Go Back   Pet forum for dogs cats and humans - Pets.ca > Discussion Groups - mainly cats and dogs > On topic - Pet chat, opinions, feelings and rants

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 28th, 2006, 08:42 AM
LibbyP's Avatar
LibbyP LibbyP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London,ON
Posts: 798
Question to cull / or not

Okay here's the (Q) Should reputable breeders cull their in perfect by standards puppies? Is this inhumane or responsible? This is NOT an opinion, it is a simple question, just looking at different views.
  #2  
Old August 28th, 2006, 09:41 AM
LM1313's Avatar
LM1313 LM1313 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 819
Um . . . why not just spay and neuter them instead? Don't reputable breeders usually have waiting lists and even take deposits on puppies before they're born? So it's not like they wouldn't have homes ready. It's my understanding that only one or two puppies in a litter is likely to be show quality, no matter how great the parents are.
  #3  
Old August 28th, 2006, 09:43 AM
Writing4Fun's Avatar
Writing4Fun Writing4Fun is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,421
Sorry, I don't understand the question.

Do you mean to ask if breeders should be euthanizing puppies who are not up to breed standard?

Absolutely not! A reputable breeder will adopt these puppies out on a very strict spay/neuter contract (better yet, have it spayed/neutered before it is adopted out) and as pet-quality puppies. They key here is that sub-standard dogs should not be allowed to breed. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to live.
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, because you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup. - Dilbert
  #4  
Old August 28th, 2006, 09:58 AM
Puppyluv's Avatar
Puppyluv Puppyluv is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,854
Both of the dogs I grew up with were pure breds from reputable breeders, but neither ended up show quality, our dal was the runt, and had too much ticking, while our belgian started out as top dog, until at 12 weeks, her rear left paw turned in a degree and her gate was no longer perfect, and was thus demoted to pet. In both cases, the purchase price was lower than the show dogs, and there was a strict s/n contract (along with many other clauses). I think this is the way to do it. The dogs get a life, and people who don't want show dogs can still ger purebreds from a reputable breeder.
__________________
Sleep can wait, drink coffee!
  #5  
Old August 28th, 2006, 12:07 PM
Angies Man Angies Man is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Reno
Posts: 333
I can't imagine a REPUTABLE Vet participating in "culling". Any Vet who would do such a thing should lose his/her license and ability to prescribe medications and face animal cruelty prosecution.

No intelligent breeder would consider such a thing either. A healthy, but less than show quality puppy can still make a great family pet, companion for a senior citizen, service dog, etc. I would think that a vast majority of breeders are animal lovers--it doesn't look to me like a way to easy riches.

My Angie, who you all know I'm head over heals for, was sold as not show quality (I have her AKC papers, tho) but with no restrictions. Her flaw was a couple of dozen white hairs on her breast and a herniated belly button. She's a great dog, loved and loving.
  #6  
Old August 28th, 2006, 12:15 PM
LibbyP's Avatar
LibbyP LibbyP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London,ON
Posts: 798
My (Q) never stated - healthy - just in perfect
  #7  
Old August 28th, 2006, 03:15 PM
Prin Prin is offline
Senior member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 28,492
Should reputable breeders cull their in perfect by standards puppies? NEVER (unless suffering because of a health issue, of course, but you said healthy)
Is this inhumane or responsible? Inhumane. S/N instead. Just as effective.
  #8  
Old August 28th, 2006, 03:29 PM
LibbyP's Avatar
LibbyP LibbyP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London,ON
Posts: 798
(Q) What is considered a health issue? I never said healthy
  #9  
Old August 28th, 2006, 03:31 PM
LavenderRott's Avatar
LavenderRott LavenderRott is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,671
Well, I guess I will be the odd man out and take the flames.

Yes, I think that culling is a perfectly legitimate part of an ethical breeding program.

NOW - BEFORE YOU YELL - PLEASE READ ON!

First off - there would be very little culling of perfectly healthy pups. Usually, imperfections to the standard (issues dealing with bite, coat, coloring, etc.) don't show up right away. Case in point - my dog came from a litter of three. He is the only one who never got a decent coat and they all looked identical when they were pups.

We put to sleep MILLIONS of dogs a year that have no home! How is that different from a breeder culling a litter? Is it less cruel?

Or the thousands of dogs that are chained and abused every year?
__________________
Sandi
  #10  
Old August 28th, 2006, 03:55 PM
Puppyluv's Avatar
Puppyluv Puppyluv is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,854
Libby, I don't get what point you're trying to make by repeating that you never said healthy.... what are you trying to get at??
__________________
Sleep can wait, drink coffee!
  #11  
Old August 28th, 2006, 04:59 PM
Prin Prin is offline
Senior member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 28,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibbyP
(Q) What is considered a health issue? I never said healthy
i.e. a two headed dog... Or maybe a list of the worst health issues all in one dog.

LavenderRott, I think culling as you describe it would be like hiding the evidence. If a breeding pair produces "crap" dogs, stop breeding the pair. Culling just gives them permission to hide that the litters had defects or whatever in them, IMO.

I just don't think that a breeder who really cares about his/her animals would kill them all for defects that don't seriously affect their health.

Then you get into the issue of people breeding double merle shelties that come with a host of problems because of the genes associated with coat color (like deafness and blindness), but they let those live.

Nothing makes sense when humans are given the veto on who lives or dies.
  #12  
Old August 28th, 2006, 05:02 PM
LibbyP's Avatar
LibbyP LibbyP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London,ON
Posts: 798
What I was getting at is this... members are stating that it is in humane to cull for cosmetic reason different colour hair, height, toes in or out. I never said healthy, does blindness, deafness, missing a limb, heart problems etc.... considered a health consideration? If you test two outstanding pedigrees for genetics can they still have sub standard puppies even though both parents and lineage is normal? I was using 'in perfect' in general, is it better for breeders sell these animals when it was (I thought and members have said) that breeding is to better the breed, would a reputable breeder be proud that he/she has an animal out there from them that is below standards? Word of mouth thing ' Oh yes I purchased the dog from .... ' Other breeders saying WTF that sort of thing. Remember this is just a (Q) and not an opinion
  #13  
Old August 28th, 2006, 05:05 PM
Puppyluv's Avatar
Puppyluv Puppyluv is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,854
Ok, by "in perfect" do you mean "imperfect"? Because I am utterly confused. And where did members previously say that fogs should be killed for hair colour etc??
__________________
Sleep can wait, drink coffee!
  #14  
Old August 28th, 2006, 05:09 PM
LavenderRott's Avatar
LavenderRott LavenderRott is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prin

LavenderRott, I think culling as you describe it would be like hiding the evidence. If a breeding pair produces "crap" dogs, stop breeding the pair. Culling just gives them permission to hide that the litters had defects or whatever in them, IMO.

I just don't think that a breeder who really cares about his/her animals would kill them all for defects that don't seriously affect their health.
Well, if you think that puppymills don't cull - you are sadly mistaken. Only it is done in a manner that most wouldn't think is even close to humane.

Since the breed that I am most familiar with is rottweilers - we will use them as an example. An ETHICAL breeder that has a litter with - let's say a long haired pup. What would they do?

They would sell that pup on a pet contract with a spay/neuter clause to someone that they trusted implicately to carry this out. They would NOT use that pair of dogs to produce a litter of puppies again.

A puppy with a missing limb or other major deformity should be humanely put down. But that is my humble opinion.
__________________
Sandi
  #15  
Old August 28th, 2006, 05:18 PM
Prin Prin is offline
Senior member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 28,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by LavenderRott
Well, if you think that puppymills don't cull - you are sadly mistaken. Only it is done in a manner that most wouldn't think is even close to humane.
For puppymills, culling is just the tip of the iceberg.

Ok, we agree. Major health thingy, yes. Superficial defect, no.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LibbyP
I never said healthy, does blindness, deafness, missing a limb, heart problems etc.... considered a health consideration? If you test two outstanding pedigrees for genetics can they still have sub standard puppies even though both parents and lineage is normal?
Yes. There aren't genetic tests for everything (we just don't know enough about DNA), so there are still TONS of issues that can be passed even if things like hip dysplasia are screened out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LibbyP
I was using 'in perfect' in general, is it better for breeders sell these animals when it was (I thought and members have said) that breeding is to better the breed, would a reputable breeder be proud that he/she has an animal out there from them that is below standards? Word of mouth thing ' Oh yes I purchased the dog from .... ' Other breeders saying WTF that sort of thing. Remember this is just a (Q) and not an opinion
Most likely, if the breeder and the person with the "defective" puppy have the proper relationship, the person would tell people the dog doesn't fit the breed standard and thus was taken out of the breeding program.
  #16  
Old August 28th, 2006, 05:23 PM
Mom_Of_Two_Dogs's Avatar
Mom_Of_Two_Dogs Mom_Of_Two_Dogs is offline
Meaghan Edwards
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 401
I am absolutely against culling healthy puppies.

My two dogs aren't perfect examples of their breed confirmation wise; Suki (Shiba Inu) is undersized and has a crooked tooth, Hamish is oversized with a snipey muzzle and I am sure that the seal colour is not accepted in his breed (Scottish Terrier), but I wouldn't trade them in for some "perfect" specimen. I think it would be disgusting for any so called reputable breeder to kill puppies because of faults like that. All that is needed to do is to spay/neuter them to make sure their "faults" won't be carried out into any pups they produce (my two dogs are fixed).

If the puppy is born without it's stomach or something REALLY serious like that, then yes, it is humane to euthanize. Dogs can live perfectly fine with a missing limb, blindness, deafness.
__________________
Visit us at Dogster!
http://www.dogster.com/?88586
http://www.dogster.com/?88600
  #17  
Old August 28th, 2006, 05:29 PM
LavenderRott's Avatar
LavenderRott LavenderRott is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Dogs can live perfectly fine with missing limbs, blindness, deafness.
And yet perfectly healthy purebred dogs are euthanized in our shelters every single year for lack of a home.

While I would not euthanize a dog that I had had for years if it went blind, lost it's hearing or lost a leg for one reason or another - I do honestly believe that to nurture puppies with serious defects while so many dogs with no health issues at all are euthanized is wrong.
__________________
Sandi
  #18  
Old August 28th, 2006, 05:33 PM
Prin Prin is offline
Senior member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 28,492
I guess it's a case by case thing for me. If a dog is missing limbs but has no other issues and manages fine without the limbs, then ok. But if the dog is missing limbs and has a bunch of other issues resulting from genetic weakness, not so sure. I guess for me, it depends if the dog can lead a good life.

As for killing them because there are too many healty ones dying- it's not the puppies' fault. Why kill an innocent animal that YOU chose to bring into this world? The problem lies with the choice you made to breed in the first place, and that's where the laws and regulations SHOULD be working, but aren't.
  #19  
Old August 28th, 2006, 05:33 PM
Puppyluv's Avatar
Puppyluv Puppyluv is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,854
You give birth to a child with a club foot and downs syndrome, do you "cull" it?
__________________
Sleep can wait, drink coffee!
  #20  
Old August 28th, 2006, 05:34 PM
~michelle~ ~michelle~ is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: london, ON
Posts: 1,256
hmmm i may be off the mark here but i heard something about dalmation breeders in the states having to put deaf puppies down or the can loose some sort of crediation? (i have no IDEA if this is true) which i think is unacceptable. I am actually looking to adopt a deaf or blind dog that would suit my situaltion and i think that there are many people like me who do this.
I also remember I had a lhasa apso and she had "pigeon toes" and she had a bit of an underbite, but she had so much personality and we loved her sooo much we couldnt imagine not having had her in our lives. she was a perfect pet, which I think is the best thing a dog can be
I think that anything that may cause the dog pain or suffering should be put down but if not give them a chance to find a home and be loved
  #21  
Old August 28th, 2006, 05:36 PM
Prin Prin is offline
Senior member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 28,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puppyluv
You give birth to a child with a club foot and downs syndrome, do you "cull" it?
I'm not having kids ever, so I'm not the right person to answer that.
  #22  
Old August 28th, 2006, 05:40 PM
Puppyluv's Avatar
Puppyluv Puppyluv is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prin
I'm not having kids ever, so I'm not the right person to answer that.
It wasn't really directed at you, as you already said you were against culling, save for severe genetic defects (2 heads etc)
Almost everyone on here thinks of their pets as children (myslef included) but I would be very interested to hear if pro-cullers would put their disabled children to sleep.
__________________
Sleep can wait, drink coffee!
  #23  
Old August 28th, 2006, 05:41 PM
~michelle~ ~michelle~ is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: london, ON
Posts: 1,256
I agree with puppyluv!!! you wouldnt dismiss your child because of an "abnormality"
  #24  
Old August 28th, 2006, 05:49 PM
LavenderRott's Avatar
LavenderRott LavenderRott is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puppyluv
You give birth to a child with a club foot and downs syndrome, do you "cull" it?
That is part of the problem, right there.

While I love my dog just as much as Prin loves Boo and Jemma, he is a dog - not a human child.

Oh, and by the way - I almost had to make that decision with my son. I can promise you that it was much more then a club foot and Down's syndrome. And yes, because he would have had no quality of life, I was ready to do what was best for him - not me. Through the Grace of God - he was born happy and healthy.
__________________
Sandi
  #25  
Old August 28th, 2006, 05:49 PM
LibbyP's Avatar
LibbyP LibbyP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London,ON
Posts: 798
Okay now: in perfect/imperfect from now on I'll use the term sub-standard, now your just picking the (Q) and (A) apart. Don't shoot the questioner Puppyluv, it's not nice and I know nothing about fogs should be killed for their hair colour
  #26  
Old August 28th, 2006, 05:54 PM
Dragonfly's Avatar
Dragonfly Dragonfly is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 410
This is an interesting debate but I can promise you that if it gets ugly it will get locked. We are watching.
  #27  
Old August 28th, 2006, 05:58 PM
Prin Prin is offline
Senior member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 28,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by LavenderRott
While I love my dog just as much as Prin loves Boo and Jemma, he is a dog - not a human child.
Then you don't love your doggy as much as I do.
(or at least not in the same way )
  #28  
Old August 28th, 2006, 06:07 PM
LibbyP's Avatar
LibbyP LibbyP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London,ON
Posts: 798
I think this is getting alittle maybe I should sum it up like this: the majority is a no vote to culling for sub-standard animals ie being: coat colour, toes in/out, short/tall, fat/thin, but if it has major health issues it's still a no vote as you can just s/n?
  #29  
Old August 28th, 2006, 06:13 PM
LM1313's Avatar
LM1313 LM1313 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 819
According to the Dalmation Club of America . . .

Quote:
A dog lacks the power of reason and the ability to read a situation and react accordingly. A startled animal lashes out in an instantaneous reflex reaction. A deaf dog is continually startled, especially when asleep. Too many children have faced the plastic surgeon's knife after innocently touching a sleeping, deaf dog... a dog which in every other way was the most perfect pet imaginable. DEAF DOGS ARE POTENTIALLY VERY DANGEROUS.
Also,

Quote:
Do not adopt a completely deaf dog even if it is given to you, as you will be letting yourself in for a lot of work and probable heartbreak: work, because the dog cannot hear you, and for all but the most experienced handlers is rendered untrainable; probable heartbreak, because if the dog ever escapes from you, he cannot hear traffic. You can conclude the ending. The deaf dog leads a sadly neurotic life, as every hand on his fur or step on the floor startles him because he cannot hear. Most deaf dogs become so fearful and timid that they must be put to sleep anyway; it is better to do so right after the BAER test proves the dog deaf, before a family is attached to the dog. Should you somehow procure a deaf Dalmatian, the breeder is obliged, by any code of ethics, to replace the puppy with a hearing one or to refund your money and take the dog back.
I mentioned this in a few threads . . . I find it very confusing because there's a dalmation near me on Petfinder who is a deaf adult, but perfectly friendly according to his profile. I also know a couple who adopted a deaf dalmation puppy (older puppy, I think over six months) and had no problems with fearfulness or aggressiveness . . . Also, here is a website featuring a perfectly happy, well-adjusted deaf dalmation . . . http://www.uglx.org/romey

So I question that accuracy of the Dalmation Club's statement. I do not feel that deafness is a cause for culling. They should, of course, be spayed and neutered.


Culling because a dog doesn't fit the breed standard exactly would be even sillier. "Oh my gosh, you have a white blaze down your nose! Sorry, that means you have to die." "You're gait is all wrong! DEATH!"

Frankly, I think too much slavish devotion to breed standards can be detrimental to a breed, resulting in an animal that's a bizarrely exaggerated version of whatever it started out as . . . minus the intensity of instincts that made it excel at it's original job. (This seems to happen with sporting dogs a lot.) I don't know what the solution is, since NO breed standard would only encourage BYBs and make it hard to tell the difference between them and reputable breeders. *shrugs* But it's definitely a problem.

If an animal is deformed in such a way that it severely affects his enjoyment of life then, yes, he should be humanely put to sleep. I'll give you an example. Siamese show-cats are encouraged to have "exotic" faces and bodies. They look very elongated compared to most cats. That's fine. Except when the quest for the "exotic" face results in a kitten with eyes that are on opposite sides of its head as opposed to both eyes facing forward. Someone had a litter like this and the kittens all died when they were old enough to open their eyes because cats are not made to be able to see like that. I'm not sure of the exact cause of death--possibly stress?--but surely it would've been kinder to put those kittens to sleep the day they were born.
  #30  
Old August 28th, 2006, 06:18 PM
LavenderRott's Avatar
LavenderRott LavenderRott is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prin
Then you don't love your doggy as much as I do.
(or at least not in the same way )
I promise you, Prin, I do. But I have human children too.
__________________
Sandi
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Terms of Use

  • All Bulletin Board Posts are for personal/non-commercial use only.
  • Self-promotion and/or promotion in general is prohibited.
  • Debate is healthy but profane and deliberately rude posts will be deleted.
  • Posters not following the rules will be banned at the Admins' discretion.
  • Read the Full Forum Rules

Forum Details

  • Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
    Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
    vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise (Reduced on this page: MySQL 0%).
  • All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:31 PM.