question about breeding

[JTPappy]

Julie,

The goal is to produce with some degree of success Boxers who can be seizure alert SDs. That means much more than simply Boxers with the seizure alert talent. It means producing a healthy,highly intelligent, even tempered, strong Boxer with a very active working life of 8-10 years. Meaning Boxers who are healthy and active at 10-13 years of age.

The single biggest problem to date in Boxer breeding has been in making cosmetic quality supreme. The stupidity of breeding for "flashiness" and then refusing to acknowledge 25% of the Boxers produced because they are white. The continuation of a bloodline because it shows well even
though it is sickly. The refusal to set a working standard for a working breed. Allowing the "oh so social" world of the Show ring to dominate the future of the breed.

You don't inbreed dogs that have serious health problems under any circumstance. You eliminate the health problem while still trying to conserve the desirable strengths you are breeding for. You make Boxer breeders take their heads out of their asses and face reality. You face the fact that the word elegant should never be used when describing a Boxer. The words to use are strength, intelligence, agility, healthy, good nature, friendliness, compact,problem solver, companion,nanny, and good sense of humor.You never breed an aggressive dog. You breed only stable, sociable animals who can move through society with serene self confidence.

There is a primary reason Boxer life spans are shorter today then they once were. That reason is stupid inbreeding practices to get show champions. The solution, crosbreeding between the successful HEALTHY bloodlines within the breed.

That's why even when trying to breed for as valuable a talent as found in a Boxer Service Dog, you are very careful to maintain bloodline variety. Even if you could produce 75% of your pups who could have the talent required, what good is it if the Boxer lives only to age 6 or 8? What good is it if the Boxer isn't strong enough to do a full day's work? Needs constant expensive health care? Has a rotten personality? Isn't sociable? Is stupid? Panics easily?

Jim

 

[Alisha Mobley]

Originally posted by JTPappy
You face the fact that the word elegant should never be used when describing a Boxer. The words to use are strength, intelligence, agility, healthy, good nature, friendliness, compact,problem solver, companion,nanny, and good sense of humor.

Jim

I couldn't agree more.

 

[JulieM]

Jim,

My goodness! What a diatribe! Are these the views of the scientists or your own?

[quoe]The single biggest problem to date in Boxer breeding has been in making cosmetic quality supreme. The stupidity of breeding for "flashiness" and then refusing to acknowledge 25% of the Boxers produced because they are white. The continuation of a bloodline because it shows well even though it is sickly. The refusal to set a working standard for a working breed. Allowing the "oh so social" world of the Show ring to dominate the future of the breed.[/quote]

Well, I agree that in the past health was not the uppermost concern of breeders. Then again, the problems that we're facing now were unheard of back then. When their dogs were routinely living to 14+ years of age, who can blame them for breeding those lines? As far as the show ring (which, btw, is far from "social" unless you have lots of money) - how else would you recommend evaluating breeding stock for conformance to the standard? Working trials? These may tell you if a dog can do what he is asked to do - but they won't tell you if he's built for it. A dog can do all sorts of things, especially at a young age, that his body really was not designed to do. Lack of rear angulation, excessive length of body, incorrect shoulder layback will all affect working ability, but that doesn't mean the dog won't be able to perform the task - he just won't be as efficient at it, and won't be able to do it for as long as a conformationally correct dog. Besides, working trials today have very little to do with what Boxers were bred for, with the exception of a part of the Schutzhund trial.

You don't inbreed dogs that have serious health problems under any circumstance. You eliminate the health problem while still trying to conserve the desirable strengths you are breeding for.

True, but I think this applies equally to outcrossing.

You face the fact that the word elegant should never be used when describing a Boxer. The words to use are strength, intelligence, agility, healthy, good nature, friendliness, compact,problem solver, companion,nanny, and good sense of humor.

While I agree that a Boxer should encompass all of these qualities, I see no reason why they should not also be elegant. It originally was and still is part of the German Standard, and I think everyone agrees that German Boxers are excellent working dogs, right? Perhaps you would accept the word "elegance" better if you thought of it in terms of "nobility." I for one would hate to see an unelegant Boxer, for it would simply clump around, with no grace, coordination, or the smooth movement that is so attractive and efficient.

You never breed an aggressive dog. You breed only stable, sociable animals who can move through society with serene self confidence.

Agreed, but again this should be applied to *all* breeding, not just inbreeding.

There is a primary reason Boxer life spans are shorter today then they once were. That reason is stupid inbreeding practices to get show champions. The solution, crosbreeding between the successful HEALTHY bloodlines within the breed.

Well, first of all I disagree about the primary reason Boxer life spans are shorter - I feel that is much more the fault of the chemicals and toxins we routinely pump into our dogs' bodies in the name of "disease prevention" or "balanced nutrition." However, even if inbreeding was what has shortened the Boxer lifespan, again I say your solution applies to outcrossing or inbreeding. If I had frozen semen from a stud dog that lived to be 15 years of age, and I had a bitch whose parents both lived to be 15 years of age, with no health problems in any of them and hearts in good shape upon necropsy, and the bitch I had just happened to be a granddaughter of the dog whose frozen semen I had, you can bet your sweet patootie I'd do that breeding. Inbreeding does not create genetic problems. If the genes are there, the problem will be present. If the genes are not there, no matter how many times you breed mother-son-father-daughter you won't have the problem.

Also, I'd love for you to name one bloodline today that does not have the genetic potential for the health problems we are facing.

That's why even when trying to breed for as valuable a talent as found in a Boxer Service Dog, you are very careful to maintain bloodline variety. Even if you could produce 75% of your pups who could have the talent required, what good is it if the Boxer lives only to age 6 or 8? What good is it if the Boxer isn't strong enough to do a full day's work? Needs constant expensive health care? Has a rotten personality? Isn't sociable? Is stupid? Panics easily?

Again, valid points that apply to all types of breeding. Then again, the only way to get a true outcross in Boxers is to go to a different breed....It is nearly impossible in North America to find a dog that is not a descendant of one particular Boxer sire - and those that are not are either descended from his litter brother or his grandsire. So even if there are no common ancestors in the first four generations, when you hit generation five you often have the same dog appearing 8-10-12 times in that generation alone.

And, what do you do in the case of polygenic inheritance, or incomplete penetrance, or unexpressed traits? These genes could be harmless in your dogs, and harmless in your neighbor's unrelated dogs, but when you mix the two the genes combine in a way that causes real problems in the resulting generation. Until we map the canine genome, breeding will always be a gamble. You breed the best you have conformationally to the best conformationally you can find that complements what you have and improves what needs improving. You make sure that both dogs are healthy (and tested), come from long-lived lines that have shown no evidence of the major problems, are raised in optimal environments, have stable temperaments. If they're related, fine, you have a better chance of the traits you admire coming through. If they're not related, fine, see what you get, and if it works do it (or something similar) again. You don't breed to Ch. Top Dog just because he's well-known, and you don't breed to Couch Potato just because he's not. If you really want to blame the shortening of Boxer lifespans on breeding, blame it on that - the Popular Sire Syndrome - because that has had a much more far-reaching effect on the breed as a whole than anything that any one breeder could do in years of inbreeding.

Julie

 

[JTPappy]

Julie,

Struck a nerve did I? :D Of course I want Boxers to look like Boxers!
But I want healthy, long lived Boxers who ACT like Boxers as well. The Show ring doesn't give us that.

Why not require that before a Boxer can be a champion, that in addition to conformation, health standards, temperment testing, and proof of working ability must be met as well?

Why not ban the breeding of bloodlines who have a demonstrated high rate of genetic health problems?

If North American boodlines have problems why not import some new Boxer bloodlines?

You can't challenge one cardinal rule of inbreeding. Severe genetic problems are concentrated by inbreeding.You can have all the good effects of inbreeding that you want. They are worthless if you produce a sick Boxer.

I'm not a big fan of the line of thought that health problems are the result of vaccines or food additives.Have they caused some problems, yes. Are they the reason for the concentration of the heart problems in Boxers? No. Poor breeding practices are. That is the reason to avoid close inbreeding. I already stated that crossing bloodlines should be done with health concerns in mind.

Boxer inbreeding has, because of the nature of conformation judging, concentrated on cosmetics and not substance.(BTW the original Standard doesn't mention "elegant". It speaks of what is roughly translated as "regal bearing").

As to the way the show ring "protects" the Standard, how is that possible when the show ring ignores Boxers who are not very flashy?

How is that possible when the show ring encourages the breeding of flashies, yet throws out 25% of the puppies those Boxers will produce because they are white?

How does a silly looking elfish ear crop, which encourages the breeding of Boxers with overlong, thin ear leather, contribute to the working quality of the Breed?

How does breeding for long necked, long legged Boxers, meet the standard for a compact, very strong working dog?

One in which the joint problems produced by those very same long necks and legs is devasting.

What breeding for those qualities does, is to further narrow the genetic pool for future Boxers.

That's bad breeding practice. Right now the need is to re-invigorate the Boxer gene pool in America and elsewhere.

That's why inbreeding, even for the bet of reasons is to be watched very closely.

Jim

 

[JulieM]

Struck a nerve did I?

I'm fairly certain that if, having never met you and not knowing the first thing about you, I told you that you had your head up your ass, you'd be a bit taken aback, too.

Of course I want Boxers to look like Boxers!
But I want healthy, long lived Boxers who ACT like Boxers as well. The Show ring doesn't give us that.

I don't buy that. Are you saying that Jake does not ACT like a Boxer? Or Johnny? Or the Boxers that you lauded recently? Are you saying that, because they compete in conformation showing, those dogs that are 75-lb lap dogs 5 days a week are not true Boxers? How does being in a show ring automatically make a dog not act like a Boxer?

Why not require that before a Boxer can be a champion, that in addition to conformation, health standards, temperment testing, and proof of working ability must be met as well?

That's what they're doing in Germany - where I'd imagine they are also doing linebreeding. It's a valid consideration. It will never fly in America, land of the free, but there is a growing movement toward doing these things without the requirement. Temperament is pretty much a given - you can't have a horribly tempered dog in the show ring. There are some iffy ones out there, but it shows in the ring and people won't flock to breed to those lines. Health testing is the next big hurdle, which we are half-way over right now. Working ability is the next one (well, after the white issue....).

Why not ban the breeding of bloodlines who have a demonstrated high rate of genetic health problems?

OK. Tell me when you make the call that a line has a demonstrated high rate of genetic health problems. One dog in ten? One in twenty? Two in five? Also, be sure to tell me which bloodline it is that is causing the problems - because it will probably eliminate 85% of the Boxers of breeding age. Tell me when FVA is truly a health problem, if it doesn't show up until the dog is 10 years old. Tell me how many PVCs are to be considered FVA, and how many are just normal Boxer heart pattern. Tell me how to ban the breeding of bloodlines that might produce AS, when two clear parents can produce the disease and two affected parents might not.

If North American boodlines have problems why not import some new Boxer bloodlines?

People are - but other countries have problems with AS and FVA, too. It is not unique to North America.

You can't challenge one cardinal rule of inbreeding. Severe genetic problems are concentrated by inbreeding.You can have all the good effects of inbreeding that you want. They are worthless if you produce a sick Boxer.

True - and if you run into that, you don't breed those lines again. It can be stopped pretty quickly. Outcrossing does not guarantee that you won't produce severe genetic problems.

I'm not a big fan of the line of thought that health problems are the result of vaccines or food additives.Have they caused some problems, yes. Are they the reason for the concentration of the heart problems in Boxers? No. Poor breeding practices are.

I'm not sure you can call them poor breeding practices. If breeders did not know the disease was a possibility, can you blame them for breedings that inadvertently increased the chances of it? It turned out to be detrimental, but they were doing the best they could with the information they had.

Besides which, most of the Boxers I know of that are dying at less than 10 years of age are dying of cancer. The ones that are dying extremely young, at 2-3, are dying of heart problems, but most "older" Boxers are not.

Dr. Jean Dodds is of the opinion that over-vaccination is a leading cause of cardiomyopathy in dogs. She was not talking about FVA, which is commonly mis-called Boxer cardiomyopathy, but it's an interesting observation nonetheless.

Boxer inbreeding has, because of the nature of conformation judging, concentrated on cosmetics and not substance.(BTW the original Standard doesn't mention "elegant". It speaks of what is roughly translated as "regal bearing").

I'll have to table that point until I can find my copy of the original Standard.

As to the way the show ring "protects" the Standard, how is that possible when the show ring ignores Boxers who are not very flashy?

That tide is changing, though, and it is not the breeder-judges who are ignoring the plain Boxers.

How is that possible when the show ring encourages the breeding of flashies, yet throws out 25% of the puppies those Boxers will produce because they are white?

Another tide that is changing.

How does a silly looking elfish ear crop, which encourages the breeding of Boxers with overlong, thin ear leather, contribute to the working quality of the Breed?

How does it detract from the working quality?

How does breeding for long necked, long legged Boxers, meet the standard for a compact, very strong working dog?

One in which the joint problems produced by those very same long necks and legs is devasting.

Interesting. Must be a regional difference. The major joint problems I've heard about in Boxers are related to long backs, not long legs and necks. Long legs and necks do not automatically exclude strength and muscle. The primary concern is overall balance, whether the dog is 25 inches high or 30. Square is square.

What breeding for those qualities does, is to further narrow the genetic pool for future Boxers.

I don't follow your logic. Yes, continued linebreeding will narrow the gene pool. So will scores of outcrosses to Ch. Top Dog. Neither is related specifically to breeding for long legs or necks.

That's bad breeding practice. Right now the need is to re-invigorate the Boxer gene pool in America and elsewhere.

Which can be done by using the less-popular, conformationally correct, health-tested stud dogs out there, that for whatever reason (most likely lack of an unlimited budget) are not heavily campaigned.

That's why inbreeding, even for the bet of reasons is to be watched very closely.

I won't argue with that - but again, it also applies to outcrossing.

Julie

 

[JTPappy]

Julie,

You'll have to excuse he limitations that webtv places on me. I can't copy and paste on this format.

This is turning into a dialouge between you and me and getting away from the subject some. But I'll try to answer some of your comments.

I'm not saying that being a show dog means a Boxer doesn't act like a Boxer. I'm saying that being a show dog isn't any indication whatsoever that that show champion can act like a Boxer. Other indicators must be met to prove that. However I have been told time and time again BY the breeders themselves that they could not take their show champion out into the crowds at Westminster as I was doing with Caesar on this past Monday. My question is why can't they?

Boxer's are first and foremost working dogs designed for a crowded busy society, the newly Imperial Germany of the early 1900s. That means they MUST be able to work in, to move about through, a crowded public lifestyle without freaking out. If a show champion can't do that, they aren't acting like a Boxer. Service Dog history has shown that
secure emotional working traits are to an extent genetic. Boxers were the first Service Dogs (1912 Munich), Even the Boxer war dogs of the Imperial German and Austrian Armies of WW I were able to be retrained to be Guide Dogs for the vets of that war blinded by poison gas. I submitt to you that if a War Trained Boxer, a dog trained to kill humans, was able to be re-trained as the most exacting of assistance dog, it is not a stretch to demand that a show champion be able to walk through, to stroll through, a crowded dog show without going postal!

Now about "making the call" on which bloodlines are health failures. If a bloodline has 60% of it's progeny die before the age of 8 over three or more generations, I'll make the call. That's substansive proof to declare the bloodline a failure.

Also I don't buy this "land of the free" crap. Freedom has nothing to do with requiring helath testing right now, not over a period of time, but today. You can't breed sick dogs. That's simple enough.
I'm doing a survey right now on Boxer life spans for a Service Dog conference. So far 67% of the American responses have pegged the Boxer life span at 8 years. No responses from outside North America have said less than 11. Most give it as 13. Caesar's father died last fall at a month shy of his 15th birthday. He was German. Now I hope to establish that other factors bear besides heredity. But it is significant that Caesar's father was not the oldest of his litter. Caesar's litter has all but one still living.That one was killed in a car accident.

Caesar's 9. His work day last Monday started at 5 AM and didn't end till after Midnight.He rode crowded rush hour trains, climbed Madison Square Garden from top to bottom over and over (hauling my 185 pounds) pushing through crowds and being assualted by sights, sounds and smells. Then on Tuesday morning at 6:30 AM he went to hockey practice with Brian and ran on the ice (in coat and boots) for two hours. That's outstanding by any measure, for any dog. But if we're talking about the working ability of Boxers, shouldn't Caesar be the Standard that show dogs have to meet or excell? If you want Jake or Johnny (both fine looking dogs) to be a bench mark, than I want Jake or Johnny (half Caesar's age) to be able to do what Caesar does to prove they can work.

How do the ear lengths effect working ability? For the very reason they were cropped in the first place (and cropped far shorter than today's style. Caesar's cropped ears and docked tail are still an advantage in his line of work, different though it may be from the original reasons.
Plus, working dogs need sturdy skin, even on the ears. Thin ear leather is easy to bruise and bleeds easily. Trust me on this, I have seen it happen on Boxer SDs.Caesar has a short "working crop" and a rather firm ear structure .. that's important.

The "over vaccination" issue. Did you catch "ER" tonight on TV? I'm 52. When I was a child I had classmates who died of the measles, the mumps and whooping cough (sp?). I had classmates with polio and scarlet fever. There was a small pox outbreak in the South when I was young. I knew neighbors who were quarantined in their houses. This was in Hudson County, NJ a place with the best health care system in the world at the time.

My children have never known anyone with those illnesses.
To them a Quarentine is something you do to a nation that has broken international law, not a person who is sick.

To make it dog related... in 1958 one of the leading poodle breeders lost their entire kennel to distemper. Heart worm was just being noticed. In 1970 that wiped out many breeders. Rabies was common. I knew many kids and adults who had to go through the agony of the "old style" treatment when they were bitten.
How many other conditions were taking dogs?

Vaccination works. It has a valid purpose. If you don't vaccinate you are irresponsible.

To close... I have a working Boxer, I know many working Boxers.Again, I'm not oppossed to the show ring. I'm against making that the only "qualifier" of a "breedable" Boxer. The show ring is at best only one third of the whole that needs to be addressed.

Jim

 

[Alisha Mobley]

Originally posted by JTPappy
Julie,

However I have been told time and time again BY the breeders themselves that they could not take their show champion out into the crowds at Westminster as I was doing with Caesar on this past Monday.

That is very sad and to think these Champions are supposed to be representing our breed.:(

Originally posted by JTPappy

How do the ear lengths effect working ability?

Or conformation, this has never made sense to me. I have always felt the type of crop a Boxer has shouln't make a difference in the show ring, they're not born with them.

Originally posted by JTPappy

Vaccination works. It has a valid purpose. If you don't vaccinate you are irresponsible.

I have recently found out that you can have titers done on your dog to see if it does, indeed, need to be vaccinated. Pet owners are finding that their dogs don't need to have all these vaccinations yearly, their immune system's resistence to parvo and distemper are staying the same for years. Some believe a dog only needs to be vaccinated once and then they are protected for life. I haven't talked to my vet about this yet but plan to find out more. I have always vaccinated but figure if my dog doesn't need it then I don't want to put it in him/her.

I also have recently read that the 3 year rabies shot is the exact same thing as the yearly rabies shot only with a different label. Studies have shown that the yearly rabies vaccination we have been using stays in the dogs system for at least 3 years. According to what I read on the web it is possible the vaccination is there longer but the people doing the study stopped after 3 years, they didn't keep the study going to see if the dogs were still protected a year later.

 

[JulieM]

Jim,

I agree that Boxers should be able to perform working tasks. I agree that not all Boxers can, and some of those are in the show ring. I agree that show Boxers should be able to walk through crowds (and again, it must be a regional thing because I don't see those problems here) - although I think that it is a training issue and not a matter of temperament (in most cases). Show Boxers, for whatever reason, are usually not obedience trained. That does not mean that they can't be, and if they were most of them would probably be fine with crowds. I'm sure that German working Boxers, even during the War, were trained.

I think that we're not as at odds as we appear. I don't think the show Boxers are perfect, I don't think conformation showing is the only way to evaluate the breeding potential of a Boxer. I do think it's the most efficient. If I see a Boxer that is conformationally correct, that has never been in a show ring but has scads of working titles, (and is health-tested etc...) I wouldn't hesitate to breed to it. They are hard to find, though, at this time.

However, I think it's a huge leap to blame all of these issues solely on inbreeding.

As for ER last night....this is totally off-topic, but I can't begin to tell you how outraged many people are about that show! Did you notice that the first commercial after the first segment was for a vaccination? Coincidence? I think not. Every single case of polio in the US in the last 20 years has been contracted from the vaccine. In fact, they stopped giving the OPV vaccine last year because it caused so many cases of polio. Dr. Jonas Salk, who invented the polio vaccine, has stated in Time (I think) magazine that we should now stop giving it or we run the risk of it mutating. (Which, incidentally, has happened in South America - and of course the polio vaccine they're using does not protect against the mutated strain.)

You feel it's irresponsible not to vaccinate. I feel it's irresponsible to vaccinate blindly, without studying the facts, the history of vaccine-induced problems in your line, the information from the pharmaceutical companies and veterinary schools. Alisha is right, most vaccine are made to last 3-5 years (per information from the company producing the vaccination). Colorado State University College of Veterinary Medicine has revised their vaccination protocol to eliminate yearly vaccinations, advising boosters every three years. I know several breeders who never vaccinate, who take their dogs to shows, parks, etc. from an early age, and have never had a problem with parvo, distemper, etc. They also do not have problems with cancer, allergies, autoimmune disorders....It's your choice to vaccinate or not, but don't tell me I'm irresponsible if I choose not to vaccinate yearly, or not to vaccinate at all. I've done more research than people that give their dogs cocktail vaccinations yearly, and have made an informed decision instead of doing it "because the vet says so."

Yes, you did strike another nerve!!

Julie

 

[JTPappy]

Julie and friends,

The reason the average Boxer life span became shorter has nothing to do with vaccines. I as to do soley with the irresponsible breeding practices of not only puppy mills and BYBs but of many of the top show boxer breeders as well.

FACT: Heart problems never were endemic to the Breed until in a period beginning in the 1970s, certain "outstanding" bloodlines were bred heavily to produce the extremely "flashy" lightweight body type that became the American Boxer.At that time the practice of universal, multi vaccination was not yet common. The heart problems are genetic not drug induced. You cannot alter hereditary genes through vaccination. If you take a pup from a bloodline with a dramatic history of heart problems and don't vaccinate that pup you have done nothing to increase or decrease that pup's cardiac development. All you have done is to increase that pup's chances of dying from vector borne causes.

That's fact, not hysterical foolishness.

Julie if this offends you I'm sorry. I experienced the stupidity of the campaigns against the polio vaccine and putting floride in water in the 1950s. People came up with all kinds of "scientific" studies to show that those programs would do everything from make children sterile to turn us all into "Commies". ALL those modern miracles did was to defeat a plague and to let more people keep their natural teeth longer.

It's the same with vaccines for dogs. They've made dogs healthier.
If you want to stop genetic problems, STOP BREEDING BOXERS WHO HAVE THOSE PROBLEMS! The only reason that's not being done is because the breeders, for a vairety of reasons, mostly egocentric, won't bite the bullet and take the immeadiate steps neccessary to a reaonable solution!

I'm going to touch on the "ER" thing. Yes, it was an outrage! It was based on a true story. A child died because his idiot, negligent parents "researched" the issue of a measles vaccine on the internet instead of reading a history book!

If a child of mine was put in danger because of this irresponsible stupidity by another child's parents I'd have a problem with those parents. If my SD, who's monetary value is far more than any Boxer champion (can't be disputed, it's a proven fact) and whose value as my lifeline to a safe existence is immeasurable, is put at risk because of an irresponsible dog owner who refuses to vaccinate ther dog from clearly, proven threats, then that dog owner will be in Court trying to defend their negligence. An internet spawned, "urban legend" is going to be a very poor defense.

The issue here is genetics. Boxer health problems have their roots in poor breeding practices. Change those practices, you will reduce and then finally eliminate the health problem.

Jim

 

[JulieM]

Jim,

Again, I'm not denying that heart problems are genetic. I don't think heart problems are the main cause of the shortened life span in Boxers. And, while you're correct about heavy breeding on certain bloodlines (the Popular Sire Syndrome I discussed earlier), those included outcrosses as well as linebreedings, so you can't blame it all on inbreeding. Blame it on breeding to a line that had (unknown) problems.

Your position doesn't offend me, Jim - your telling me that I'm irresponsible or have my head up my ass does. If we disagree, fine, but name-calling is unwarranted.

And I'd imagine that back in the 1950s polio was a real health concern. It is not today, as I've said the only cases of polio have come from the vaccine.

As for flouride in the drinking water - I don't know much about it because it was before my time, but I have heard of people having problems with overdoses of flouride.

I don't agree that vaccines have made dogs healthier. I think dogs that were around before yearly vaccinations became the rage lived as long as, if not longer, than dogs do today.

And I agree that there are still some breeders that have their heads in the sand about health issues - but I am not one of them. And breeders are becoming more and more open to ideas of health testing.

If your child was vaccinated, why would you care if another child was not?

The dangers of vaccinations are hardly "urban legends." There are several books on the subject. As I said, Colorado State has revised their vaccination s
An internet spawned, "urban legend" is going to be a very poor defense. Purdue University did an study on vaccinations that details the many side effects. Dr. Jean Dodds has done extensive research. Catherine O'Driscoll and Pat MacKay have written books on the subject, as has Dr. Martin Goldstein. There is more to this than just internet information. And I dare say that most parents who choose not to vaccinate do more than just internet research.

The issue here is genetics. Boxer health problems have their roots in poor breeding practices. Change those practices, you will reduce and then finally eliminate the health problem.

Again, I agree. I just don't think "poor breeding" automatically equals "inbreeding."

Julie