold  , but also against heat.    It would serve an actual useful purpose.  In fact, one of the prime reasons police departments don't use the Boxer that often is their limitations in terms of climate. 

I'm not advocating this, just raising the question. Hold your fire!

This is also something breeders need to think about in an age of genetic engineering.  In the future, even little kids will supposedly be able to create their own little species in the comfort of their bedrooms thanks to recombinant DNA technology.  No foolin'.  It will be cheap and easy.  Taking a gene from one organism and plopping it into the DNA of another individual within the same species cannot be that much more different from doing the same thing between organisms in different species, and that is doable.  In fact, here is a glow-in-the-dark dog:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=glow+in+the+dark+dog&aq=1&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=glow+in+the+dark+do&fp=35897877ebb6f45

Along these lines, one could take the white coat gene from the White German Shepherd -- which is altogether different from the gene for white color in the Boxer, and which is unrelated to deafness or other health problems -- and insert it into the genome of a Boxer dog and it would conform to the proposed Boxer standard in Germany.  After all, the standard would not say _which_ kind of white.  In all other respects it would be a good old Boxer, only its coat would look like this:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=white%20german%20shepherd&aql=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

[Newcastle]

Or one could take the bobtail gene from a Corgi and splice into the Boxer's DNA....oh, wait, that's already been done!

What if a thick, dense coat like the kind found on Smooth Collies were allowed?

They key issue is the history of the breed.  White was a part of the breed for nearly 100 years before political factors made it a disqualification.  The coat, however, has always been short and tight.  Changing the coat itself would be a significant deviation from the original dogs, and would be a change for the sake of a change.  (The thick coat would not have served the dog as well in the heavily wooded areas in which he hunted, as it would catch on branches, pick up briars and dirt, etc.)  Restoring an original color of the breed, on the other hand, given the lack of any evidence supporting its removal in the first place, can be seen as honoring the history of the breed.  (No doubt many anti-white people will find fault with that argument. )

[markwantsaboxer]

Or one could take the bobtail gene from a Corgi and splice into the Boxer's DNA....oh, wait, that's already been done!

Actually, the bobtail gene from the Corgi was not genetically spliced into Boxer DNA using recombinant DNA technology, it was bred into Boxers.

http://www.steynmere.com/ARTICLES1.html

Unfortunately, that gene was later identified with health problems, so the progeny of that cross were banned from the Boxer breed.

But initially it was allowed into the Boxer breed club of Britain, even after only four generations of breeding into Boxers, I believe.  So this actually supports my assertion that certain novel traits might in some cases be allowed into a breed standard. It might not be accepted internationally, however.  We'll have to see how this white coat is accepted.

But one of my points is that with recombinant DNA technology, very specific qualities can be introduced into either a breed (or a species) without contaminating the breed with other traits.  This would lower the resistance breeders might have toward innovation.

Also, there might be a kind of traditionalism or conservatism that reputable breeders are prone to -- it might even be a kind of nostalgia, like what one finds in Harley Davidson owners -- that makes breeders resist alterations.  But if police departments like the idea of a friendly Boxer dog for public patrol, where a Doberman or GSD or Rott would be too intimidating, the police department might just opt for a thick coated Boxer with a slightly longer snout. 

I'm not advocating this, I'm saying that something like it is inevitable.

[BurningRiver]

The reason that has been given by the German Boxer Club for changing the standard to include whites is the following:

They don't feel that the exclusion of whites is necessary any more.

If we look at the above reason, it can be inferred A) that there is recognition by the BK that disqualification did, indeed, at one point, serve a purpose and B) that they don't feel that purpose is valid any longer, in today's modern world.

This is a huge slippery slope, as it opens the door to further changes based on what people perceive is "no longer necessary", and if you ask that question to the animal rights nuts, they'll tell you that *companion animals in general* are no longer necessary.

Your beef with the disqualification of whites, if I'm understanding correctly, goes back to your interpretation of the reason they were removed from our standard in the first place--that you feel that it was not an adequate reason back then.

This is a far different reason than the BK has given for removing them today in that the German BK, does indeed, recognize that the decision back then was a valid one, but that they now feel that *in modern day* it is no longer necessary.

Apples to oranges.

As for this comment:

Really I think the root of issue is how people view whites: those who consider them to be "lesser" than their colored littermates

It really is offensive. I adore my white baby and do not view her as a lesser being, rather, I regard her white color as any other factor that would not make me want to retain her as a show prospect, like retained testicles, or lacking in leg, or improper front assembly, or broken topline, or level or wry bite. The color just doesn't meet the standard, that's all.

[BoxerWB]

Mark - Jen's comment about splicing was tongue in cheek. Trust me, she's aware of what happened with the bobtails. 

[Newcastle]

Thanks, Julia.

Sorry, Jess, I didn't meant to offend with the "lesser" remark - that's why it was in quotes, because it's not really the right word (although certainly some breeders do feel that way).  Still, we constantly rate puppies as "better" or "worse" than others,  regardless of color, by categorizing them as show or pet prospects, and by extension those pet pups must in some way be considered of "lesser" quality than the show pups. (And again, "lesser" isn't exactly the right word, but there has to be a best puppy and a not-the-best puppy, even if the decision is based on minutiae.) 

I regard her white color as any other factor that would not make me want to retain her as a show prospect, like retained testicles, or lacking in leg, or improper front assembly, or broken topline, or level or wry bite. The color just doesn't meet the standard, that's all.

So if it came to a vote and the majority approved a standard change to allow whites, given other factors were acceptable, you'd consider her a show/breeding prospect? 

Unfortunately, that gene was later identified with health problems, so the progeny of that cross were banned from the Boxer breed.

What health problems?  The German Boxer Club decided that bobtails would be disqualified by the standard, but they are still perfectly allowable in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada - any non-FCI countries, basically.

The reason that has been given by the German Boxer Club for changing the standard to include whites is the following:

They don't feel that the exclusion of whites is necessary any more.

The translation I read had it as:

The reasons given for excluding whites are no longer valid

Which may or may not be the same thing.  

Amusingly, the Italian Boxer Club, in expressing their "irrepressible delight" at the change, had this comment as well:

This dry statement cut short all the horrors and idiocies, which until recently have been said against the white boxer and his right to reproduction.

Gotta love the no-holds-barred Italians!

Of course, we could argue the motivation, whether the change is for the sake of change or a return to the roots in light of knowledge we've attained in the last century, what the potential outcome will be, ad nauseum. The bottom line is that we'll sit back and watch what happens in Germany, we'll debate the issue for the next few years, and then at some point our standard will change to include whites.  I've never doubted that, though I didn't used to think I'd live to see the change and now I think I just might.  

[BurningRiver]

How could this be read any differently?

"The reasons given for excluding whites are no longer valid". . .

means exactly that. The reasons were once valid and they feel that they no longer are.

This "reasoning" is insubstantial, at best, and can be used as an argument to re-introduce any of the other things that are currently seen as deviations from our standard.

If we go down the history road, it can be said that monorchids used to be bred from as well. Should we revise the standard to include them now as well?

So if it came to a vote and the majority approved a standard change to allow whites, given other factors were acceptable, you'd consider her a show/breeding prospect?

Honestly, if it comes to this, I'm going to have a very hard time continuing to breed to a constantly moving target. I'm going to really question if what I'm doing has a point. . . Because, well, certain "powers that be" can continue to change the standard to suit their whims. . . And because I'm not sure that I can support breeding for something that I know goes against the history and tradition of what all of the breeders who's lines that I'm carrying on would wish. With this change, many of the long-time breeders who created those famous dogs throughout our breed would be rolling in their graves.

I've already been there--with the introduction of the natural ear. . . I didn't support the change to the standard then, because it was just that--a change for the sake of change--to the point that I sent out a rather vehement opposition to the entire show list voicing my concerns.

If we're going to continue changing the standard to suit our whims, I really can't as confidently say that we're being better stewards to our breed standard than any of the other BYB's who breed for bigger boxers just because they think it looks better. . . What? Just because we're part of a group that says it's okay? That's sort of wreaks of a high school clique, no?

And at that point, really, what is the point?

[Newcastle]

The reasons were once valid and they feel that they no longer are.

Or, the reasons were assumed to be valid but as we've gained knowledge we know they never were.  Just as everyone used to believe you'd fall off the edge of the earth, until we gained knowledge that the earth is actually round and there never was any danger of falling off the edge. 

If we go down the history road, it can be said that monorchids used to be bred from as well. Should we revise the standard to include them now as well?

Well, really we couldn't because that's a Kennel Club rule.   Still, we know that monorchids pose an increased risk of testicular cancer in the retained testicle, so there is a valid reason not to breed them.  (This is different than the deafness issue, because judicious breeding of whites would not increase the rate of deafness, and not breeding whites for the past 100 years certainly hasn't decreased it.)

Because, well, certain "powers that be" can continue to change the standard to suit their whims.

Now, you know that's not true.  (Nevermind the fact that most of the "powers that be" would be appalled at the thought of including whites in the standard!)  The standard can only  be changed by a majority vote of the ABC membership, after a public comment period and approval by the AKC.

With this change, many of the long-time breeders who created those famous dogs throughout our breed would be rolling in their graves.

And many others would be shouting from the rooftops.   There are numerous examples of white puppies quietly placed in homes, or brought to vets for anonymous placement - not to mention the 'basement bitches' who were registered as fawn or brindle with white markings (technically true) and used in some of the most popular breeding programs of the past.

If we're going to continue changing the standard to suit our whims....

And that, again, is a difference of opinion.    I don't see a change to allow whites as a "whim" by any stretch of the imagination.  This is a topic that has been debated for at least a quarter of a century, and most likely quite longer than that.  It comes up on the show list at least twice a year.  When it happens, it will probably be the most-discussed, most-examined, most-researched change our standard ever sees.  (I can't speak for the Germans; that does seem like it was done on a whim, even if I understand and agree with their reasoning.  Of course the bobtail DQ seemed the same.)

At every turn, we need to ask why a trait was included or excluded, whether the inclusion/exclusion serves a purpose to the welfare of the breed, and what effect changing the inclusion/exclusion will have.