Culling, does it mean death for innocent pups?

PWCA wrote:"I want to know how nomads lacking veterinary facilities were managing spays. It's only in the last 30 years that spaying ahs become routine and (relatively- it's still major abdominal surgery) safe."

I am pretty sure that it was tough back over two thousand years ago when they started to domesticate certain wolves(editing in,  theoretically more like a wild dog- idea was that wolves and dogs separated far before ;) to grow and perpetuate people and dog friendly creatures that they could use for all of what they did.  Fact of the matter is that the medicine would not have been so hot for themselves either.  But they did the best that they could.  Until the communistic rule took over and then did kill their dogs because they didn't like the fact that they fed their dogs salmon.. saying starving people should have been getting that food, -how ridiculous. And what did that do to Chukchi?...help to starve them...In essence, this was a kind of a culling of the Chukchi.  Native people all around the world seem to have received similar judgements and not justice based either.

The things in the world do not tend to be just.  And culling is potentially the same way.  Killing anything seems to be setting off to the wrong direction, unless ofcourse it is because a creature is suffering from its anomaly or disease process which will kill them in a very certain painful way.

snownose

I have already stated that euthanasia for a malformed pup is acceptable in my eyes......aggressivenes can't be seen in pups that are days old or just born....that comes later........culling for cosmetic reasons, like color or pattern is just wrong......

     Certain recessive color patterns are culled in the traditional sense because they are directy linked to serious health problems. I believe in those cases it's the breeder's right to choose whether or not they want to try and find a home for a pup that will have issues, or cull it. I don't believe in culling (euthanizing) for a DQ color when no known health predispositions are attached to it. I also don't beleive in culling (euthing) a Beagle with no hunt so long as it can be a good pet. There are many, many hunters & field trialers in my breed that cull in the traditional sense when the hound has zero hunt. Even though I wouldn't do it myself, they have the perfect right to do so as long as the animal is *humanely* euthanized, not made to suffer. A Beagle with no hunt is as bad of a fault as you can get in my eyes, and in the eyes of any hunter. A Beagle with no hunt, I dare say, is not a Beagle, and if the hunter can't find a home for this dog, rather than abandoning it on the side of the road or dumping it at the pound, it's quickly & painlessly culled. It's the AR battle cry that too many dogs are in shelters, well, traditional culling keeps dogs out of shelters - where they may even be euthed anyway.
     It's really and truly the breeder's choice. It's not my choice, but I don't feel the need to control every situation and have another breeder do it my way, or act as I would. So long as their dogs are not suffering, traditional culling is still sometimes necessary. You mention that you can't determine aggro behavior or other temperament issues at birth - true, however by 8-10 weeks it should be apparent if there is something truly tempermentally wrong with the dog. In that case I personally would cull, rather than dump at the pound or on a family. It's my responsibility to cull, like I said, I don't have any desire to cull (euth) if the dog would be a good pet, but cull for serious reasons we all must. And it's not my place to point my fingers at other breeders if they are taking care of their own problems in a humane manner. I find it laughable that the same ones that are up in arms about dogs being dumped in shelters are the same ones vehemently against traditional culling - the best method for keeping dogs with problems OUT of the pound!

snownose

I personlly don't know any breeders who engage in that practice, or do I .......I have no clue what breeders do when I am not there....do you?

Based on the rescue cases I have seen, not a single soul should be trusted 100%.......

 If you know a breeder and see mismarks, cosmetic DQs, large litters with all puppies living and the such you can be pretty sure they aren't culling for cosmetic reasons or litter size :) This thread has some broad generaliztions about breeders, made by people who are not breeders and are not involved in the dog world (IOWs have litter first hand knowledge on what is the norm or what breeders do). The Dal club's COE does involve having deaf puppies PTS and regardless as to how you feel about it, that is what they have determined was in the best interest of their breed.

This is a tough question but a really good one. First you have to remove the EMOTIONAL issue from the question.  Sometimes there are reasons to cull at birth.  The obvious one stated about intestines not being inside are rather a no brainer. But there are many more reasons that are not easily seen but every bit as important/ For 50 or more years here in the states a pup with out a ridge, with too much white or another cosmetic fault were routinally culled. Cleansing the genetic pool was thought to make better homes available fro puppies "more deserving" of them

I do not cull for cosmetic reasons, never have never will and have made it plain to my husband that should he want a litter he best be ready to keep any one not up to snuff,

There are some genetic reasons that I would not think twice about easing the pup over the bridge/  A Cleft palate, ( severe) clubbed foot, gross  deformity, any intestinal issue,  profound umbliical damage, Water on brain or in lungs,   These are things that even with top notch vet care, the pup will run the risk of anesthesia at such an early age and between the expense and rehab time it would be much older berfor we could consider placing it.  I promise each pup as I cathc it coming into the world it will NEVER suffer needlessly. If I know from my very competant vet that there is something I can do to make the baby feel great and grow well I will not spare the dime or effort. BUT if it is a crap shoot and wishful thinking, then I am sorry sometimes they simply are not meant to be.

Now there are issues that used to be a culling item automatically but for the most part this is now up to the owners.  Dermoids, a dangerous and expensive surgery that pops up in litters from time to time. If not totally invasive I would opt for surgical correction and alter the dog to remove it from the breeding pool. If I felt correction was possible I would take care of it without a second thought. Sending both the tissue sample and the paperwork, pedigree meds, work done and photos.  White while not desirable is not a proble that could cause me to euathanize. The word alone is simple, break it down.... to gently end suffering...white is not painful or potentially harmful. I would not want it in my breeding program.

As far as Innocent, again this is an emotional word it has no place in the question if you wish t learn the reasons that breeders consider culling. A puppy is not born to be Cujo.... Looking at this tiny little guy with gorgeous eyemake up and a soft sweet whimper there is no one who can say gee this dog is a born criminal!!  BUT looking at a puppy with a dermoid that could painfully end it's life, or a profound deformity that could make keeping up with the rest of his pack pretty impossible then you have to make a choice. Possibly your home could cae for him, possibly he will be trounced and injured in every play session with the regular kids, who are not being mean but they are being hinet.

My prayers go out for each puppy that culling is not the only answer, that they can be salvaged and live a long and happy life. But if they can NOt???? My prayers are equalliy there that the breeder has the time and moneys to envest !!!!

 

Much  Love and hope to each new soul and to the breeder who mst make a  very , tough call.

Bonita of Bwana

AgileGSD

and are not involved in the dog world

Not involved in the dog world?....lol......funny, I am involved alright, I am part of the clean up crew that cleans up messes that people have created......

I personally would not euth. a puppy with a hearing issue, but that's just me.....

AgileGSD

The Dal club's COE does involve having deaf puppies PTS and regardless as to how you feel about it, that is what they have determined was in the best interest of their breed.

I am learning so much from these threads.  I did reference the Dal's COE and does anyone know how this particular rule came about and if it is consistently applied in other breeder clubs?  If there is a deaf pup in the litter, does the entire line end including the other pups and matting pair?   I found this particular ethic code very interesting.

"To ensure that all advertising is factual and not misleading. To never engage in malicious criticism and to separate fact from fiction before repeating comments heard from others."

http://www.thedca.org/redbook.html#Ethics

\

HoundMusic

I find it laughable that the same ones that are up in arms about dogs being dumped in shelters are the same ones vehemently against traditional culling - the best method for keeping dogs with problems OUT of the pound!

I don't find this laughable at all since I believe all dogs in the shelters can be placed in time and with the help of a human champion.  To me, it is an effort that the person responsible for producing the dog is not willing to make and chooses a more convenient route.

snownose

AgileGSD

and are not involved in the dog world

Not involved in the dog world?....lol......funny, I am involved alright, I am part of the clean up crew that cleans up messes that people have created......

I personally would not euth. a puppy with a hearing issue, but that's just me.....

 When I say the dog world I could just as easily say the dog fancy - IOWs people who breed, train, show, trial, work purebred dogs. Being involved in rescue does not make you knowledgeable about "dog people's" (again people who are involved with the dog world/fancy) breeding practices in any way, just as it doesn't make you knowledgeable about showing or training or anything else.

 And like I said, you don't have to agree with the Dal club's COEs but they feel that is the best way to protect their breed. FWIW it only applies to completely deaf puppies - Uni puppies are permitted to be placed in pet homes.

DPU

AgileGSD

The Dal club's COE does involve having deaf puppies PTS and regardless as to how you feel about it, that is what they have determined was in the best interest of their breed.

I am learning so much from these threads.  I did reference the Dal's COE and does anyone know how this particular rule came about and if it is consistently applied in other breeder clubs?  If there is a deaf pup in the litter, does the entire line end including the other pups and matting pair?  http://www.thedca.org/redbook.html#Ethics 

 No because all Dals have the potential to produce deaf puppies, as the color and where the pigment falls is the problem. All Dals also have the potential to be stone formers. 

 From the link you posted (scroll up): "It is estimated that approximately 12 % of the breed is deaf. No Dalmatian bloodline is free from deafness. Even that dogs that hear normally can produce deaf puppies."

 Really "ending a line" (as in altering every relative of a dog with a health issue) due to a health issue is not really a reasonable breeding practice, as no dog is genetically "normal". Widespread elimination of all relatives of any dog who has a problem from breeding leads to more, not less health problems in the breed and possible extinction of the breed.

 Years ago Basenji breeders eliminated both carriers and affecteds of a fatal disease from their breeding program. The disease bacame rare but other diseases became more widespread including another fatal disease that there was no test for. With genetic testing of some diseases (deafness is not one of them), you can safely breed carriers to non carriers or even affecteds to non carriers and avoid producing the problem. This is an excellent article on the subject:

"Everyone has heard the phrase, "Don't throw out the baby with the bath water." But do dog breeders ever stop to consider how this admonition applies to them? Certainly not the novice who righteously declares that he will never, ever, keep anything that has even the possibility of producing the smallest genetic defect. Not even the experienced breeder who refuses to consider an otherwise excellent line because it sometimes throws cataracts. This tendency toward genetic over-kill not only culls dogs that might have something to offer, it can exacerbate the very problems breeders are trying to avoid. The following is a real life example of what can happen when breeders exercise short-sighted culling in the name of genetic disease control." http://www.ashgi.org/articles/breeding_bad_genes.htm

 

AgileGSD

Being involved in rescue does not make you knowledgeable about "dog people's" (again people who are involved with the dog world/fancy) breeding practices in any way, just as it doesn't make you knowledgeable about showing or training or anything else.

 

Oye......you have no clue what I have done, been around or even doing now to even make this snobbish statement.....and still, a deaf puppy can make a good pet with special training, just make sure S/N is done.....

snownose

.....and still, a deaf puppy can make a good pet with special training, just make sure S/N is done.....

True, as I have had a life with one and the training was not all that special or unique. 

DPU

I did reference the Dal's COE and does anyone know how this particular rule came about and if it is consistently applied in other breeder clubs? 

I'd figure you could email the clubs you reference, and ask them...I am sure they'd be happy to answer questions you have...best to get information from the source which in this case would be those who set the particular breed clubs COE...if they have one.

DPU

HoundMusic

I find it laughable that the same ones that are up in arms about dogs being dumped in shelters are the same ones vehemently against traditional culling - the best method for keeping dogs with problems OUT of the pound!

I don't find this laughable at all since I believe all dogs in the shelters can be placed in time and with the help of a human champion.  To me, it is an effort that the person responsible for producing the dog is not willing to make and chooses a more convenient route.

     Seriously? You seriously believe ALL dogs in shelters are adoptable?
     It has nothing to do with convenience. Some dogs have genetic defects - temperament or otherwise. You cannot override genetics, no matter what behavioral training and emotional investment you make in the dog. It has nothing to do with being a champion for the dog - honestly, when I hear rhetoric like that it seems one is more interested in championing THEMSELVES. I don't even find this issue to be debatable. You cannot rehabilitate all dogs brought into the pound, and not all dogs that end up in one are adoption material.

HoundMusic

You cannot rehabilitate all dogs brought into the pound, and not all dogs that end up in one are adoption material.

Those that are culled (death) for cosmetic reasons and maybe even deafness are very much adoptable.  No rhetoric at all and not looking to debate the fix for the shelter dog.  Just wanted to say that innocent, perfectly healthy pups does mean death by those breeders that practice the traditional method, according to you.

HoundMusic

I don't even find this issue to be debatable. You cannot rehabilitate all dogs brought into the pound, and not all dogs that end up in one are adoption material.

 

I don't see where anyone has even made that claim.....