Culling

[FlyByNight]

This topic is being discussed on another board, mostly relating to a different breed. But since there is a large contingency of "working dog" people here, I thought I would ask.

 

Do you condone the culling of puppies through euthanasia? I'm curious as to the general consensus on this. On the other board, I am sensing a lot of the pet vs. working dichotomy. That culling is something only working dog people understand, and those of us with coddled pets just don't get it. If you could shed some light on this, I'd greatly appreciate it.

 

If this is in the wrong forum, I apologise. It seems like a rather political topic to me, and one pertaining to a particular "type" of mentality, or culture. In this case, the working collie one.

[Kitch]

What would be the point of euthanizing when a s/n would serve the same purpose? Seems the only "benefit" of euthanizing would be to save money.

[Sue R]

I don't breed and I never intend to do so, leaving that to people who are qualified to do so.

 

I think that it is the breeder's choice whether or not to cull by humane euthanasia, particularly in the case of birth defects, temperment faults, and similar problems. I would never condone inhumane methods of euthanasia (or any sort of "dumping" of puppies), which I won't even elaborate as they've been mentioned in several previous threads. I also don't condone culling due to color or other "insignificant" reasons.

 

As for "saving money" - I don't believe that's the issue at all for a responsible breeder. Someone who is responsible wants to produce the sanest, soundest, most suitable puppies possible. If they feel a pup doesn't have that potential and if they don't have an alternative future home for that pup, it's their option to euthanize.

 

You may sell "pet quality" pups with all the spay/neuter contracts in the world, but that doesn't mean the contracts will be fulfilled and the pups will never reproduce, by intention or otherwise. I think that could be an issue particularly in segments of the working farm/ranch dog world where registration is often not considered important. I can see many breeders choosing to euthanize rather than place pups that they feel do not have potential to contribute to the breed.

 

I think that most people tend to view companion animals in a different light from production animals and what would be repulsive with regards to the one type might be perfectly acceptable with regards to the other. In our society, we eat certain species but the idea of eating certain other species is disgusting, and yet it might be normal in another society.

 

I couldn't cull for any but humane reasons but I wouldn't criticize anyone who culled for the benefit of the breed, as long as they did it humanely. That's one of many reasons why I would never breed.

 

Strictly the opinions of a non-breeder of little experience.

[Pipedream Farm]

Since you won't know until the puppy is working sheep (1-2 years old) if it will be a good working dog; knowing which pups to cull is impossible.

 

On the other board, is culling being done to pups with serious deviations from the standard (i.e. breeding for looks) or health problems?

 

Mark

[juliepoudrier]

Mark has an excellent point. The only reason I can see for culling puppies is if they have some sort of serious physical defect (which doesn't include looks or color, unless that color is double merle, in which case there may well be a serious physical defect--but then I wouldn't be breeding merle to merle in the first place....), and then I would expect the breeder to cull humanely. If I wanted to cull a dog for any other reason (not a serious physical defect, but, say, not at all interested in stock) I would simply spay or neuter it before finding it a home, even if that meant early S/N or holding on to a pup until it could be altered at a more "normal" age and then placing it. If I wanted to cull an older pup for serious temperament issues, I would probably euthanize since I wouldn't want to be responsible for that temperament problem causing injury down the line.

 

So why are the folks on this other board discussing culling puppies? I don't quite see the dichotomy of working vs. pet from your post, and presumably the pet owners aren't breeding.

 

J.

[Kitch]

particularly in the case of birth defects, temperment faults, and similar problems.

I agree with humane euth. for these reasons as it is as much for the dog as anything else.

 

As for "saving money" - I don't believe that's the issue at all for a responsible breeder. Someone who is responsible wants to produce the sanest, soundest, most suitable puppies possible. If they feel a pup doesn't have that potential and if they don't have an alternative future home for that pup, it's their option to euthanize.

A responsible breeder should find a home for any pups that don't work out - that is part of their responsibility. If it isn't about money, then why wouldn't they s/n the pup themselves prior to placing it if they couldn't be assured the people taking the pup would do it? It is a simple solution. Euthanizing, in my opinion, is the easy way out. If you choose to breed, whether it is toy poodles or working border collies, you have a responsibility to place the litter. I don't think working breeders should get a "pass" on that or be held to a lower standard than we would expect from a show or pet breeder.

 

 

Since you won't know until the puppy is working sheep (1-2 years old) if it will be a good working dog; knowing which pups to cull is impossible.

Exactly.

[Zoe]

Since you won't know until the puppy is working sheep (1-2 years old) if it will be a good working dog; knowing which pups to cull is impossible

That was my first thought. (I'm assuming most pups aren't born with horrifying physical defects... at least they shouldn't be if they were responsibly bred, right ? )

[FlyByNight]

Kitch,

 

My position sides with you.

 

In regards to the other board, one of the things that continues to be emphasized is "breeding for yourself." Basically, breeding because you want to work one or two of the puppies, a few might go with close friends, but the breeder sees no reason to work with the public, and thus any extras are culled. An example given went something like this:

 

"I breed my bitch. I get eight puppies. I'm keeping two of them, and I place three with working homes who are friends. The other three, I cull."

 

There seems to be some reluctance to place working-bred dogs into a pet home, because in pets homes the pups won't get titled or worked, and the claim is that performance homes are few and far between. I don't understand it really, but thought maybe someone could shed some light on the subject here. To me, it seems like an easy way to shrug off the responsibility of finding suitable homes for pups.

[juliepoudrier]

It could be looked at as shrugging off responsibility to find good homes or it could be looked at as taking ultimate responsibility. I'm not condoning the practice, but I guess in my mind there are worse things than humane euthanasia. I'm sure that won't be a popular stand, but then again maybe folks would be aghast that I want my geriatric cats euthanized if I die before they do (as in die unexpectedly--if it's a death known to be coming, I can make provisions) because in my mind that's a kinder fate than ending up in a shelter in your teen years. FWIW, if I didn't want to take responsibilty for placing a litter, I would get a closely related pup (related to my dog I wanted a pup from) instead. JMO of course.

 

J.

[FlyByNight]

I agree that there are worse things than humane euthanasia for sure. But if a person was "breeding for themself" and only wanted one or two pups, why not purchase from another breeder?

 

It was also mentioned by the folks on the other board, that there is no way they would pay a Vet. to euthanize the puppies when they could do it themselves. Ick.

[bc friend]

My 2 cents worth - I believe culling is appropriate in the case of a puppy who has a defect that will cause it to have a painful or poor quality of life. I do not believe it is appropriate to cull simply because a puppy may be a poor working or show prospect. A blind, deaf, or 3 legged dog is probably not a good worker but may be a great pet. I realize that finding a good home may take some work but IMO the breeder accepted that responsibility in breeding the litter. Culling because of a dog's color, coat texture, ear set, eye color, etc. seems wholly unnecessary.

 

I have mixed feelings about culling for a defect that may cause a later problem. I have a lhasa with congentally malformed heart valves. It is very unlikely he will live out his breed's lifespan - more likely he will experience sudden death. He is smaller than most lhasas, has problems with anethesia, would likely not survive a serious illness, and has limited exercise tolerance. On the other hand, he is @ 5 yrs old, playful, happy, and loves to cuddle plus he LOVES Katie [who ignores him]. Should he have been culled if his heart defect was known? Probably - ethically he could not have been sold and most rescues would not take him; there are plenty of healthy dogs that don't have homes. But if he had been culled, I would have missed knowing this loving special little dog.

[Root Beer]

But if he had been culled, I would have missed knowing this loving special little dog.

I'm definitely with you. I guess because of his temperament, some would say that Speedy shouldn't have been allowed to live. But I wouldn't have missed out on him for all the temperamentally stable dogs in the world.

 

There seems to be some reluctance to place working-bred dogs into a pet home, because in pets homes the pups won't get titled or worked

And I realize that I differ completely from many of the working dog folks on this, but I think that's a shame. I hold the position that a working bred dog can thrive in a pet home - even one that is not particularly a "performance home" - if sufficient attention and training are provided to the dog.

 

It seems to me that those who despair for the future of the breed because of the amount of breeding done for conformation and sport these days would not favor the culling of working bred puppies since that increases the ration of conformation bred to working bred Border Collies out there.

[Turner, Andrea]

I personally do not believe in culling and for me it is not culling a pup if you have to have that pup put to sleep at birth if it has a health defect - I had 3 pups born back in 1990 with no umblical cords and they would have died a slow death so the vet came and put them to sleep for me asap

That is not culling

 

For me culling is to get rid of pups just because they do not suit the breeder - colour ,coat etc or because a breeder decides that there are too many pups for one bitch to cope with and cannot be bothered to help the bitch feed the extra pups.

 

Yes I am a breeder and work my dogs but any culling to me is abhorant.

[krazy15k]

.

[1sheepdoggal]

Culling, was a process of eliminaton that was first utilized by Europeans. Mainly Germans. Back in the day of the Core Miester. That was how they were able (in their minds) to keep form and function in their breeds. A process which shows today that perhaps it was well worth the effort, as most faniciers of working dogs such as the GSD, the Mal, Rottie, etc choose to purchase their dogs from European breeders, or at least from European working lines. Back in the day, it was the Core Miester's job to decide who could breed to whom, and then after the litter was born, which pups would live to go on and produce more of the same "type" in the breed. Basics of picking pups, was placed mainly on, first, markings, (pups that were "miss marked" were never even looked at, and usually culled at birth) The Core Miester would then come around at appropreiate ages, 5 weeks, 6 weeks, on up to 12 weeks, and perform a series of "tests" on the pups. Tests, which are still widely used today with a lot of working dog breeders for Personal Protection, SAR, Schutzhund, Mondio Ring, French Ring Sport, and people wanting to utilize a particular bred as Police or Security dogs and so on. The practice of culling in Germany is still resepcted and goes on, of course its not widely talked about anymore, ( they thank groups such as PITA) as most breeders tend to sell pups with spay/ neuter contracts and lots of those dogs go into pet and sport homes. There are no Core Miesters today. But there are those who still carry on with the traditions of old. I, am neither for or aginst it. (to each his own) Though I do think that there are to many dogs flooding the shelters and rescue organizations, an wonder if culling, and the utilization of Core Miesters would have any effect on the over population we see here in America, as well to change the rate of the destruction of many wonderful breeds that we see happening every day, and perhaps through culling, get those breeds back on the right track to having the form function, type, and temperment that they once were. Meaning that breeds, such as our such as our BC not have to be catagorized in to 3 seperate groups. IE. Working, Sport, Barbie. Ok. Flame away. Darci

[Lenajo]

That was my first thought. (I'm assuming most pups aren't born with horrifying physical defects... at least they shouldn't be if they were responsibly bred, right ? )

 

If you breed you will eventually see things that require culling for an ethical breeder. Cleft palates, true "runts", physical deformation (such as missing limbs, and I've also seen missing eyes), and yes (so shoot me) bilaterally deaf pups. Some of this genetic recessives that pop up desipte efforts to the contrary, but many are congenital (occuring during formation for various reasons). They aren't common, but they aren't rare either.

 

Most of these issues are seen quite early. Some things are not life changing - like crooked tails, or split noses - but you have to evalute I feel, as an ethical breeder...if the dog will have a good life when it's fixed, or be a source of pity more than it is a companion.

 

I wish more breeders would cull for temperament. And I doubly wish I'd see less use of pet homes as "dumping grounds" for dogs that should ethically be euthanised.

 

I expect flack over my opinion on deaf pups, and all I can say is this is a very different issues than an otherwise sound dog who is discovered to be deaf much later. Deaf dogs do have a harder time of it, and imo an ethical breeder is responsible for that....when rescue is empty, we can redebate it, until then...I think the breeder should either keep the pup, euthanize humanely, and reevaluate their breeding program if needed.

 

For me culling is to get rid of pups just because they do not suit the breeder - colour ,coat etc or because a breeder decides that there are too many pups for one bitch to cope with and cannot be bothered to help the bitch feed the extra pups.

 

Culling, in the most basic defination of dog breeding is killing, period. Regardless of what the reason is for doing it, humane or not, right or wrong. We have options in this modern society to cull humanely, or though spay/neuter, doesn't change what we are doing (other than the s/n of course)

 

If you are a breeder and a working dog owner, and you keep every dog that doesn't turn out (regardless of it being because it's "extra" to a litter, or had a defect that prevented ethical rehome) you are eventually either going to have to stop breeding, or you will wander off into that land of too many dogs...and not enough real time to give them the lives they deserve. If you choose to stop, that's ok, if you choose to place, that's ok...and if ethical culling is necessary then that's ok too. We need to stop judging each other and look at the ramifications to the individual dog and too the breed.

 

If it was black and white, it'd be a dog.

[stockdogranch]

Though I do think that there are to many dogs flooding the shelters and rescue organizations, an wonder if culling, and the utilization of Core Miesters would have any effect on the over population we see here in America, as well to change the rate of the destruction of many wonderful breeds that we see happening every day, and perhaps through culling, get those breeds back on the right track to having the form function, type, and temperment that they once were.

 

But here we're talking about dogs bred for their working ability, which is generally not apparent until the dog is probably close to 2 or older. So how would the "Core Meister" fit in here? There's a big dofference in "culling" for mis-markings (as there is NO SUCH THING in a BC) and s/n and placing in a pet home a dog that doesn't live up to top working standards. In breeding for working dogs, I agree--any kind of physical defect should be culled immediately.

 

A

[1sheepdoggal]

I guess I should have mentioned also, that when the Core Miester decided who was to breed to who, that the dogs in question before being bred, would already hold titles proving their abilities in first, comformation, to prove that the dog was physically true to breed form. Then the dog should also hold a title ( depending on if it was male or female) or various titles proving their function as was desigated for that breed. So, in effect, the 2 dogs being bred would have already proven their abilities to perform their bred function, and in having been judged on conformation, have shown that they were physically suited as well. So working ability should have already been within the pups genetic make up. As, dogs that did not pass, failed, and did not get bred. You must understand, that culling was enforced, because they did not want dogs that did not measure up to working standards. Thus, being placed in non working homes. They culled because they wanted only those dogs that would pass all requirments for a breed, and to "improve" on the breed. As I have 6 ABC reg. working BC I am aware that there is no such thing as mismarking in a BC. Mine are a motley crew of various markings to the point where some would ask what type of dog it is, because mine do not look "typical" to the breed. Im not the one who made the rules for culling, although I do understand its good points, as well as the reasoning behind it. I just figured that before we got to far into a discussion about culling, that perhaps folks would be better able to make their judgements if they understood a bit more about the origins of culling and the reasonings behind it. Breeders today, dont always cull for the right reasons, so perhaps me trying to enlighten folks about the original reasons for culling would be null and void. I dp feel however, that some people will breed a working BC because it is a great working dog, and set aside all the other little quirks, because it is a good working dog. Perhaps if the great working dogs with out all the little quirks, (noise sensitivity, shyness, and the list goes on) were only bred, then my dogs would be so much nicer to hang out with after my arm got tired of throwing the ball, or my sheep were just to tired to be run any harder. Culling is all about what a person wants to see in their breed, and I think the Germans hearts were in the right place as far as culling for the best dog goes. Personally, though,I like my quirky collies.Or would that be, my collies quirky? Darci

[SoloRiver]

I'm rather curious as to which working breed this was being discussed on another forum. GSDs?

[1sheepdoggal]

I would too, as I wasnt aware that they did much if any culling in the states except in extreme cases of deformity. And even then, I have seen folks go to great lengths and expense to fix dogs/ puppies with cleft pallet, and other deformities. The GSD isnt so much a color breed, or a breed given to much mismarking either so you do bring up an interesting question. Hope we get an answer. Darci

[Bill Fosher]

It was also mentioned by the folks on the other board, that there is no way they would pay a Vet. to euthanize the puppies when they could do it themselves. Ick.

 

Around here they'd have a hard time finding a vet who would be willing to euthanize healthy, vital pups, whether the breeders were willing to pay or not.

[FlyByNight]

Wow, I started this thread over a year ago. The breed in question was working Pit Bulls, of the type seen in ADBA. The folks arguing in favor of culling used their dogs mostly for catch work with hogs, weight pull, and a little bit of bite sport.

 

ETA: I should say that these people could care less about mismarked dogs, and that the actual act of culling didn't get to me so much as the seeming use of culling to solve the "problem" of finding homes for all pups produced. That is, I want a pup from such and such dog, and I will get a pup from such and such dog whether I have homes for the others or not, and I will just cull the extras. Problem solved. It seemed an easy answer for indulging in selfish desire without having to take responsibility for it.

[Lenajo]

At least they took responsibility for what they produced. Which is more than I can say for a lot of breeders.

 

And no, the whole idea of killing because they are simply unwanted is not nice, but then again...what's being done to the pitbull and the resulting low availability of appropriate homes isn't either. And would be the killing be more nice.if it was done at 8 weeks at the animal shelters all over the country the kill Pits just because they are pits? That's reality for these dogs right now

 

Or should they just not breed the dogs at all - because of what people do to them and scare of homes that would adore them? Hardly seems fair.

 

I'm glad I'm not trying to breed Pitbulls.

 

If it was black and white, it'd be a dog.

[1sheepdoggal]

What a shame. Though now that I know which breed it is that you were talking about, given the mentality of some of the Pitt "breeders?" a questionable reference in its self, it comes as no shock to me. Whats really sad, is that I think Bill is right in saying that some one would be hard pressed to find a vet who would put down healthy pups, so that leads me to wonder then, how they go about their culling. I would venture to hope it would be humane, however Im more inclined to think it would border more along the lines of abuse. Strange how folks would admit to doing such things on an open forum, and not fear being at risk of perhaps being visited by their local athorities.

[Liz P]

How in the world do they chose the "best" pup in the litter, the one to continue their bloodlines, when they are just babies and have not yet proved themselves? You might be culling the best pups.