<b>Loraine wrote:
Everyone is concerned with standards of a boxer. To me it doesn't matter.</b>
I'm not concerned with the Boxer standard very much at all. Since I'm in rescue, I rarely see a Boxer that meets the standard 100%. We deal with byb Boxers, some look very classic and some have long snouts and only resemble a what a Boxer is supposed to look like.
<b>The only thing that matters to me is if they look and act like a boxer.</b>
Well Min. Boxers don't look very much like a Boxer should look. They look more like a mix, sometimes mistakenly thought to be mixed with either Pit Bull or Bulldog given their shorter size.
<b>Now mind you now I have 3 boxers with papers and are of show quality. Does that make them any better than my other 2 with no papers? </b>
No because to pet owners, its the personality that counts most and if they all act like Boxers then they are all Boxers, papered or not. However, I think you are misunderstanding the reasoning for my post. Miniature Boxers look like dwarfs. And according to several vets, that is exactly what they are. That is how these little Boxers appear to some who know and love the breed. The Boxer breed is an entire package, not just a personality, but a look and size as well. If people want to make them shorter to sell them as novelties (which is pretty much how they are advertised), then I think they should do the work to get them recognized as a breed. Otherwise, in the future, it may be hard to tell what the Boxer is truly supposed to look like.
<b>To me, a smaller boxer would be wonderful, I would have lots of room on my lap, in our house and on our bed and I probably wouldn't have bruises on my legs because they heard a noice.</b>
And that is a good reason to create a new breed, but I think it should be done properly. The same as how Poodles, Dobermans & Dachshunds have been downsized. People liked them, they made for better pets in terms of size, so they were bred and became recognized due to someone's efforts by the registries.
<b>Breeding with a smaller boxer, I don't think they are playing with the breed and health wize, I don't think there would be a problem unless the parents had a problem. </b>
Since the people breeding them aren't breeding them for the betterment of the breed and are marketing them as novelties, I do feel that they are playing with the breed.
Everyone is concerned with standards of a boxer. To me it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters to me is if they look and act like a boxer. I don't even care if they have papers or not. I had a female boxer that lived to be 12 years and she had no papers. I wouldn't of traded her for anything. She was extremely smart but she had alot of health issues, but 12 years was amazing for her and she was a puppy until the day we had to put her to sleep. I'm not going to show my dogs, they are just part of our family. Now mind you now I have 3 boxers with papers and are of show quality. Does that make them any better than my other 2 with no papers? No it doesn't. The thing I have to deal with now is boxers with pimples. In all the years we have had boxers these are the first with pimples. To me, a smaller boxer would be wonderful, I would have lots of room on my lap, in our house and on our bed and I probably wouldn't have bruises on my legs because they heard a noice.
Breeding with a smaller boxer, I don't think they are playing with the breed and health wize, I don't think there would be a problem unless the parents had a problem. This is just my opinion.