# Why should breeders cull



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

What are reasons, in your opinion, a breeder should cull.....

Reasons to cull a pup, reasons to cull an adult?

Which reasons should they employ lethal culling and which would make dogs candidates for surgical/non lethal culling?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

I think lethal culling is called for if the pup is not viable, or has a problem that will cause a lifelong disability. (I always cringe when I see the heart rending pleas to raise money for shelter puppies born without front or rear legs. On deafness or blindness, I think it is a judgment call. There are actually people out there who are specifically looking for these dogs. Have a friend who is on her third deaf Aussie. And I've known deaf dogs (and blind dogs) who live great lives. What is important is that they are with someone who understands the condition and is able to willingly cope with it. What is really heartbreaking is when someone brings you their boxer or cattledog puppy who "doesn't listen" and you have to break the news to them that it's likely that they aren't listening because they can't hear you. For people who were expecting a normal dog, this can be devestating. When it is both though, I think culling is a reasonable option. For an adult, the only real reason I can think of is that the dog is dangerously miswired. I have known some stockmen who would kill a dog who wouldn't work. Their reasoning that the dog would not make a good pet, and they don't want someone breeding that. These are old timers (the one I specifically remember saying this is passed on now - but he produced some awesome dogs). I couldn't do that, though. But I never actually bred for working stockdogs,


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

I believe animals should be PTS in only two situations: the animal is sick and seriously suffering and there's nothing that can reasonably be done for it, or the animal is aggressive or fearful and again, nothing can be done for it. Otherwise, I think there is no reason to PTS any animal.

Now, I totally agree with breeders speutering dogs that don't match breed standards. That's fine, speuter them and either keep them as your own pet or sell them to a qualified pet owner. We have way too many homeless dogs in the US, hundreds are PTS every day, speutering a dog you can't ethically breed is a good thing.

I will say that I do sympathize with Rhodesian Ridgeback breeders in the UK. Pedigree Dogs Exposed made a big deal about RR breeders PTSing RR puppies born without ridges. It turns out that RRs without ridges look like pit bulls. Pit bulls are banned (at least in large portions) of the UK, so there are no homes for these ridgeless puppies. I'm not sure PTS healthy puppies is something I feel comfortable with, but in that situation where they're always going to be at risk, I do sympathize.


----------



## Jpepper (Nov 11, 2011)

I know breeders who cull hard. Could be anything really just up to the breeder and what they expect out of a pup. Some breeders will cull 8 out of 10 pups or even them all if they don't have certain traits they desire such as range, appearance, gritty etc... I'm talking about working/hunting stock type of dogs though.

I know most would rather cull the dogs they can't find a home for then place it in a non-working home that eventually the family won't be able to put up with because the dog is too intense for them and will only end up in a shelter and possibly water down the breed.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

I'm still waiting to hear from the people who believe the German system is better - about whether they still use the breed warden system, which culls (kills) substandard or excess puppies.


----------



## Jpepper (Nov 11, 2011)

I'm not familiar with that system? Explain? 

I only know how they do it in the working dog/hunting dog world and it's harsh and cruel at times but very necessary to maintain those certain traits. What's funny is one of these dogs I'm talking about would cost 1/3 of one of those toy breeds  Do they really cull anyways?


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

The only time I would euthanize a pup is if it had a problem that could not be dealt saith comfortably or reasonably.
Pups that don't meet working standards would be neutered and placed or kept. It's not easy to find pet homes for such high drive dogs. 
I don't agree with culling/killing because a litter is too big, or there is a small problem with a pup. Though it happens more than most know, I wouldn't support or buy from a breeder that practices this. That cuts down on who I would import from, and many breeders in the states.
I often take in 'sub standard ' dogs and attempt to get them working.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Jpepper said:


> I know breeders who cull hard. Could be anything really just up to the breeder and what they expect out of a pup. Some breeders will cull 8 out of 10 pups or even them all if they don't have certain traits they desire such as range, appearance, gritty etc... I'm talking about working/hunting stock type of dogs though.
> 
> I know most would rather cull the dogs they can't find a home for then place it in a non-working home that eventually the family won't be able to put up with because the dog is too intense for them and will only end up in a shelter and *possibly water down the breed.*


Gee, if only there were a way to permanently prevent a dog from breeding. . .

I also think that the only acceptable reason to kill a dog is if it is suffering in a way that can't be mitigated to a reasonable extent or if it is dangerous in a way that can't be managed.


----------



## Jpepper (Nov 11, 2011)

Only way I can think of is to cull the dog to begin with or have it fixed and sent to a home. Just my .02 cents. It gets more complicated to do that when you've got a high prey drive type of dog.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

Jpepper said:


> I know breeders who cull hard. Could be anything really just up to the breeder and what they expect out of a pup. Some breeders will cull 8 out of 10 pups or even them all if they don't have certain traits they desire such as range, appearance, gritty etc... I'm talking about working/hunting stock type of dogs though.
> 
> I know most would rather cull the dogs they can't find a home for then place it in a non-working home that eventually the family won't be able to put up with because the dog is too intense for them and will only end up in a shelter and possibly water down the breed.


See, now that bothers me. If you're breeding working dogs, you know a certain percentage won't work. Every generation is going to have one or two, at least, that won't make good working dogs. You know this going in, so it should be incumbent upon you, the breeder who chose to bring these pups into existence, to find good nonworking homes for the dogs. Of course you should have a speuter contract for these homes, that's fine, but to say, "Oh, maybe someday it will end up in a shelter, I'll just kill it now" is the height of irresponsibility to me. By that logic, don't ever place any animal in any home then, just kill them all.


----------



## Jpepper (Nov 11, 2011)

Amaryllis said:


> See, now that bothers me. If you're breeding working dogs, you know a certain percentage won't work. Every generation is going to have one or two, at least, that won't make good working dogs. You know this going in, so it should be incumbent upon you, the breeder who chose to bring these pups into existence, to find good nonworking homes for the dogs. Of course you should have a speuter contract for these homes, that's fine, but to say, "Oh, maybe someday it will end up in a shelter, I'll just kill it now" is the height of irresponsibility to me. By that logic, don't ever place any animal in any home then, just kill them all.


I'm 50/50 on the subject. Because not all working dogs can be placed in a non-working home. Just because the dog didn't have the traits you desired doesn't mean it won't work at all and doesn't have a desire to do so. Most of the times I see this happen the dog ends up tearing someones home up because it's bored or kills the neighbors/family dog etc... I can't argue with the fact some of these breeders have the best dogs around because of the system they use.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Hope this doesn't get heated. So far, so good.

It's interesting to read different views. 

I don't have time for a lengthy response now but i will say culling 8 out of 10 or whole litters seems like you are doing something wrong. Maybe one needs to take another look.


----------



## Jpepper (Nov 11, 2011)

Spicy1_VV said:


> Hope this doesn't get heated. So far, so good.
> 
> It's interesting to read different views.
> 
> I don't have time for a lengthy response now but i will say culling 8 out of 10 or whole litters seems like you are doing something wrong. Maybe one needs to take another look.


It's a very good discussion to have IMO because the only views I ever hear are from working stock type dogs. I'm not sure how they cull on toy breeds or others if they even do so. I figure they only cull though because of health problems. I don't agree with culling 8 out of 10 pups but then again I don't breed and not sure what is expected in that particular yard. I've heard some people cull around 6 months - 2 years old depending on the dog.

Most of the time I'll see a litter born from some hog dog stock and by 8 months old only 2-3 pups out of that litter are finding hogs on their own while the rest aren't so they get culled. Most common I usually see.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Spicy1_VV said:


> Hope this doesn't get heated. So far, so good.
> 
> It's interesting to read different views.
> 
> I don't have time for a lengthy response now but i will say culling 8 out of 10 or whole litters seems like you are doing something wrong. Maybe one needs to take another look.


I don't think there is anything even wrong with those pups. They are just not the best. Some even cull all females, because many don't work females.
Its not about money with those types, just to produce the top dog.

It is super hard to find appropriate homes for these dogs that don't work. That is part of being responsible though. Some think its better to not chance those dogs biting people and destroying everything, just to be euthanized. 
You can breed the best bitch to the best stud, not every pup will be perfect, but I feel you surgically cull, and place it or keep it.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Amaryllis said:


> See, now that bothers me. If you're breeding working dogs, you know a certain percentage won't work. Every generation is going to have one or two, at least, that won't make good working dogs. You know this going in, so it should be incumbent upon you, the breeder who chose to bring these pups into existence, to find good nonworking homes for the dogs. Of course you should have a speuter contract for these homes, that's fine, but to say, "Oh, maybe someday it will end up in a shelter, I'll just kill it now" is the height of irresponsibility to me. By that logic, don't ever place any animal in any home then, just kill them all.


+1. Exactly.


----------



## Kyllobernese (Feb 5, 2008)

I know back in the fifties when I was working at a Ridgeback kennel, they culled all pups that did not have a perfect Ridge. They never had a puppy without a ridge but sometimes it was the biggest, healthiest pups they put down just because their ridge was not perfect. I never liked to go and see the puppies until they were a few days old so I did not have to see it and certainly had no say in whether they did it or not. As it was not unusual for Ridgebacks to have very large litters, sometimes up to 16 pups, they still raised a lot of dogs.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

So I guess when people say "good breeders don't add to the shelter problem" we need to put an addendum on: "because they kill the rejects themselves"? I'm getting disillusioned.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Willowy said:


> So I guess when people say "good breeders don't add to the shelter problem" we need to put an addendum on: "because they kill the rejects themselves"? I'm getting disillusioned.


 No. Good breeders take responsibility for what they produce, not for killing pups that have minor problems.
.I wont even bother with a spay contract, because in the time it takes to get the dog back, it could be bred. That ups my responsibility to ten dogs instead of that bitch, or more for a male. If it shouldn't be bred, the pup stays here, is altered, then placed.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

Willowy said:


> So I guess when people say "good breeders don't add to the shelter problem" we need to put an addendum on: "because they kill the rejects themselves"? I'm getting disillusioned.


Your always disillusioned... -sighs-
Responsible breeders do not add to the shelter problem because their dog's don't end up in shelters. They keep close tabs on their dogs for their whole life, or if something does happen they are they to pull their dogs from a shelter opening up that space for more dogs in need if for some reason their contracts are ignored. They also don't over produce so yes they cull, they also put spay/neuter clauses in their contracts and so forth. There will always be people who would rather buy from a breeder then a shelter, the people that go to the breeders aren't interested in a shelter dog. At least responsible breeders do it correctly.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

They kill puppies correctly! Yay!

I apparently have excellent reason to be "always disillusioned".


----------



## Jpepper (Nov 11, 2011)

Darkmoon said:


> Your always disillusioned... -sighs-
> Responsible breeders do not add to the shelter problem because their dog's don't end up in shelters. They keep close tabs on their dogs for their whole life, or if something does happen they are they to pull their dogs from a shelter opening up that space for more dogs in need if for some reason their contracts are ignored. They also don't over produce so yes they cull, they also put spay/neuter clauses in their contracts and so forth. There will always be people who would rather buy from a breeder then a shelter, the people that go to the breeders aren't interested in a shelter dog. At least responsible breeders do it correctly.



I can add that I'm still in contact with my dogs breeders and talk to them very often about my dogs as well as theirs, training, working etc.... We've got a good relationship. So this is very true. Also has stud rights to my male pup when he gets older.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Darkmoon said:


> They also don't over produce so yes they cull


If they're killing pups for lack of homes they are still overproducing. . ."not overproducing" would mean not breeding those puppies in the first place.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Amaryllis said:


> See, now that bothers me. If you're breeding working dogs, you know a certain percentage won't work. Every generation is going to have one or two, at least, that won't make good working dogs. You know this going in, so it should be incumbent upon you, the breeder who chose to bring these pups into existence, to find good nonworking homes for the dogs. Of course you should have a speuter contract for these homes, that's fine, but to say, "Oh, maybe someday it will end up in a shelter, I'll just kill it now" is the height of irresponsibility to me. By that logic, don't ever place any animal in any home then, just kill them all.



There are two sides to this....
Breeding working dogs for sport, hobby, etc is one thing. 

But if you are breeding working dogs because you NEED working dogs, that is another matter. You have to keep your pipeline of up and coming dogs. You might not be able to find decent homes for all your puppies.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Willowy said:


> They kill puppies correctly! Yay!
> 
> I apparently have excellent reason to be "always disillusioned".


Well if proper culling was done the hunters in your area that kill their dogs if they don't hunt or are gunshy might be a tad less and might be easier on the dogs than getting shot by their disgruntled owners. Or just turned loose to run free and starve in the fields. You have mentioned that problem in a few replies. 

At least proper culling is done by the responsible breeder.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Its not a lack of homes that is the problem. There is a big need for police k9s, military, border patrol, etc. Even with strong lines not everydog can handle working in extreme conditions, have the nerve and ability to handle the job. Its not fair to the dog to try to work if it isn't suited for it. So these breeders strive to produce top nerve, high drive, fearless dogs. Then most buyers only want dogs a year old or over, they don't buy puppies. The dogs that don't have the stability or drives, are very had to put into pet homes, because they are way more than most people want to live with. Its a fine line. There is a need for good dogs.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

wvasko said:


> Well if proper culling was done the hunters in your area that kill their dogs if they don't hunt or are gunshy might be a tad less and might be easier on the dogs than getting shot by their disgruntled owners. Or just turned loose to run free and starve in the fields. You have mentioned that problem in a few replies.
> 
> At least proper culling is done by the responsible breeder.


I can't think of any such thing as "proper" culling (when meaning death). If people weren't cruel and stupid they wouldn't shoot or dump their dogs for not being able to play games. Giving cruel and stupid people an out by offing the pups before they've even gotten started (and how would you know if they can hunt or are gunshy when they're young?) isn't going to help anything.

Dang. If PETA comes and takes my pets I know who I'm gonna blame. And it ain't PETA.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Willowy said:


> I can't think of any such thing as "proper" culling (when meaning death). If people weren't cruel and stupid they wouldn't shoot or dump their dogs for not being able to play games. Giving cruel and stupid people an out by offing the pups before they've even gotten started (and how would you know if they can hunt or are gunshy when they're young?) isn't going to help anything.
> 
> Dang. If PETA comes and takes my pets I know who I'm gonna blame. And it ain't PETA.


Your right, but those aren't the pups that are culled, I'm assuming pups with physical defects etc would/could be reason for possible culling. 

As far as somebody coming for your dogs and who to blame would be more of a personal problem.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Jpepper said:


> I'm not familiar with that system? Explain?
> 
> I only know how they do it in the working dog/hunting dog world and it's harsh and cruel at times but very necessary to maintain those certain traits. What's funny is one of these dogs I'm talking about would cost 1/3 of one of those toy breeds  Do they really cull anyways?


You are saying that like not culling is a bad thing. And no, the papillon breeders I know do not kill healthy puppies.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

And, um, WHY is this harshness and cruelty necessary to "maintain certain traits"? Humans with big brains can't figure out any other way?


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

I'm for culling pups who have a severe defect or problem which will inhibit quality of life. For adults I think certain health issues could warrant it, they cause pain. Also unstable temperament. Those are reasons for lethal culling. 

Non lethal culling can include a number of reasons.
Structure problem, lack of drives, lack of confidence, like a shy type dog, minor health issue (mainly a genetic one), and of course any dog which doesn't possess or produce the traits you want in your line, a dog that fails health test, or one that produces a genetic defect (carrier of an issue). These are some good reasons to eliminate a dog from a breeding program imo but not reason that they need to be killed because they could still be good pets. Though a less confident or shy dog can be iffy you want to work with them and make sure the owner knows the dogs natural disposition. This is also different temperament then being soft.


----------



## Jpepper (Nov 11, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> You are saying that like not culling is a bad thing. And no, the papillon breeders I know do not kill healthy puppies.


Culling is a good thing and very necessary. You agree, correct?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Spicy1_VV said:


> I'm for culling pups who have a severe defect or problem which will inhibit quality of life. For adults I think certain health issues could warrant it, they cause pain. Also unstable temperament. Those are reasons for lethal culling.
> 
> Non lethal culling can include a number of reasons.
> Structure problem, lack of drives, lack of confidence, like a shy type dog, minor health issue (mainly a genetic one), and of course any dog which doesn't possess or produce the traits you want in your line, a dog that fails health test, or one that produces a genetic defect (carrier of an issue). These are some good reasons to eliminate a dog from a breeding program imo but not reason that they need to be killed because they could still be good pets. Though a less confident or shy dog can be iffy you want to work with them and make sure the owner knows the dogs natural disposition. This is also different temperament then being soft.


Good explanation.


----------



## lisahi (Jun 19, 2011)

The word "cull" makes my skin crawl. It means to kill animals for the sake of population control, but the only situation I can see that as a "responsible" thing to do is if (1) the group numbers of a specific animal endanger other animals or the natural habitat, so you hunt the animal for food and other byproducts; or (2) same as above (threatening other wildlife) and you humanely remove a certain number of the animals (generally done with animals that humans do not readily consume as food). Most of the time, population problems are caused by humans herding certain animals into small areas, so I hesitate to say I like the idea regardless if there is a legitimate reason, but I understand it.

"Culling" puppies from a litter may be justified as "population control," but if you are a responsible breeder, there's no need to control the population of your well-bred dogs. Moreover, the dog population problem is more of a problem for the dogs (due to irresponsible people) than the environment. I don't see dogs wreaking havoc on natural habitats of other animals. Killing puppies that could find homes is inexcusable.

I certainly understand humanely euthanizing very sick and injured animals who don't have the hope of recovery. I can see humanely euthanizing puppies who will, most likely, live a very short life due to disease or defect. In rare circumstances, I can see humanely euthanizing dogs that have a incurable temperment issue that will never allow them to live safely among humans.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Jpepper said:


> Culling is a good thing and very necessary. You agree, correct?


 Culling as in spay/neuter, yes. Culling as in killing is a very BAD thing and not necessary (except in cases of severe health or temperment issues. And even then if it happens too often you should re-evaluate what you're doing).


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Willowy said:


> So I guess when people say "good breeders don't add to the shelter problem" we need to put an addendum on: "because they kill the rejects themselves"? I'm getting disillusioned.


That's ridiculous and a gross generalization. 

Some breeders kill pups. There are plenty good breeders who don't. 

I keep in contact with my dogs breeder, usually at times on a daily basis. They haven't killed a pup for being a "reject" or any sort of reason as that. If a dog had a real problem they would, but not because that dog isn't perfect. They go to pet homes. 

Another I kept also in regular contact with, to my knowledge they've never killed a pup. I never asked but I'm sure my assumption is correct. They had pics of newborn litters, knew where their pups were (kept in contact). In various homes show, working, pet, sport. They would do the right thing by a defective pup but I'm certain not kill healthy pup. Or for an unfounded reason. They bred successfully their own established line. 

I had a pup with an injury to the foot. When I got to the vet he said If you have enough pups you can just PTS. I was surprised yes. I brought the pup in for medical treatment. If I was that type of breeder I could just off the pup myself. Why drive an hour and pay $ to do it. Clearly I felt that even though he couldn't be a show, weight pull or catch dog this "reject" could still be a pet. 

This is the problem with breeding or anything else what some do everyone else gets painted with the same brush.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

The gist of this thread is "yes, some good breeders kill healthy dogs/puppies. You can't say they're bad because of this". I would consider that to be a bad breeder. And a bad person. But evidently it is not uncommon or looked down upon. If it is tolerated and not condemned, it's hard not to "paint them all with the same brush".


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

lisahi said:


> The word "cull" makes my skin crawl. It means to kill animals for the sake of population control, but the only situation I can see that as a "responsible" thing to do is if (1) the group numbers of a specific animal endanger other animals or the natural habitat, so you hunt the animal for food and other byproducts; or (2) same as above (threatening other wildlife) and you humanely remove a certain number of the animals (generally done with animals that humans do not readily consume as food). Most of the time, population problems are caused by humans herding certain animals into small areas, so I hesitate to say I like the idea regardless if there is a legitimate reason, but I understand it.
> 
> "Culling" puppies from a litter may be justified as "population control," but if you are a responsible breeder, there's no need to control the population of your well-bred dogs. Moreover, the dog population problem is more of a problem for the dogs (due to irresponsible people) than the environment. I don't see dogs wreaking havoc on natural habitats of other animals. Killing puppies that could find homes is inexcusable.
> 
> I certainly understand humanely euthanizing very sick and injured animals who don't have the hope of recovery. I can see humanely euthanizing puppies who will, most likely, live a very short life due to disease or defect. In rare circumstances, I can see humanely euthanizing dogs that have a incurable temperment issue that will never allow them to live safely among humans.


Wrong. It is correct in the terms you speak but not as it applies in general or to breeding dogs.

Cull doesn't only apply to wild animal slaughters or hunting. 

It also means 

To remove or set aside as inferior, especially when breeding 
To pick out from others 

No where does it say kill in these and similar definitions. 

You can set aside as inferior without killing. 

By means of s/n or simply nor breeding said animal. 

When I chose to cull a male I made the decision not to breed him (though he's staying intact) and remove him from my breeding program. Not remove him from the living. It is not required he be killed to be culled.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Spicy1_VV said:


> Some breeders kill pups. There are plenty good breeders who don't.


So, I'm Jane Q Public and I'm looking for a good breeder. I can tell a good breeder who doesn't apart from a bad breeder who does because... they say so? Honestly _I'm_ starting to get disillusioned at this point (this thread and the double merle thread). Sigh.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> If they're killing pups for lack of homes they are still overproducing. . ."not overproducing" would mean not breeding those puppies in the first place.


I know people are going to jump on the fact that I actuallly think it is okay to breed dogs for specific traits. It's a bad, bad thing to breed a dog for excellence since all dogs are equal, after all. Except shelter dogs who are better than intentionally bred dogs. Ingrid and Wayne say so. But, the fact is, if you are looking to improve on certain traits and produce excellence, you're not likely to get it by breeding a litter every other year or so, unless you are part of a consortium. Not every dog in a litter is going to be the next generation. Sometimes it takes breeding more than occasionally to get that next dog you want to breed. Generally these days that means the rejects are sterilized. But there are "old timers" out there who still do it the old way. And some of them produce excellent dogs. One of the top Aussie breeders in the country culls (kills) for lack of white trim. I wouldn't buy from them, because I wouldn't support that, and because I prefer my Aussies "plain"


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> So, I'm Jane Q Public and I'm looking for a good breeder. I can tell a good breeder who doesn't apart from a bad breeder who does because... they say so? Honestly _I'm_ starting to get disillusioned at this point (this thread and the double merle thread). Sigh.


Actually, I've found the breeders who do state it as fact.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> The gist of this thread is "yes, some good breeders kill healthy dogs/puppies. You can't say they're bad because of this". I would consider that to be a bad breeder. And a bad person. But evidently it is not uncommon or looked down upon. If it is tolerated and not condemned, it's hard not to "paint them all with the same brush".


Not unless you think you have the right to impose your sense of ethics on everyone else. It is, btw increasingly uncommon to cull (kill) healthy puppies as we view our pets more and more as family members and less and less as animals bred for a specific purpose.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Less common, yet someone who does it still gets to be "one of the top Aussie breeders" and is evidently still well-respected. 

If we never imposed ethics on other people, there would be no laws. It just depends on what the majority wants.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Pawzk9 said:


> I'm still waiting to hear from the people who believe the German system is better - about whether they still use the breed warden system, which culls (kills) substandard or excess puppies.


I could never support such a system, it reminds me too much of what they did to the Jews, which is why I'll never move to Germany! 

The only time a pup should be hard culled is if there is a serious disability that would cause quality of life issues, since there are so manay ways to maintain QOL via wheelchairs and training it means htere are very few situations where I'd condone hard culling. As far as adults being Euthed, only if they are severly tempermentally unstable or if they are seriously ill and (again) QOL is affected

As far as Culling via S/N in pups any that would have serious faults should be sold on a strict S/N contract to PET homes after it's breeders discresion. 

Adults should be taken out of a breeding program if it's found they carry any health conditions that could cause harm/be passed to pups, if they turn out tempermentally unstable or if they prove they are unable to produce quality pups (for show or work)


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Pazk9 I was thinking the samething about those who do it.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> When I chose to cull a male I made the decision not to breed him (though he's staying intact) and remove him from my breeding program. Not remove him from the living. It is not required he be killed to be culled.


I'm gonna assume that this is one of many changes that have occurred since old school days but nothing in this world is 100% or perfect so to speak


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I can't imagine that ALL "old-school" breeders killed dogs. Was compassion completely lacking in the past? Was empathy for animals only recently invented? Did only the old Natives believe life was sacred? Ugh.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> I can't imagine that ALL "old-school" breeders killed dogs. Was compassion completely lacking in the past? Was empathy for animals only recently invented? Did only the old Natives believe life was sacred? Ugh.


 
My mother bred Dobes for nearly 30 years and then GSD for 10, she and as far as I knew, the people she dealt with (using her Studs or she using theirs) did not hard cull unless the pup was severly deformed, which rarely happened. This was in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Willowy said:


> I can't imagine that ALL "old-school" breeders killed dogs. Was compassion completely lacking in the past? Was empathy for animals only recently invented? Did only the old Natives believe life was sacred? Ugh.


It's just how it was. People found dog fighting acceptable. Child labor was fine. Beating your wife was ok too. Times change. 

People needed dogs to do a job. Pet dogs were uncommon. The breeder couldn't keep every dog it was practical. 

There wasn't s/n and there were not pet homes. 



cshellenberger said:


> My mother bred Dobes for nearly 30 years and then GSD for 10, she and as far as I knew, the people she dealt with (using her Studs or she using theirs) did not hard cull unless the pup was severly deformed, which rarely happened. This was in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's.


Even by the 50s many people had pet dogs. Before that actually. Look at things before the UK kennel club came into existence. Look at when most dogs were bred for and kept for work and only the few had pets. For some even if offered a pet dog would have been a burden and unwanted. 

I can understand why lethal culling was used in old times. 

Would Georgian shepherds have pet homes available to CO which would harm the flock or not protect them? Nope and they sure wouldn't keep such dogs for their own pets. Would war dogs without drive, nerve and aggression be found a pet home. No I'm sure they were killed. What I've also read is they wouldn't want common people to have such dogs. These dogs were reserved for a specific use.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Before there were vaccinations a lot of pups died from distemper. Worms were a big problem and effective natural de-wormers have a pesky side effect of sometimes being fatal. I'm not sure that an old Georgian Shepherd could afford to kill any of his surviving dogs as long as they worked at least a little. Soldier dogs that didn't work out probably were killed---but what did they do with men who didn't want to be soldiers? Probably killed them too. And I know that routine s/n has been available since the '30s at least. . .maybe not common but available. Just seems like too many people like to justify their actions with "it's the old way" when things are so different now that any "old ways" are obsolete and unnecessary.


----------



## lisahi (Jun 19, 2011)

Spicy1_VV said:


> Wrong. It is correct in the terms you speak but not as it applies in general or to breeding dogs.
> 
> Cull doesn't only apply to wild animal slaughters or hunting.
> 
> ...


In the breeder context, you are correct that the term "non-lethal culling" is used. But a good portion of this thread was talking about lethal culling, which is what I responded to. Lethal culling is not "to set aside" - it is in line with the standard dictionary definition of "culling."


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I've heard farmers referring to "culling" their heifers. . .but they don't sell the ones they cull out to slaughter; they go to auction to be sold to other farmers to use for breeding. Just because one farmer doesn't want to use her in his breeding program doesn't mean she isn't a good heifer. I'm not sure if "cull" is used more often in the fatal sense or the non-fatal sense. But that's why I don't like the word--too vague. And I think that some people use that vagueness to deliberately mislead others.


----------



## lisahi (Jun 19, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I've heard farmers referring to "culling" their heifers. . .but they don't sell the ones they cull out to slaughter; they go to auction to be sold to other farmers to use for breeding. Just because one farmer doesn't want to use her in his breeding program doesn't mean she isn't a good heifer. I'm not sure if "cull" is used more often in the fatal sense or the non-fatal sense. But that's why I don't like the word--too vague. And I think that some people use that vagueness to deliberately mislead others.


I think that's a good point. Before looking into it (admittedly, after I saw this thread), culling had really only one definition for me. I'm not a breeder; I don't know breeders; the only dogs I have is adopted and the only dog I ever lived with that came from a breeder was a 8-pound toy fox terrier my parents bought when I was 5. It's a poor word to use nowadays if you're using it in the context of non-lethal treatment because for some people it sparks thoughts of very lethal actions.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Willowy said:


> Before there were vaccinations a lot of pups died from distemper. Worms were a big problem and effective natural de-wormers have a pesky side effect of sometimes being fatal. I'm not sure that an old Georgian Shepherd could afford to kill any of his surviving dogs as long as they worked at least a little. Soldier dogs that didn't work out probably were killed---but what did they do with men who didn't want to be soldiers? Probably killed them too. And I know that routine s/n has been available since the '30s at least. . .maybe not common but available. Just seems like too many people like to justify their actions with "it's the old way" when things are so different now that any "old ways" are obsolete and unnecessary.


Yes and no. With vaccine and modern wormers we can save the part of the population which would be susceptible to this. On the other hand not having vaccines would cause survival those susceptible to distemper would die out, the other live, reproduce and create a resistant strain. This is proven fact, so its not as if every breeder of old faced this problem. 
At times to half the litter could be lost but other survive. Out of the remaining 5 pups only the best need be kept. 

Anyway they couldn't afford NOT to kill them. If they won't protect the flock they are useless and if they harm stock and can't be trusted they are a huge liability. 

Also I don't believe nomadic tribes today have access to vaccines. When breeds survive and thrube without such at times you end up with a breed that has a high resistance to infectious disease.

I'm not sure on men being killed, its possible but it serves to prove my point the mentality was different. 

Even in sometimes working breeders have culled for cosmetic reasons. 
Blue Pits were culled at birth by some 
Dutch Shepherds ended up with dogs being culled over color. At the time standards were being introduced and dogs being shown BUT these were still working dog breeders that killed dogs who were the "wrong" color when people decided what should or shouldn't be allowed. 

I've seen working dog breeders say they don't care what it looks like as long as it works and scream bloody murder over show breeders like RR who cull pups born with white legs or no ridge yet some working breeders are just as guilty of killing pups over a color believed to be inferior, an off colored pup because its "abnormal" or simply because everyone else did it. 




lisahi said:


> In the breeder context, you are correct that the term "non-lethal culling" is used. But a good portion of this thread was talking about lethal culling, which is what I responded to. Lethal culling is not "to set aside" - it is in line with the standard dictionary definition of "culling."


This thread is about culling. Lethal and non lethal. 
I made note of non lethal and definition because you said the word makes you cringe but yet it doesn't always mean an animal must die. That's what I was pointing out. Good breeders must practice selective breeding but it doesn't mean they have to kill.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Willowy said:


> I can't imagine that ALL "old-school" breeders killed dogs. Was compassion completely lacking in the past? Was empathy for animals only recently invented? Did only the old Natives believe life was sacred? Ugh.


How could you possibly think that *"all old school" *breeders killed their dogs/pups. Do you add stuff in your replies just to stir the pot, I don't have a clue as to who the old natives are, American Indians, Australian Aborigines etc etc etc. I also would not have a clue as to whether or not any of them used culling cause I was not there and am not going to jump to wild conclusions.



> I've heard farmers referring to "culling" their heifers. . .but they don't sell the ones they cull out to slaughter; they go to auction to be sold to other farmers to use for breeding. Just because one farmer doesn't want to use her in his breeding program doesn't mean she isn't a good heifer.


Another conclusion, while some may do the heifer culling as you describe it, I have some experience with dairy and after heifer's 1st calf and she starts milking if her milk production is not appropriate she is sold as a canner. To sell as a breed prospect would/could be unethical and surely with more milk production you don't sell it to another dairy farmer.



> I'm not a breeder; I don't know breeders;


I'm gonna find me a rocket science forum and I hope they don't take anything I say seriously as it could set rocket science back decades. 

I think having a litter and finding a pup that will, to say the least would not have quality of life because of a physical defect calls for a decision to be made. It's not for the faint of heart.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

wvasko said:


> How could you possibly think that *"all old school" *breeders killed their dogs/pups. Do you add stuff in your replies just to stir the pot, I don't have a clue as to who the old natives are, American Indians, Australian Aborigines etc etc etc. I also would not have a clue as to whether or not any of them used culling cause I was not there and am not going to jump to wild conclusions.


The American Indians here refer to themselves as Natives. I've never heard them use anything else and they especially dislike being called Indian (because they're not from India!). It's not traditional for them to kill animals for any reason other than food, and even then they give thanks to the Spirits that provided that animal's life, because to them all life is sacred and must be accounted for. So that's what I meant by "old Natives" (as opposed to old non-Natives) .

And comments about "old-school" methods sure makes it sound like it was everybody. If they lived in old-school times they must have engaged in old-school actions, right? 

I can see why they had to kill some puppies/kittens back before spay/neuter was available (well, spaying anyway; castration has been done ever since animals were first domesticated) but now it just seems uncivilized.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Amaryllis said:


> See, now that bothers me. If you're breeding working dogs, you know a certain percentage won't work. Every generation is going to have one or two, at least, that won't make good working dogs. You know this going in, so it should be incumbent upon you, the breeder who chose to bring these pups into existence, to find good nonworking homes for the dogs. .



Sometimes dogs have holes in their instincts which make them not good working dogs, but not suitable companion animals either


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I can't imagine that ALL "old-school" breeders killed dogs. Was compassion completely lacking in the past? Was empathy for animals only recently invented? Did only the old Natives believe life was sacred? Ugh.


There you go again. Changing "some" to "all". You really need to learn to discuss the subject at hand and not make it up as you go.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> The American Indians here refer to themselves as Natives. I've never heard them use anything else and they especially dislike being called Indian (because they're not from India!). It's not traditional for them to kill animals for any reason other than food, and even then they give thanks to the Spirits that provided that animal's life, because to them all life is sacred and must be accounted for. So that's what I meant by "old Natives" (as opposed to old non-Natives) ..


As I recall, some tribes (note: Willowy, I did not say ALL tribes) considered dog "good eating."
Also , stories I've heard about Res dogs make me think that the noble "natives" may not be more spiritually attached to their dogs than non-"natives"



Willowy said:


> And comments about "old-school" methods sure makes it sound like it was everybody. If they lived in old-school times they must have engaged in old-school actions, right?
> .


Only a person incapable of actually reading and addressing what is said would think so.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Gah. OK, the conversation was "it's not required he be killed to be culled" then the response of "this is one of many changes since old-school days". It sounded like he was saying that never ever happened in "old-school days". I can't imagine that's true.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> As I recall, some tribes (note: Willowy, I did not say ALL tribes) considered dog good eating.


 Yep. Some of the older Natives I've spoken to remember it. But they still gave thanks for the life and did not kill frivolously.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Less common, yet someone who does it still gets to be "one of the top Aussie breeders" and is evidently still well-respected.
> 
> If we never imposed ethics on other people, there would be no laws. It just depends on what the majority wants.


You cannot impose ethics on anyone. You can punish them (if you can catch them) for breaking laws.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> Actually, I've found the breeders who do state it as fact.


And the ones who say they don't... never lie? Which is more my point.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> The American Indians here refer to themselves as Natives. I've never heard them use anything else and they especially dislike being called Indian (because they're not from India!). It's not traditional for them to kill animals for any reason other than food, and even then they give thanks to the Spirits that provided that animal's life, because to them all life is sacred and must be accounted for. So that's what I meant by "old Natives" (as opposed to old non-Natives) .
> 
> And comments about "old-school" methods sure makes it sound like it was everybody. If they lived in old-school times they must have engaged in old-school actions, right?
> 
> I can see why they had to kill some puppies/kittens back before spay/neuter was available (well, spaying anyway; castration has been done ever since animals were first domesticated) but now it just seems uncivilized.


 
N/A did not keep livestock until Whites came to the continent, they also did not name their children until they had reached a certain age and and MANY tribes would leave young children in the wild for 24-48 hours to test if they were strong enough to survive (as did many ancient tribes in many parts of the world). I think if people did this to their own children they would OF COURSE kill any dog that didn't do a job or posed a threat to the tribe. In fact I'm sure if times were lean enough they ate dog to survive.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Willowy said:


> The American Indians here refer to themselves as Natives. I've never heard them use anything else and they especially dislike being called Indian (because they're not from India!). It's not traditional for them to kill animals for any reason other than food, and even then they give thanks to the Spirits that provided that animal's life, because to them all life is sacred and must be accounted for. So that's what I meant by "old Natives" (as opposed to old non-Natives) .
> 
> And comments about "old-school" methods sure makes it sound like it was everybody. If they lived in old-school times they must have engaged in old-school actions, right?
> 
> I can see why they had to kill some puppies/kittens back before spay/neuter was available (well, spaying anyway; castration has been done ever since animals were first domesticated) but now it just seems uncivilized.


I guess for some. 

Others no unless its 

All life is sacred except those we chose to scalp, ect. 

Natives in many country had plenty of uncivilized ways.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

It was a comment in passing about life being viewed as sacred. Not a history lesson.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

sassafras said:


> And the ones who say they don't... never lie? Which is more my point.


And, yeah, this. How is a pet owner supposed to find a truly good breeder, one that values the dogs as individuals instead of killing those that don't meet their standards?

Next time a breeding thread comes up and someone says "there aren't ENOUGH well-bred dogs in the U.S.!" I guess I'll know why.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

> > Originally Posted by Willowy
> > The American Indians here refer to themselves as Natives. I've never heard them use anything else and they especially dislike being called Indian (because they're not from India!). It's not traditional for them to kill animals for any reason other than food, and even then they give thanks to the Spirits that provided that animal's life, because to them all life is sacred and must be accounted for. So that's what I meant by "old Natives" (as opposed to old non-Natives) .
> >
> > And comments about "old-school" methods sure makes it sound like it was everybody. If they lived in old-school times they must have engaged in old-school actions, right?
> ...


It was also VERY common for Native Americans to stampede entire herds of buffalo off cliffs, so, yeah. They were no better or worse than any other human beings.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> As I recall, some tribes (note: Willowy, I did not say ALL tribes) considered dog "good eating."
> Also , stories I've heard about Res dogs make me think that the noble "natives" may not be more spiritually attached to their dogs than non-"natives"


I summer trained in Forestburg half way between Mitchell and Huron South Dakota 8 years or so and did take a trip to a reservation and even did some heavy beer drinking with some natives in Mitchell. The word native never came up with the people I imbibed with. This was late 60s early 70s maybe they weren't natives then. Some of the native dogs I saw on the reservation would have had to die to improve their life styles.

The above is not a story, just something experienced and seen in real life cause I was actually there.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Physical defects and mental illness that significantly impact their quality of life, and extreme temperament problems that result in human aggression (NOT dog aggression or prey drive, unless the drive is so intense that is causes anxiety and suffering) that cause the dog to be a significant danger to humans are reasons for lethal culling IMO. Obviously there are plenty of reasons for non lethal culling. 

It kind of bugs me when people say that working bred dogs are impossible to place in pet homes. Yes I realize that your average run of the mill pet owner is probably looking to own something like a Golden Retriever or a Shih Tzu, but I know PLENTY of pet dog owners who do not have a problem with (or might even ENJOY) having dogs with high prey drive, dog aggression (in the case of single dog households or well managed dog packs), high energy, independent thinking or require large amounts of mental stimulation to prevent boredom. I don't believe that there is absolutely NO market for washed out working dogs. To kill a perfectly healthy dog because he's "too energetic for John Q Public" doesn't seem right to me at all. They may be a minority but I know people with BCs and cattle dogs in apartments who exercise for hours every day, and people who do sports for hobby with their dogs, and people who take their dogs on long backpacking trips, and people who hook their dogs up to scooters or go skijouring with them. There are people on this very forum that successfully own Alaskan Husky mixes as pets (a breed I commonly hear about people culling because no one could POSSIBLY own one as a pet, yeah right...). These homes do exist and i think its a shame if a breeder would rather kill dogs than even try to look for suitable pet homes. 

Also I know that no breeder produces only puppies that are ALL suited for work, but if you are breeding SO MANY inferior puppies that there is absolutely no room for them on this Earth then I think you might be doing something wrong...

ETA: No comment on what people did in the "old school" days, I prefer to focus on what people are doing in the present and future.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Nargle, please put the people looking to home working dogs that wash in touch with me. While I don't have many that I raise go to pet homes, I do help with breed rescue, and it is very hard to find suitable homes for some of those dogs. Not impossible, but it is a major responsibility placing dogs that tend to be human aggressive, nerve bags, or super destructive. Many malinois do make great "pets" if properly managed.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Spicy1_VV said:


> . . . I'm not sure on men being killed, its possible but it serves to prove my point the mentality was different. . . . .


Early to mid 1800s in Canada and the fur trade companies were battling, the Hudsons Bay Company were stealing the stored winter food supplies of the Metis and Natives in the Red River area . . . . and thus forcing starvation in those communities. Many Metis were involved with the rival North West Company and the HBC saw this cruelty as a means to an end . . . they wanted to be the trade leaders.

One of my husband's ancestors (Delorme) lost numerous children to starvation before taking part in the Battle of Seven Oaks which saw the loss of the HBC leader, Robert Semple and 20 of his men. As stories go the dead men, including Semple, were stripped of their clothing, mutilated and dismembered, and the battle winners paraded around with their clothing on to celebrate. I understand the celebration. I've not a hint of Native blood myself and I believe I'd be taking some scalps from the more 'civilised' but now dead men if I had to watch my children being starved to death through their efforts. 

Life, even of men, women and children has not always been considered as precious as it is now.

However the fact is times do change and with that societal mores and ethics. I'm glad. I'd hate to think somebody who thought they were entitled to my property could starve me and my family out!

NOW we do view our pets more and more as family members and less and less as animals bred for a specific purpose, and NOW that the spay/neuter option is available to make sure pups aren't bred forward on people are going to be making judgements about the idea of culling (killing) and what is to be gained for those doing it - if what they are producing is worth allowing culling to continue.

(Thanks Willowy - fixed the quote as it was Spicy)

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> And the ones who say they don't... never lie? Which is more my point.


The breeders I've heard it from (either live or in written interviews) seem to truly believe it is in the best interest of their breeding program/breed. Now, I can't promise you that nobody lies about anything. I'm not omnipotent or omniscient. If you ever develop an interest in owning a pure bred dog, I guess you'll just have to ask questions and go with your gut.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

(Re: SOB's post)
That's not my quote. . .I think it's Spicy1_VV's. Not that I mind but just so you know. 

I know it's not about "allowing" killing because jerks are gonna do what jerks always do. It's the fact that these people aren't being considered jerks, that they're being honored as "top breeders" and held up as examples. When they're no different from Farmer Joe who chucks his dog's puppies into the horse trough because he can't be bothered. Probably worse because they claim to actually like dogs. But their actions belie their claims.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Kuma'sMom said:


> It was also VERY common for Native Americans to stampede entire herds of buffalo off cliffs, so, yeah. They were no better or worse than any other human beings.


That's a type of hunting that's been done by humans since Neanderthal days. Heck of a lot safer than running up to a Buffalo (or Mammoth) and poking it with a spear. I would say that the white settlers who killed 95% of the Buffalo and left their corpses to rot on the plains were a magnitude more cruel than people who were trying to survive, and who kept in balance with the herds for thousands of years. 

The whole idea of 'sportsmanship' in hunting only flies when someone is doing it for fun, and not to live.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

And I'm not real sure why chasing buffalo off a cliff is worse than lining them up in a chute and putting a bolt in their heads like we do now. Seems pretty similar actually. If you need a lot of meat in an expedient manner, mass slaughter is the way to get it. Better than shooting them from the train, letting them die slowly of blood loss, infection or injury, and leaving the bodies to rot anyway. But, as I said, it was an off-the-cuff remark about their general spiritual beliefs and not meant to start a historical discussion.

After thinking about it for a while, I honestly cannot think of how anyone can justify killing puppies for reasons like not having white or their tails being wrong or whatever. That's just. . .well, evil, really. They must have no conscience and absolutely zero compassion. I try to understand other people's points of view but that one I just can't.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> After thinking about it for a while, I honestly cannot think of how anyone can justify killing puppies for reasons like not having white or their tails being wrong or whatever. That's just. . .well, evil, really. They must have no conscience and absolutely zero compassion. I try to understand other people's points of view but that one I just can't.


Yes, Last week I tried to understand the father's point of view when he grabbed his kids from the social worker then hit-em in their little heads with an axe and then blew up the home.

Let's face it some of us humans are quite savage. There was some good news though, at least the father burned up in the home. If he had lived there would have been a bunch of do-gooders not wanting him to face a death penalty.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yeah, but nobody wants to nominate that guy for "Father of the Year" award. Some of the breeders who do this win all kinds of awards (probably "Breeder of the Year" ) and praise and admiration and get to be called "good breeders".


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well please somebody step up and explain what kind of litter awards breeders are getting as I don't have a clue.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Nargle said:


> There are people on this very forum that successfully own Alaskan Husky mixes as pets (a breed I commonly hear about people culling because no one could POSSIBLY own one as a pet, yeah right...).


I wonder what kind of freak would live with a working line Alaskan Husky X IN THE CITY??! Poor doggie.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> Sometimes dogs have holes in their instincts which make them not good working dogs, but not suitable companion animals either


That just means you have to work harder to find the right home. It's not an excuse to cull.

Kit's got some herding instinct, but I certainly wouldn't stake my livelihood on it, as she's probably only half herder. She would also make a terrible companion animal for the average person (multiple owners before me), as she is too drivey and requires a lot more attention and physical/mental stimulation than most people could/would provide. Yet she makes a fabulous pet/performance dog for me, because I'm the kind of person whose idea of fun involves a 10 mile hike and teaching a dog to jump off my back and catch a disc. This type of home might not be easy to find, but it's not impossible.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> That just means you have to work harder to find the right home. It's not an excuse to cull.
> 
> Kit's got some herding instinct, but I certainly wouldn't stake my livelihood on it, as she's probably only half herder. She would also make a terrible companion animal for the average person (multiple owners before me), as she is too drivey and requires a lot more attention and physical/mental stimulation than most people could/would provide. Yet she makes a fabulous pet/performance dog for me, because I'm the kind of person whose idea of fun involves a 10 mile hike and teaching a dog to jump off my back and catch a disc. This type of home might not be easy to find, but it's not impossible.


And basically, she's a very lucky dog that she found you and didn't go through more multiple owners before being culled by the shelter system. Many dogs do not get that lucky.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

juliemule said:


> Nargle, please put the people looking to home working dogs that wash in touch with me. While I don't have many that I raise go to pet homes, I do help with breed rescue, and it is very hard to find suitable homes for some of those dogs. Not impossible, but it is a major responsibility placing dogs that tend to be human aggressive, nerve bags, or super destructive. Many malinois do make great "pets" if properly managed.


Look around on this forum and you'll see many pet dog owners who own dogs of breeds that would not be easy for the "average" pet owner, they're not impossible to find. I believe that it's a breeder's responsibility to do what's best for the puppies they choose to bring into this world, even if it means putting for the effort to look for pet homes for perfectly healthy puppies that won't work.

Also, I did mention that I believed that things like human aggression and mental illness were acceptable reasons to cull.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Cull as in put down: only when the pups have a deformity or illness that would prevent them from having a long/healthy life. My neighbors got a pup last year from a breeder that has recently put down a pup because of heart problems, not wanting to put future owners up with a chronically ill dog that wouldn't get old. This is imo a valid reason to cull a pup. 

This is about the only point where I have an opinion that's not subject to change. On the other points, like culling (not killing) to prevent the dog from ever being bred, or culling at an older age because of behavioral problems (not wanting to work, severe temperamental issues) I don't have a solid opinion, simply because I think it depends on the situation. Some examples; 

I'm against mandatory spay/neuter, especially with young pups, but I could understand that a breeder could practice culling (not killing) pups that do not have excellent working drive (or whatever) but want to see the pups going to good homes anyway while knowing they won't pass on their 'bad' genes. I personally prefer this over culling (killing) the pups. 
At the same time I don't understand that pups are culled (not killed) because they don't meet breed standards -- like not being wrinkly enough, having wrong color, not being leggy enough/being too leggy, having a straight instead of curly tail, etc. Then again, I don't think these practices are outrageous. I just don't agree with it. 

My own breed started out as faulty GSDs with a white coat. What is viewed by some as 'faults' may be viewed by others as 'virtues' and something worth preserving. If all pups with white coats had been culled from the very beginning, my breed wouldn't even exist today. So I don't agree with culling pups simply because they don't fit the breeder's view of what their dogs should look like. Who knows what wonderful dogs we can end up with. The creation and extinction of dog breeds is always ongoing.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> It was a comment in passing about life being viewed as sacred. Not a history lesson.


They viewed life as Sacred so they prayed to the spirit of the animal to help them make the hunt successful and to sacrifice itself that they might live. Every race of man has a violent and ugly background towards other humans and animals, none have ever been above wholesale slaughter.


----------



## Bordermom (Apr 28, 2010)

The current natives on the reserves do not treat their dogs well, not all of them anyway. But then most cultures don't as a rule, even north Americans if you look at the whole. Besides the point anyway.

I don't know of many 'show' breeders who cull, but then most of their 'rejects' can get spayed and do well in pet homes, which is where most end up anyway. Other than for deformities that will cause life long problems of course, I know some who will cull those pups as soon as they know there's an issue. The only show breeder that I've ever heard of culling on a bigger level bred hounds that were hard to place, and she did it if she couldn't find good homes for the pups by a set age. Not sure if she still does, since now there's internet and more communication, but this was a while ago and after camping next to the baying, smelly monsters I could see why it wasn't an easy task.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Its not impossible to place them. Just not easy either. I do not kill pups just to he clear. I don't care what a dog looks like or what color it is. Health is first, work ability is second.
I have this pup at home now. Not in the least bit aggressive, but she will bite the crap out of you. She gets excited and just snaps, at people, dogs, even stationary objects like a fence or tree. She isn't even super high drive for the breed. This is why she was going to be euthanized in her previous pet home. She will get this worked out and taught appropriate behavior without killing her drive. I don't know many people who deal with this issue, that is pretty common actually in mals. In the end she will probably turn out as an awesome work dog. She just has to learn to behave and put it all together. She will not be put in a situation where she would bite a child, or some person in a pet store either.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

juliemule said:


> Its not impossible to place them. Just not easy either. I do not kill pups just to he clear. I don't care what a dog looks like or what color it is. Health is first, work ability is second.
> I have this pup at home now. Not in the least bit aggressive, but she will bite the crap out of you. She gets excited and just snaps, at people, dogs, even stationary objects like a fence or tree. She isn't even super high drive for the breed. This is why she was going to be euthanized in her previous pet home. She will get this worked out and taught appropriate behavior without killing her drive. I don't know many people who deal with this issue, that is pretty common actually in mals. In the end she will probably turn out as an awesome work dog. She just has to learn to behave and put it all together. She will not be put in a situation where she would bite a child, or some person in a pet store either.


If she will be a good working dog, why was she placed in a pet home in the first place? If the working breeders are overproducing for their market, what makes them better than any breeder overproducing for their market?


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Willowy said:


> If she will be a good working dog, why was she placed in a pet home in the first place? If the working breeders are overproducing for their market, what makes them better than any breeder overproducing for their market?


 She was a female, and a puppy. Her breeder did not want to fool with keeping a female for a year or two, if he wasn't sure he would sell her for a nice profit. So he sold her as a pet, actually to someone that water a 'guard dog'. 
Personally I prefer females, but lots of LE don't. Most will not even consider a dog under a year old. She also doesn't have the "typical" initial characteristics that would be tested for. I have worked with her two weeks, and see them coming out nicely.

ETA, they aren't over produced. Only certain dogs meet the very high demands, even the best bred dogs may only produce a few out of a litter that are top choice dogs. That's why so many believe pups are a crap shot.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

They are overproduced if they can afford to not use females and not take time to actually see if a dog has working ability. If you can be that choosy there's clearly an overabundance.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> And basically, she's a very lucky dog that she found you and didn't go through more multiple owners before being culled by the shelter system. Many dogs do not get that lucky.


This is the only reason I.....understand (approve is NOT the right word) why some who breed working dogs would cull. It can't be easy to find the right home for a drivey dog that isn't quite right for working. My DH and I were talking about this the other night actually in reference to Caeda. She isn't an easy dog at all, many at our classes didn't like her at first, but now having to be around her for quite some time they've started complimenting us on her intelligence, enthusiasm and beauty (still on her craziness, but hey, I'll take it!). Many people wouldn't take the time and energy to bring those things out in her (well...not your average person looking for a "house pet"). We're pretty convinced that with different owners she would have been subject to the "indirect culling" by the shelter system, or at very least (perhaps worse to some) a miserable life ignored in a back yard. 
That begs the question: What is worse? The culling by the shelter system or by the breeder that knows that the chances of this dog being a good pet are low. I suppose a person wouldn't know for sure until the dog has grown. A sad, unfortunate catch 22.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> They are overproduced if they can afford to not use females and not take time to actually see if a dog has working ability. If you can be that choosy there's clearly an overabundance.


A larger number of dogs doesn't mean an over-abundance of quality dogs. I know that doesn't have any meaning for you, but there are people who are trying to produce certain traits that are difficult to get. Sometimes that requires not just using any dog you happen to have, but selecting carefully. As to using or not using females in protection/protection sports. Well, there is a difference between the effects testosterone and estrogen have on behavior.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Are those "certain traits" so important that cruelty is justified? I would be very hard-pressed to think of a trait that important. If people can't use animals for their purposes without killing and hurting them, they shouldn't be using animals at all.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> If people can't use animals for their purposes without killing and hurting them, they shouldn't be using animals at all.


Guessing you are vegan?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Hmm, fine, bad wording. I should say "kill unnecessarily". I'm OK with killing for meat if the animals are treated respectfully and humanely (unfortunately I don't think the animals killed to make my pets' food were treated respectfully and humanely, but I'm not sure what to do about that. Certain amount of helplessness there). Although I don't eat meat if I can avoid it, I don't go to the lengths that vegans do to avoid all animal products (they put animal-sourced substances in everything! It's like a conspiracy). It is unfortunately necessary to kill an animal to get meat from it. You aren't going to be able to convince me that killing animals because they don't play humans games properly (either by not looking or acting right) is necessary or respectful.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Hmm, fine, bad wording. I should say "kill unnecessarily". I'm OK with killing for meat if the animals are treated respectfully and humanely (unfortunately I don't think the animals killed to make my pets' food were treated respectfully and humanely, but I'm not sure what to do about that. Certain amount of helplessness there). Although I don't eat meat if I can avoid it, I don't go to the lengths that vegans do to avoid all animal products (they put animal-sourced substances in everything! It's like a conspiracy). It is unfortunately necessary to kill an animal to get meat from it..


That's kind of what I expected. Do you watch them slaughter the animals you use? If not, not sure how you can be sure the animals are treated respectfully and humanely. Oh, I know, you thank the meat before you eat? (It doesn't care)


----------



## Bordermom (Apr 28, 2010)

You could go to the extreme of raising your own meat and killing it yourself in a manner you can live with. Or find farmers that do so and only support them, depends on how far you want to go.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

I have watched slaughter. I have worked in slaughter. That job helped me buy my home at 22.

If people on this thread are unaware slaughterhouses have been under a keen eye, and have faced charges, in recent years. They do not remain unwatched.

That is a distraction though to the very good point that Willowy made and it was "Are those "certain traits" so important that cruelty is justified? I would be very hard-pressed to think of a trait that important."

People consider eating meat important and will tolerate more in that arena than in the 'entertainment' arena of dog showing and sporting with regard to killing, how its done, and if it should be. Most will have value judgements that are different about dog sports and will not agree with the NEED to kill in order to create a more competitive sports dog. 

There are places in the US where breeding - period - of any dog has been outlawed. In NB Canada a 'model' regulation was put in place in 2010 that means that a breeder advertising for sale even a single pup has to pass an annual 'kennel' inspection - $250 - declare their home a kennel and that legal document requires they allow 'drop ins' by SPCA officers. There is call in other provinces by those involved to establish that across Canada. I talked to a humane society worker in Edmonton last year that is promoting the idea for Alberta. She is closely associated to the Edmonton SPCA director.

Breeders are being watched. We know that and there are MANY that share that exact sentiment that Willowy has put voice to. I predict that breeders are not going to have a choice but to be able to reasonably answer some hard questions, such as the one Willowy posed, in most places in the near future. I would suggest they be able to do so.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Bordermom said:


> You could go to the extreme of raising your own meat and killing it yourself in a manner you can live with. Or find farmers that do so and only support them, depends on how far you want to go.


Yes, that's an option for people who really walk their walk, not just talk the AR talk. Avoiding animal based products would be another option. People do manage to do that, though it's a lot of work - if they believe strongly enough in what they say. Me, I prefer my dinner comes packaged - without a face for me to deal with. But I have respect for people gutsy enough to kill and clean their own dinner (but I'm also not making pronouncements about how people shouldn't use animals at all if they can't avoid killing them.)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> I have watched slaughter. I have worked in slaughter. That job helped me buy my home at 22.
> 
> That is a distraction though to the very good point that Willowy made and it was "Are those "certain traits" so important that cruelty is justified? I would be very hard-pressed to think of a trait that important."
> 
> ...


Breeders are being watched. But it has nothing to do with whether they cull dogs or puppies. It has to do with AR not wanting any animal use.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> Breeders are being watched. But it has nothing to do with whether they cull dogs or puppies. It has to do with AR not wanting any animal use.


And you THINK that whether they cull(kill) dogs or puppies and readily accept their peers doing so is not going to affect sentiment and support for breeders when it comes to those pushing for laws and regulations?

SOB


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> That's kind of what I expected. Do you watch them slaughter the animals you use? If not, not sure how you can be sure the animals are treated respectfully and humanely. Oh, I know, you thank the meat before you eat? (It doesn't care)





Bordermom said:


> You could go to the extreme of raising your own meat and killing it yourself in a manner you can live with. Or find farmers that do so and only support them, depends on how far you want to go.


What does this have to do with culling, again?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

spanielorbust said:


> And you THINK that whether they cull(kill) dogs or puppies and readily accept their peers doing so is not going to affect sentiment and support for breeders when it comes to those pushing for laws and regulations?
> 
> SOB


Of course not, because it's not that such practices are wrong, it's because only crazy unreasonable people would find them so! :/


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

sassafras said:


> Of course not, because it's not that such practices are wrong, it's because only crazy unreasonable people would find them so! :/


_"15th February 2012 7:28 am


The Greens will table a bill today which addresses unregulated and inhumane breeding and selling of cats and dogs in the ACT. (Australian Capital Territory)

“We have to act to reduce the abandonment, suffering and euthanizing of thousands of animals in Canberra every year,” Greens TAMS spokesperson, Caroline Le Couteur MLA, said today.

Tragically, the TAMS Domestic Animal Service euthanised 210 dogs in 2010/11, and the RSPCA was also forced to euthanise 105 dogs and 825 cats.

“For two years now we’ve waited for the Government to act on an undertaking they made to introduce a Code of Practice to address the issue.

“Meanwhile other jurisdictions have moved to address these exact problems. The Victorian and Queensland Governments have both moved to regulate puppy breeding. There was a long time when the ACT was leading the country in animal welfare standards, but this is no longer the case.

“Through our consultation process, the Greens received a huge amount of support for this Bill, including from the animal welfare community and the general public.

The Greens’ Bill includes:
• Licensing of cat and dog breeders, and mandatory standards for breeding operations
• Desexing of appropriately aged pets at point of sale
• Strengthened animal cruelty laws
• A new system of microchip traceability to ensure breeders are known
• Regulation of the advertising of animals for sale
• Limiting cat and dog sales to licensed and regulated sellers.

“I think that Canberrans buying a pet will welcome the assurance that the animal has not been inhumanly bred or mistreated prior to sale.

“The Greens have consistently pushed for these animal welfare reforms. There is no reason that dog loving MLAs shouldn’t support this pro-puppy bill,” Ms Le Couteur said."_​
http://act.greens.org.au/content/greens-call-dog-loving-mlas’-support-bill

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/b/db_43988/default.asp

SOB


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Oops, maybe not.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Breeders are being watched. But it has nothing to do with whether they cull dogs or puppies. It has to do with AR not wanting any animal use.


Yeah, because some people just woke up one day and said "wow, everybody treats their animals SO WELL, but we're bored so we think we'll stir things up a little"? You don't think that AR arose in response to cruel treatment?

HSUS was responsible for those slaughterhouse guys who were pushing the live cows around with forklifts being brought to justice. Yeah, there are fairly strict regulations for slaughterhouses to abide by, it was against the rules and everybody knew it, but do you think their friends were going to turn them in? Not likely. Should they have been allowed to get away with that and feel empowered to keep doing it? 

Of course, now the meat packing people (who are politically powerful--$$$$) want to make it illegal to film stuff like that, but even a lot of farmers think that's ridiculous and an assault on rights and free speech. If your actions can't stand up to scrutiny, you shouldn't be doing them.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Workng dogs are far from being overproduced, or greatly numbered. In fact, lots of mixed breed dogs are taken from shelters to be worked as detection dogs. Detection dogs have different criteria than dual purpose, or patrol dogs however, so are easier to come by, yet are still not easy to find. Look at all the shelter dogs, and few have what it takes to work.

Look at the dogs that perform as patrol dogs facing down a criminal with a gun charging the officer. Maybe the officers gun jambs, or is taken from him, or they need non lethal force. That mans life depends on his dog, and most dogs don't have the nerve, control, and drive to really be depended on. Its the best of the best. This isn't a sport or agility. Look into military dogs. There are many reasons to remove dogs from the breeding pool. I don't agree with killing puppies, but culling means to remove. Removing a dog instead of using it in a breeding program should be done for a variety of reasons. It would only in a perfect world that every dog bred had a purpose and it would work perfectly. Look at show dogs, not every dog is a champion, regardless of how it is bred. That's just looks and conformation alone, so imagine adding in all the necessities of a confident, able patrol or military dog. Its not as easy as knew may think.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

juliemule said:


> Its not impossible to place them. Just not easy either. I do not kill pups just to he clear. I don't care what a dog looks like or what color it is. Health is first, work ability is second.
> I have this pup at home now. Not in the least bit aggressive, but she will bite the crap out of you. She gets excited and just snaps, at people, dogs, even stationary objects like a fence or tree. She isn't even super high drive for the breed. This is why she was going to be euthanized in her previous pet home. She will get this worked out and taught appropriate behavior without killing her drive. I don't know many people who deal with this issue, that is pretty common actually in mals. In the end she will probably turn out as an awesome work dog. She just has to learn to behave and put it all together. She will not be put in a situation where she would bite a child, or some person in a pet store either.


Lack of bite inhibition is a VERY VERY common problem among pet dogs, too. I don't go onto the first time dog owner forum often, but there always seems to be people asking about advice on how to get their puppy to stop biting. I've actually dealt with the problems myself with my own dog. He gets really really worked up and excited and starts to bite your legs. I'm dealing with it quite successfully and I got him when I was 18, I'm a first time dog owner and I live in an apartment. I'm not a training expert, I'm not a seasoned and experienced dog owner, but I still manage just fine. That is not a problem that a regular pet owner can't handle, and I don't think it warrants the killing of a perfectly healthy dog. (Also you mention that the previous owners were going to have her euthanized, of course there are always going to be pet homes that are NOT suited for an intense dog, and people who jump the gun and euthanize for everything without even TRYING training or behavioral modification. This is not representative of ALL pet owners in the world, though!)


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Its not typical puppy nipping. There is a huge difference. Malinois are different. In fact, many breed for no bite inhibition, and specifically pick dogs for breeding programs that specifically challenge and have people aggression for the fearless dogs that ara required. Its a whole different ball game than mouthy labs or nippy border collies.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Nargle I agree with you, I don't see much justification in killing any healthy dog, and some extreme dogs can do well in some pet homes. There are lots of lazy malinois, but even a lazy mal is more energy than most want to handle. I train dogs and place them where they will(hopefully) do the best. Even aggressive dogs, can be managed.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

juliemule said:


> Its not typical puppy nipping. There is a huge difference. Malinois are different. In fact, many breed for no bite inhibition, and specifically pick dogs for breeding programs that specifically challenge and have people aggression for the fearless dogs that ara required. Its a whole different ball game than mouthy labs or nippy border collies.


What I was talking about wasn't just puppy nipping either. There's a difference between a dog that doesn't know how to use his mouth and a dog who gets totally over stimulated and goes into drive and bites. That's still something that's possible to control with training though. But if it starts to cross over into the realm of human aggression (which is not something that cannot be controlled with training and is much much more dangerous), AGAIN, for the third time, I mentioned that HA is an acceptable reason to cull.



juliemule said:


> Nargle I agree with you, I don't see much justification in killing any healthy dog, and some extreme dogs can do well in some pet homes. There are lots of lazy malinois, but even a lazy mal is more energy than most want to handle. I train dogs and place them where they will(hopefully) do the best. Even aggressive dogs, can be managed.


Oops I replied before I saw this. Glad to see we're on the same page.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Nargle said:


> AGAIN, for the third time, I mentioned that HA is an acceptable reason to cull.


 Even if they deliberately bred for it? :/ I don't think people should be breeding for qualities that they aren't prepared to manage for the dog's entire life. 

Also, if these working dogs are SO VERY NECESSARY for the functioning of human society, why don't we treat them with more respect? They deserve better.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

juliemule said:


> Its not typical puppy nipping. There is a huge difference. Malinois are different. In fact, many breed for no bite inhibition, and specifically pick dogs for breeding programs that specifically challenge and have people aggression for the fearless dogs that ara required. Its a whole different ball game than mouthy labs or nippy border collies.


 
You know, I can remember a time this was said of Dobermans too then they fell out of favor with the military and police departments for bite work in the US. The fact is, ANY pup can be taught 
bite inhibition. My Dober girl is in fact from lines that are still used in Chzecoslovakia as police and military dogs FOR bite work, she is in a PET home and has excellent bite inhibition (yet she didn't at six months when I get her) it's not all pet owners true, but there are pet owners out there that certainly CAN handle a working line dog. It's up to the BREEDER to properly screen them to be sure and it's still no excuse for breeders to kill adoptable dogs. Frankly they shouldn't breed if they don't have a whole litters worth of potential pet homes JUST IN CASE.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> Even if they deliberately bred for it? :/ I don't think people should be breeding for qualities that they aren't prepared to manage for the dog's entire life.
> 
> Also, if these working dogs are SO VERY NECESSARY for the functioning of human society, why don't we treat them with more respect? They deserve better.


The fact is, there ARE dogs that are NOT manageable, even in bite work the dog should ONLY bite on command (or in certain situations to protect the human handler). The ONLY way to garauntee these dogs will not bite at inapropriate times is to euthinize them. It should be the LAST resort true, but many dogs are CULLED in shelters EVERYDAY for far less, if the breeder takes the dog back and sees it's not a managable situation, then the dog should be put down.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Dogs are killed in shelters for no reason at all, but the breeders are actually bringing them into the world. There really is a world of difference (although of course I also disapprove of shelters killing healthy animals too). 

Yes, some dogs are mentally ill and will never be safe. If a breeder is producing mentally ill dogs on a regular basis something has gone wrong . If they're deliberately breeding for crazy, they shouldn't be surprised when they get it.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> Dogs are killed in shelters for no reason at all, but the breeders are actually bringing them into the world. There really is a world of difference (although of course I also disapprove of shelters killing healthy animals too).


Damn few of the breeders that are responsible are contributing to shelter populations, breeders that are culling via S/N or traditionally are CERTAINLY minimizing the number THEIR of dogs that end up in shelters. I know of NO responsible breeders that are producing mentally ill dogs on purpose (that's not something I'd even accuse puppy mills or BYB of). 

You can twist this any way you want to, the fact is the vast majority of dogs that are culled are NOT by breeders, but by shelters thanks to IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERS and the class of breeder that fails to screen suitability of potential puppy buyers. Breeders that cull in any form are not contributing to the shelter problem, in fact they are preventing overpopulation problems. You pay it now or you pay it later.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

This whole thread is making me feel kind of ill. And the idea that some here are trying to make anyone who opposes culling (killing) healthy (but somehow inferior to the breeding program) puppies sound like AR nutjobs is even worse. No, I don't think people should be prevented from having pets. I don't think we should mandate veganism. I don't even think we should interfere too much with the way individuals choose to care for and treat their animals. But NO WAY does that mean I (or even most people) would be just fine with culling healthy animals. I'm horrified by the responses to this thread and I just have to say that like a few others I am completely disillusioned with the idea of "good breeders" and acceptable breeding practices. If this isn't seen as unacceptable by people who show lots of interest in responsible breeding practices (like health testing) then what the hell is?? I understand that this apparently isn't an across the board practice but that fact that it isn't being condemned here...it dramatically changes my perspective on things, that's for sure.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

cshellenberger said:


> Damn few of the breeders that are responsible are contributing to shelter populations, breeders that are culling via S/N or traditionally are CERTAINLY minimizing the number THEIR of dogs that end up in shelters.
> 
> You can twist this any way you want to, the fact is the vast majority of dogs that are culled are NOT by breeders, but by shelters thanks to IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERS and the class of breeder that fails to screen suitability of potential puppy buyers. Breeders that cull in any form are not contributing to the shelter problem, in fact they are preventing overpopulation problems. You pay it now or you pay it later.


Well, yes, it stands to reason that killing puppies (oh, excuse me, "traditional culling") will pre-emptively prevent them from ending up in shelters, but really that's some world-class spin right there to try to turn it into something positive. And anyway, who culls "the vast majority" of puppies/dogs really isn't relevant to my opinion on whether or not it's ethical for breeders to kill puppies.

ETA:



kafkabeetle said:


> I'm horrified by the responses to this thread and I just have to say that like a few others I am completely disillusioned with the idea of "good breeders" and acceptable breeding practices. If this isn't seen as unacceptable by people who show lots of interest in responsible breeding practices (like health testing) then what the hell is?? I understand that this apparently isn't an across the board practice but that fact that it isn't being condemned here...it dramatically changes my perspective on things, that's for sure.


Yes, me too. Not only not being condemned, but being defended. It makes me sad. As I get more into mushing I was pondering future puppies from breeders, but there's been a lot to digest here lately for me.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

And if you READ my first statement the only time I think it's ethical to KILL PUPPIES is if they are SEVERLY ill/deformed. In fact I think the vast majority of people in this thread think that way. It's the stream of scenarios that get presented that frankly have people argueing in circles about how things were done 50, 100 or more years ago. I'm pretty sure responsible, ethical breeders DO NOT KILL PUPS unless the pup is seriously ill/deformed. I'm also pretty sure that responsible, ethical breeders don't KILL adult dogs unless the dog is beyond help for one reason or another. The breeders that DO kill dogs for no reason other than to make room are most likely not concerned with what the majority of Americans find ethical and could certainly care less what any AR organization would think.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Oh, and most 'culling' is now done via spay/nueter to keep dogs with undesirable traits from reproducing.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Oh I must have misunderstood your statement "Damn few of the breeders that are responsible are contributing to shelter populations, breeders that are culling via S/N or traditionally are CERTAINLY minimizing the number THEIR of dogs that end up in shelters" which lumps 'traditional' culling (i.e. killing) in with S/N as something responsible breeders do to keep pups out of shelters. :/


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Also mention of a "top Aussie breeder" who offs pups for not having white trim and other things like that would certainly suggest that some who do so are considered ethical and responsible by enough people to make them "top".


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

I didn't read here that anyone is agreeing with killing pups. I think we all are against that. The fact is it still happens.

I am a firm believer that if you bred a litter those puppies are your responsibility. That goes for creating human aggressive dogs, or ones that end up crazy. Though that is probably a term describing any malinois lol.

I also think most HA dogs can be managed. Not fixed, as you can't really change the make up or experiences of a dog. You can train. Dogs that are specifically bred for protection, or extreme drives should be handled as such. Not every dog wants to be a pet. Believe it or not, some don't want to be inside on a couch, or be hugged and petted. Some strictly want a job and no nonsense with it. Just because you may not understand all that is involved with this type of dog, doesn't mean you should be closed minded. Maybe surprised at what really goes on.


----------



## sscott87 (Feb 19, 2012)

This is a topic that will always be greatly debated and will always have people on both extreme ends. With that said, I'm not a fan of breeding. However, with that said, I understand and respect the fact that some people want exactly what they want and thus there will always be someone out there producing it. In this case, purebreds and breeders. For a breeder to PTS animals that simply are not up to exact standards, that have some sort of minor imperfections making them less than ideal for further breeding, this I find absurd and irresponsible in and of itself. "Hey, I'm going to make and sell puppies for money but those that don't come out exactly up to par, well, I'll put them down." Come on, seriously? Anyway, I'll stop on that one. 

Even so, while still not a fan, I can at least somewhat understand the reasoning for those raising working dogs of particular breeds. Ok, this dog is far from an ideal working dog and for whatever real reasons will not do well in a home. So perhaps there are particular situations along those lines in which the best option may indeed be to PTS the dog(s) rather than having them end up strays or in shelters where they may end up once again being deemed unfit to be adopted and thus still PTS. 

The scenarios are endless and we all have opinions on them. I think some of the people, and friends, I've known that have paid big money to breeders for specific dogs are crazy. I don't blame the breeders for breeding them (unless again, they're being irresponsible and simply PTS any "imperfect" but otherwise great pups), but I find those doing the buying to be (more often than not) ridiculous. It is what it is though, and the only ones that we all (or a majority of us anyway) can likely agree upon is that those breeders who PTS anything from a litter that doesn't "meet standards" is absurd and wrong. Have the animal neutered and proceed to find a loving home for it that doesn't care about such minute things.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

After thinking about it, I can't figure out why my opinion on this is so drastically different from my opinion on most dog/ breeder issues. 

I feel as though there are certain things in life that can be changed, and certain things that can't be changed. The fact that I think something is morally wrong is rarely going to stop someone who considers it morally right, or even just justified.

It SUCKS to say, but there just simply are not the resources in the US to regulate such an issue. The existence of puppy mills and agriculture laws can speak to that- there simply are not enough officials to prevent every animal problem that a majority of the population disagrees with. 

If the people that are defending culling (to kill) are being truthful, then this doesn't appear to be an issue/situation that is faced by the majority of breeders. MOST breeds can easily be placed into pet homes if they don't turn out to be exactly what the breeder is looking for. High energy/ high drive dogs- there simply are going to be more dogs than homes. Does this make the idea of killing puppies any better? Absolutely not, but at this point in time, its going to happen when the breeders want it to happen. 

If puppies are going to be PTS, I would rather a licensed veterinarian do it than a breeder. Making something like this illegal isn't going to stop it- it's just going to mean that different people do the culling.

In an idyllic world, all the dogs born would have great homes, and dogs would have a higher legal and societal status than other animals. But until that happens, I'm going to focus my efforts on helping to prevent the 3 million shelter dogs from being born, as opposed to the thousand(s)? that are culled by breeders that are breeding a dog for a specific job. One is going to happen regardless of what others think. I have a much better chance at convincing John Doe to S/N his mutts than I do convincing a working malinois breeder to stop culling.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Yeah, because some people just woke up one day and said "wow, everybody treats their animals SO WELL, but we're bored so we think we'll stir things up a little"? You don't think that AR arose in response to cruel treatment?
> 
> HSUS was responsible for those slaughterhouse guys who were pushing the live cows around with forklifts being brought to justice. Yeah, there are fairly strict regulations for slaughterhouses to abide by, it was against the rules and everybody knew it, but do you think their friends were going to turn them in? Not likely. Should they have been allowed to get away with that and feel empowered to keep doing it?
> 
> Of course, now the meat packing people (who are politically powerful--$$$$) want to make it illegal to film stuff like that, but even a lot of farmers think that's ridiculous and an assault on rights and free speech. If your actions can't stand up to scrutiny, you shouldn't be doing them.


No. I think animal welfare arose in response to cruel treatment. And I think those slaughterhouse guys WERE H$U$.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Willowy said:


> Even if they deliberately bred for it? :/ I don't think people should be breeding for qualities that they aren't prepared to manage for the dog's entire life.
> 
> Also, if these working dogs are SO VERY NECESSARY for the functioning of human society, why don't we treat them with more respect? They deserve better.


I'm going to say I honestly don't know about every niche for working dogs that are out there and that I don't know if there truly are breeders who NEED to breed HA into their dogs for a totally essential working purpose (I'm not talking about sports or something that can be replaced with modern technology or anything, I'm talking about something that's absolutely necessary), but I REALLY REALLY do not like the idea of breeding crazy or dangerous dogs on purpose, and for the vast majority of breeders, that's completely wrong. However if a pup just happens to have an incorrect temperament and is abnormally HA, then that would be a reason in my mind to cull.

Also I definitely agree about treating working dogs with respect. Unfortunately there are people that just view a working dog as another tool.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Ok this is hard to explain. Its not so much human aggression, as it is a confidence or (the dreaded word) dominance. Some of the hardest hitting dogs are friendly, if there is not a threat. They need to be very strong nerved, and ready to act in any situation. They bite and do not let go until told. This is nothing like a house pet. They truly are extreme dogs.

So picture a big man, gunfire going off, lots of yelling, sirens, the man has a stick, is screaming at the dog picking him up off the ground, even if he strikes the dog, that dog does not let go. 

Picture a war dog, in extreme heat, with military vehicles, gunfire, helicopters, explosions and commotion, this dog is searching for bombs. 

These dogs LIVE to do these jobs, and of all the technology we have they are still by far the best at detecting any scent. All for a game of tug. Necessary, maybe not, but a huge benefit.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> And you THINK that whether they cull(kill) dogs or puppies and readily accept their peers doing so is not going to affect sentiment and support for breeders when it comes to those pushing for laws and regulations?
> 
> SOB


I think it will be used (and made to sound like common practice rather than uncommon) And exploited, and people will jump to conclusions (and make false assumptions, just as they did on the double merle thread). If AR doesn't get a rise in one place, they'll go for it in others. The fact is, it is not common practice any more. I can understand the concept and even if I don't agree with their methods, I can sometimes muster respect for people who have produced exceptional dogs.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> And I think those slaughterhouse guys WERE H$U$.


 I can't find info on all of them. But in many cases the employees who did it were longtime established employees. Only the hidden camera guy was new. And I've talked to guys who worked at slaughterhouses who say that does happen. So if someone catches it on camera the only difference is the filming. Conspiracy theories make people sound like whackos.


----------



## sscott87 (Feb 19, 2012)

Rescued said:


> After thinking about it, I can't figure out why my opinion on this is so drastically different from my opinion on most dog/ breeder issues.
> 
> I feel as though there are certain things in life that can be changed, and certain things that can't be changed. The fact that I think something is morally wrong is rarely going to stop someone who considers it morally right, or even just justified.
> 
> ...


I think you stated my sentiments better than I could hope to. I don't agree with it in probably 98% of such cases where there is seemingly no significant reason...but I'm not all that adamant against it specifically, either, probably in part because I'm not a huge fan of breeding anyway, aside from those breeding for a purpose, work dogs, etc rather than simply to sell as so many do. It's really a pick-your-poison thing, as much as I wish it wasn't. Good explanation.



juliemule said:


> Ok this is hard to explain. Its not so much human aggression, as it is a confidence or (the dreaded word) dominance. Some of the hardest hitting dogs are friendly, if there is not a threat. They need to be very strong nerved, and ready to act in any situation. They bite and do not let go until told. This is nothing like a house pet. They truly are extreme dogs.
> 
> These dogs LIVE to do these jobs, and of all the technology we have they are still by far the best at detecting any scent. All for a game of tug. Necessary, maybe not, but a huge benefit.


I haven't read far enough back to see where you stand on the culling thing exactly, but as for those dogs bred for such purposes that don't live up to the mentality, skills, personality, etc etc in order to get the job done, those are still dogs that more often than not can go to good homes. And that's where a lot of us on here seem to be in agreement as to a situation in which it's definitely frowned upon. That, hey, this puppy or young dog isn't up to the standard for whatever his purpose may be, so instead of attempting to find a home for home, someone that likely would take the dog in as-is and love it, I'll just put it down.

THAT is a shame.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I can't find info on all of them. But in many cases the employees who did it were longtime established employees. Only the hidden camera guy was new. And I've talked to guys who worked at slaughterhouses who say that does happen. So if someone catches it on camera the only difference is the filming. Conspiracy theories make people sound like whackos.


Can you find info on any of them? Unsubstantiated and unsupported claims also make people sound like wackos. (not to mention, well, it's only okay to kill animals if you have to eat them.)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yep, there's plenty of info if you Google it. Statements from the slaughterhouses that this new guy started, was a good employee but quiet (or whatever they say about him/her), then he quit and suddenly a video surfaced. 

So you think it's just fine to kill an animals for any reason at any time? No standards at all?


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

sscott87 said:


> I think you stated my sentiments better than I could hope to. I don't agree with it in probably 98% of such cases where there is seemingly no significant reason...but I'm not all that adamant against it specifically, either, probably in part because I'm not a huge fan of breeding anyway, aside from those breeding for a purpose, work dogs, etc rather than simply to sell as so many do. It's really a pick-your-poison thing, as much as I wish it wasn't. Good explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I do not cull, in this context kill, or support breeders who do, for any reason other than a major health factor. I do support spaying or removing dogs not up to par from breeding programs. I work with rehoming and rehabbing dogs that don't work. My point is only that it is tough to find appropriate homes. 

I currently have a female that was in an extreme abuse situation. This has been the worse dog I have ever dealt with. It has been four years or training, or attempting to, conditioning, and rehab for a dog that is not safe. She will not leave here, as long as I am able to care for her. She has opened up around me, plays with the dogs, and only a month ago began playing tug (gently) with me. If anyone else, even my son who has attempted to help is anywhere near she shuts down. Last week she greeted the meter man with a tail wag and trotted with him down the fence to the kennel meter. Now if he had so much as sneezed, she would have hid. I believe there is hope for almost every dog. She will never work, or be a door greeter for company, trusted with children, or visit busy Parks or bus pet stores. Though you should see her "smile" when she runs with her pack through the fields and creek, and happily is by my side doing farm chores and feeding horses.

I am all for saving imperfect dogs. I don't think color should matter, or "between 24 to 29 inches at the withers " to say if a dog is what it should be. Health, nerve, ability is what is important to me.
I do understand why some want a toy dog, or a certain color, or characteristic, I just don't agree with the same reasons personally.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

I think another point (again, let me reiterate that culling[killing] is not something I morally find right, and not something I would ever choose to partake in when breeding) is that a lot of the high drive, working dogs will simply NOT be happy in a home situation/ will ONLY be happy in a high energy, demanding working environment. I feel that at some point, we have to consider QUALITY of life over life itself. There is a "no-kill" shelter in my state that has been under scrutiny for years. While I have never personally visited the facility, all the evidence I've seen points to dogs living out their entire lives in a 8 x 10 run, fed twice a day. They're alive, but not much else is taken care of. (sidenote- I've heard people compare this to abortion- "would YOU want to die if your mom was pro abortion?!?!?" Which IMO is ridiculous- I love my dogs as much as anyone else, but at the end of the day, they're dogs. They don't have the capability to become anthropomorphic thinkers like **** sapiens does.)

Yes, in my ideal world humans would not need (or "want," if you prefer) to breed more working dogs than there are homes for, and cull the inferior ones. That being said, I'm relatively sure that the breeders engaging in this practice are set in their ways, and my telling them that I think they have no morals is going to do nothing but push them away from the idea of rescue when they create a puppy that isn't good at what it was bred for, but CAN live a happy life in a pet home.

We had a rescued GS Pointer growing up that had obviously run off from a hunter in a gunshy panic and never returned. The dog was crazy- clawed through sheetrock four times, broke out of a wire crate, scaled an electric fence, ect. ect. ect. (this is a ~50 lb lanky female dog). We kept her until she was PTS for terminal cancer at ~15, and just sort of dealt with all of her problems as they came- we had SO many people tell us if they were her owner she'd have been PTS a long time ago, and I don't disagree. 

As crazy as she was, I still LOVE the breed itself. When she was spayed, the vet said she had previously had five litters. I shudder thinking about all of those puppies, as I'm sure many of them didn't have owners that put up with what we did (not saying we're the best owners earth has ever seen, but I would rank us pretty good in a rural area of mostly outdoor dogs) and I always think about all the dogs we were unable to help (we started fostering heavily when she got old and less [capable of acting on her] DA tendencies). There are so many dogs out there that need homes, I don't think vindicating breeders that cull their working stock is getting our society any closer to where I think it should be, in terms of animal welfare.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Yep, there's plenty of info if you Google it. Statements from the slaughterhouses that this new guy started, was a good employee but quiet (or whatever they say about him/her), then he quit and suddenly a video surfaced.
> 
> So you think it's just fine to kill an animals for any reason at any time? No standards at all?


Oh, well, then. IT must be true. It would also be true that if H$U$ really was concerned about animal abuse or public health, they would have released the video in a timely manner instead of several months later when they had a "slow news day" 

Why would you suggest that I think it is just fine to kill an animal with "no standards?" Can you provide exactly where you think I said that, or is it just the kind of ad hominem attack you use when you can't come up with anything else? I think that animals should be treated humanely. I treat animals humanely. I help others learn to treat their own animals more humanely. However I don't make statements about not using animals if we kill them, and then not really believing it enough to practice what I preach. I do eat animals. And I eat plants that animals died for the cultivation of. And humans aren't the only dealers of death. We are all dinner for somebody. Doesn't mean I go around killing stuff for jollies. I killed a dog earlier this year. But it was because he was old and frail and unable to enjoy life anymore. That was my responsibility, and not without reason. And it was difficult for me, despite knowing we were out of other options. Now others might have chosen to keep him alive, but I don't think that would have been doing him any favors.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Rescued said:


> When she was spayed, the vet said she had previously had five litters. I shudder thinking about all of those puppies, as I'm sure many of them didn't have owners that put up with what we did (not saying we're the best owners earth has ever seen, but I would rank us pretty good in a rural area of mostly outdoor dogs) and I always think about all the dogs we were unable to help (we started fostering heavily when she got old and less [capable of acting on her] DA tendencies). There are so many dogs out there that need homes, I don't think vindicating breeders that cull their working stock is getting our society any closer to where I think it should be, in terms of animal welfare.


How would the vet know exactly how many litters she had?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> How would the vet know exactly how many litters she had?


Thank you, I was wondering, but was hesitant to ask cause the fact that I did not have a clue would label me as a big dummy.

Maybe it's like a tree you count the rings.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

wvasko said:


> Thank you, I was wondering, but was hesitant to ask cause the fact that I did not have a clue would label me as a big dummy.
> 
> Maybe it's like a tree you count the rings.


I actually honestly wondered the same thing before I posted it. I was 6 or 7 at the time so I have no idea [just going from what my parents told me at the time], but I always assumed that when they did the spay they counted the number of scar tissue attachments to the uterus where the placentas had been, but maybe I'm completely wrong?

I feel stupid now...can someone clear this up haha?

EDIT: just called my mom and she said thats what the vet told her as well. Any vets on here that can verify this?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't know. . .when I was a teen and found a pregnant stray cat, after her babies were raised and we had her spayed, the vets said she had had "truckloads of kittens" and her insides were so overused that another litter would have killed her. I don't know how vets can tell that but they evidently can tell something. Being as specific as "5 litters" is a little suspect, though.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Why would you suggest that I think it is just fine to kill an animal with "no standards?"


It was a question, not a statement . Just trying to clarify your position. I'm not sure what you consider unacceptable.

I have spoken to people who think that animals only exist for the service of humans, so whatever you want to do to them is dandy. If it gives you jollies to swerve to run over squirrels or play target practice with the farm cats, have at it. If that's what you want to use them for, fine, because they only exist for the enjoyment of humans. I don't believe that. I believe all life has intrinsic value and there are very few reasons a human may take an animal's life.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Rescued said:


> EDIT: just called my mom and she said thats what the vet told her as well. Any vets on here that can verify this?


Well I doubt anyone can actually pin a number on how many pregnancies but could probably at least say "none, a few, or a bunch".


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> It was a question, not a statement . Just trying to clarify your position. I'm not sure what you consider unacceptable..


It was an accusation and an ad hominem attack. If you've ever read my posts, I think you know what I consider unacceptable for myself. I think you should know that while you are talking about how bad animals have it in your area, I am out on the FRONT LINES, working for better care (at least of companion animals). I am not, however, my neighbor's moral keeper. They may be coming at the issue from different perspective, and feel that what they are doing is right. I know the breeder who wouldn't put a dog who wouldn't work in a pet home thought he had his reasons for his practice. Could I do that? No. But that is me, and not him. And fact is, he produced better dogs than I did. Some of the most talented dogs in the breed. And, I have to respect that.



Willowy said:


> I have spoken to people who think that animals only exist for the service of humans, so whatever you want to do to them is dandy. If it gives you jollies to swerve to run over squirrels or play target practice with the farm cats, have at it. If that's what you want to use them for, fine, because they only exist for the enjoyment of humans. I don't believe that. I believe all life has intrinsic value and there are very few reasons a human may take an animal's life.


Well, you may know people who get their jollies out of killing stuff for no good reason. Personally, I try to stay away from that sort of people. I also try to stay away from people who take the moral "high ground" in discussion, but do nothing about it in their real life. I am not opposed to killing for food. I'm not opposed to medical research using animals when necessary. And when I see a vet who's just out of school, I don't want my dog to be the first one they work on.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> How would the vet know exactly how many litters she had?


Do you think maybe it's possible that the vet determined that it looked like she had been bred OFTEN, took her age, and the number of heats a female typically goes into each year, and guessed around 5? So for instance if she was around 3 years old, had 2 heats a year since she was 6 months old, the maximum number of litters she can have is approximately 5.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> I think you should know that while you are talking about how bad animals have it in your area, I am out on the FRONT LINES, working for better care (at least of companion animals).


 I don't know what you do for animals, working for better care. I don't know if you've talked about that before or not, maybe I missed it.

I'm just not sure how you can say "how bad animals have it in my area" when you describe the exact same thing happening among show breeders and working breeders in other areas. There's no difference between someone killing their dog's puppies because they don't want puppies and someone killing their dog's puppies because they don't have white trim. No difference between a hunter killing his dog because he can't train it to retrieve and someone killing his dog because it doesn't herd as well as he wants.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Nargle said:


> Do you think maybe it's possible that the vet determined that it looked like she had been bred OFTEN, took her age, and the number of heats a female typically goes into each year, and guessed around 5? So for instance if she was around 3 years old, had 2 heats a year since she was 6 months old, the maximum number of litters she can have is approximately 5.


My mom and I were just talking about this- we rescued her in 1998, and she passed at the end of 2010 (I'm still in college!). She had definitely recently weaned a litter when we rescued her, and we always assumed she was about 3 when we got her, which wouldve made her 15 or 16 when she died (metastatic cancer that had already spread when the vet discovered it). Just due to the fact that we had her 12 years, I have a hard time believing she was much older than 3.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Read through most the post very interesting love all the replies. 

No A.R. people were not just bored, however its not cruelty related either when it comes to HSUS. 

It's more to do with I don't agree with pets, I've never had an emotional attachment to an animal, domestic cats or dogs need not be bred. Cruelty exist but it is exploited for the ultimate goal. Of course breeders who kill pups add fuel to the fire. Such things allow HSUS to gain support from the unknowing GP. 

Now DDB are more against cruelty but the logic is still twisted. Ban pit bulls to save them from fighting, ban tethering to prevent neglect, mandatory s/n so animals won't be over bred and offspring end up in shelters.




sscott87 said:


> This is a topic that will always be greatly debated and will always have people on both extreme ends. With that said, I'm not a fan of breeding. However, with that said, I understand and respect the fact that some people want exactly what they want and thus there will always be someone out there producing it. In this case, purebreds and breeders. For a breeder to PTS animals that simply are not up to exact standards, that have some sort of minor imperfections making them less than ideal for further breeding, this I find absurd and irresponsible in and of itself. "Hey, I'm going to make and sell puppies for money but those that don't come out exactly up to par, well, I'll put them down." Come on, seriously? Anyway, I'll stop on that one.


Come on seriously is right. 

Good breeders are not making pups for selling nor do the majority make $. Breeding is a costly endeavor. You most often lose $ even if you sell pups (not all breeders do or they sell only a few). 

I mean seriously if it was about $ wouldn't they sell said pups instead of kill them? They'd be woryh more alive. That's what bybs do blue Boston, merle "pit", red rottie. They sell em as rare. Maybe that's better than killing them, the lesser of 2 evils? They will probably go on to be bred and continue the cycle of dogs in neglectful homes, dogs being bred pups going into shelters, ect.

Any worker dog breeder who simply cared about the bottom line could also sell INSTEAD of kill them. You don't make $ by killing pups. Some types of working dog breeders who do kill em don't sell pups or dogs.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I don't know what you do for animals, working for better care. I don't know if you've talked about that before or not, maybe I missed it.
> 
> .


I'm sure you did. After all, you tend to only focus on the negative. I could give my resume, but I hate tooting my own horn. But I don't just talk about it and shake my head. Or make statements about what other people should do, when I'm not willing to make the effort myself.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Or make statements about what other people should do, when I'm not willing to make the effort myself.


Not sure what that means? I make an effort to not kill animals unnecessarily or for frivolous reasons.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Not sure what that means? I make an effort to not kill animals unnecessarily or for frivolous reasons.


So does Pawzk9 and everyone on this forum.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> So does Pawzk9 and everyone on this forum.


I don't know that for certain. . .there are over 45,000 members here and I bet at least one has run over a squirrel or cat deliberately (or otherwise deliberately caused an animal to suffer) and probably at least one has drowned a puppy at some point. Maybe not the active members, or at least nobody who would admit to it anyway. But giving people respect for what they produce and ignoring how they did it is pretty much saying that that kind of thing is perfectly fine. Like respecting someone who beats his kids (or dogs) viciously because his kids (or dogs) are well-behaved.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I don't know that for certain. . .there are over 45,000 members here and I bet at least one has run over a squirrel or cat deliberately (or otherwise deliberately caused an animal to suffer) and probably at least one has drowned a puppy at some point. Maybe not the active members, or at least nobody who would admit to it anyway. But giving people respect for what they produce and ignoring how they did it is pretty much saying that that kind of thing is perfectly fine. Like respecting someone who beats his kids (or dogs) viciously because his kids (or dogs) are well-behaved.



I'm merely saying I'm sure no one here thinks of ways to 'frivolously' kill a puppy. Are there weirdos lurking? Probably. Do I assume anyone here has drowned a puppy? Uhm..No. If I thought people here ran over dogs and cats deliberately I wouldn't enjoy this forum so much and talk to people from here or ask advice, because after all..Who wants advice from people who deliberately run over cats?

I'm sure glad we don't live in the same area!! Lol.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Considering how many people are cruel to animals (as your own signature points out), logically, statistically, a few must be part of the 45,000 members. If you look around at other (non-pet-related) forums, you'll find a fair number of discussions about poisoning the neighbor's dog, deliberately running over animals, all kinds of awful stuff. I'm sure none of the regulars do that kind of thing, but I wouldn't say "nobody on DF".

And why does everybody say "the people in your area are so awful!" And then say in the next post (or some other thread) that it's perfectly normal and acceptable for some other person to do the same? Weird.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Considering how many people are cruel to animals (as your own signature points out), logically, statistically, a few must be part of the 45,000 members. If you look around at other (non-pet-related) forums, you'll find a fair number of discussions about poisoning the neighbor's dog, deliberately running over animals, all kinds of awful stuff. I'm sure none of the regulars do that kind of thing, but I wouldn't say "nobody on DF".
> 
> And why does everybody say "the people in your area are so awful!" And then say in the next post (or some other thread) that it's perfectly normal and acceptable for some other person to do the same? Weird.


You describe where you live very darkly. It's hard not to assume the worst from the dramatic way you describe your area.

Fine, since you're very caught up on a word that I was clearly using casually, I'll be more specific. No one ON THIS THREAD is purposely harming animals.

Anyway, on the topic culling is very common here with our staghounds and pig dogs. Putting down a pup that doomed to a life of misery is far less cruel to me than the people who put wheelchairs on the Chihuahuas born with no legs. JMO of course. The farmers I know only cull if there is a health issue or a mental one. A dog that's not a good worker is either kept as a pet by them or another farmer in the town who knows all these 'lines' as well as they do. The dogs that are good workers but not hunters, are given to another farmer and vice versa. Once one of these men shot a whole litter, but I was young and don't remember why. I DO know he finds it very upsetting and the working lines in this town are VERY VERY old so it's rare the pup is SUCH a bad hunter or worker that it needs to be put down. In fact, I don't believe a dog has ever been put down because of working ability, only mental issues that lead to bad work. If for whatever reason a dog is a 'moderate' hunter or worker, they are just given to the less established farmers and told not to breed from.

That's my personal experience, and based on my personal experience I believe people who force puppies to live who don't have a quality of life are much worse. 'Quality of life' is obviously a subjective term but IMO dogs born without front legs have no quality of life, and forcing them to live is one of the most disgusting, cruel things I've ever heard. Blind, deaf, loss of one leg..All manageable conditions in which the dog can lead a normal life. But both front legs? No.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> And why does everybody say "the people in your area are so awful!" And then say in the next post (or some other thread) that it's perfectly normal and acceptable for some other person to do the same? Weird.


Well if I got to throw a weird label out there it's got to be directed right at you. As I have stated before I have spent time in your state and the people I met there are no different than others I've met across the country. Some excellent, some terrible and all the variables in between. 

After reading your replies to PawsK9, I got to do the Judge Judy thing where she tells plaintiffs/defendants to listen with their ears. (in your case read with your eyes) Do you not read other DFer's replies at all or just ones that you want to jump on.



> I don't know that for certain. . .there are over 45,000 members here and I bet at least one has run over a squirrel or cat deliberately


At least above only one DFer is accused of running over a squirrel. Indeed that is a possibility, but if I think of that or things like that 24/7 I would be in a very dark place.

I know nothing about you, but the constant protesting of how bad "all" others are (instead of using the "some" word) and how good you are remind me of an alcoholic who has seen the light and wants everybody to quit drinking. Indeed, to say the least you are a puzzlement. 

I've only got a couple replies on this thread but I'm done. It's not a very enjoyable thread so no pop corn needed.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> I don't know that for certain. . .there are over 45,000 members here and I bet at least one has run over a squirrel or cat deliberately (or otherwise deliberately caused an animal to suffer) and probably at least one has drowned a puppy at some point. Maybe not the active members, or at least nobody who would admit to it anyway. But giving people respect for what they produce and ignoring how they did it is pretty much saying that that kind of thing is perfectly fine. Like respecting someone who beats his kids (or dogs) viciously because his kids (or dogs) are well-behaved.


Wow, just...

I'm sure some of the people that have gotten banned may have done this, but to say you think members of the board have? I understand you live around some real lowlifes but to paint others with that brush is insulting. 

Frankly I've gotten to know a number of the members, many of us are HEAVILY involved in rescue. Some foster, a couple work in shelters, some transport and for three years I ran the CA division of Mastiff rescue as the State Coordinator. I also know members here who are OUTSTANDING breeders, show handlers and trainers and at least one who's a veterinarian. They exemplify the BEST the show world has to offer and have helped with transport of rescued dogs and on occasion have also fostered and rescued. If I remember correctly a member got a female Alaskan Husky that turned out ot be pregnant (in the last two or three weeks) nearly ALL those pups were rehomed with MEMBERS of this forum. We've also pulled together to get stranded members home WITH their dogs and to help pay unexpected, medical bill to save a dogs life. 

I'm sorry you see the worst in humanity and in this board. Perhaps you need to remove the mud from your eyes and look around.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

I could not imagine a working dog, that for whatever reason didn't work out, to be (as an example) kept crated, taken out for a twenty minute walk in the morning, crated til owner came home, out for maybe an hour of walk and fetch, then sit around the house, crated again for bed. That dog would be miserable, extremely destructive, and probably mentally unstable and dangerous.

One kept in a wheelchair? Depends on how much running and care it received, but I would not recommend it. 

I had one that was treated for heartworms, who had to stay "at rest" for two months. The dog became so depressed he completely stopped eating, and began self mutilation. He was walked six times a day, and I spent every minute I could just hanging out with him. A simple slow walk in the park, even all day, doesn't cut it for dogs so specifically bred to have extreme drives. Somethings are worse than death.
I don't think anyone can fully understand "high drive" work obsessed dogs until you live with and handle many of them, and work them.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

juliemule said:


> I could not imagine a working dog, that for whatever reason didn't work out, to be (as an example) kept crated, taken out for a twenty minute walk in the morning, crated til owner came home, out for maybe an hour of walk and fetch, then sit around the house, crated again for bed. That dog would be miserable, extremely destructive, and probably mentally unstable and dangerous.


Well it's a good thing that's not the only choice of a home then.

Look, this is a discussion of why breeders should cull. You might as well say it's a discussion of why _anyone_ should "cull", because although my views are not as extreme as Willowy's but she has got me thinking - really, IS there a difference between Joe Schmoe tossing a litter of puppies in the river because he doesn't want to be bothered and a breeder who "buckets" puppies for whatever reason? Why don't we say stuff like "oh at least Joe Schmoe's puppies aren't ending up in shelters, good thing he was so responsible". Or let's say Joe keeps the puppies until they are 9-12 months and then gives them away to people in the city, but they've been woefully unsocialized out on his farm and now they're phobic, fearful nerve bags - would we be saying "well obviously these dogs can't be happy in the city in a home, and most average pet owners won't have the resources or knowledge to socialize them, so it's kinder to euthanize them"?

Just seems like there IS a weird double standard going on. Because, really, how on earth does a breeder who culls puppies with not quite the right markings get to be a "top" breeder, and someone like Joe is villainized, and that all makes sense?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Well, if the State of New York and the ASPCA has anything to say about it, you won't even have a chance to claim your pet if it's a 'nerve bag' with it's new "Quick Kill" bill.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

cshellenberger said:


> Well, if the State of New York and the ASPCA has anything to say about it, you won't even have a chance to claim your pet if it's a 'nerve bag' with it's new "Quick Kill" bill.


What does that have to do with anything else in this thread?


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

sassafras said:


> Well it's a good thing that's not the only choice of a home then.
> 
> Look, this is a discussion of why breeders should cull. You might as well say it's a discussion of why _anyone_ should "cull", because although my views are not as extreme as Willowy's but she has got me thinking - really, IS there a difference between Joe Schmoe tossing a litter of puppies in the river because he doesn't want to be bothered and a breeder who "buckets" puppies for whatever reason? Why don't we say stuff like "oh at least Joe Schmoe's puppies aren't ending up in shelters, good thing he was so responsible". Or let's say Joe keeps the puppies until they are 9-12 months and then gives them away to people in the city, but they've been woefully unsocialized out on his farm and now they're phobic, fearful nerve bags - would we be saying "well obviously these dogs can't be happy in the city in a home, and most average pet owners won't have the resources or knowledge to socialize them, so it's kinder to euthanize them"?
> 
> Just seems like there IS a weird double standard going on. Because, really, how on earth does a breeder who culls puppies with not quite the right markings get to be a "top" breeder, and someone like Joe is villainized, and that all makes sense?


Very well put. This is what has been making me nervous in this thread and I don't think anyone has yet addressed what makes it responsible for one breeder and not another.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

kafkabeetle said:


> Very well put. This is what has been making me nervous in this thread and I don't think anyone has yet addressed what makes it responsible for one breeder and not another.


I would venture to say it has something to do with the manner in which the litter is created. I might be wrong, but I would imagine the culling that occurs from "responsible" breeders is often based on more than color. I cant make the argument for color, because I agree with you and cant find a point in it.

That being said, if a breeder has two top working dogs and after all health testing, titles, ect. breeds them and one puppy turns out to be mentally unstable and is culled- that to me is very different from John Doe who lets his two high energy outdoor mutts breed and then culls. A good breeder can take precautions, but at some point there may still be a puppy that isnt suited for the situations available.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

sassafras said:


> Look, this is a discussion of why breeders should cull. You might as well say it's a discussion of why _anyone_ should "cull", because although my views are not as extreme as Willowy's but she has got me thinking - really, IS there a difference between Joe Schmoe tossing a litter of puppies in the river because he doesn't want to be bothered and a breeder who "buckets" puppies for whatever reason? Why don't we say stuff like "oh at least Joe Schmoe's puppies aren't ending up in shelters, good thing he was so responsible". Or let's say Joe keeps the puppies until they are 9-12 months and then gives them away to people in the city, but they've been woefully unsocialized out on his farm and now they're phobic, fearful nerve bags - would we be saying "well obviously these dogs can't be happy in the city in a home, and most average pet owners won't have the resources or knowledge to socialize them, so it's kinder to euthanize them"?
> 
> Just seems like there IS a weird double standard going on. Because, really, how on earth does a breeder who culls puppies with not quite the right markings get to be a "top" breeder, and someone like Joe is villainized, and that all makes sense?


I'm wondering this as well. I've been lurking this thread for awhile and nobody has seemed to answer this unnerving question. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for "ethical" breeding but this "lethal culling" is news to me. I want to go the breeder route someday, but this has me a little lost. It makes BYBs seem not nearly as bad. Just how many "ethical" breeders do this sort of thing?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> *You describe where you live very darkly. It's hard not to assume the worst from the dramatic way you describe your area.*
> 
> Fine, since you're very caught up on a word that I was clearly using casually, I'll be more specific. No one ON THIS THREAD is purposely harming animals.
> 
> ...


 I find these things very dark and upsetting. That's how I'm going to describe them. I find what you describe with someone killing a whole litter incredibly dark and disturbing--and there's NO way every single one of those pups was mentally or physically unable to live a decent life--and it doesn't really matter how "upsetting" the guy found his OWN actions. Lots of people do awful things and then claim to be upset about it, or even are truly upset about it. Doesn't change the fact that they did it. Your area sounds no better than mine, only your perception of the situation vs my perception. But hey, it's OK in your area because the lines are really really old?

I care about animals. I think about pretty much everything in the context of how it affects animals. Other people may not consider the animals' point of view as much as I do. So my perceptions will be different from theirs.

On the other subject, I think a small dog with no front legs can live a pretty good life. They don't have the emotional baggage humans do with disabilities. There are some disabilities that I think affect quality of life so badly that the dog should be put down, but the videos I've seen of 2-legged dogs show happy dogs with only mild mobility issues. I know some people find it uncomfortable to look at a disabled animal but I consider how the animal is actually living.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

wvasko said:


> Well if I got to throw a weird label out there it's got to be directed right at you. As I have stated before I have spent time in your state and the people I met there are no different than others I've met across the country. Some excellent, some terrible and all the variables in between.


Exactly. But whenever I describe something someone does people are like "gasp! The people in your area are mean!" When really the same thing is happening very near them and they just don't know it.



> After reading your replies to PawsK9, I got to do the Judge Judy thing where she tells plaintiffs/defendants to listen with their ears. (in your case read with your eyes) Do you not read other DFer's replies at all or just ones that you want to jump on.


Well, there's no reason to reply to posts you agree with . Unless there's something to add to it.



> At least above only one DFer is accused of running over a squirrel. Indeed that is a possibility, but if I think of that or things like that 24/7 I would be in a very dark place.
> 
> I know nothing about you, but the constant protesting of how bad "all" others are (instead of using the "some" word) and how good you are remind me of an alcoholic who has seen the light and wants everybody to quit drinking. Indeed, to say the least you are a puzzlement.


A puzzlement! I like it. I have to remember that. 

I don't think I say "all" or am especially hung up on what I do myself, but you're entitled to your opinion. The fact that even "some" people do bad things to animals is enough to make me very cranky, particularly when they're able to justify their actions in such a way that other people don't think it's so bad.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I find these things very dark and upsetting. That's how I'm going to describe them.
> I care about animals. I think about pretty much everything in the context of how it affects animals. Other people may not consider the animals' point of view as much as I do. So my perceptions will be different from theirs.
> 
> .


So, what do you DO about your caring for animals other than talk about it?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> I'm wondering this as well. I've been lurking this thread for awhile and nobody has seemed to answer this unnerving question. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for "ethical" breeding but this "lethal culling" is news to me. I want to go the breeder route someday, but this has me a little lost. It makes BYBs seem not nearly as bad. Just how many "ethical" breeders do this sort of thing?


None that I know, and I know a lot of breeders. Honestly, while I believe that "lethal culling" does happen, I don't think it's common at all.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Not sure what that means? I make an effort to not kill animals unnecessarily or for frivolous reasons.


If you were committed, you would probably do more than talk about it. I doubt if anyone here kills animals unnecessarily or for frivolous reasons. What do you do to keep dogs (not your own) out of shelters? What do you do to help them get out of the shelters? What do you do to help your local shelters increase adoptions/decrease euthanasia? If you truly believed in not keeping animals who will be killed, you'd be a vegan (I'm not, because that's not what I believe - I believe that being dinner is part of the natural order of things) If you truly believed in making a better world for dogs, you'd do more than give it lip service on an internet forum.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Sigh. So instead of addressing the actual issue, we're going to deflect and make ad hominem attacks. Gotcha.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> What does that have to do with anything else in this thread?


Shrug. About as much as most of the rest of it.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> So, what do you DO about your caring for animals other than talk about it?


Why would this matter to the topic of this thread!

Give me a hint here why this has turned into a personal attack and of what use that is.



> Sigh. So instead of addressing the actual issue, we're going to deflect and make ad hominem attacks. Gotcha.


Guess I should've read further down before I posted.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Why would this matter to the topic of this thread!
> 
> Give me a hint here why this has turned into a personal attack and of what use that is.
> 
> SOB


Because Willowy took it there? I do lack patience with folks who want to tell us all that is wrong with the world, and assume how evil we are, but are too passive or unmotivated to be change-makers.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> Because Willowy took it there? I do lack patience with folks who want to tell us all that is wrong with the world, and assume how evil we are, but are too passive or unmotivated to be change-makers.


Where? 



Willowy said:


> Yep, there's plenty of info if you Google it. Statements from the slaughterhouses that this new guy started, was a good employee but quiet (or whatever they say about him/her), then he quit and suddenly a video surfaced.
> 
> So you think it's just fine to kill an animals for any reason at any time? No standards at all?


This, from her, was a question which you deciphered as an attack. It simply merited an answer. Nothing more and nothing less.

. . . and I lack patience with folks who deliberately misdirect and obfuscate the topic with this kind of personal garbage.



sassafras said:


> Well it's a good thing that's not the only choice of a home then.
> 
> Look, this is a discussion of why breeders should cull. You might as well say it's a discussion of why _anyone_ should "cull", because although my views are not as extreme as Willowy's but she has got me thinking - really, IS there a difference between Joe Schmoe tossing a litter of puppies in the river because he doesn't want to be bothered and a breeder who "buckets" puppies for whatever reason? Why don't we say stuff like "oh at least Joe Schmoe's puppies aren't ending up in shelters, good thing he was so responsible". Or let's say Joe keeps the puppies until they are 9-12 months and then gives them away to people in the city, but they've been woefully unsocialized out on his farm and now they're phobic, fearful nerve bags - would we be saying "well obviously these dogs can't be happy in the city in a home, and most average pet owners won't have the resources or knowledge to socialize them, so it's kinder to euthanize them"?
> 
> Just seems like there IS a weird double standard going on. Because, really, how on earth does a breeder who culls puppies with not quite the right markings get to be a "top" breeder, and someone like Joe is villainized, and that all makes sense?


Thanks for this post, Sassafras. 

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Where?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It was an attack. If it wasn't it would have been worded differently. I also lack patience with folks who deliberately misdirect. Which I haven't done. I've just pointed out that if you want a change, you have to do more than go tisk tisk. Some people do. Some people don't. And I didn't start the personal garbage.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Rescued said:


> I would venture to say it has something to do with the manner in which the litter is created. I might be wrong, but I would imagine the culling that occurs from "responsible" breeders is often based on more than color. I cant make the argument for color, because I agree with you and cant find a point in it.
> 
> That being said, if a breeder has two top working dogs and after all health testing, titles, ect. breeds them and one puppy turns out to be mentally unstable and is culled- that to me is very different from John Doe who lets his two high energy outdoor mutts breed and then culls. A good breeder can take precautions, but at some point there may still be a puppy that isnt suited for the situations available.


Once again, the ONLY time a RESPONSIBLE breeder, who CARES FOR THEIR BREED (not frikkin show titles) Kills a dog (be it pup or grown) is when due to TEMPERMENT ISSUES or SEVERE HEALTH ISSUES he/she feels the need to end the dogs suffering. It should always be done in a HUMANE manner (not throwing pups in the river or abandoning them to die).


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

http://www.thedca.org/deaf1.html

The position statement from the Dalmation club clearly states that deaf Dalmation puppies and older dogs, if it has been determined that they are deaf, be humanely euthanized.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

So Cavalier said:


> http://www.thedca.org/deaf1.html
> 
> The position statement from the Dalmation club clearly states that deaf puppies and older dogs be humanely euthanized.


Yeah, that's been discussed before, too. I think that deliberately breeding for a gene that causes deafness and then killing the results of your deliberate breeding is unconscionable. No mention of trying to fix whatever is causing the deafness to show up so frequently. . .no, we like our dogs to have a certain kind of spots, just kill them if they get the wrong end of the gene pool.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

So Cavalier said:


> http://www.thedca.org/deaf1.html
> 
> The position statement from the Dalmation club clearly states that deaf puppies and older dogs be humanely euthanized.


I disagree with that policy, apparently a lot Dal breeders do as well or they wouldn't be placing deaf pups into pet homes (hopefully on a S/N contract). Perhaps they should be working to change the position of the BC and FINDING the gene that is causing it.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

> I disagree with that policy, apparently a lot Dal breeders do as well or they wouldn't be placing deaf pups into pet homes (hopefully on a S/N contract). Perhaps they should be working to change the position of the BC.


I disagree with it also and so does my trainer who owns Dals. But it is an example of "reputable" breeders who euthanize otherwise healthy puppies and a national breed club that supports that position.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> It was an attack. If it wasn't it would have been worded differently. I also lack patience with folks who deliberately misdirect. Which I haven't done. I've just pointed out that if you want a change, you have to do more than go tisk tisk. Some people do. Some people don't. And I didn't start the personal garbage.


How exactly is someone who is not involved in breeding pure bred or working dogs supposed to do something about breeders who cull puppies by killing them?

Nobody is accusing you of being evil or a bad person, although you seem to be taking this extremely personally. But as more of Jane Q Public than a dog world insider, it's extremely disheartening to me to see things like lethal culling of healthy puppies or merle x merle breeding defended. It does give the pure bred dog world the appearance of an "end justifies the means" system. Even if it's a very small number of breeders doing these things, the seemingly passive acceptance and deflection/dismissal of objectors' opinions makes it look like supported practices. 

How "successful" a breeder is or how things were done in the past shouldn't dictate how things are done in the present or future if we know more than we used to, no more in breeding than in training or nutrition or any other arena where knowledge and understanding evolve.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

It's a prime reason why I'll never own a Dal, I've met two, one who worked with the Budweiser Clydesdales (saw him and talked to his handler on a daily basis) who was very sweet and the other who was a complete nervebag whom I didn't trust.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I find these things very dark and upsetting. That's how I'm going to describe them. I find what you describe with someone killing a whole litter incredibly dark and disturbing--and there's NO way every single one of those pups was mentally or physically unable to live a decent life--and it doesn't really matter how "upsetting" the guy found his OWN actions. Lots of people do awful things and then claim to be upset about it, or even are truly upset about it. Doesn't change the fact that they did it. *Your area sounds no better than mine, only your perception of the situation vs my perception. But hey, it's OK in your area because the lines are really really old?*


Yes, my perception is different.  I find my town a wonderful, happy place full of wonderful people and gorgeous animals, so that's how I'm going to describe them.
Your perception may be that I live in a horrid area, fair enough this is the bush not everyone can stomach it. I guess I perceive your area as abhorrent because of my values and perception, and you view mine as disgusting for the same reason. So good point Willowy, it is really all about perception.



> I care about animals. I think about pretty much everything in the context of how it affects animals. Other people may not consider the animals' point of view as much as I do. So my perceptions will be different from theirs.


I care about animals very much, I think about the context culling affects animals, I think about how sad it is to cull, but you're right, I don't consider the animals 'point of view' so my perception is very different. However doesn't mean either of us is not an animal lover or a good owner, or knows good people.



> On the other subject, I think a small dog with no front legs can live a pretty good life. They don't have the emotional baggage humans do with disabilities. There are some disabilities that I think affect quality of life so badly that the dog should be put down, but the videos I've seen of 2-legged dogs show happy dogs with only mild mobility issues. I know some people find it uncomfortable to look at a disabled animal but I consider how the animal is actually living.


Actually it's got _nothing_ to do with 'finding it uncomfortable' (I have a brain damaged cat) it's got to do with MY perception on cruelty. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they are clueless. I'm sure you have some knowledge on the subject too. People who force animals to live to pump up their own God complex disgust me, and that's how I feel those little chis were treated. Curious, before you mentioned you 'see it from the animal's point of view..' Do you think ANY dog wants to live with two legs? I don't. It would be like losing an entire arm and an entire leg but somehow even worse.

You think a mentally unstable aggressive work dog who CAN'T work due to being aggressive shouldn't be culled humanely, but two legged dogs who 'seem happy' because you've 'watched some videos' makes these people okay? I actually left the last shelter I was at because they forced a two legged dog to live. I saw the inhumanity up close and personal, and I saw how people kept her alive to prove a point.

I don't get how people can be so pro euthanasia to a suffering dog, yet pups seem to be forced to live even if it would be better for them to be culled young, rather than old and miserable.

A bit off topic, but I know the mother of the litter and two pups died in birth, I don't know enough about breeding to know why the other four were done in at under a day old, I do know it was taken very seriously and lines were moved about and such.

I need to get some photos of these dogs for this forum I think.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> two legged dogs who 'seem happy' because you've 'watched some videos' makes these people okay? I actually left the last shelter I was at because they forced a two legged dog to live. I saw the inhumanity up close and personal, and I saw how people kept her alive to prove a point.


I'm sure some dogs will never adapt or will be unable to live a decent life after losing 2 legs. But seeing the videos of 2-legged dogs running and playing. . .yeah, I'm not sure how that's so awful. Their point of view seemed to be pretty peppy.



> A bit off topic, but I know the mother of the litter and two pups died in birth, I don't know enough about breeding to know why the other four were done in at under a day old, I do know it was taken very seriously and lines were moved about and such.


If they were under a day old he would not have shot them. 


If we're going to kill puppies to prevent them from dying "old and miserable", I guess we better kill them all. 


I know a lot of good people. I also know that good people can do some really horrible things, especially if they're convinced that what they're doing isn't so horrible.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> If we're going to kill puppies to prevent them from dying "old and miserable", I guess we better kill them all.
> 
> 
> I know a lot of good people. I also know that good people can do some really horrible things, especially if they're convinced that what they're doing isn't so horrible.


From "A List of Fallacious Arguments":
Argument By Generalization: 
drawing a broad conclusion from a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases. (The cases may be unrepresentative because of Selective Observation.) For example, "They say 1 out of every 5 people is Chinese. How is this possible ? I know hundreds of people, and none of them is Chinese." So, by generalization, there aren't any Chinese anywhere. This is connected to the Fallacy Of The General Rule. 

Similarly, "Because we allow terminally ill patients to use heroin, we should allow everyone to use heroin." 

It is also possible to under-generalize. For example, 

"A man who had killed both of his grandmothers declared himself rehabilitated, on the grounds that he could not conceivably repeat his offense in the absence of any further grandmothers." 
-- "Ports Of Call" by Jack Vance


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

The difference in 'joe' letting his mutts breed and a responsible breeder is huge. What is the difference in an entire litter being killed, or worse, unhealthy nerve bags placed with irresponsible owners, end up biting the neighbor kid, suffering with bad hips, used as bait dogs, or even worse going on to produce more of the same, versus a carefully selected crossing that may produce a few pups that can't new safely or responsibly really homed?
What is the most common reason people get bit or attacked by dogs? Irresponsible owners IMO. From poor training, husbandry, putting dogs in bad situations and using bad judgement, most all dog bites can be prevented. When you have dogs like 'pit bull' types getting a bad reputation for since many bites, and they are usually a friendly breed, imagine having malinois in homes like that! How fast do you think they wont be on breed ban lists?
Again I will state I do not cull if any other option is available, nor support breeders who do. Again it is not an easy task to find APPROPRIATE homes for dogs like these that aren't able to work. 

If you would like to argue "then working dogs shouldn't be bred", look at how many bad small pet dogs are out there, crappy nerved labs, Chihuahuas, skittish German shepherds, shih tzus with allergies the list goes on and on with every breed that exists. Some breeders do all they can to be certain their dogs are placed in the best situations possible, whether working or not, and others just make sure bad breed examples do not make it into the gene pool, or are allowed to bite several people before being killed later when the dogs attacks or kills a child.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I know a lot of good people. I also know that good people can do some really horrible things, especially if they're convinced that what they're doing isn't so horrible.


Yup, I'd put some of these breeding practices into the "bad becomes normal" category. That is, people who practice or support (actively or passively) them aren't bad people, but objections to them died so long ago that they've become normal practices that simply aren't questioned in the same way they would be if people started doing them for the first time tomorrow. 

The thing is, we know more and have far more resources than we used to - the internet alone opens up so many potential homes to today's breeders compared to a historical isolated farmer who could only afford to keep one or two working dogs out of a litter. We understand far more about genetics than people used to. Things change, it behooves us to change with them.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> If we're going to kill puppies to prevent them from dying "old and miserable", I guess we better kill them all.
> 
> 
> I know a lot of good people. I also know that good people can do some really horrible things, especially if they're convinced that what they're doing isn't so horrible.


Hmm, so if a breeder finds out pups in their litter have severe cardiac problems, is it ethical to home the pups (who will require THOUSANDS in vet bills and will NOT be able to have any type of anesthesia and probably won't live to be more than 2 years old) or to humanly euth the pups? It's your call...


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I'm sure some dogs will never adapt or will be unable to live a decent life after losing 2 legs. But seeing the videos of 2-legged dogs running and playing. . .yeah, I'm not sure how that's so awful. Their point of view seemed to be pretty peppy.
> 
> 
> *If they were under a day old he would not have shot them. *
> ...


I'm not responding to anything but the bolded as I feel you are twisting my words completely and we're merely going in circles, I've had my say no need to repeat myself, plus I can't be bothered wording myself in such a careful manner so that you can't twist my words.

On the bolded: Yes, he did shoot them at under a day old. Why? I don't know. Not how I'd do it personally. However he lives on the property next door and I remember the day as a child, very sad all around when a tragedy like this occurs. 

Bowing out now.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> Hmm, so if a breeder finds out pups in their litter have severe cardiac problems, is it ethical to home the pups (who will require THOUSANDS in vet bills and will NOT be able to have any type of anesthesia and probably won't live to be more than 2 years old) or to humanly euth the pups? It's your call...


I already said that if they have serious health problems it might have to be done. But if the breeder is deliberately breeding certain dogs knowing they have a higher-than-normal chance at cardiac problems. . .then they're just burying the problem.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> Yup, I'd put some of these breeding practices into the "bad becomes normal" category. That is, people who practice or support (actively or passively) them aren't bad people, but objections to them died so long ago that they've become normal practices that simply aren't questioned in the same way they would be if people started doing them for the first time tomorrow.
> 
> The thing is, we know more and have far more resources than we used to - the internet alone opens up so many potential homes to today's breeders compared to a historical isolated farmer who could only afford to keep one or two working dogs out of a litter. We understand far more about genetics than people used to. Things change, it behooves us to change with them.


Actually I think culling (killing) is becoming a lot more uncommon than it used to be. But sure as shootin' people are going to grasp at the ones they disagree with, instead of acknowledging that most people any more just spay and neuter and send the pups to a home. I appreciate a dog who is an awesome specimen of their breed. Even if culling (killing) was involved in producing those dogs who are way above average. I'm sure that makes me an elitist, because after all, no dog is better than any other dog. I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more mediocre dogs due to people being unable to concentrate of producing quality (limitation of number of dogs, number of litters, etc.) But we'll see. I'm old enough that it probably doesn't matter much to me.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Cardiac problems can occur in any litter. The breed in question was not a breed that has it as a predominent health problem. I ended up with the pup in question and had no clue the pup had a problem until he started passing out, unfortunatley I lost him at 15 months. That Pup was my heart dog and though I'm glad he was in my life I also know he suffered needlessly because hte breeder didn't do the right thing.

The fact is Ethical breeder will ALWAYS do what's best for their breeds. Unethical breeders (be they BYB, show breeders or puppy Mills) will do what suits them to make money or win competitions. Sometimes culling comes into the picture, other times it's the FAILURE to cull that causes the questionable ethics.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I already said that if they have serious health problems it might have to be done. But if the breeder is deliberately breeding certain dogs knowing they have a higher-than-normal chance at cardiac problems. . .then they're just burying the problem.


If we never bred a dog with risk of a health problem, we'd never breed a dog. Never breed ourselves either. Each of us carries at least 10 lethal genes. And a lot of genes for less serious defects. But of course, a lot of people seem to think that not breeding is the solution. Personally, I'd rather have good dogs in my life.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> The fact is Ethical breeder will ALWAYS do what's best for their breeds.


What about what's best for the DOGS? Not the breed, the individual dogs.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> What about what's best for the DOGS? Not the breed, the individual dogs.


What's good for the breed is generally good for the individual dogs in that breed.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> Actually I think culling (killing) is becoming a lot more uncommon than it used to be. But sure as shootin' people are going to grasp at the ones they disagree with, instead of acknowledging that most people any more just spay and neuter and send the pups to a home.


I freely acknowledge that most people probably spay and neuter these days. And the number is never going to be zero. But I suspect my level of tolerance for how often it happens is different than yours.



> I appreciate a dog who is an awesome specimen of their breed. Even if culling (killing) was involved in producing those dogs who are way above average. I'm sure that makes me an elitist, because after all, no dog is better than any other dog. I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more mediocre dogs due to people being unable to concentrate of producing quality (limitation of number of dogs, number of litters, etc.) But we'll see. I'm old enough that it probably doesn't matter much to me.


And I'd rather see more mediocre dogs if it meant that enough people took a stand against things like lethal culling and merle x merle to keep as many breeders as possible from doing them. Because the standards about what makes a dog "awesome" or "mediocre" are largely subjective human constructs, anyway.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> If we never bred a dog with risk of a health problem, we'd never breed a dog. Never breed ourselves either. Each of us carries at least 10 lethal genes. And a lot of genes for less serious defects. But of course, a lot of people seem to think that not breeding is the solution. Personally, I'd rather have good dogs in my life.


Yeah, and if I knew that I had a more-than-random chance of passing on a fatal genetic defect (or one that significantly reduced quality of life), I wouldn't breed myself either. I couldn't call it a tragedy if I knew the risks beforehand.

There are also a lot of things available for humans and not for dogs. A couple might choose to have kids knowing that deafness runs in the family, because they know that they can get the kid a cochlear implant and even if they don't he'll still have a pretty decent life. Nobody is going to kill him because of it. So it's not a fair analogy.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Yeah, and if I knew that I had a more-than-random chance of passing on a fatal genetic defect (or one that significantly reduced quality of life), I wouldn't breed myself either. I couldn't call it a tragedy if I knew the risks beforehand.
> 
> There are also a lot of things available for humans and not for dogs. A couple might choose to have kids knowing that deafness runs in the family, because they know that they can get the kid a cochlear implant and even if they don't he'll still have a pretty decent life. Nobody is going to kill him because of it. So it's not a fair analogy.


I know I said I was done, but I genuinely have a question.

Where has anyone said they _purposefully_ breed dogs with a high risk of producing issues that lead to culling? The whole point of culling is to remove these issues from your lines?

I'm quite confused.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> I know I said I was done, but I genuinely have a question.
> 
> Where has anyone said they _purposefully_ breed dogs with a high risk of producing issues that lead to culling? The whole point of culling is to remove these issues from your lines?
> 
> I'm quite confused.


Dalmatians for instance. Everybody KNOWS how high the risk of deafness is but still want to breed for those nice round spots. Ridgebacks--breeders know some will not have ridges and even that breeding ridgeback to ridgeback can be risky, but still cull (yes, some by s/n, some by killing) the ridgeless ones. Merle-to-merle breedings. Doing a risky breeding to get what you want knowing that you might end up with one good pup out of the whole litter. 

The main reason for killing the pups seems to be to prevent people from knowing that you produce that color/defect, and/or a (fairly AR sounding) belief that your pups are better off dead than in a home. Otherwise you'd s/n and find them a good home.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Dalmatians for instance. Everybody KNOWS how high the risk of deafness is but still want to breed for those nice round spots. Ridgebacks--breeders know some will not have ridges and even that breeding ridgeback to ridgeback can be risky, but still cull (yes, some by s/n, some by killing) the ridgeless ones. Merle-to-merle breedings. Doing a risky breeding to get what you want knowing that you might end up with one good pup out of the whole litter.
> 
> The main reason for killing the pups seems to be to prevent people from knowing that you produce that color/defect, and/or a (fairly AR sounding) belief that your pups are better off dead than in a home. Otherwise you'd s/n and find them a good home.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

cshellenberger said:


> Once again, the ONLY time a RESPONSIBLE breeder, who CARES FOR THEIR BREED (not frikkin show titles) Kills a dog (be it pup or grown) is when due to TEMPERMENT ISSUES or SEVERE HEALTH ISSUES he/she feels the need to end the dogs suffering. It should always be done in a HUMANE manner (not throwing pups in the river or abandoning them to die).


I completely agree. I don't morally find the practice acceptable and I would never knowingly purchase from a breeder who had anything to do with this practice.

IMO who does it and for what reason doesnt justify the practice. I just would look at the breeders in a different way- maybe similar to the way (some?) people would see a difference in an accident where two health tested dogs that a breeder was planning on breeding broke down a door and a crate and tied before the owner could catch them, versus someone who keeps their intact female dog in the backyard and discovers five weeks later that a male of unknown size mated with her.

Neither are right. neither should happen. but again, I feel that the average person is much more likely to talk a pet owner out of culling than a breeder of (insert working breed) that has been breeding since the seventies and is set in their ways. I guess it comes down to where I feel I'm more likely to make a difference.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Dalmatians for instance. Everybody KNOWS how high the risk of deafness is but still want to breed for those nice round spots. Ridgebacks--breeders know some will not have ridges and even that breeding ridgeback to ridgeback can be risky, but still cull (yes, some by s/n, some by killing) the ridgeless ones. Merle-to-merle breedings. Doing a risky breeding to get what you want knowing that you might end up with one good pup out of the whole litter.
> 
> The main reason for killing the pups seems to be to prevent people from knowing that you produce that color/defect, and/or a (fairly AR sounding) belief that your pups are better off dead than in a home. Otherwise you'd s/n and find them a good home.


So no one on this thread has said they breed knowing their dog has defects, you're just talking hypothetical about people you don't know and making huge offensive assumptions about entire breed clubs. Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Yeah, and if I knew that I had a more-than-random chance of passing on a fatal genetic defect (or one that significantly reduced quality of life), I wouldn't breed myself either. I couldn't call it a tragedy if I knew the risks beforehand.
> 
> There are also a lot of things available for humans and not for dogs. A couple might choose to have kids knowing that deafness runs in the family, because they know that they can get the kid a cochlear implant and even if they don't he'll still have a pretty decent life. Nobody is going to kill him because of it. So it's not a fair analogy.


Right. Humans never kill their kids.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> .
> 
> The main reason for killing the pups seems to be to prevent people from knowing that you produce that color/defect, .


Right. That's why the people who do it freely admit that they do it.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

sassafras said:


> Yup, I'd put some of these breeding practices into the "bad becomes normal" category. That is, people who practice or support (actively or passively) them aren't bad people, but objections to them died so long ago that they've become normal practices that simply aren't questioned in the same way they would be if people started doing them for the first time tomorrow.
> Things change, it behooves us to change with them.


I agree. But I also feel like the practice won't stop by just letting such breeders know that we disagree with them. As proved with the MxM, there are a LOT of different opinions when it comes to health issues. I feel like culling would be reduced if there were more effective ways of placing high energy, "hard to adopt" dogs in homes. Maybe more education just so that people know what they're getting into by adopting one of these dogs? I wish I had an answer. But by openly villifying the practice and the breeders who do, I feel that we just isolate them- so when that litter comes and theres one that they would cull, they would rather kill it then deal with less-than-friendly rescuers.

Again, I dont think its an acceptable practice. And the above was not meant to come off as "YOU are doing the wrong thing, your ideas are wrong, and you are hurting dogs by expressing your opinions!" You (and many others) have rescue dogs that have obviously been well taken care of. I dont know the solution either, its just my two cents about how I think I would go about approaching the topic with someone that had very strong opinions about it.

If any of the above was offensive I apologize. It wasnt meant to be a personal attack to any poster or their thoughts and ideas.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> making huge offensive assumptions about entire breed clubs.


 Considering the Dalmatian and Ridgeback breed clubs are pretty vocal about what breeders should do with deaf or ridgeless pups, I don't think it's a huge offensive assumption.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Rescued said:


> I agree. But I also feel like the practice won't stop by just letting such breeders know that we disagree with them. As proved with the MxM, there are a LOT of different opinions when it comes to health issues. I feel like culling would be reduced if there were more effective ways of placing high energy, "hard to adopt" dogs in homes. Maybe more education just so that people know what they're getting into by adopting one of these dogs? I wish I had an answer. But by openly villifying the practice and the breeders who do, I feel that we just isolate them- so when that litter comes and theres one that they would cull, *they would rather kill it then deal with less-than-friendly rescuers.*
> 
> Again, I dont think its an acceptable practice. And the above was not meant to come off as "YOU are doing the wrong thing, your ideas are wrong, and you are hurting dogs by expressing your opinions!" You (and many others) have rescue dogs that have obviously been well taken care of. I dont know the solution either, its just my two cents about how I think I would go about approaching the topic with someone that had very strong opinions about it.
> 
> If any of the above was offensive I apologize. It wasnt meant to be a personal attack to any poster or their thoughts and ideas.


While culling (in certain circumstances) doesn't faze me I find this an excellent post.

To the bolded: Interesting you mention this, the one time a farmer I know (this is SO difficult without using names, everyone here is a farmer LOL) decided to take one of his pups (7 months) to a shelter, they told him they'd only rake her if he provided proof he desexed mum...

Well, dog got a bullet in the head and he's never gone back. 

He didn't just kill the dog for not being a good worker I'd like to clarify, it was much more complex than that.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Considering the Dalmatian and Ridgeback breed clubs are pretty vocal about what breeders should do with deaf or ridgeless pups, I don't think it's a huge offensive assumption.


Well, maybe it's different in Australia because I've never actually seen either breed club promote breeding unhealthy dogs and tell their members to just kill off the ones they don't like..


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't know about the Australian breed clubs, but someone posted a link to the American Dalmatian club's policy on this a few pages back if you want to look. And I'm sure finding the RR club's page wouldn't be too difficult either.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I don't know about the Australian breed clubs, but someone posted a link to the American Dalmatian club's policy on this a few pages back if you want to look. And I'm sure finding the RR club's page wouldn't be too difficult either.


Oh I read those standards. I just didn't see the part where they said just cull the ugly ones and don't worry about genetic testing and prevention. Clearly my perception of their standards are vastly different to yours.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

If they're still getting 10%-12% of puppies coming out deaf, whatever "genetic testing and prevention" they're doing (if they are) isn't helping much, is it?


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> While culling (in certain circumstances) doesn't faze me I find this an excellent post.
> 
> To the bolded: Interesting you mention this, the one time a farmer I know (this is SO difficult without using names, everyone here is a farmer LOL) decided to take one of his pups (7 months) to a shelter, they told him they'd only rake her if he provided proof he desexed mum...
> 
> ...


Its just so hard to get the point across without pushing people away from listening, especially in such a heated topic where people tend to be very set in their opinions. Again, I would LOVE to yell at the people who did this, tell them to go sit in on a shelter euthanasia day, scream at them for being irresponsible, and tell them that what they're doing is morally wrong.

I just think it would do more harm than good. Whats the most effective approach? I honestly have no idea. I just know that in our (rural) areas, people tend to see things like the above as coming from crazy PETA people that want to demean them, and then fine- they'll just shoot the dog before you lay hands on it, and you can go along with your ideas, because I wont listen.

I don't agree. I think its wrong. I dont want it to happen. But I also dont want to push away people that might be receptive to rescue efforts.



Willowy said:


> If they're still getting 10%-12% of puppies coming out deaf, whatever "genetic testing and prevention" they're doing (if they are) isn't helping much, is it?


If you had complete control over every dalmatian breeder in existance, what would be your course of action?

Just an honest curious question.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Willowy said:


> If they're still getting 10%-12% of puppies coming out deaf, whatever "genetic testing and prevention" they're doing (if they are) isn't helping much, is it?


The miracles of science only go so far. What's your solution? We just don't breed dals and ridgies any more? You're grasping for straws here.



Rescued said:


> Its just so hard to get the point across without pushing people away from listening, especially in such a heated topic where people tend to be very set in their opinions. Again, I would LOVE to yell at the people who did this, tell them to go sit in on a shelter euthanasia day, scream at them for being irresponsible, and tell them that what they're doing is morally wrong.
> 
> I just think it would do more harm than good. Whats the most effective approach? I honestly have no idea. I just know that in our (rural) areas, people tend to see things like the above as coming from crazy PETA people that want to demean them, and then fine- they'll just shoot the dog before you lay hands on it, and you can go along with your ideas, because I wont listen.
> 
> ...


For dallys: I'd make it part of the code of ethics to health test, I'd be helping fund research into new genetic tests and I would be removing dallys that produce deaf offspring from the breeding lines. I'd demand culling of pups with fatal illness' and I'd work with what I had. 

What would you do? Does it matter what you or I would do? Why so many hypotheticals?

Also, I volunteer at a shelter and I used to do pound trips. I know exactly how tragic this world can be. Doesn't mean I pushed animals out the door because of the way i treated the owner..No matter how detestable i found them


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> If they're still getting 10%-12% of puppies coming out deaf, whatever "genetic testing and prevention" they're doing (if they are) isn't helping much, is it?


It says they are getting 88-90% coming out non-deaf. .


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

AussieNerdQueen, I think it merged my posts or something weird, that wasnt the way I mean to put it. My response to you was the longer one, agreeing with what you bolded. The dalmatian question was directed towards Willowy. Hope that clears it up?

Edit: you said "While culling (in certain circumstances) doesn't faze me I find this an excellent post.To the bolded: Interesting you mention this, the one time a farmer I know (this is SO difficult without using names, everyone here is a farmer LOL) decided to take one of his pups (7 months) to a shelter, they told him they'd only rake her if he provided proof he desexed mum..." 

to which my response was meant to be only the top portion of my post, not the Dal part.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> The miracles of science only go so far. What's your solution? We just don't breed dals and ridgies any more? You're grasping for straws here.
> 
> 
> 
> For dallys: I'd make it part of the code of ethics to health test, I'd be helping fund research into new genetic tests and I would be removing dallys that produce deaf offspring from the breeding lines. I'd demand culling of pups with fatal illness' and I'd work with what I had.


Am thinking the Dal club already does these things. When deafness is pigment related, and you have a breed that has disbursed pigmentation (Dals, ACDs, some mismarked Aussies and other breeds) deafness is not coming from an inherited gene (other than the genes which provide where pigment is distributed. )


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Rescued said:


> AussieNerdQueen, I think it merged my posts or something weird, that wasnt the way I mean to put it. My response to you was the longer one, agreeing with what you bolded. The dalmatian question was directed towards Willowy. Hope that clears it up?


I think I messed up the posts, doesn't help that this is already a confusing topic haha!

No I agree with you, as I said I know exactly how heartbreaking shelters are. Here I find I get far more upset about cats (we have a ridiculous cat overpopulation.) I couldn't emotionally cope with helping the pound kill list so I gave that up. Most weeks you could get almost every dog out...Never the same story for the cats and kittens (the KITTENS! So. Many. Kittens!)

Luckily I only live near responsible breeders so I've never had to deal with 'oodle' otr 'teacup' breeders, that's the most common problem in America, yes? Here our pounds are filled to the bring with staffy/amstaff crosses.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> Am thinking the Dal club already does these things. When deafness is pigment related, and you have a breed that has disbursed pigmentation (Dals, ACDs, some mismarked Aussies and other breeds) deafness is not coming from an inherited gene (other than the genes which provide where pigment is distributed. )


I know that's what the club already does, that's why I posted that as my reply..I think they're doing perfectly as they are.

Animals aren't machines. They can throw sick/disabled pups, just like human babies can be born with Tay-Sachs (I'm doing tests like this when I start fertility treatment/during pregnancy) Very sad, but if it's an accident I don't see why we need to crucify an entire breed for something they cannot control.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

My suburban hometown is surrounded by rural areas, and 80% of the dogs there are some cross of dogs used for hunting- labs and hounds.

My college town is in a more "urban" area (not a huge city or anything) and 80% of the dogs here are staffy/ pit mixes as well.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Rescued said:


> My suburban hometown is surrounded by rural areas, and 80% of the dogs there are some cross of dogs used for hunting- labs and hounds.
> 
> My college town is in a more "urban" area (not a huge city or anything) and 80% of the dogs here are staffy/ pit mixes as well.


Most dogs around here are pig dogs or herding dogs (aka Koolies, Aussies, Collies etc) 

Except for me and my stunning Chihuahua hehe


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

There have been backcrosses done that lower the chances of HUA and deafness. Deafness can be a problem in any white animal, but it also seems to have a strong genetic componant so I would require testing. I would require backcrossing as necessary to make the breed healthy. If this proved impossible I would want people to consider whether having spotty dogs is so important that they need to cause suffering to create them.

But that's not the point. My belief on this topic is: it is wrong to kill a dog just because you don't like how he turned out. The only valid reasons to kill an animal are to protect human life or livelihood, or for food. Those are my beliefs and they won't change. This topic is making me sad and even more pessimistic about (the lack of) basic human decency so I'm going to try to stay out of it from now on.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> I know that's what the club already does, that's why I posted that as my reply..I think they're doing perfectly as they are.
> 
> Animals aren't machines. They can throw sick/disabled pups, just like human babies can be born with Tay-Sachs (I'm doing tests like this when I start fertility treatment/during pregnancy) Very sad, but if it's an accident I don't see why we need to crucify an entire breed for something they cannot control.


The thing about animals, ourselves included, is that there are "bad genes" in all of us. It's more normal to have defects of some kind than perfection. If we look to nature as a model, we'll see that "healthy" and "adaptive/smart" is the result of a variety of genetic factors. And Ma Nature culls rather ruthlessly. It's a challenge to get into the gene pool.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Willowy said:


> There have been backcrosses done that lower the chances of HUA and deafness. Deafness can be a problem in any white animal, but it also seems to have a strong genetic componant so I would require testing. I would require backcrossing as necessary to make the breed healthy. If this proved impossible I would want people to consider whether having spotty dogs is so important that they need to cause suffering to create them.
> 
> *But that's not the point.* My belief on this topic is: it is wrong to kill a dog just because you don't like how he turned out.* The only valid reasons to kill an animal are to protect human life or livelihood, or for food.* Those are my beliefs and they won't change. This topic is making me sad so I'm going to try to stay out of it from now on.


If it's not the point and you had no interest in the answers, why on earth did you bring it up? 

Oh, I think you meant to say TO YOU those are the only valid reasons, and I'm so glad you said so, because most of the dogs that are culled around here are culled to protect livelihood. Unless of course you think it's up to you which 'livelihood' is worth protecting?



Pawzk9 said:


> The thing about animals, ourselves included, is that there are "bad genes" in all of us. It's more normal to have defects of some kind than perfection. If we look to nature as a model, we'll see that "healthy" and "adaptive/smart" is the result of a variety of genetic factors. And Ma Nature culls rather ruthlessly. It's a challenge to get into the gene pool.


Completely agree, fantastic post.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Oh, I think you meant to say TO YOU those are the only valid reasons, and I'm so glad you said so, because most of the dogs that are culled around here are culled to protect livelihood. Unless of course you think it's up to you which 'livelihood' is worth protecting?


 I think that most of the time when people claim it's to protect their livelihood, they're lying to themselves. You could say that killing puppies with white spotting is protecting your livelihood because you would have a hard time selling them and you would have to feed them and that's too expensive. That's fallacious. If the animal is killing your livestock and there's nothing else you can do to manage the situation, that's valid.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I think that most of the time when people claim it's to protect their livelihood, they're lying to themselves. You could say that killing puppies with white spotting is protecting your livelihood because you would have a hard time selling them and you would have to feed them and that's too expensive. That's fallacious. If the animal is killing your livestock and there's nothing else you can do to manage the situation, that's valid.


Oh, okay. So anyone who disagrees with you is lying to themselves and _not_ actually protecting their livelihood? Surely you see that is ridiculous logic? I'm fairly confident you only said that because I caught you out.

You've clearly never truly lived a farm life where you eat and live off of the land. Until you do, your opinions on how farm folk should protect their stock is uninformed. (Yes, I have lived off the land and killed my own meat, as you stated earlier you have never done.)

Until YOU are in a position where your family may not have food because of an unstable dog, I think you should refrain from judging people. When you live on the land, if you want an unreliable dog who may kill your food and income but you would like to train it until you're certain it's a danger to your livelihood and you have no profit or food? That's your choice.

I prefer the method of culling before there is serious damage. I know you don't agree, and I know you can't understand. That's fine. 

I know this is a dramatic post, but this is a poor farming community. When my family was not so fortunate, livestock and crops WERE our livelihood. But I guess we just like killing puppies. (Never culled a pup, never even owned a working dog BTW.) 

How you managed to twist this scenario to compare with a breeder culling dallys because they're not spotty enough is astonishing.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> If they're still getting 10%-12% of puppies coming out deaf, whatever "genetic testing and prevention" they're doing (if they are) isn't helping much, is it?



Your assumption of what is and is not helping was made without any knowledge. 

And while I am not privy to the situation with Dalmatians to be exact. I am familiar with the type of deafness in Dals. ACD's have the same issue. It was brought into ACD's when they bred Dals into them. 

You only know if 10-12 percent is s bad thing if you know the percentages 10,15,20 years ago....

Deafness has been in Dals since at least the mid to late 1800's. BAER testing has only been around for 20 years give or take. It is not going to go away over night. What matters is that breeders are working on it. 

Breeding is and always will be a journey. That journey is toward perfection. But we will never get there. It is never ending. The only gauge is the current generation better than the last and how do we make the next better. 

Willowy. You approach these things as a here and now instant gratification scenario. It is never going to be that. And when it is not perfect, you are quick to point out those imperfections. Why not focus on the positive strides? 

Look how great they are doing on hip dysplasia, Elbows, Patellas, etc
DALMATIAN 
Evaluations through December 2011
Registry Rank Evaluations Percent Abnormal Percent Normal 
BAER HEARING TEST 1 3270 12.7 87.3 
CARDIAC 16 75 1.3 98.7 
DEGENERATIVE MYELOPATHY N/A 11 0.0 100.0 
ELBOW 100 305 0.3 99.7 
HIPS 142 3273 4.5 94.8 
PATELLA N/A 12 0.0 100.0 

This was taken from OFA's website.....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Are the BAER results accurate? One thing I read said that most breeders can tell a deaf pup quite young and will dispose of it before any BAER testing is done, so the percentages are actually much higher than the results would suggest (it was a breeder's forum and the posters were not critical of the practice so I don't think it was propaganda). They said the rate is really around 20%-25%.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Are the BAER results accurate? One thing I read said that most breeders can tell a deaf pup quite young and will dispose of it before any BAER testing is done, so the percentages are actually much higher than the results would suggest (it was a breeder's forum and the posters were not critical of the practice so I don't think it was propaganda). They said the rate is really around 20%-25%.


What do you think dally breeders should do?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Rescued said:


> You (and many others) have rescue dogs that have obviously been well taken care of.


I have two "rescues" and one Alaskan Husky x from working lines (oops! litter) who many breeders, I'm sure, would have found me a totally unsuitable home for had they simply looked at me on paper ahead of time. Aside from living right in the city, I hadn't participated in any mushing sports or really any other dog sports of any kind beyond obedience training, walks, and dog parks.

Fortunately for us both I was given the benefit of the doubt by his mother's owner and we (along with one of my other dogs) have happily taken up urban mushing (and if we ever get snow, skijoring) as well as agility and may be starting Rally soon. One of his siblings is with a musher, and three of his siblings are in pet homes. So I am a bit prickly about the "oh there are so few suitable homes for working dogs" in particular. You just never know if someone can rise to the occasion without giving them a chance. I'm doing things I never thought I'd do with dogs... and no, not the same as a Malinois bred for police or military work, but I assure you a bored and underexercised Alaskan is nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

sassafras said:


> I have two "rescues" and one Alaskan Husky x from working lines (oops! litter) who many breeders, I'm sure, would have found me a totally unsuitable home for had they simply looked at me on paper ahead of time. Aside from living right in the city, I hadn't participated in any mushing sports or really any other dog sports of any kind beyond obedience training, walks, and dog parks.
> 
> Fortunately for us both I was given the benefit of the doubt by his mother's owner and we (along with one of my other dogs) have happily taken up urban mushing (and if we ever get snow, skijoring) as well as agility and may be starting Rally soon. One of his siblings is with a musher, and three of his siblings are in pet homes. So I am a bit prickly about the "oh there are so few suitable homes for working dogs" in particular. You just never know if someone can rise to the occasion without giving them a chance. I'm doing things I never thought I'd do with dogs... and no, not the same as a Malinois bred for police or military work, but I assure you a bored and underexercised Alaskan is nothing to sneeze at.


I agree with this. I know your view on culling is different to mine, but I do agree less pups would be culled if rescues would loosen the reigns a little. I can't imagine ever owning a Squash, but I know a ridiculous amount of people who could.

Out here rescues could easily provide homes for dozens of working breeds as pets. They choose not to for all the reasons rescues usually shoot themselves in the foot. You know, 'you have an un-desexed dog, you have 400 acres? And you only intend to keep the dog on one? Nope.' etc etc.

Shame really, because I know a man whose young son gets VERY attached to his working pups and they cannot be a 'pet' for his son, and he'd love to adopt a rescue for him but they knocked him back.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Are the BAER results accurate? One thing I read said that most breeders can tell a deaf pup quite young and will dispose of it before any BAER testing is done, so the percentages are actually much higher than the results would suggest (it was a breeder's forum and the posters were not critical of the practice so I don't think it was propaganda). They said the rate is really around 20%-25%.




You read it on an internet forum so it must be true.......:deadhorse:

And yes BAER is accurate. If you have seen it done, you would know this. And...... It can be done early...... Like 6 weeks. Which is much easier than waiting. 

And yes yes..... You can often tell if a puppy is completely deaf before you BAER test. But what you CANNOT tell is the Uni's (dogs that can hear in just one ear) Uni's are what will get your breeding program in trouble. A uni has a good chance of producing deaf puppies. (remember this is the same hearing condition that is in ACD's)

Two things Willowy....

1) As usual, you take something that someone said on the internet, if it agrees with any preconceived notion you have, you adopt it. Without any knowledge of its accuracy. I am not around Dals much. But that 20-25 percent figure for deafness you threw out is HIGHLY suspect. That is over one puppy per litter. I would have to see that to believe it. 

2) You do not breed and don't seem to have any direct contact with breeders. You take one thing.... In this case deafness, and grind it into the ground. The thing with breeding. AND THIS IS A BIG THING! is that you CANNOT focus on or breed to one trait or issue. If you do that you will possibly be able to clear up a single issue in a few generations. But you will completely wreck the breed in the process. 

A tunnel visioned breeder is more dangerous than a breeder that does not test at all.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

> but I assure you a bored and underexercised Alaskan is nothing to sneeze at.


What. You don't appreciate coming home to a half eaten couch? 



AussieNerdQueen said:


> I know that's what the club already does, that's why I posted that as my reply..I think they're doing perfectly as they are.
> 
> Animals aren't machines. They can throw sick/disabled pups, just like human babies can be born with Tay-Sachs (I'm doing tests like this when I start fertility treatment/during pregnancy) Very sad, but if it's an accident I don't see why we need to crucify an entire breed for something they cannot control.


True animals aren't machines and there will always be some with difficulties, but the Dal clubs can breed for patching on the ears and head and they'd get less deaf pups. Ridgeback breeders can promote the use of Ridgeless in their breeding program . . . if not to show. That is something they can control . . . just sayin'. 

_"A third finding to support a deafness-pigmentation association is that Dalmatians with a color patch have a lower prevalence of deafness than Dalmatians without a color patch."_​
http://www.genetics.org/content/166/3/1385.full



> . . . The thing with breeding. AND THIS IS A BIG THING! is that you CANNOT focus on or breed to one trait or issue. If you do that you will possibly be able to clear up a single issue in a few generations. But you will completely wreck the breed in the process.
> 
> A tunnel visioned breeder is more dangerous than a breeder that does not test at all.


Beautifully said.

SOB


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> You read it on an internet forum so it must be true.......:deadhorse:
> 
> And yes BAER is accurate. If you have seen it done, you would know this. And...... It can be done early...... Like 6 weeks. Which is much easier than waiting.
> 
> ...


Oi you..You married??


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

spanielorbust said:


> *True animals aren't machines and there will always be some with difficulties, but the Dal clubs can breed for patching on the ears and head and they'd get less deaf pups. Ridgeback breeders can promote the use of Ridgeless in their breeding program . . . if not to show. That is something they can control . . . just sayin'. *
> 
> _"A third finding to support a deafness-pigmentation association is that Dalmatians with a color patch have a lower prevalence of deafness than Dalmatians without a color patch."_​
> http://www.genetics.org/content/166/3/1385.full
> ...


Never knew that as dals and ridgies aren't my breeds, but interesting to know! I've never heard of ridgies being culled here because they're ridgeless, and I know some people who are far too cull happy. How sad it is that some pups are culled for trivial reasons. As for dals, if that is true it should definitely be researched and discussed.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Oi you..You married??


Yes.... On marriage number two....


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Yes.... On marriage number two....


Dang it! Better just stick with my man who giggles when I say 'what a nice bitch.' :laugh:


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Dang it! Better just stick with my man who giggles when I say 'what a nice bitch.' :laugh:


Took my current wife a couple of years to not giggle when I started talking about Bitches.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Took my current wife a couple of years to not giggle when I started talking about Bitches.


So you CAN train the breed of human we know..Interesting..What techniques did you use to achieve this?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> . . . The thing with breeding. AND THIS IS A BIG THING! is that you CANNOT focus on or breed to one trait or issue. If you do that you will possibly be able to clear up a single issue in a few generations. But you will completely wreck the breed in the process.
> 
> A tunnel visioned breeder is more dangerous than a breeder that does not test at all.


I was not coming back but the "Common Sense" hook that bandit threw nailed me and here I am. Do I believe any of what he said will break through the Willowy closed mind set. Absolutely not so I must retreat again.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Out of curiousity, say the Dal club focused on nothing but breeding out deafness (and temperament, obviously) what could the ramifications of long term, generational breeding of this sort?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

wvasko said:


> I was not coming back but the "Common Sense" hook that bandit threw nailed me and here I am. Do I believe any of what he said will break through the Willowy closed mind set. Absolutely not so I must retreat again.


I keep trying to stay away..... But I can't.....


Anyway going on this......

And a different issue..... My dog Merlin is a B for PRCD (Progressive Retinal disorder that causes blindness in mid age years) A "B" mean he is a carrier..... He will never go blind from this disorder but he can pass the gene on.

Add to that......
His other stats...
Return to search results Printable Vertical Pedigree 
CALL ME WORK N SOME MAGIC 
Registration: DN18471704 (AKC) Sire: DN11920106 
No photo on file 
Breed: AUSTRALIAN CATTLE DOG Dam: DL89094201 
Sex: M *Titles: 
Color: BLUE SPECKLED CHIC #: 58655 
Birthdate: May 28 2007 Addtl. Reg. # 
DNA Profile: 


OFA Number Registry Test/Film
Date Report Date Age Final Conclusion 
ACD-PRA1244/3M-VPI-CAR PROGRESSIVE RETINAL ATROPHY Sep 11 2007 Oct 16 2007 3 GENOTYPIC CARRIER FOR prcd-PRA 
ACD-CA66/24M/P-VPI CARDIAC Jun 2 2009 Jun 16 2009 24 NORMAL - PRACTITIONER 
ACD-PA42/24M/P-VPI PATELLA Jun 2 2009 Jun 16 2009 24 NORMAL - PRACTITIONER 
ACD-2433G24M-VPI HIPS Jun 2 2009 Jun 17 2009 24 GOOD 
ACD-EL565M24-VPI ELBOW Jun 2 2009 Jun 17 2009 24 NORMAL 
ACD-1893 CERF Jun 20 2009 Jun 20 2009 25 TESTED: 09 
ACD-BR332/25M-VPI BAER HEARING TEST Jul 7 2009 Jul 8 2009 25 HEARING (NORMAL) 


He is a CHIC dog and had his eyes CERF's. His optic Nerve is large and strong. His eyes look great. 
Plus he is negative for 20 some odd other genetically inheritable diseases. 

Add to that he is well put together, a great example of the breed, He finished 2011 as the number 14th conformation ACD in the United States, he has drive for days, a good ACD temperament, etc etc. I know he is my dog but there is not a nicer more fluid moving ACD out there. And I have seen all the top dogs. Merlin will bring tears to your eyes if you love movement. 

Using some folks logic, he might not be a candidate for breeding. But that would be foolish. He BRINGS a TON to the table and so much about him is what is RIGHT with the breed that he can be used. 

The test for PRCD has only been out a few years. And eleminating the B dogs as breeders, would eleminate 70 percent of the studs in the country. Talk about wrecking a breed.....

And it is real simple to use him without producing a single puppy that will ever go blind from PRCD. 
All you have to do breed him to only clear bitches. Then all the puppies will be either clear or carriers. But none affected. 

ACD breeders are working on PRCD....Eventually there will be a day when there is no need to use a B dog. But that day will not happen in any of our lifetimes.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> I agree with this. I know your view on culling is different to mine, but I do agree less pups would be culled if rescues would loosen the reigns a little. I can't imagine ever owning a Squash, but I know a ridiculous amount of people who could.
> 
> Out here rescues could easily provide homes for dozens of working breeds as pets. They choose not to for all the reasons rescues usually shoot themselves in the foot. You know, 'you have an un-desexed dog, you have 400 acres? And you only intend to keep the dog on one? Nope.' etc etc.
> 
> Shame really, because I know a man whose young son gets VERY attached to his working pups and they cannot be a 'pet' for his son, and he'd love to adopt a rescue for him but they knocked him back.


Of course, making broad generalizations about rescues and their policies is the same as making broad generalizations about breeders. They are all different and they all have their own policies. You don't like one's policy, try another.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> While culling (in certain circumstances) doesn't faze me I find this an excellent post.
> 
> To the bolded: Interesting you mention this, the one time a farmer I know (this is SO difficult without using names, everyone here is a farmer LOL) decided to take one of his pups (7 months) to a shelter, they told him they'd only rake her if he provided proof he desexed mum...
> 
> ...


I guess I'm unclear on why the shelters/rescues are the ones that have to take responsibility for placing these pups that these "good" breeders chose to breed. I thought good breeders didn't dump their dogs in shelters (and contribute to the shelter problem), they took care of placement themselves. The rescue that I volunteer with along with other area rescues are focused on and overwhelmed with pulling dogs from the kill shelters. We don't take owner turn-ins.

The only person responsible for killing that poor dog is the man who shot him.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

brandiw said:


> Of course, making broad generalizations about rescues and their policies is the same as making broad generalizations about breeders. They are all different and they all have their own policies. You don't like one's policy, try another.


It is the same. That's why I should have said I'm talking about the rescues I've worked with.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

When talking about culling.... Rescues cull too.... In a different way..... The rescue I am involved/in charge of, is not likely to accept a deaf dog. We pass on dogs all the time for various reasons. Old dogs, aggression, special needs. 

It is a fact. A hard fact but a fact..... We have so many spots. Our number of spots is X and the number of dogs out there is Y. X and Y are never going to be the same. Y is always going to be bigger. If we take in a dog that has special needs and is hard to place it is going to stay in our system a long time. During the time when we are looking that home for a special needs dog, several perfectly healthy dogs could have occupied that spot and moved on to forever homes. 

It is a numbers game. Save the dogs that have the best chance of finding successful homes.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

brandiw said:


> I guess I'm unclear on why the shelters/rescues are the ones that have to take responsibility for placing these pups that these "good" breeders chose to breed. I thought good breeders didn't dump their dogs in shelters (and contribute to the shelter problem), they took care of placement themselves. The rescue that I volunteer with along with other area rescues are focused on and overwhelmed with pulling dogs from the kill shelters. We don't take owner turn-ins.
> 
> The only person responsible for killing that poor dog is the man who shot him.


It is certainly not their place. However lots of people share the logic on this thread that culling is wrong. He took the dog there because he felt guilty about shooting and wanted a second chance. Their judgemental attitude hardened his reserve that he was making the right choice originally. Personally, I'm very glad that particular dog is dead and I'm glad the shelter screwed him over.

My point is with the guilt trip on farmers, what are they supposed to do with 'damaged' dogs other than give them to rescue? It would be irresponsible to rehome a damaged dog. So when the anti-cull crowd keeps pushing, the only real option is rescue, which none of the farmers are interested in for obvious reasons.

If shelters and rescues don't want the responsibility of rehoming damaged dogs, then they probably shouldn't be demanding farmers not cull the mentally ill, difficult to place ones. Because since they rely on the dogs for survival, they're not going to stop breeding and it would be foolish to do so.

Culling or rescue are the options. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> It is certainly not their place. However lots of people share the logic on this thread that culling is wrong. He took the dog there because he felt guilty about shooting and wanted a second chance. Their judgemental attitude hardened his reserve that he was making the right choice originally. Personally, I'm very glad that particular dog is dead and I'm glad the shelter screwed him over.
> 
> My point is with the guilt trip on farmers, what are they supposed to do with 'damaged' dogs other than give them to rescue? It would be irresponsible to rehome a damaged dog. So when the anti-cull crowd keeps pushing, the only real option is rescue, which none of the farmers are interested in for obvious reasons.
> 
> ...


Well, if they are truly damaged - either mentally unstable or has a severe physical problem/injury - then they should be put down, though it is my personal opinion that they shouldn't be shot. I don't know of any rescues that would demand a mentally unstable dog should be placed. 

I don't know the story here, but if the dog had a bad temperament, the shelter likely couldn't take it and adopt it out for liability reasons.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

brandiw said:


> Well, if they are truly damaged - either mentally unstable or has a severe physical problem/injury - then they should be put down, though it is my personal opinion that they shouldn't be shot. I don't know of any rescues that would demand a mentally unstable dog should be placed.
> 
> I don't know the story here, but if the dog had a bad temperament, the shelter likely couldn't take it and adopt it out for liability reasons.


I really dontnunderstand the problem with shooting a dog, if done properly the dog suffers less than it would with an injection. Many ansthesias burn whem injected which is why they give a numbing injection first. It's sure as hell more humane than a shelters gas chamber.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

brandiw said:


> Well, if they are truly damaged - either mentally unstable or has a severe physical problem/injury - then they should be put down, though it is my personal opinion that they shouldn't be shot. I don't know of any rescues that would demand a mentally unstable dog should be placed.
> 
> I don't know the story here, but if the dog had a bad temperament, the shelter likely couldn't take it and adopt it out for liability reasons.





cshellenberger said:


> I really dontnunderstand the problem with shooting a dog, if done properly the dog suffers less than it would with an injection. Many ansthesias burn whem injected which is why they give a numbing injection first. It's sure as hell more humane than a shelters gas chamber.


This. A vet trip can be quite stressful. A shot in the bak of the skull when they're facing the other way is instantaneous.

Isn't it a bit..Well hypocritical to say these farmers are wrong for not rehoming these pups when rescues CAN'T take them on for the exact same reason?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

brandiw said:


> Well, if they are truly damaged - either mentally unstable or has a severe physical problem/injury - then they should be put down, though it is my personal opinion that they shouldn't be shot. I don't know of any rescues that would demand a mentally unstable dog should be placed.
> 
> I don't know the story here, but if the dog had a bad temperament, the shelter likely couldn't take it and adopt it out for liability reasons.


As I recall, shooting a dog is not allowed in my county. But done correctly, shooting is the most humane (though graphic) way to put an animal down.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> This. A vet trip can be quite stressful. A shot in the bak of the skull when they're facing the other way is instantaneous.


My father had to shoot one of our cats that got caught in the fan of a car and eviscerated, it would have been far more cruel to have made the cat suffer transport, let alone wait until we got the vet in the office (it was after hours and there were no E vets then). He was shaking from having to do it, this was a guy who hunted on a regular basis and was used to killing for food.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

cshellenberger said:


> My father had to shoot one of our cats that got caught in the fan of a car and eviscerated, it would have been far more cruel to have made the cat suffer transport, let alone wait until we got the vet in the office (it was after hours and there were no E vets then). He was shaking from having to do it, this was a guy who hunted on a regular basis and was used to killing for food.


The thing about shooting a pet is it is MUCH harder for US and we see euthanasia as the 'kinder' option. From the ANIMAL'S point of view..I know which is less cruel.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> This. A vet trip can be quite stressful. A shot in the bak of the skull when they're facing the other way is instantaneous.
> 
> Isn't it a bit..Well hypocritical to say these farmers are wrong for not rehoming these pups when rescues CAN'T take them on for the exact same reason?


I never said that the farmer was wrong for not rehoming the dog. I simply thought it was wrong that he would try to dump it on the shelter to take care of. 

Killing a dog for temperament or severe physical problems is completely reasonable to me. However, I don't consider issues such as deafness, blindness, not showing appropriate working drive, or color mismark a severe physical disability, so to kill those puppies is indefensible in my eyes.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

cshellenberger said:


> I really dontnunderstand the problem with shooting a dog, if done properly the dog suffers less than it would with an injection. Many ansthesias burn whem injected which is why they give a numbing injection first. It's sure as hell more humane than a shelters gas chamber.


If it is done properly. Unfortunately, I know of cases where it hasn't been. There are many people who have no business using a gun to put down a dog (or anything else, for that matter).

And I don't know of anyone who champions the use of a gas chamber, and no shelters in my area use one. I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make with that.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

brandiw said:


> *I never said that the farmer was wrong for not rehoming the dog. I simply thought it was wrong that he would try to dump it on the shelter to take care of. *
> 
> Killing a dog for temperament or severe physical problems is completely reasonable to me. However, I don't consider issues such as deafness, blindness, not showing appropriate working drive, or color mismark a severe physical disability, so to kill those puppies is indefensible in my eyes.


He was guilt tripped enough by the anti-cull crowd to take the dog to the shelter. He knew HE couldn't responsibly rehome the dog so I have no idea how it's 'dumping.' If that dog was going anywhere but his home or six feet under, it should have been a rescue. Rehoming a dodgy dog would have been foolish, and as you said even the shelters agree with that.

I'm just saying it's a strange attitude..Don't cull, but DO NOT put the dogs in rescue, and obviously don't rehome because you can't rehome a dangerous or unreliable dog.

So what options are left? Like I said, rescue either needs to accept as sad as it is, sometimes culling is necessary or be prepared for the pig dogs that don't work out. They can't have it both ways, and the way some just believe that farming should 'stop breeding' isn't an answer either so I'm left stumped.

But for the most part I agree with your points on when not to cull.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> He was guilt tripped enough by the anti-cull crowd to take the dog to the shelter. He knew HE couldn't responsibly rehome the dog so I have no idea how it's 'dumping.' If that dog was going anywhere but his home or six feet under, it should have been a rescue. Rehoming a dodgy dog would have been foolish, and as you said even the shelters agree with that.
> 
> I'm just saying it's a strange attitude..Don't cull, but DO NOT put the dogs in rescue, and obviously don't rehome because you can't rehome a dangerous or unreliable dog.


From what I have read on this thread, I haven't seen anyone here who advocated that a potentially aggressive dog should be rehomed, including myself. Like I said earlier, IMO, a dog with severe temperament issues should be euthanized if the owner is unable to deal with it (and keep the dog).


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

brandiw said:


> From what I have read on this thread, I haven't seen anyone here who advocated that a potentially aggressive dog should be rehomed, including myself. Like I said earlier, IMO, a dog with severe temperament issues should be euthanized if the owner is unable to deal with it (and keep the dog).


Sorry, I should have clarified. I'm meaning working dog situations when a pup is a useless worker. What is going to happen to them I wonder. The farmers around here don't like to sell them because they don't want people breeding them and ruining their lines. Desexing is considered offensive so they won't do that and I don't know if i think they should anyway.

So much to think about, never sat and thought about this before.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

brandiw said:


> From what I have read on this thread, I haven't seen anyone here who advocated that a potentially aggressive dog should be rehomed, including myself. Like I said earlier, IMO, a dog with severe temperament issues should be euthanized if the owner is unable to deal with it (and keep the dog).


 Probably 80% or more of LE or military dogs are potentially aggressive. Every working bred gsd, malinois, or dutchie in the right circumstances would bite. Probably most dogs period, so that's a fine line.

Probably one of the best homes one of my pups are currently in is a "pet" home. They have dealt with many issues they weren't prepared for, or even dreamed of, although they were drilled about how the dog would be lol. Yet he happily is best friends and protector of a seven year old girl, only thanks to very responsible owners. That isn't the normal.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

sassafras said:


> I have two "rescues" and one Alaskan Husky x from working lines (oops! litter) who many breeders, I'm sure, would have found me a totally unsuitable home for had they simply looked at me on paper ahead of time. Aside from living right in the city, I hadn't participated in any mushing sports or really any other dog sports of any kind beyond obedience training, walks, and dog parks.
> 
> Fortunately for us both I was given the benefit of the doubt by his mother's owner and we (along with one of my other dogs) have happily taken up urban mushing (and if we ever get snow, skijoring) as well as agility and may be starting Rally soon. One of his siblings is with a musher, and three of his siblings are in pet homes. So I am a bit prickly about the "oh there are so few suitable homes for working dogs" in particular. You just never know if someone can rise to the occasion without giving them a chance. I'm doing things I never thought I'd do with dogs... and no, not the same as a Malinois bred for police or military work, but I assure you a bored and underexercised Alaskan is nothing to sneeze at.


I just realized you have squashie from the nekomi sled dog litter! I havent been on this forum that long, but I did sit down a week or two ago and read all 20 pages and then just pieced together which members of the board had cinnamon and squash! 

it is more owners like you that we need! we managed our rescue GSP (not a working breed so much as just high energy) and she learned how to pull my dad on his bicycle, with her attached to a bungee cord and harness. Run her a mile twice a day and she was awesome! 

I didnt mean to demean you in any way, as youve obviously done a great job with him- and your signature is priceless. we've been preparing for a purebred lab sometime this summer, and i just saw a momma dog with no puppies in one of the high kill shelters here. she needs me, and so within the next week that'll be another one rescued  sorry to have such a happy post in this thread :redface:


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Rescued said:


> I just realized you have squashie from the nekomi sled dog litter! I havent been on this forum that long, but I did sit down a week or two ago and read all 20 pages and then just pieced together which members of the board had cinnamon and squash!
> 
> it is more owners like you that we need! we managed our rescue GSP (not a working breed so much as just high energy) and *she learned how to pull my dad on his bicycle, with her attached to a bungee cord and harness. Run her a mile twice a day and she was awesome! *
> 
> I didnt mean to demean you in any way, as youve obviously done a great job with him- and your signature is priceless. we've been preparing for a purebred lab sometime this summer, and i just saw a momma dog with no puppies in one of the high kill shelters here. she needs me, and so within the next week that'll be another one rescued  sorry to have such a happy post in this thread :redface:


Interesting, that's actually illegal here for safety reasons.


----------



## JulieK1967 (May 29, 2011)

Willowy said:


> So I guess when people say "good breeders don't add to the shelter problem" we need to put an addendum on: "because they kill the rejects themselves"? I'm getting disillusioned.


Me, too. This thread has me very upset. To be sure, I don't understand the needs of people who use working dogs but I simply cannot get past the idea of killing healthy puppies because they lack a ridge or they're female.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

JulieK1967 said:


> Me, too. This thread has me very upset. To be sure, I don't understand the needs of people who use working dogs but I simply cannot get past the idea of killing healthy puppies because they lack a ridge or they're female.


Thank God that's the minority and being blown out of proportion, or I'd be very upset too.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

JulieK1967 said:


> Me, too. This thread has me very upset. To be sure, I don't understand the needs of people who use working dogs but I simply cannot get past the idea of killing healthy puppies because they lack a ridge or they're female.





Willowy said:


> So I guess when people say "good breeders don't add to the shelter problem" we need to put an addendum on: "because they kill the rejects themselves"? I'm getting disillusioned.


Again it's an EXTREAME few breeders that cull in that way, you've BOTH blown it out of proportion.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> I really dontnunderstand the problem with shooting a dog, if done properly the dog suffers less than it would with an injection. Many ansthesias burn whem injected which is why they give a numbing injection first. It's sure as hell more humane than a shelters gas chamber.


This is very true, but again one of those programs not for the faint of heart.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Interesting, that's actually illegal here for safety reasons.


Bikejoring is illegal in Australia? What about other mushing sports?


----------



## JulieK1967 (May 29, 2011)

Kuma'sMom said:


> It was also VERY common for Native Americans to stampede entire herds of buffalo off cliffs, so, yeah. They were no better or worse than any other human beings.


Yep, thanks for pointing that out. Too many people have a romanticized view of Native American life before Europeans came here. It wasn't all sunshine and roses for the animals when it was just native people here.


----------



## JulieK1967 (May 29, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> Again it's an EXTREAME few breeders that cull in that way, you've BOTH blown it out of proportion.


i haven't blown anything out of proportion. I find it awful to hear that SOME breeders kill healthy puppies for being female or the wrong color. I was very clear that I don't understand the needs of people who use working dogs but that it saddens me to hear that healthy puppies are killed for what I consider no good reason.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

cshellenberger said:


> Again it's an EXTREAME few breeders that cull in that way, you've BOTH blown it out of proportion.


The thing is, it may be a few breeders that do it, but for an average person... how would you know? I wouldn't want to support a breeder who did, but as a puppy buyer I'd be at the mercy of someone's word that they don't. If I don't know them, I don't know what goes on behind their closed doors, and this thread quickly turned into a lot of justifications for lethal culling and dismissal of people's concerns. So honestly it makes me just not want to go there at all.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Interesting, that's actually illegal here for safety reasons.


It might be here too...it definitely wasn't the safest (he always wore a helmet) because I remember at one point she saw a cat.... nobody was injured thankfully.

But 99% of the time it worked well, she was trained to run on one side and not in front of the bike.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

sassafras said:


> Bikejoring is illegal in Australia? What about other mushing sports?


You beat me to it.

Is actual bikejoring that's illegal or is it the bungee cord contraption? Or biking with dogs in general? Or any joring?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> The thing is, it may be a few breeders that do it, but for an average person... how would you know? I wouldn't want to support a breeder who did, but as a puppy buyer I'd be at the mercy of someone's word that they don't. If I don't know them, I don't know what goes on behind their closed doors, and this thread quickly turned into a lot of justifications for lethal culling and dismissal of people's concerns. So honestly it makes me just not want to go there at all.


You would know the same way you find out other things about the breeder. You'd ask. The people who do it think it is the correct thing to do, and don't hide it or make apologies. Quite honestly, though. If you're wanting breeders who don't, the mushing community might not be the best place to start. Working breeders tend to be less warm and fuzzy than pet breeders. Any time you are dealing with humans, you just have to decide if you can trust or not. Nobody can guarantee that everyone will always tell you the truth. In any matter.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> Quite honestly, though. If you're wanting breeders who don't, the mushing community might not be the best place to start. Working breeders tend to be less warm and fuzzy than pet breeders.


I'm well aware of this, it's something I may have to struggle with someday, although since there are certainly plenty of huskies in rescue it's not like I won't have options I'm more comfortable with.



> Any time you are dealing with humans, you just have to decide if you can trust or not. Nobody can guarantee that everyone will always tell you the truth. In any matter.


Yup. And since there's no super compelling reason for me to seek out a breeder, I likely just won't go there unless it's someone I or someone I trust knows personally.


ETA: And to be clear, it's not necessarily being misled by a particular breeder that would worry me. It's more of a cultural attitude or pushback that is blase/defensive/dismissive of my opinions about things like culling or merle x merle breedings as well as many others (intentional crossbreeding, rescue, and others). Not just here, I've had similar conversations/experiences IRL along the lines of "that's just the way it's done" or "if you aren't a breeder, you can't understand/can't have a valid opinion". I think there are a lot of great, ethical breeders out there, but it's just a world I'm not sure I want to enter when it's probably not necessary for what I like/want/need in a dog. I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it, hopefully not for many years. *shrug*


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> ETA: And to be clear, it's not necessarily being misled by a particular breeder that would worry me. It's more of a cultural attitude or pushback that is blase/defensive/dismissive of my opinions about things like culling or merle x merle breedings as well as many others (intentional crossbreeding, rescue, and others). Not just here, I've had similar conversations/experiences IRL along the lines of "that's just the way it's done" or "if you aren't a breeder, you can't understand/can't have a valid opinion". I think there are a lot of great, ethical breeders out there, but it's just a world I'm not sure I want to enter when it's probably not necessary for what I like/want/need in a dog. I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it, hopefully not for many years. *shrug*


The fact that one does not automatically demonize someone for their breeding practices doesn't necessarily mean that one engages in those same practices. The way to know would be to ask.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> The fact that one does not automatically demonize someone for their breeding practices doesn't necessarily mean that one engages in those same practices. The way to know would be to ask.


I don't think anyone needs to demonize anyone. I don't think anyone needs to dismiss me, either. And again, in my mind it's becoming not so much an individual issue as a cultural issue - hard to ask a culture anything.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> I don't think anyone needs to demonize anyone. I don't think anyone needs to dismiss me, either. And again, in my mind it's becoming not so much an individual issue as a cultural issue - hard to ask a culture anything.


And yet these breeders have been demonized on these very threads. (I haven't seen anybody dismiss you here, either) As to it being a cultural issue, I think that culture is changing. I'm too "soft" to make hard decisions in breeding, therefore I decided to very occasionally breed a litter for myself, and leave the establishing of lines and excellence to others. We will see if the quality and health of dogs improves with the change in culture. My guess is that it will not.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> And yet these breeders have been demonized on these very threads.


There's a world of difference between "I really think lethal culling of healthy puppies is badwrong and I wish people would stop doing it and I wish "the AKC" (or breed clubs, or whatever) should take a stand against it" and demonizing. 



> (I haven't seen anybody dismiss you here, either)


LOL half this thread is about dismissing me and those who share my opinion. We must have as different views on the definition of "dismiss" as we do of "demonize".



> As to it being a cultural issue, I think that culture is changing. I'm too "soft" to make hard decisions in breeding, therefore I decided to very occasionally breed a litter for myself, and leave the establishing of lines and excellence to others. We will see if the quality and health of dogs improves with the change in culture. My guess is that it will not.


If it is in fact true that the vast majority of breeders do not currently practice lethal culling of healthy puppies but rather already S/N and sell dogs unsuitable for their breeding/lines to pet homes, then I'm not convinced that stopping the practice of lethal culling of healthy puppies will have any effect whatsoever on either. Why would it, if it's such a very small number?


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

sassafras said:


> Bikejoring is illegal in Australia? What about other mushing sports?


I have no idea but I'm on an Australian dog forum and it came up last week that it was illegal here. You have to obtain special permission if you're training a guide dog or something similar. I didn't read the entire thread as mushing isn't something I'm into but I remember the thread. It may only be my state, but I remember thinking about mushing. I'll try to look up the thread and see.

But remember..This is Australia. VERY little snow here. When they made the law maybe mushing didn't occur to them? Iunno.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> And yet these breeders have been demonized on these very threads. (I haven't seen anybody dismiss you here, either) As to it being a cultural issue, I think that culture is changing. I'm too "soft" to make hard decisions in breeding, therefore I decided to very occasionally breed a litter for myself, and leave the establishing of lines and excellence to others. We will see if the quality and health of dogs improves with the change in culture. My guess is that it will not.



There are those that attempt to demonize breeders and dog breeders at every opportunity on this forum. 

It is sad really. Because I am fairly certain that the ones I am familiar with on here have very little exposure to breeders and breeding. 

I have a lifetime exposure to breeding. APBTs, Catahoulas, GSPs, Pointers, Coonhounds, ACDs, Rottweilers, American Bulldogs, JRTs, Rat Terriers, BCs, etc.....
I have exposure to hard core old school breeders as well as breeders with a more modern mindset. 

In that time, countless litters, I probably know of maybe 15 puppies ( I cannot count that many but am adding some to account for any I may have missed in my head) that were culled in the most honest sense of the word. I know of many that were desexed and placed in pet homes. Of the dogs that were really culled most had serious issues that would have prevented a close to normal life. 

That being said.....

I do not condone culling dogs because of color faults or any other faults to the standard for that matter. If they do not meet the standard, de sex them and place them. 

I do condone culling for serious health issues.....

I do condone culling blind puppies unless the breeder wishes to keep the pup or has a special needs home lined up.

I am on the fence with deaf puppies. It takes a special home. I don't know if I could cull a deaf puppy but would not be critical of a breeder for making that decision.
Unis need to be desexed and placed in a pet home. 


Continuing........
I do not condone the double merle breedings or any other high risk breeding......


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> LOL half this thread is about dismissing me and those who share my opinion. We must have as different views on the definition of "dismiss" as we do of "demonize".


I suppose we must. Can you point to a post where your opinion was "dismssed" in your opinion? Certainly, if I came off dismissive towards you, it was unintentional. There's only one person whose opinion I dismissed and that was because it was full of hyperbole and fallacious arguments.


----------

