In my e-mail Inbox recently, I found a thoughtfully written message from another breeder. She was responding to a thread on the Showboxer List about mentoring (a thread wherein some railed about the tendency of those new to the process to disregard the importance of the pedigree in making sage breeding decisions). Included among some kind thoughts about my own record as a breeder (newbie though I be) was the following thought – one that immediately struck me as potential fodder for an article.

She wrote: I'm not sure that the "present" powers that be will acknowledge you….You threaten many of their values. It's easier for them to try to dismiss your accomplishments as being dumb luck.

Not caring a fig on that score, as I told her, about impressing anybody, nonetheless I was intrigued by the second part. What I read from the old guard during the thread in question appeared to suggest that they, the keepers of the Boxer flame, might be helpful in areas other than those such as whelping advice, what certain judges prefer and whom to avoid ringside. In
other words, with all the discussion of experience and background and the resulting ability to mentor others, it appears they're suggesting that they’re the repositories of a vast pedigree knowledge that will be intensely useful in helping their "mentees" make proper decisions when they decide to breed a litter themselves.

If that were so, though, how is it that so many old timers are able to produce less than stellar examples of the breed – precisely as we all are on occasion? I mean, if there were some recipe established simply by virtue of one's long tenure in this game and the recollection of myriad characteristics represented by the names of dogs on a page, then why would that incredibly
elusive item – the conformationally correct Boxer with beautiful head and expression and superb temperament – appear to us only just slightly more frequently than the Loch Ness Monster?

Since I won't pass the ten year mark in dog showing for another 24 months or so and am, therefore, still but an upstart to those who feel themselves well in charge of the breed's future, those stewards of the breed probably won't consider my theory. But I suspect it's a good one: All breeding of dogs is dumb luck. Whether you know the pedigrees inside and out, whether you understand your own line and those of others, still it comes down to luck when we produce something exciting and superb.

A very experienced breeder once said something to me that's reinforced forever the feelings I've just outlined. She said that the best breeding on paper (the one for which she had the absolute most hope, because the dogs were so perfectly suited) turned out to be the absolute LEAST of her career in terms of quality. I guess that speaks little in support of the idea of breeding paper to paper. As longtime breeder, frequent Showboxer List contributor and editor of this magazine, Virginia Zurflieh, has said often before and on which she's been challenged perhaps as many times – breeding is an art, not a science. Use your artist's eye to put two dogs together, and see what happens. It's been both of our experience that good things often do.

It's said that showing dogs is the only sport in which the amateur competes head to head with the professional. It's true of breeding, as well. That's something a talented newbie may even be able to do better than an old-schooler who's partly blinded by inbred convictions.

Katherine Nevius
Minstrel Boxers – Vienna, Virginia