I thought of something I should have mentioned a while back: my dogs were the result of an un-spayed female (who was properly enclosed in her yard) and a large intact male (who jumped the fence into the yard).  The foster parents who were taking care of the female dog were very responsible, but when they took her in to get fixed she was pregnant.  Goes to show that even the most responsible parents can't always keep unintended pregnancies away.

The fact that mutts are healthier is a matter of common sense.  Purebred dogs are being bred on a limited genepool, which amplifies any defects they are prone to having in the first place.  Mutts have a nearly endless genepool, which makes defects far less likely to appear.  I'm not talking statistics- I'm talking genetics.  You don't have to be an expert to know that inbreeding causes problems.  That same breeding that is used to isolate desired traits to create breeds, then used to continue the traits into their offspring, will also keep the bad genetic side effects isolated.

I don't need studies to tell me my Heinz 57's are healthier and have lived longer lives than my purebreds. My mini-dox will be the last purebred I ever own. When she goes, it will be pound puppies for us. My Newfie-mix is now 13 years old. The vet comments everytime he sees her about her age considering her breed and size.

But hurray for Uno!!! The first Beagle to ever take top dog in the big show!!

It's a fallacy that mixed breeds are healthier.  Hybrid vigor (breeding two purebreds of different breeds, now known as Designer Dogs) has not tracked consistently.  Purebreds have national parent clubs which track health and medical developments within the breed.  Mixed breeds have no such registry or committed club.  Therefore, a purebred club will send out questionaires and gather stats on a certain health problem and when the stats are published it makes mixed breeds look healthier since no such study was done on them.  Also, when any medical research for canines is done it is usually funded by a breed club or the AKC.  The inference is that purebreds need the research.  The reality is that the medical advances used for mixed breeds was sponsored and funded by the people who love all dogs and are committed to purebred dogs.   

You may be able to teach your dog some manners, but a majority of the unintended puppies come from animals that are unsupervised in some way.  And when an unsupervised, intact male dog comes across a female dog that is in heat- I guarantee those manners are going to go right out the window.  It isn't very expensive to adopt a dog that has already been spayed/neutered.  If I remember right, I paid $95 to the THS for each of my dogs- neutered, first shots.  Adopting a dog from a Kern Co shelter is $60.  That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.  Plus licensing fees for altered animals are much cheaper.

From what I can find online, it seems the estimated lifespan for a Boxer varies between 8-12 years.  They are subject to hip problems, cancer, allergies, and heart problems (seems they often drop dead unexpectedly from Boxer Cardiomyopathy).  Makes you wonder why people keep breeding in all these problems...  I'll take my nice mutts anyday :)  I don't care if they don't have papers or AKC whatever.  They're much healthier and the genetic problems are less likely to continue through the generations (hah, not that they'll have any future generations, being neutered).

Dogs can be taught to not mount as effectively as they can be taught to not bite, that is, they will mind their manners unless they are under both stressful circumstances and without owner guidance.  I'm not sure why your dogs are so short lived madkow2747, but dogs the size of Boxers should be living into their teens.  The giant breeds (Great Danes, Irish Wolfhounds, etc) tend to be shorter lived within the range you stated, 10-12 years. 

The majority of dog owners are responsible and do sterilize their pets.  Statewide research estimates that two thirds already sterilize their pets and more would do so if they could afford it.  That's why programs for low-cost or no-cost spays and neuters are so important.  A friend recently spayed her female dog and even with a Humane Society voucher (she's retired, fixed income) she still had to pay a couple hundred dollars.  Have you read "Redemption" by Nathan Winograd?  I recommend it.

I CAN UNDERSTAND EACH PERSONS PERSPECTIVE ON THEIR DOGS AND CATS. JUST LIKE THEIR ARE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON HOW TO RAISE YOUR CHILDREN, TREAT YOUR SPOUSE AND INLAWS.  PEOPLE DO NEED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE CHOICES (GOOD OR BAD) BUT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE I DO HAVE AN OPINION. I THINK THE BITCH (FEMALE DOG CAT OR WHATEVER ANIMAL, (FEMALES) SHOULD BE SPAYED. THIS ALONE MIGHT CUT THE WHOLE PROBLEM IN HALF. MAYBE THEN THE PRICES OF THESE HOMELESS, SHELTERED, ABUSED ANIMALS WOULD BE MORE REASONABLE AND MORE ANIMAL LOVERS WOULD BE ABLE TO FILL THE VOID IN THEIR HEARTS WHEN THE SAD EYES OF ANIMALS LEAVE AN IMPRESSION IN YOUR MIND THAT IS REALLY HARD TO ESCAPE FROM. AFTER ALL (UNTIL RECENTLY) THE FEMALE  WAS THE  ONE RESPONSIBLE  OR IRRESPONSIBLE FOR CONTROLLING THE POPULATION. THEN IF YOU WANTED TO HAVE YOUR MALE NEUTERED OR NOT  IT WOULD BE YOUR CHOICE. BUT BE SURE AND RESEARCH ON THE BEHAVIOR CHANGES IN YOUR MALE WHATEVER YOU DECIDE.                & nbsp;       &n bsp;       &nb sp;        SUZAN MULLICAN

Then get an vasectomy on your dog if he is still intact---at least he will be shooting blanks!  And yes, they do vasectomies on dogs owners that want an alternative to castration.

And TK--it is an irresponsible dog owner if he does allow an intact dog tto get loose.  As smokey pointed out---they made sure their intact male didn't get out.  But at least get him a vasectomy!!!   NO!!! the dog--not your husband! LOL

I understand both sides of this debate.  As someone who knows that hundreds of dogs and cats are killed everyday by shelters in CA simply because they don't know what else to do with these poor animals,  I am happy that adoption agencies spay/neuter all the pets they find/receive before adopting them out.  The necessary and horrific killing of so many dogs and cats is why Shelters that pick up stray dogs/cats charge the owners an extra (rather large) fee to get back their dog/cat when it was not spayed/neutered.  This says to the owner either be responsible or PAY A HEFTY PRICE for not spay/neutering your pet.  Now, this doesn't mean that TK doesn't have a very valid argument for not spaying his boxer, especially if TK IS responsible.  Thus, not all people who choose not to spay/neuter their pets are irresponsible, BUT, sadly MOST people are irresponsible.   Again, it's sad.   This is why animal shelters and humane societies spay/neuter all pets before they  adopte them out...because... Odds are, their new owners will be irresponsible,  which will only cause more killings of defenseless dogs/cats.

I forgot to mention that there are also a lot of dogs that are difficult to contain- dogs that dig, dogs that jump, dogs that chew up fences, small dogs that can squeeze through fences, large dogs that can knock down fences/gates...

We're talking about animals that will live 10-12 years (for many larger dogs) as it is.  So cancer around 10 years old isn't far off from the normal life span.  I knew a man who kept his (decrepit old) cat alive for years by taking him to the vet twice a week for a fluid IV.  The cat couldn't even move and the man still just couldn't let go of the poor animal.  I totally believe in letting the animal live out their life, and when they're old and in pain, put them to sleep.  None of this spending thousands of dollars on chemotherapy, injections, etc.  I love my dogs as much as anyone, but I'm still quite aware that they are dogs, not humans.  (By the way TK, you can train a dog not to bite- do you think you can train them not to "make babies"?)

The real problem, as Smokey was pointing out, is people not maintaining proper enclosures for their animals.  But as careful as you are to keep good fences, it's easy to slip up (leave a gate or door open, etc) and have your dog escape.  Sadly, there are many loose animals out there (of course, unaltered) and babies are made.  That's babies on the street to either grow up stray, die, or get turned in to the pound and get either adopted or put down.  And to think, a simple operation could have prevented more animals from needlessly dying.  I still think it's selfish.

I don't think an increased risk of cancer in an animal that is predisposed to cancer is a sad reason to not have a procedure carried out. If it was a human being, your child or husband, you would NEVER have them undergo a procedure that could reduce thier life expectency, and as most peoples pets are a part of the family, why would you stack the odds against someone in your own family?

I don;t think that not spaying/neutering your animal makes you irresponsible. I tend to lean more towards the people that don't maintain their fences etc and don;t ensure thier animal won;t get out are irresponsible. I used to have a 120pound pitbull/mastiff, he was not neutered, and he never got out on his own because we made sure he couldn't.  I don't think we were irresponsible for not having him neutered because we were responsible enough to make sure he never got out.

I guess I have never heard much about this problem from where I was raised. I had never even heard the term backyard breeder before coming to Tehachapi.....

Then let's use that same argument to decree that all dogs should be rendered  toothless so IF they ever become loose in the neighborhood they won't be able to bite anyone. 

That's a pretty sad argument for not neutering/spaying: because it increases risk for cancer.  So might microchipping, but I think it's fair to say that it's better to microchip than to lose your dog.  And your dog might live longer if you don't neuter them, but what about the lives of the animals they could potentially sire if they escape?  Very selfish, IMO.

Why assume an intact male is being used for stud?  Perhaps the owner is aware of the increased cancer risk when male dogs are neutered and chooses to give his Boxer (a breed genetically predisposed for cancers by age 10 anyway) the healthiest life possible.