Please take a look at this site: http://www.steynmere.com/GENETICS.html Adding Corgi blood in order to produce a Boxer with no tail. Ridiculous if you ask me. Now my opinion This is an already established breed. By adding other breeds you are changing the boxer - adding corgi behaviours/colours etc. So. They are not the boxers they were. Original boxers will breed true. Adding bits of corgi may mean you get a boxer with teeny legs etc. You will have to go throught the whole development phase again. So (again) - not boxers. They are a different breed to the original boxer - they have have different heritage and looks!! I saw this and was gobsmacked to be honest. I like the sentiment - breeding so to eliminate the need to dock (ALWAYS a good thing) - but really. The reality is just silly.
The bobtail is classed as a full boxer and is KC registered now. The Steynmere site gives all the information about it through all the stages
So is it morally correct to change a breed like that? To me, it is altering an already established breed. It looks the same, but, clearly isn't. I'm not disagreeing with the practice, I think they look spot on, and I dislike docking, so that is good But it is not the same as an 'orginal' Boxer. It is now part corgi.
Its only about 1.5% corgi at 6th generation. Whether morally correct or not its up to the indivdual to decide. I think Dr Bruce Cattanach has done so much for the boxer breed with regards health testing and the bobtails.
Can I just ask. What makes a breed a breed? Is it JUST the way it looks? So I could potentially add whatever I like, as long as the looks meet the written standard?
personally - and this is merely my opinion - I think what they have done is fabulous - if people MUST have a dog with no tail - far better to breed one rather than to chop it off imo. They are quite obviously (to me) still boxers - and I support what has been done with them xx
Yes they are now although Im not sure at what generation they were allowed to be KC registered. Also are doing really well in the show circuit.
I also think it's a good idea! As long as the temprements of a 'boxer' are still the same, it still looks the same etc, and people want a dog with no tail! At least it's been done properly, researched etc, and now accepted by the KC.
I agree with that. Now I have thought it through more I guess my question is what I put above - what makes a breed a breed. Does it matter if we add what we like to get a better result? You see - I have seen outrage at people adding different breeds in certain breeds to get the desired result. So where is the line? When does it become wrong? Should breeds be constantly evolving (mixing) to ensure good health/large gene pools etc?
ok here's my stance on it: If you can state a proper reason for why you are crossing other breeds into a breed to create a desired look (like with the Steynmere boxers) then it's OK. I think by creating bobtail boxers they are protecting the breed from having to have their tails cut off - Correct me if I'm wrong - but didn't they start doing this before the end was nigh for docking in boxers? not sure - i'm certainly no expert lol. I really can't condone the crossing of different breeds just to create a new breed - when there really is no purpose. Things like cockerpoos etc - really see no need for that. I think making an informed decision to add a different breed to an existing one for the furtherment of the animal is perfectly acceptable. hope that makes sense! lol xx
As Dr Cattanach had followed all the specified protocols it was possible to have fourth generation dogs registered as Boxers by the KC. "The bobtail gene was introduced in a single cross & this was followed by repeated crossing to present-day quality Boxers using in each generation, the most Boxer-like animals. This "fast tracks" the whole process and those genes that distinguish the Corgi and Boxer and which appear to be amazingly few in number, are rapidly diluted out. Add to this the fact that the main unwanted Corgi genes (for leg length and coat) are dominant to their Boxer equivalents, such that once lost they are gone forever. There is no real risk of Corgi features being maintained over the generations to reappear with inbreeding. And, clearly, there will be many more generations of crossing to Boxer before there is any liklihood of "doubling up" on Corgi - other than for experimental purposes." (Bruce Cattanch, Boxer 2001, p.59)
what makes a breed a breed. Does it matter if we add what we like to get a better result? You see - I have seen outrage at people adding different breeds in certain breeds to get the desired result. So where is the line? When does it become wrong? Should breeds be constantly evolving (mixing) to ensure good health/large gene pools etc? Or - desired LOOKS?
The bobtail gene was introduced in a single cross. Through breeding Boxers carrying that gene to other Boxers the results after 4 generations were dogs that looked like Boxers, behaved like Boxers, had the Boxer temperament, bred true apart from the tails, and were in fact Boxers That is rather different to the continued first generation crossings that produce the popular 'oodles' and 'poos'. It depends what result is desired and how responsibly the programe is carried out and how well researched the likely results may be. I think it acceptable to add new blood in the form of introducing a cross to another breed if it is done for the benefit of the breed in question, eg if it is a vulnerable/rare breed or if it may eliminate serious health issues. I think it would be unacceptable for frivolous reasons such as miniaturization or for pecuniary reasons.
Hi Bodhi to put it simply.... What makes a breed a breed ...constantly breeding to type and only selecting the best over a very long period of time, then approving a standard and breeding to that standard. Does it matter if we add what we like to get a better result? It depends what you mean by better results, it takes years to breed to type,breeding /selecting/ over and over until you have consistency and then the standard is set.To change a feature takes a knowledge of breeds/genetics and repeating the whole process of breeding/selection until you have the desired effect . Take my own breed for instance, it was decided a smaller version of the tough little Schnauzer was required as dogs became companions and not just working dogs, so in the 1899s the Miniature Schnauzer was created in Germany. They are not 'miniaturised' Schnauzers i.e. they were not achieved by keeping the runt of the litter, it is generally though the were arrived at by crossing the Schnauzer with the Affenpinscher (and maybe other breeds no one is sure) then they were bred and selected until type was achieved. The breed has evolved and the present day Minins look a little different to the originals for example they have longer furnishings, but in most respects they are the same dogs with the same characteristics. As the standard stipulates furnishings but not the length the dogs still comply with the original standard....there are other slight variations but all within the breed standard. It was decided to introduce a white version of the breed with all the problems that go with the genetics of white dogs (I better not say who did this and why) . These are a 'variation' of the original and not 'better results' and a variation of which I do not approve. Re the gene pool and health, the original breed spread out all over the world and different blood lines formed creating a large gene pool, so if you wish to introduce new blood lines there is plenty of stock out there to use for this purpose. Yes problems occurred in the form of eye disease and I think this may have occured from the over use of certain stud dogs and people not understanding that their was a problem until the damage was done . The eye problems like similar ones in other breeds can be eradicated if people stick to the rules, test their dogs and don't breed from affected lines.
I should have made it clear that my reference to 'miniaturization' was directed at runt breeding and the deliberate breeding of chondrodysplasic dogs rather than the rigorous breeding programs designed to create such breeds as the Mini Schnauzer It should also be borne in mind that the early breeders who 'created' breeds did indeed have very stringent breeding programs which meant that many dogs which did not meet their vision for the breed would have been culled.
That was certainly the case SB and it has to be remembered there were few 'vets' around then so culling was frequently done by methods of which we would not approved these days. Taking this fact into consideration demonstrates how much more difficult it would be to start a new breed these days and breed to type, you would need to find homes for all the poor examples that couldn't be bred from.
Hi Shadowboxer "It was decided to introduce a white version of the breed with all the problems that go with the genetics of white dogs (I better not say who did this and why) . These are a 'variation' of the original and not 'better results' and a variation of which I do not approve." I think the white you are referring to isn't one which has associated health problems. There are at least four different genetic types of white in dogs and the one in Schnauzers isn't known to have pleiotrophic effects but if you know of any in your breed, I'd be intered to hear pod
