Time and Lineage

[PSmitty]

I don't know what the rate of disposal of dogs that don't turn out as well as hoped may be in the North American sports world, but here it is very rare - rare enough to be condemned.

 

I believe it's rare here, too.

[Eileen Stein]

Not specifically in the US, but in the working world as opposed to sports world.

 

Is it not common to start and sell on dogs?

 

Is it not common to get rid of dogs one way or another if they don't come up to scratch? As noone commented adversely on the culling reference it seemed a reasonable inference that culling happens often enough to be considered acceptable.

 

Both contribute to the rate of turnover.

 

I don't know what the rate of disposal of dogs that don't turn out as well as hoped may be in the North American sports world, but here it is very rare - rare enough to be condemned.

 

mum24dog, you're shifting your ground so fast I can't keep up -- must be all that agility practice.

 

This is what you said:

 

Make sure you are comparing like with like. Most sports people will keep and work with a less than perfectly tempered dog; many working folk apparently don't and get rid one way or another. The turnover seems pretty high from what I read on here so no wonder you see what you do at trials.

 

You were giving various reasons why your events were more challenging to good behavior. This final shot seemed to be saying, "We keep our bad-tempered dogs and work with them, whereas working folk get rid of them, so no wonder you see the survivors being calm and well-mannered at your trials."

 

What does that have to do with starting and selling on dogs? What does that have to do with "dogs who don't come up to scratch"? I have heard the accusation that working dog people will place a dog that cannot do the work, and that is certainly sometimes the case. Top trainers starting a dog and selling it on is common. But I haven't heard (before now) the accusation that working dog people will get rid of dogs one way or another because they are "less than perfectly tempered." In fact, it seems to conflict with the common accusation that working dogs are snappy and shy because nobody cares about socializing them and only care whether they're good at their work.

 

And why on earth would anyone comment, adversely or otherwise, on "the culling reference"? The culling reference being the following:

 

As a (very hard culling) kelpie breeder likes to say, "God will make more dogs". It is extremely rare that the loss of one dog for breeding will impact the breed overall.[emphasis added]

 

What would we say -- "Oh, BAD unknown kelpie breeder! How terrible that you don't breed dogs that are not up to snuff!"

[mum24dog]

The clubs that I have been involved with who put on agility or obedience trails used fairgrounds, schools, college campuses and parks, and in all cases the ability to hold a show there was contingent upon dogs who were not being exhibited being on lead. As there are not that many places that have the square footage, bathrooms, parking, and proximity to hotels, etc that each club needed we were often very strict on following those rules because we didn't want to lose the venue.

 

I'm always interested in comparing how things are done in different countries.

 

Here in the UK I think agility and obedience have more in common with sheepdog trialling in terms of facilities (or lack of them). Give us a few reasonably flat fields with piped water somewhere and we'll put on a show. We bring in everything we need - and take it away at the end. We use an Agricultural Showground for our main agility and obedience shows and it is also used for sheepdog trials.

 

We do use equestrian arenas in the winter, which are a bit more civilised, but not much sometimes, and they get very, very crowded.

 

We're going to a show 3.5 hours away tomorrow in preference to one 2 hours away - reason being the nearer one has virtually no exercise area where the dogs can run free, and that is very unusual here. After a day competing dogs need to wind down and release the tension and I don't think it's fair not to be able to allow them to run and play, especially if the show is more than one day (could be as much as a week long. And it makes it easier to warm dogs up properly prior to competing if there is somewhere to run them.

 

That's not meant as a criticism. We all have to make choices based on the expectations of our customers and if yours are used to home comforts at trials then you have to provide them, and I can see why you might find it difficult to find somewhere with everything you need and sufficient room for free running.

[Tea]

Hum.

 

 

 

I know no one, that trials, that culls, by killing dogs that don't work out.

 

I know no farmer that does that either, in my circles.

The only reason they would put a dog down is severe health issues or very agressive behaviour.

 

People I know would get mad if they found someone just killing dogs left and right.....ok

 

What they do....is spay...or castrate and find a good pet home.

 

 

 

Am I missing something here? I'm I typing this in English and its coming out some other way on this thing.....

 

 

 

Ok Julie send me some unicorns, baby.....

 

 

 

.

 

sheez

[mum24dog]

What would we say -- "Oh, BAD unknown kelpie breeder! How terrible that you don't breed dogs that are not up to snuff!"

 

Don't breed or kill? Not the same thing at all.

 

Only breeding from the best is one thing - what you do with the inevitable disappointing progeny which will arrive from time to time is another.

 

As I said in reply to someone else, here if someone mentions culling it is generally understood as meaning getting rid of - permanently (as in seal cull.

 

Or a breeder for colour killing pups that are "wrong". PDE featured a Ridgeback breeder who culled pups with no ridge.

 

I don't know of any pink and fluffy way of culling. Maybe you use the word differently.

 

If you are fine with killing substandard workers, how does that sit with the often stated opinion on here that sport people should home a dog that hasn't made the working grade?

 

As for shifting ground - I don't see it. Discussions tend to take diversions when questions are asked which may or may not be directly relevant to the original point.

 

The fact is that Donald McCaig made a misguided comparison between the behaviour he claimed he sees at sheepdog trials and the behaviour of sports dogs, which he seems not to be too familiar with, although I stand to be corrected on that. He wasn't comparing like with like at all since the two environments are very different.

 

If dogs at trials are as well behaved and sports dogs as near hysterical as he claims then maybe the reluctance of many in the farming community to feed passengers could be a factor in the superior behaviour of trial dogs. Culling is a way of ridding oneself of such passengers.

 

But anyway, as the difference in communal behaviour isn't as great as he makes out it really isn't worth sweating over.

[mum24dog]

I'm I typing this in English and its coming out some other way on this thing.....

 

I'm typing English - perhaps you're typing American.

 

Just what is your definition of "culling" and especially "hard culling"? By definition I mean what is generally understood by the term, which is the only real meaning any word can have.

 

It seems to be different from ours.

[Liz P]

It is rare for there to be a single definition of a word.

 

tr.v. culled, cull·ing, culls

 

1. to choose or gather the best or required examples

2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Agriculture) to take out (an animal, esp an inferior one) from a herd

3. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Agriculture) to reduce the size of (a herd or flock) by killing a proportion of its members

4. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Horticulture) to gather (flowers, fruit, etc.)

5. to cease to employ; get rid of

 

It appears that culling doesn't have to mean killing.

 

I don't interpret "hard culling" to be killing as opposed to finding a new home. I interpret hard culling to mean a person has very high standards so only keeps the very best as opposed to keeping everything that is just above average.

 

PS, if people had not culled in the past we would not have our wonderful breed to begin with.

[Tea]

No....I am describing for me and mine- reread my posts that is my experience.

And I know alot of farmers who are pretty darn kind nice folks. And alot of trialers that love their dogs so much.

 

 

 

Man, I thought I was speaking English?

 

 

 

If I talked to you in American

 

 

 

It would look like this.

 

 

 

Asa...shonka cabe...neh? Wahzhazhe.

 

Markquiaki.

[Tea]

Thanks for literal definition there Liz

 

 

 

I am going back out to move my ancient BFL sheep that I keep around because they are my buddies.

[geonni banner]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culling

 

Ok, I know that Wikipedia is not the be-all & end-all of accurate info, but it's a good place to start, and in this case makes it clear that there are a range of ways to interpret the word "cull." To wit:

 

Culling is the process of removing breeding animals from a group based on specific criteria. This is done either to reinforce certain desirable characteristics or to remove certain undesirable characteristics from the group. For livestock and wildlife alike, culling usually implies the killing of the removed animals.

 

Pedigreed animals

 

Culling The rejection or removal of inferior individuals from breeding. The act of selective breeding. As used in the practice of breeding pedigree cats, this refers to the practice of spaying or neutering a kitten or cat that does not measure up to the show standard (or other standard being applied) for that breed. In no way does culling, as used by responsible breeders, signify the killing of healthy kittens or cats if they fail to meet the applicable standard."

Robinson's Genetics for Cat Breeders and Veterinarians, Fourth Edition[1]

 

In the breeding of pedigreed animals, both desirable and undesirable traits are considered when choosing which animals to retain for breeding and which to place as pets. The process of culling starts with examination of the conformation standard of the animal and will often include additional qualities such as health, robustness, temperament, color preference, etc. The breeder takes all things into consideration when envisioning his/her ideal for the breed or goal of their breeding program. From that vision, selections are made as to which animals, when bred, have the best chance of producing the ideal for the breed.[2]

Breeders of pedigreed animals cull based on many criteria. The first culling criterion should always be health and robustness. Secondary to health, temperament and conformation of the animal should be considered. The filtering process ends with the breeder's personal preferences on pattern, color, etc.

So...

I think that circumstances dictate whether a dog should be culled in whichever sense of the word you choose. If a rescue received a pregnant double merle bitch that delivered one or more deaf & eyeless pups, I personally think they would be justified in culling (as in killing) them, and if they chose not to do that the they would be morally obligated to cull them (in the sense of removing them from the breeding population.)

 

Tea, what are BFL sheep? Big, fat, lazy?

[Eileen Stein]

As I said in reply to someone else, here if someone mentions culling it is generally understood as meaning getting rid of - permanently (as in seal cull.

 

So no one in the UK would say something like, "A dog who is X should be culled from your breeding program"? And if they did, you would take it to mean, "A dog who is X should be killed?"

 

If you are fine with killing substandard workers, how does that sit with the often stated opinion on here that sport people should home a dog that hasn't made the working grade?

 

Mmm, good point. They are kind of inconsistent, aren't they? Maybe you'd have to conclude that those who voice the often stated opinion on here that sport people could seek a dog that hasn't made the working grade are NOT fine with killing substandard workers. Or you could just insist that we're fine with it, because someone quoted someone who used the word "cull" in the context of breeding, and nobody objected. Which I guess is what you're doing here.

[terrecar]

Ah, yes. Thank you. "Culture dictates". It is what it is, doesn't have to mean that the dogs in one culture (event) are all that different from the dogs in the other culture (event). The problem for me, personally, is people making judgements and generalizations about cultures they are not involved in, from little to no firsthand experience.

 

I realize the thread has switched gears, but I just wanted to affirm this as well. I'm not going to put a whole lot of stock into an opinion parroted by someone who hasn't actually set foot in a ring/trial et. al. I do understand there are impressions; I have them as well. But it takes an awful lot of hubris to pontificate on something with which you have little or no experience.

[terrecar]

It would be nice if things here devolved less into the "us vs. them" in regards to sports people. I know the culture on this board is more about stockwork, but sometimes its hard not to feel a little insulted. Not be everyone or all the time, of course, but sometimes. I think that more of us have more of the good stuff in common than we have differences.

 

Awesome post. It's nice to see that adults can refrain from low-rent insults (of course I'm poor, so me, not so much) LOL!

[juliepoudrier]

I find it (sadly) amusing that in a thread where the topic of generalizing has come up again and again, Pam would choose to believe that if one person--someone unknown and unnamed and not even on this forum--advocates culling (killing per her definition), then *all* working breeders must advocate killing substandard dogs. What a leap of logic (or lack thereof) that is!

 

As for the argument that no one spoke up against the statement somehow implying that we all condone killing of substandard dogs, well, I suppose if she will believe what she chooses to believe. It's just as likely that most readers on this thread considered the idea ludicrous and not worth giving credence to by commenting on it.

 

That said, I know of an old-timer who culled (by killing) a dog he wasn't happy with. The number of people who were up in arms over that speaks to the fact that most people don't condone such things. The fact that the dog in question still comes up in conversations nearly two years later would imply that most people find such culling shocking and reprehensible. But you can choose to believe what you will Pam. Because that one old timer (80+ years old) chose a particular action surely means that all the rest of us would do the exact same thing, no? Your belief won't change the fact of what most people refer to as culling is removing from the breeding pool (unless we're referring to livestock, in which case I do use the word cull to mean specifically an animal not suitable for breeding or selling on to someone else for breeding--but sheep ain't dogs).

 

J.

[terrecar]

I once heard the philosopher Alvin Plantinga say that it is more important to understand what someone means to say than what he actually says. It seems self-evident, I guess. Why am I bringing this up? It seemed tangentially related somehow.

[Eileen Stein]

But anyway, as the difference in communal behaviour isn't as great as he makes out it really isn't worth sweating over.

 

At least Donald based his conclusion about sport dogs in the UK on his attendance at Crufts. What first-hand experience with the US are you basing your conclusions on?

[DeltaBluez Tess]

I've been to a few agilty trial and watched...the dogs were well bahaved and in crates....some barking but overall, dogs were behaved. Every dog was on a leash. There were a lot of noise due to the runs and some of the dogs barked during their runs. Lots of people in a building and way too many people for my brain!!Everyone was very nice and when they found out that I was a herding person, not one treated me badly. I went to cheer on my students who ran and try to do that once a year and to see my dogs I sold them run. I actually enjoyed myself. I sae people with very slow dogs that wanted to have a good time with their dogs. I saw some people take it very seriously. It's not my thing but I went to support my students. Some of my students have gone to the sheepdogs trials, and while they have enjoyed it, one comment was "Like watching paint dry"....but the other comments was "lots of loose dogs running around but no fights?" ...they were impressed with that.

[Smokjbc]

I tried to post earlier but my smartphone ate my reply .

 

When I say "cull", I mean "remove from the gene pool". I do that by spay/neuter and rehome and haven't bred a litter now in 12 years due to not being entirely convinced I had something breed worthy. For the record, I have only rehomed dogs that were either completely unsuited for working at a minimum level that I would want or in one case, a dog that had more work to do and wasn't getting it done any more with me. That dog benefited more than I did (hell, I still cry over that dog) from being rehomed.

 

My best dog to this day was spayed when she was 4 so I'm not one that thinks it has to be exceptional breeding quality to be worth keeping. By using the "cull" word, I remind myself that it's not an emotional choice - it's not about what I want as much as it is about how the breed will benefit from breeding or not breeding an individual animal.