Culling, does it mean death for innocent pups?

I will euthanize a puppy born with insides on the outside...as happens...extreme deformities...as happens. I cull my puppies/require spay and neuter on the pets....and the retired show dogs that aren't breeding material.

As for the rest of the world, I guess you'd have to go door to door asking them....because to my knowledge there is no ONE person on any internet forum that speaks for all breeders, worldwide on any subject...including this.

Unfortunately, so often breeders would rather kill puppies that aren't what they consider 'good representatives' of the breed than spay/neuter and place them.  I know the entire greyhound club was adamant until about 10 - 15 years ago NEVER to place retired racers nor sub-standard non-winning dogs.  My old vet was one of the tireless workers in that cause.

Breeds that have the 'merle' coat (shelties, etc.) or black/white marked dogs like harlequin danes, dalmatians, etc. often wind up with at least one 'white' pup out of 5 when breeding merles to merles to obtain that prized coat.  Routinely, the white/deaf pups have been "culled".  For many years the AKC dalmatian club has recommended never placing the white pup because of "potential aggression" (because a deaf dog can startle easily, particularly if untrained). 

This has only changed in the past few years. 

Unfortunately, even the UK has become influenced by the American bad-breeding practices.  It's unfortunate that the emphasis in that article is simply that if they do cull, that it must be humane.  It's very sad to think that anything else is even thinkable. 

From here I'll shut up ... I have a tough time with "breed standards" and breeding a dog for one particular physical characteristic or the absence of it. 

I understand culling but it shouldn't mean death ... it should simply mean that pup isn't bred, but is spayed/neutered and placed as a pet instead.

calliecritturs

I understand culling but it shouldn't mean death ... it should simply mean that pup isn't bred, but is spayed/neutered and placed as a pet instead.

That's what it DOES mean in the dog breeding world. (Edit: To clarify, from what I have learned in discussions with breeders that I have known, it doesn't necessarily have to mean death. To MANY dog breeders, it CAN mean euthanasia AND/OR removing a dog from the breeding pool by spaying and neutering or by spay/neuter contracts.)

Practical Genetics 

WHAT IS CULLING & HOW IS IT USED? Culling is the removal of an individual from further breeding consideration. It is NOT necessarily killing. Any dog spayed or neutered is culled & could be called a "cull," just like any animal who never has offspring technically is a cull. Culling is selecting breeding stock, be it natural forces or breeders who choose who will produce & who will not. Culling out newborn puppies is something breeders learned from observing nature & from experience with certain early seen traits that indicate future problems. (But culling out by breeders, unlike in nature, is done by humane euthanasia, not by starvation, competition & exposure.)

Puppies are not normally killed "just" for color, despite widespread myths & rumours to the contrary. Puppies are usually euthanized for one of three reasons: a) the litter has an excessive number of pups in it, b) the pup(s) in question has a trait associated with serious defects than impair a normal life, or c) the breeder is unable to find suitable homes for the puppies in question. All are acts of extreme responsibility & no breeder should be condemned for acting responsibility toward his/her pups, dam and breed.

Breeders who cull out at birth are not less feeling than those who, for whatever reason (& it's too often from ignorance or emotion) "choose" not to immediately seperate out excess & defective pups. Many would argue, in fact, that breeders who cull out are in fact are simply braver, & are acting from a deep love for the breed, the pups and the dam; for to have to euthanize lives you brought into the world is never less than a terribly heavy burden. Most breeders will be faced with the need to cull out newborns at some point & some breeders (e.g. Harlequin Dane breeders) face the issue often.

Culling, however it is done, keeps the breed strong by selecting only the best individuals to parent the next generation. It is a necessary breeder's tool. Culling out newborns when to keep them would have bad effects on the pup itself, on the other pups, the dam &/or the breed itself is just one of the least pleasant burdens being a breeder brings. Culling in general is used by everyone who breeds...including nature. Again culling is the natural aftermath of selecting one animal for breeding over another. It's a necessary part of any breeding program & the "culls" are NOT lesser in any sense per se: I do hope we are now at a time in history we will no longer judge anyone, animals or women for that matter, based purely on their reproductive value.

I don't necessarily share ALL the sentiments of the above quote, but I see nothing wrong with "culling" as explained here.

If the litter has so many pups that some will suffer, I can see the argument for euthanasia, although I wouldn't do it in those circumstances, myself. If the pup had a serious defect that would impair a normal life, I can support the euthanasia of the pup (although again, not sure I would be able to do it). But I wouldn't support euthanasia of a pup just because I didn't find a suitable home. I believe a breeder is responsible for the pups that are brought into the world in their breeding program and a healthy pup shouldn't be put down.

"I believe a breeder is responsible for the pups that are brought into the world in their breeding program and a healthy pup shouldn't be put down."

I do agree with that! 

I was recently at the feed store and they had kittens. So sweet. But one of the kittens had missing/malformed hind end. The dear little thing was more friendly than the other two in the cage. The little things mobility is naturally not agile like it's siblings. Next time we went back, the kittens were gone. I had not the heart to ask. 

 I think a lot of people think that culling automatically means killing.  It does not.

cull   // ", "6";); interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false";); interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high";); interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false";); interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t";); interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FC10%2FC1037200.mp3";); interfaceflash.write(); // ]]>  

In theory, when Jack's breeder said that he must be neutered and made me sign the contract, Jack was being culled.  Good call on the breeder's part BTW, he is not breeding material.  I essentially culled Sally when I decided to have her spayed despite the fact that I had offers to breed her.  We are not even certain of her breed, and even if we were, she would not be breeding material.

FourIsCompany

That's what it DOES mean in the dog breeding world.

I doubt anything encompasses the "dog breeding world". I certainly have never read that article, was not consulted before it was written and have never filled out a survey on 'what culling means to me'.

I am not sure why any blanket needs to be tossed out, at all. Either the blanket that culling is euthanasia...OR...that it is s/n. It is a DIFFERENT thing to likely every single person who raises a litter.

I see no reason to deny some people euthanize...or deny that other people don't. It's an individual choice...as is the choice to euthanize or work with a pet with aggression issues. Be it a tiny puppy with closed eyes, or a robust healthy dog only 2 years old, that is growling at the resident child. It is for THAT owner at THAT time to decide their course of action.

As I have seen, the person who decides to euth for aggression is JUST as likely to face harsh judgements from "people" should they speak about what they chose to do...as is the breeder who euth an all white puppy, or a puppy with a cleft palate (that might be correctable with surgery but maybe not)

AND just to say something about the "innocent pups" thing. ALL dogs...even those euthanized for extreme acts like killing another dog or human...are innocent, IMO.

I think that whatever you want to call it, the behaviors of humans to get the kind of helpful breed that they want is a process as old as human/dog history.

Siberian natives, Chukchi , did this and created the Siberian husky.  The women did the process (whatever you wish to name it). But they did not kill the dogs. They spayed and neutered. Probably some cases they may have killed. I don't think that was the usual though.  The dogs that were desirable to be bred were allowed to stay intact and multiply.  Desirability traits encompass the Siberian husky traits of today.  Those who love Siberians know what the traits are.

 Chukchi created a beautiful breed.

I find it absolutely disgusting that some breeders are that cold blooded to kill a puppy based on breed perfection, like what is described in the article I posted......a missing ridge in the fur...at that point in time the so called responsible breeder has lost his/her right to be called a responsible breeder.....I have no issue with euthanasia of severely malformed animals if they would suffer from that.

rwbeagles

I doubt anything encompasses the "dog breeding world". I certainly have never read that article, was not consulted before it was written and have never filled out a survey on 'what culling means to me'.

I have edited my post for clarification. I certainly didn't mean to speak for you.

Well we can all drag out our dictionary (once again) and debate exactly what culling means but IMO the term generally refers to killing. When I hear about a particular population of animals being culled I certainly don't imagine a mass spay and neuter undertaking. Culling is also not exclusively done to remove animals from the gene pool. It can be done to halt the spread of disease or to control numbers, in which case it has nothing to do with any genetic defaults.

dogslife

I think that whatever you want to call it, the behaviors of humans to get the kind of helpful breed that they want is a process as old as human/dog history.

Siberian natives, Chukchi , did this and created the Siberian husky.  The women did the process (whatever you wish to name it). But they did not kill the dogs. They spayed and neutered. Probably some cases they may have killed. I don't think that was the usual though.  The dogs that were desirable to be bred were allowed to stay intact and multiply.  Desirability traits encompass the Siberian husky traits of today.  Those who love Siberians know what the traits are.

 Chukchi created a beautiful breed.

denise m

but IMO the term generally refers to killing.

And IMO it does not...*shrug*

Discuss the practice, and call it something else if you want...one could call it knitting, dwarf tossing, or jump-roping if they personally want to... 

If someone wants to misunderstand, assume, or jump to conclusions based upon agendas...I don't plan on worrying about it.

rwbeagles

If someone wants to misunderstand, assume, or jump to conclusions based upon agendas...I don't plan on worrying about it.

What agendas....are you saying "Culling" as in death for cosmetic reasons doesn't exist?

I'm quite certain culling still exists, as I was told in Germany there is a limit to how many dogs from each litter can be registered with the SV, unless I was told wrong?  I would *hope* that those NOT registered are sold on pet contracts, but my hunch is that not ALL of them are....

I'm not sure how I feel about killing culling.  It happens all the time in the wild.  We picked up three baby squirrels of the ground that were thrown from the nest 30 feet up by the mother.  None lived.  I am uncomfortable with killing for purely cosmetic reasons (though I don't know anyone who has ever done this...), but if the pup is born with some physical defect that would make life difficult and painful...I dunno.  However I'm not sure how much is really evident in the first few weeks of a pups life anyway.