KonaKoffe said:
If breeding two flashy boxers produces white boxers and white boxers are the the ones that tend to be deaf wouldn't it be UNadvisable to breed two flashy thus eliminating white boxers and the deafness trait all together.
Some people would say so, yes. And in some parts of the world (particularly those where flashy boxers are
not favoured by breeders or judges), that sort of breeding (ie. flashy to flashy) would be considered by some to be mildly irresponsible.
But then, in those parts of the world, there are also a great many more classic boxers in the first place (people are not breeding for flash). So it is easier to choose two well-matched (conformationally) specimens that are
not both flashy, and that are both satisfactory in respect of health results.
Yes, in theory at least, you could eliminate deafness due to lack of pigment cells - by eliminating flash (not just by eliminating whites). If you bred solely from boxers that appeared to be classic (ie. that do not carry the extreme white spotting gene), then you would not produce any white or flashy boxers at all, and gradually deafness would be eliminated from the breed. I say "in theory" because if you've been breeding from primarily flashy dogs for generations, then it is likely that the population of dogs in that part of the world already has diluted pigmentation as compared to other populations, where breeding flashy to flashy is less common.
This is why it is more common to see the deep red shades of fawn in those parts of the world that don't breed for flash - and more common to see the pale tan shades in places like North America where breeding for flash is/has been common. It is also relatively rare to see unpigmented haws in those populations that have not been bred for flash.
But as Julie has pointed out, it is a matter of weighing up which health and conformational issues matter the most. If you suddenly eliminated flashy dogs from the breeding gene pool in North America, what would you be left with? A very small group of dogs, for a start, which brings it's own problems since you'd be breeding from a very restricted gene pool (and the boxer gene pool isn't that wide in the first place). No, it is better to concentrate first on eliminating serious diseases like cardiomyopathy and hip dysplasia, which have a far more devastating effect of the quality and length of life of affected individuals than deafness does.
But that does not mean that one should ignore the effects of pigment dilution on a specific litter, or on the breed as a whole. It may not be unethical to breed two flashy dogs together if they are the both free of serious genetic conditions (cardiomyopathy, etc) and are the best conformational match for each other. But it would be
better to breed classic to classic, or classic to flashy if
all other considerations (health, conformation) were equal. It would be better because no white puppies would be produced, and hence there is far less risk that any deaf puppies would be produced.
It is NOT a matter of whether a dog that is white or a dog that is deaf has a right to life, or whether such dogs would make perfectly good pets in a caring home. Of course they do. But it is more responsible to produce puppies that have a lesser risk of being deaf.
That's idealistic, of course. And while this breed continues to be plagued by health issues like aortic stenosis and cardiomyopathy, then reduction of the risk/incidence of deafness is a secondary consideration.
The line does need to be drawn somewhere though. And that is with using white dogs as breeding stock. There is absolutely no reason why white boxers, whether deaf or not, can't be perfectly good pets. But that is a different thing to using them for breeding - an act that we know would
increase the incidence of deafness and pigmentation dilution throughout the breed.
