Hello Pod That's ok I am sure that Minihaha will be happy to respond when she is next online and sees your post. SB
I dont know about the differences in the 'white gene' but Ive heard some pretty scary 'theories' from people who apparantly 'specialize' in breeding white in. Just 2 that come to mind, one guy was determined to have a kennel full of Dalmatians without black spots, he would take the ones with the palest or least black and breed that with another the same, another was 'specializing' in white Boxers....he was convinced that if he bred them long enough there would never be another deaf one as he would 'breed the deaf gene out'....no health testing on any of them "it wasnt necessary". Sounds a bit crazy but theres a lot of crazy people out there, personally Ive long had the 'theory' that white dogs (that arent supposed to be all white) are actually missing a gene, their colour gene and somehow that colour gene is the same gene that provides a certain amount of brain cells.....so if the colour gene is not present then...well neither are the brain cells!!! okay....just kidding.....but Ive seen some pretty 'out there' white Boxers and GSD's with their even more 'out there' owners. (And Ive met some very nice ones that do have all their brain cells intact....as do thier dogs....j/k again Im 'California breeder' generalizing!!!). On mixing breeds I think as long as its done to benefit the dog and its done properly with every kind of medical aspect taken into account then its fine. As for mixing breeds in regards to the poodle mixes and others, in my experience the majority of people that are doing this do not bother doing the appropriate testing, do not care about the sire and dams history and quite frankly dont seem to care who buys their dogs. Theyre basically in it for 'cuteness' effect and the money which in my opinion are the two worst reasons to breed any dog because you never know what the pups will turn out like, theyre not so cute when theyre personality is like something posessed or theyre running up vets bills due to kidney failure or heart problems at 2 years old and as for the money, most reputable breeders I know are lucky if they break even after selling a litter due to the cost of testing and care, any profit they do make goes right back into the dogs. just my opinion.
Ah yes, the Dal and Boxer type of white does come with problems. The amount of spotting on Dals though doesn't affect the incidence of deafness, as the spots don't appear until a few days old, after the critical stage of development when the hearing mechanism is formed. Patches OTOH, which are present at birth, do increase the chances of normal hearing. Still, not a good enough reason to breed out the spots. Lack of pigment has detrimental effects other than defective hearing, though I'm not so sure about your missing gene/brain cell theory....I'll have to look that up Agree with you entirely on cross breeding. Such a shame this has been developed into a commercial enterprise by unscupulous breeders. pod
No really.....I was just kidding As for the spots, the guy was a bit of a fruit loop, he didnt care about the deafness he just wanted to 'patent' a solid, definate, 'never have a throwback' pure white line of Dalmatians....he figured he'd get rich quick. It obvioulsy hasnt worked though, he was a client at the hospital I worked at about 10 years ago and his 'product' was already in the experimentation process.!!!
Hi Pod, if that were the case it would be slightly reassuring to hear, I am intrigued to know how you know from which genetic type the white Mini originated, I don't know.. or even where they came from. I do know that according to old records a number of the founding dogs in the MS breed had white or yellow dams and these colours occasionally reoccur during the early years of the breed both in Europe and the US. The 'throwback' puppies were destroyed and over time regression to those colours was eliminated, I have certainly never heard or come across any white puppies appearing in litters and I have had access to breeders who went back to the thirties. So one must ask where did this new colour emerge from ? Let's say it was as the result of crossing the MS with another breed say a Westie and that breed had its own particular genetic defects. I always understood if you crossed breeds the progeny could carry the defects of each of their ancestral lines and this could effect health, temperament, appearance and behaviour. One might also ask why the need for whites? For the good of the breed and to eliminate health problems? I think not and would guess fashion and money were the main motivators. I haven't heard of any health issues specifically affecting whites, but then they are few in number as yet and it should be remembered white is not yet a recognised colour for the Miniature Schnauzer in this country. The colouring of Minis as laid down in the breed standard is very precise and to me the colour is an integral part of the breed and it's uniqueness. Any colours other than those laid down in the standard are classed as faults and that includes whites. Personally I don't like the whites at all, if I want a white dog with a beard I will buy a Westie not try to alter another breed to suite a fashion. To quote (taken from the breed handbook) one of the breeds most respected voices/long term breeders...(I would add 'breeding' to the word judging) ... ''Judging to the breed standard ensures keeping to the breed type otherwise one judges according to personal fads and fashion and a trend is created that is not necessarily correct for the breed.'' ..that is my view too .
White Minis came up for discussion on one of the genetics lists I'm on a couple of years ago so I did get to look at some photos then. They look very typically to be a pale form of recessive yellow (ee). This gene colour can vary from deep red (eg Irish Setter) through yellow (Labs and Goldens) to white (Westies). There is a gene test now for the E locus and I do believe this has been confirmed in Minis. The other common type of white in dogs is extreme white spotting which again is a recessive but if that was in the breed you would be seeing various levels of white spotting as in Boxers, Bull Terriers etc. The significant difference between these two lies in the presence of melanocytes (pigment cells) in the hair. Extreme whites have no pigment but recessive ee whites do, it's just very pale so looks white. It's the presence of this pigment which is so critical for development of normal ear and eye function. I really know nothing about the breed so no idea where this gene came from. It could be from cross breeding but recessives can remain hidden for many generations if the gene frequency in the breed is low. If you say it did occur in the breed, it's unlikely to have been bred out completely without the aid of DNA testing. Many breeds carry recessives for unacceptable colours, it just seems to be modern fashion to exploit these and call them "rare" whereas in the past they were put down at birth or given away unregistered.
hmmm,...I don't like the idea of that bobtail boxer. The problem is that some humans always believe that they can monkey about with everything and anything. It's the same with the docking and cropping thing, the only reason is, that people do it because of an "aesthetical" background. Some humans should start working on themselves and finding out how to change something about themselves instead of creating new creatures, which is totally senseless. Is a tail really that bad, has it killed someone, does it look so ugly? There are more important things to deal with. Sorry but I can not stand the way of dealing with some "problems"! BonaNox - Boxers
We actually went and looked at a couple of bobtail boxers when we were looking for a new addition, we had never heard about them until i came across the steynmere website. When we made inquiries to some breeders about this a few laughed and called them Borgis. We didn't end up having a bobtail but they are still just as gorgoeus as any other boxer.
Boxer breed was created from mixing several dogs one century ago. Now, with the tail docking ban, we have long tail boxers which don't look like boxers. Dr Cattanach had the good idea to take the bobtail gene and pass it to boxer by making one outcross. He created naturally short tail boxer, which look like boxers. those calling them "Borgis" are jalous breeders. After 7 generations, they have less than 1% of Corgi blood, they real boxers indeed.
Hi guys, Dont know if any of the originators of this thread are still around.. But I thought I would share my experience with you. We own 4 boxers (2 are in coownership) 3 of these carry the natural bobtail gene. Are they true boxers?? In my eyes definitely yes, Conformationally - we are beating Boxers in show line ups when we compete.. Temperamentally - You cant see any difference in temperament.. Meg is a 7th Gen NBT & Libby & Pepper are 8th Gen NBTs. Below is a picture of Libby Following isPepper and this is Meg playing with our other Boxer Major
I TOTTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. My 16 month old boxer has a tail and although it is a pain knocking everything off the coffee table everytime he walks past it is a good thing. It gives him character and you can tell what mood he is in due to having no facial expressions. Plus I believe he does not get picked on by other dogs as much due to having a tail as so many dogs do not like boxers coz they cannot real them properly without a tail. LEAVE THE BOXERS ALONE STOP MESSING WITH THEIR DNA
I believe the standard in the country of origin has now been ammended to make the natural bobtail a major fault in the Boxer, and this has been accepted by the FCI.
Initially i thought it was a good idea as it keeps the look the people who liked docked boxers like.....but then i thought again...... These bobbed dogs may not have had their tails lopped off but, like others have said, breeding to not have a tail also cuts out one of the ways the dog has of communicating. I don't think this is a good idea as, as others have said already, boxers can already be victims of misinterpretation of signals because their faces are less expressive than longer nosed dogs, i feel they can often be interpreted as staring, when they aren't really. I suppose my answer is the natural one for me as, in general, i would rather dogs were bred for personality than looks. Probably why i ended up with a longer legged, less squashy faced dark bown SBT - i was never looking for a show dog was i!
If breeders only bred for personality , then we would soon loose what distinguishes a breed from another..they would all melt into a mishmash, of untype dogs. TEMPERAMENT/HEALTH/ TYPE..... are all equally as important.. when breeding dogs...you cant afford to leave one out, if any dog of any breed does not have all three , they should never be bred from.
It is true we would haev a mishmash of dogs. Something my mum has decided should happen! I don't think it's true that you shouldn't breed from if you don't have all three neccesarily. Temp and health yes but i'm not so fussed about the type or meeting a set of standards but then i am more of a rescue mongrel owner at heart. Each to their own i suppose!
Type, whilst important, should not be considered on the same level as health and temperament. Health and temperament should always come first. Unfortunately the show ring often causes breeders to treat type as a priority over everything else.
In one of my breeds around 40% are born naturally tailess, we have 3 at home currently and non of them have any difficulty communicating with any other dog. Tail carriage is very different in a great many breeds, from my experience dogs communicate much more effectively with facial expressions, body positioning and sounds. Nature intended for some breeds of dogs not to have tails - this wasn't done in the lab but totally naturally.
I just dont see how a boxer crossed with a Corgi can be classed as a boxer! Its a x breed and the desendants are cross breeds . . . only a boxer bred with another boxer IMO should be KC reg as a boxer.
But not always.... there is no getting away from the fact, that some breeders will ignore other important factors when breeding a dog... It is possible for a breeder producing show dogs that do well in the ring, to produce healthy , to type dogs.... and there are many many out there that do... It is not in a breeders interest (one who wishes to have a good reputation) to produce dogs for only looks... as most of a litter will go to pet homes, and most pet owners (of a pedigree dog) want a dog to look like what it is .... along with a good temperament / health. I can point you in the direction of successful breeders in my breed, who are dedicated to producing health even tempered dogs.... I could also give you names of breeders who I would avoid... Its all in the reseach, if people dont buy from the poor breeders , they will stop breeding or join the ethical brreders.
Some! More like the majority. Maybe the ethical breeders should get together to lobby the KC to make health testing mandatory, and disqualify any dog with worse than average health results from being shown.
