Jump to content
BC Boards

McCallum


Tea
 Share

Recommended Posts

Why not just sell on a strict no breeding spay/neuter contract, and not add his name to the pups he doesn't approve of. Or even juvenil spay neuter, yeah there's qualms about it, but if these aren't going to be great working dogs than it should be okay. Better than culling. someone recognized like him could have his pups sold off cheaply/quickly, because even if they don't meet his standard they would meet someone with a less strict one..Better than culling them, that's just lazy and irresponsible to me.

 

Kinda like he's justifying it my saying I'm on a quest to make great dogs so I shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else.

 

I think the point could be made that the environment where these dogs were developed was not conducive to pet homes lined up. I would also say that the ones I've seen would not be good dogs for the average pet owner because they are extremely pushy and active (although good tempered IMHO, the ones I've known). So, for arguments sake, lets say that the type could not have been developed as successfully without hard culling in that environment. You could say that limiting breeding to the availability of pet homes could leave the people with a true need for the dog without actual quality of the dog they need because pet considerations are made. I don't believe these were developed to work on hobby farms or even on the trial field, but on commercial operations with a large number of tough livestock in harsh conditions. I think letting the pet equation into those breeding decisions might be problematic.

 

Again, I couldn't do it. But I need a dog to work my dozen sheep and go to a dog trial without being laughed off the field. I like to think I have pretty high standards as far as that goes but I know that it is very hard for me to truly prove out the worth of a dog for breeding choices. I don't need a dog to work long hours in hot, harsh conditions on stock that were extremely tough and wild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it better than culling? According to some of the logic discussed here, let's say he sells the pups on spay/neuter or whatever and his pups don't get culled. The homes that took those pups are now no longer available to rescue a pup, so instead, the shelters euthanize pups because they don't have homes for them. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's more of a cultural thing rather than being lazy or irresponsible. What do you do on a farm when an animal doesn't cut it for whatever reason? You sell it for slaughter or humanely dispatch it. You only have room for so many and when the animals are your livelihood you have to be picky. And there aren't a lot of options when it comes to livestock that isn't cutting it - not a lot of pet homes for cows, sheep and pigs.

 

It's far different than what most of us ascribe to when it comes to dogs (and to what I personally believe). But whether we agree his ethics or not, he does take responsibility for the animals that he brings into the world. He's not making them someone else's problem. Lazy and irresponsible are the people that dump animals in the country "where they can be free" or allow their dog to have pups then dump the excess animals in a shelter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said pet homes. Dogs bred to that level aren't going to settle nicely into the average pet home. Though they could work nicely in a working home, just may take more time

 

You could say culling them versus trying to place them in suitable home frees up space for other dogs in shelters, but I believe everyone needs to take responsibility on their own ends. There are different levels of being lazy and irresponsible, just because someone is more irresponsible than you --dumping animals to roam, or dropping them off at a shelter. Doesn't mean you aren't by culling. There's an outrage when people put animals down because they dint have time for them anymore-- are moving, too much dog, etc, I personally view this culling as the same thing. I think you should be responsible for giving a life to the life you bring into the world.

 

This is just my personal opinion.

 

I guess like someone said, does the means justify the end? I think the means can be done better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not agreeing with culling, but I undertand the logic of not wanting to sell an inferior product while trying to develop your brand. Imagine if a new car company starts selling their vehicles without doing lots of road testing and they don't perform. People are going to get rid of them and pass on the word about their bad experiences. In the future, even after all the kinks have been worked out and the car is now a perfected machine, the reputation remains and is hard to overcome. Buisinesses know that its best to spend time and money to get something right tha first time than spend even more time and money trying to repair a bad reputation.

 

If we were talking about sheep instead of dogs I doubt many would object to the cull lambs going to market, but we are talking about dogs. So, is it wrong? The answer is a matter of opinion, and everyone is entitled to one. I know that I personally could not bring myself to do that sort of culling. I sell dogs/pups without papers if they are not up to my standard.

 

When people ask me who the good breeders are I give them a list of names of handlers that produce quality dogs. I tell them that the dogs they produce are great, but that they must choose who to buy from based on their own ethics. If you don't support the practices of a breeder, don't buy a pup from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are peoples positions on pups produced that are later identified to have temperment issues? Every now and then we see a trash bitter or one without bite inhibition come in that people want help with. The dog bites more then it should when pressure is applied such as when excited or when threatened and placing them into a pet home is an accident waiting to happen. They also can't be placed into many working homes because they are a danger to livestock, unless of course they are soft and can be taught to not engage livestock at all, but the dog is still a liability to strangers, grandkids, etc.

 

There have been a few that have come through here from folks rescuing them from people that use dogs and were going to destroy that dog but instead allowed them to go to rescue, the dog could have been returned to the breeder but it was known that the dog would be destroyed anyway so letting someone else have the dog was considered better for the dog. I've even seen these dogs show up unaltered with papers, passed from home to home more then one ended up being used as a stud dog by the person that rescued it. Big names on the pedigree and those names are being marketed, the rescuer does not realize that the trait preventing the dog from being a good worker will more then likely be passed on to his pups.

 

Who should have been responsible for that dog? Should the breeder have held the pups back until they could verify temperment, might be 6 months to a year of age before selling their dogs? Should the person who purchased the pup destroy it even though the rescue person felt it should be saved? Neutering it would not have changed it's nature, though people believe it would, but sorry these types of things are not hormonally driven.

 

What would be the best way to prevent this type of scenario from happening in the first place? Aside from not breeding at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just to add a note to the above, the rescuer that bred the dog did not understand that the dog had a issue that was bred in, they blamed in on how the dog was treated previously and figured that the reason they could not progress with the dog from a livestock training direction had to do with lack of ability on behalf of the person training it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just sell on a strict no breeding spay/neuter contract, and not add his name to the pups he doesn't approve of. Or even juvenil spay neuter, yeah there's qualms about it, but if these aren't going to be great working dogs than it should be okay. Better than culling. someone recognized like him could have his pups sold off cheaply/quickly, because even if they don't meet his standard they would meet someone with a less strict one..Better than culling them, that's just lazy and irresponsible to me.

 

Kinda like he's justifying it my saying I'm on a quest to make great dogs so I shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else.

That's all fine and good, but it's still just dressing up the fundamental issue of every "culled" dog that's bred adding to the dog population and increasing the burden on shelters.

 

You really can't get around that issue if you support breeding. I've never destroyed dogs that didn't make the cut, but I accept the fact that breeding, even for working dogs, makes me somewhat culpable in the bigger issue of a world over-populated with dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not subscribing to this logic, either. I support the working dogs -- whether or not I work dogs, I'd buy a working pup any day of the week. I didn't put the dogs on the ground that landed in rescue, and I didn't euthanize them, either. I'm sorry there are puppymills and backyard breeders out there, and I'm sorry there are rescues that act as safety nets for the puppymills and backyard breeders, but I don't play any part in it simply because I support the working dog.

If you support a dog breeder you're involved in the issue. It's like saying that buying feedlot beef doesn't mean you play a role in the way feedlot animals are kept because you didn't breed them and you didn't fire the bolt gun.

 

If you support the practice, you're part of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like saying that buying feedlot beef doesn't mean you play a role in the way feedlot animals are kept because you didn't breed them and you didn't fire the bolt gun.

 

No, it's not. The correlation doesn't even work. But go ahead and think so. I don't have the energy to explain it to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jumping in late here...

 

If these pups "didn't work out" because they didn't have what it takes, then wouldn't there be a chance that these pups weren't the extremely pushy active type, and more of a "pet" type?? Making them eligible for adoption to someone familiar with the breed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jumping in late here...

 

If these pups "didn't work out" because they didn't have what it takes, then wouldn't there be a chance that these pups weren't the extremely pushy active type, and more of a "pet" type?? Making them eligible for adoption to someone familiar with the breed.

 

A chance, yes. However, there are many traits that a active dog could have to make it a less attractive working candidate. My 1st dog was a prime example of this- extremely keen, even stylish. Very hyper though and pressure sensitive in the worst way. No way should she have ever been bred and while she was ok as a pet, she would have challenged most owners. Would not even look at cows, fear-motivated biter on sheep. She looked really good as a pup, I had offers on her. No one wanted her as a two year old though and she warmed my couch after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you support a dog breeder you're involved in the issue. It's like saying that buying feedlot beef doesn't mean you play a role in the way feedlot animals are kept because you didn't breed them and you didn't fire the bolt gun.

 

If you support the practice, you're part of the game.

 

So in that logic you are personally responsible for world hunger, climate change and the state of our economy? Because I can twist "logic" to prove so.

 

Any logic can be turned anyway, inside out to support whatever argument you are in favor of. Everyone has their own parts in the battle and just because I choose to buy a well bred dog from what I consider to be an ethically responsible breeder, doesn't mean I am supporting the overpopulation of pets and am the cause of it. It just means (to put it very harshly, and this is not what I think of rescue at all) that I am not cleaning up someone else's mess.

 

Looking at it your way just shifts the blame to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in that logic you are personally responsible for world hunger, climate change and the state of our economy? Because I can twist "logic" to prove so.

I'm not twisting any logic here, and you're not responding to the theme of the thread. Are you really trying to argue that you've played no role in climate change? Ever driven a car? My argument in this thread is merely against the rampant hypocrisy in it and that is all.

 

Any logic can be turned anyway, inside out to support whatever argument you are in favor of.

Only circular logic, which this is not.

Everyone has their own parts in the battle and just because I choose to buy a well bred dog from what I consider to be an ethically responsible breeder, doesn't mean I am supporting the overpopulation of pets and am the cause of it.
Actually that's exactly what it means. If you're supporting the increase of the dog population, you're playing a role in the issue whether you care to admit it or not; which you clearly don't.

 

It just means (to put it very harshly, and this is not what I think of rescue at all) that I am not cleaning up someone else's mess.
No, it means that you're unwilling to consider the issue on a deeper level. You're saying "because I send my garbage to a reputable dump, I have no role in the pollution of the world." I'm sorry but that is complete bubkiss.

 

Looking at it your way just shifts the blame to others.
You're so caught up releasing yourself from any blame that you've apparently missed the fact that I have bred and own working dogs from other reputable breeders. I am very much a part of the issue, but, unlike you I don't pretend not to be. I accept my culpability in the issue, and work to educate people why I'm comfortable with what I do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking part, the way your saying it really gives off the impression that we are personally responsible for the overpopulation problem. Not a part. I'm probably not explaining myself well enough, but IMO buying a breeder dog does not make me responsible for killing a shelter pup. There's Part and responsible for.

 

And I've already given my views on the topic of the post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...