Real Life and
the ABC Code of Ethics
By Liz Sullivan
Recently there was a
discussion on the Showboxer list on the Internet, about the ethics in handling the
"problem" of what breeders can or should do with the white puppies they produce.
There was an ongoing discussion on whether or not breeders could or should charge fees for
their white puppies. Several people, including some who work with rescue, suggested that
there is a tendency for people to place less value on dogs they receive for free or for a
very limited charge -- in essence treating them as "disposable objects." The ABC
Code of Ethics was mentioned several times because of the ABC's position that breeders can
not "ethically" sell their white puppies. Several people argued that the
most recent revision would allow breeders to "recoup" reasonable costs
associated with the white puppies, while others felt that charging a fee but demanding it
be paid to Boxer rescue was an acceptable approach. Still others felt the wording in other
sections suggested that even those approaches were unethical according to the current Code
of Ethics.
Others on the list pointed out
that there is enough genetic knowledge available at this time, so that no breeder should
produce white puppies, as long as they bred their litters with the inheritance of the
white marking genes in mind. In reading the various and very thoughtful posts different
contributors offered, it occurred to me that there was a certain lack of logic to the Code
of Ethics and that, perhaps, it was time to think about another revision to the code. A
revision that took into account the current level of genetic knowledge, and the widespread
belief of most conscientious breeders in the necessity for adequate health screening of
breeding stock. With that in mind, I submitted the following suggestion to the list, and
now to BU readers:
The problem of white Boxers
will never be resolved unless the Boxer breeders of this country make a concerted effort
*not to breed* white Boxers in the first place! What happened years ago and what people
believed back then due to a lack of scientific knowledge is pretty much irrelevant to how
we deal with this issue today. If the ABC membership voted to change the Code of Ethics to
read...
"Knowingly
breeding puppies that are subject to genetic faults is unethical. The American Boxer club
strongly discourages the breeding of Boxers who both carry the extreme white modifier
gene; or who have both been tested as having or carrying heart disease, hypothyroidism,
weak hips or DJD, or any other condition which will tend to produce offspring who suffer
from any of these conditions. Therefore, it is considered unethical to breed two flashy
Boxers together. Every breeding pair should contain at least one genetically plain partner
to avoid the production of white puppies. It is also considered unethical to breed
together any two individual animals which share a common genetic fault which may lead to a
serious health condition."
I know people will say that
instituting a change like this would make it extremely difficult to breed boxers, because
there aren't enough good quality plain animals retained for breeding. Intelligent breeders
who want to avoid the problem of dealing with placing white puppies will keep outstanding
plain bitches for breeding, but what about all those flashy bitches out there? Where can
we take them? There simply aren’t enough good plain dogs that have been health tested
and cleared available for stud. Even if there are *some* champion plain dogs available in
every area, they may not be health tested. Or if they are, they may not be producing well
enough to warrant their use at stud; or they may produce well with some bitches, but just
aren’t right for *your* bitch. This is a real problem, and until this problem is
solved, I don't feel we will make much headway in reducing the number of white puppies
that are born, even among Intelligent, conscientious breeders. And certainly not among
BYBs and others who aren’t making any effort at all to correct this situation. Of
course, one way to change things would be to change the Standard to read...
"White markings, provided
they do not exceed 1/3 of the body surface, are allowed, but the ‘Classic’ Boxer
who has no white on its head or body aside from small amounts of white on the toes (not to
come up above the pasterns) and a small patch of white on the chest, is *preferred.* When
comparing two animals that are equal in other respects, the one with the smallest amount
of white shall be considered more correct."
If plain Boxers were
considered better than flashy Boxers, I suspect that we would see a vast reduction in the
numbers of white puppies born within one or two generations. And if there were attendant
publicity to make the general dog-owning public aware of this also, I believe those ads
for "rare" white Boxers would also disappear pretty quickly. Someone who works
with rescue mentioned the other day that it is usually more difficult to place whites than
colored rescue Boxers, because so many people are familiar with the idea of whites being
less acceptable. If we really want to solve this problem, we need to use that perception
to our advantage.
Of course, that would mean
making some fairly radical changes in how *we* act as breeders. I doubt that such a
resolution would pass if presented at next year's ABC, but I think we've reached the PUT
UP OR SHUT UP point on this issue. We know how to prevent the birth of white Boxers.
Therefore we don’t have to deal with the question of whether or not they are as
healthy as colored Boxers, and we don’t have to deal with the ethical issue of how
(or if) to place them...because mismarked and white Boxers don’t need to exist in the
first place! The mandate of the ABC is to protect and promote the betterment of the Boxer.
It seems somewhat ironic that the current American Boxer Club Code of Ethics does not
include a statement that knowingly breeding "inferior" Boxers is unethical. No
doubt this is an oversight, but one that should be rectified as soon as possible in my
opinion. |
