Excellent post, Honeybee. I agree completely.

See now for some people Rabbits are Food like Poultry and cattle and sheep, and for others they a re Pets.  I used to breed and show them and some were Pets and some went in the freezer (being a marked breed I knew at birth which was their destiny).  I had no trouble with eating the eaters, but couldn't have eaten the ones I had made pets of.

I think in the same way a breeder can just about bring themselves to cull newborns, more easily than say 6 week olds that turn out to be deaf or have another life limiting problem, which must be harder still. 

Those who suggested that breeders might do the same to older pups or adults are being a bit unfair as that is rather different too, it is such a fate they wish to prevent.

playing Devils Advocate here  ...as a breeder of rare breed poultry I have this dilemma with every batch of eggs that I allow to hatch out  there are simply not the homes for cockeral chicks  and you cannot keep large numbers of cockerals together - so they are culled .....is this also wrong ? and if culling the 'wrong' sex of poultry is viewed as the responsible thing to do in the Poultry world then why is it different for dogs ?

Yvonne

For one we eat poultry not dog (of course depending where you live)- now I see nothing wrong with killing a healthy animal if the animal is going to be consumed. If they are killed just because we can not have homes for them then they should never have been bred in the first place...  There is already way to many healthy animals pts as it is, so why add to the population?

My chooks are pets !! -  they rare great characters and  gardening buddies (  really good at getting rid of slugs and snails )  I do not eat them and in fact don't really keep them for the eggs they produce - I give most of these away. I just like having my chickens stomping about the place ...I also take some of them into school as part of our Nature Club and for special animal assemblies - the kids have also had eggs hatching in class  -a great thrill !!

It would be far crueler to allow all the males to grow up and fight ( and they would kill each other given the chance ) or to keep them confined for all of their lives .

Yvonne

There is already way to many healthy animals pts as it is, ...I agree  and the reason that so many are killed later on is precisely BECAUSE they are sold willy nilly to the first person that comes along with the purchase price ! - and goodness knows what kind of misery they have had to endure before they are eventually killed.

yvonne

> I see nothing wrong with killing a healthy animal if the animal is going to be consumed.

Most cock birds are killed at hatching.

Exactly, using the Doberman story as an example of this, where the breeder had the 6 month pups pts, due to not finding any reputable homes for them, I don't know what the breeder went through to find homes, who she contacted, whether she went through her breed club, whether she thought of kennelling at her home for now and trying to keep them.  Or whether this was a breeder that just waited through advertisements on websites for anyone to contact her! Finding all unsuitable.

This was inconclusive on the other thread if she went to breed rescue, as all the replies were that breed rescue should not be used to bail a breeder out. No response as to if she did ask and they refused, or were unable to help. She seemed to have advertised on the breed club register and dog press and locally, but no homes were forthcoming.

She bred when she knew there were a lot of this breed being bred at that time, and with no (or very few homes) booked for male puppies before she mated. It would also appear, from what was said, she did not have the facilities to cope with puppies of this breed remaining after 8 weeks. So kenneling at home was not an option. And due to this, I cannot understand why a litter was bred in the first place, as you certainly need room for them even at the 7-8 weeks stage. She did not put into the puppies the work so very accuratly described in your post, and so at 6 mths the puppies were said to be a handful, and no other option was available but to pts. Therefore not using rescue to bail her out, but the vet.

There have been comments on the whole breeding issue that one does not breed unless one has the time, facilities, money, circle of breed friends to help should things go wrong. In this case, it would appear that this was not the case. So why was the litter bred in the first place.

I know here where I live you cannot go to the vet and pts a perfectly healthy animal- well atleast my vet clinic will not... As for the pound many are pts every day and just very sad :( Iam happy I stopped breeding bostons when I did cause now they are a dime a dozen everybody and anybody is breeding them and also crossing them- and you see so many advertised in the paper and in the petstores so many of their lil faces. It seems to be more the lil dogs that you see so many of probably because they are easier to keep plenty of when breeding and more people seem to want the little dogs compared to the big ones... This breed is slowely being ruined :( just saddens me...

I thought breeders don't breed every year- why if a breed is getting to be so popular that its popping up everywhere would people want to continue breeding so many of them? I know if people are not educated and only want a pet they are more then likely going to pay 2-5hundred apposed to 1thousand or 15hundred for a puppy, one reason why there are so many unwanted pets as it is :( If a registered puppys didn't cost so much Iam sure people would seek out registered breeders more over the byb- but the cost in raising a litter, testing parents, showing ect is why the cost is so high- may sound mean but what about altering a pup before they go to a new home to ensure that pup would never be bred from and less unwanted puppies pts every day. Thats one way to make sure no breeding- you bought pet you will def get pet and in the price can be the alter fee as well... The reason why so many not registered is also because people buy a pet dog breed it and well they cannot register the litter because their dog was for a pet not breeding and now unregistered puppies and other people will breed from them also- ooooh what a circle we all weeve :(

>This was inconclusive on the other thread if she went to breed rescue,

Not if you read the thread right through to the end. ;-)

>She bred when she knew there were a lot of this breed being bred at that time

I would think only in numerically very small breeds would it be possible to be in contact with everyone to see who's planning a litter at any particular time. Imagine what it would be like with labradors, for example - how would it be possible to delay your litter until nobody else would have one available?

>It would also appear, from what was said, she did not have the facilities to cope with puppies of this breed remaining after 8 weeks.

No - she kept them for several months after that time.

>So kenneling at home was not an option.

You know for certain they weren't kennelled? Or are you making up your own scenario?

    >This was inconclusive on the other thread if she went to breed rescue,

Not if you read the thread right through to the end.
Have to check that one. :)


    >She bred when she knew there were a lot of this breed being bred at that time

Was you who made that comment, and as a breeder of Dobes -if you knew I would certainly have expected her to...something she could have checked with her breed club, never mind BRS which would show the trend for quantity of puppies produced overall. The there is ads in the local papers...mags.....etc

    >It would also appear, from what was said, she did not have the facilities to cope with puppies of this breed remaining after 8 weeks.

I know she kept them longer, but she obviously didn't have the facilities............

    >So kenneling at home was not an option.

You know for certain they weren't kennelled? Or are you making up your own scenario?

No - she kept them for several months after that time.

Not making anything up, you said yourself she didnt have the facilities to keep them. So, why breed if you don't have the facilities to keep and train and then find homes for any puppies you breed. This seems, and quite rightly, the standard by which responsuble breeders are judged.

No, no straight reply to the question of were rescue asked to help home these puppies, if so did they refuse.

Just that breed rescue expect breeders to take responsibility for their puppies, and this breeder did. Which is a sad state of affairs if this means she was refused help....unless the pups were now fighting. :(

The time to ask for help should have been when the pups were 10 weeks and it was obvious problems were emerging. No, you can't make people buy your puppies, but if you know you have only got 2 people waiting (and with the knowledge they could back out) for boys which can be harder to home than girls, then why go ahead with the mating in the first place? Its a sad case that this litter was not better thought out.

What would others of you do should you find you have multiple puppies remaining unsold?

>no straight reply to the question of were rescue asked to help home these puppies, if so did they refuse.

Where it was said that she was asking the price suggested by breed rescue tells you that breed rescue had been contacted.

>unless the pups were now fighting

These were adolescent male dobermanns - not an easy breed, and at a very challenging stage of their development - get it wrong and you can have very serious problems.

>What would others of you do should you find you have multiple puppies remaining unsold?

I was very lucky in that I had only one puppy that was impossible to find a good home for. I had several people phone up as the weeks went by, asking what I'd dropped the price to - one even had the gall to ask how low it would go! Obviously not a suitable owner.

So he's still here, 8 years on.

Where it was said that she was asking the price suggested by breed rescue tells you that breed rescue had been contacted.

So they refused then, to help home them, if they were asked, if so what age were they asked to help rehome, at 6 mths when problems had arose, or when 10 weeks old.

These were adolescent male dobermanns - not an easy breed, and at a very challenging stage of their development - get it wrong and you can have very serious problems.

Know that. Which is why I seriously wonder what her motives were in breeding the litter at all. Everything was against it.

As far as I am concerned each responsible breeder is responsible for the pups they breed and home and should ensure that their activities do not add to the rescue problem in this country.

if their circumstances dictate this is done by keeping their breeding at a level when they can home all their pups and take back any that do not work out, or alternatively their breeding needs mean they can only ensure the future of some of the puppies likely to be born then that is their prerogative and up to their conscience.

As long as no cruelty is involved then they are free to decide the matter as best suits them, with their own, the dogs and the breeds needs taken into consideration.  A breeder or owner decides how many dog they can keep within their space time and budget, and that includes how many pups they can rear or keep.

The situation at it's most basic is that the domestic dog is a man made creation domesticated and bred in it's varied forms for our use/pleasure.  We decide if and when they are to reproduce and how many of their offspring we need to meet our needs, like any other domesticated animal.

Maybe we shall see rescue centres for all the surplus calves from the milk industry and all the cock birds from egg production?  Improbable?  We already see Rabbits in rescues instead of them going in the pot if they are surplus to requirements.

Those who feel that breeders/stock men do not have this right (humane treatment being paramount), should examine the dichotomy of whether we should keep domestic dogs at all, certainly organisations Like PETA would like to see them die out altogether.

> As long as no cruelty is involved then they are free to decide the matter as best suits them

This is the probelm - culling healthy puppies that have been bred from a planned litter is cruel and the best interest of the LITTER should be taken into account, not what best suits the breeder. It is far more responsible & humane for all puppies involved for a breeder not to produce a litter when they know they can't home it.

> Those who feel that breeders/stock men do not have this right (humane treatment being paramount), should examine the dichotomy of whether we should keep domestic dogs at all,

Just because some of us don't like the idea of culling planned puppies is no reason to stop the world keeping dogs, treating a dogs life (or any animals life) as disposable is the problem, weather it be a BYB producing loads of pups with no regard for thier future welfare, or a 'responsible' breeder planning litters knowing they will cull some of the puppies instead of home them.

I do not agree with livestock being culled for reasons such as 'wrong sex' or 'surplus'. Euthanasia should only happen when it stops an animal suffering, not as an alternative to (the person responsible for briging it into this world) ensuring it has a good home.

>The situation at it's most basic is that the domestic dog is a man made creation domesticated and bred in it's varied forms for our use/pleasure.  We decide if and when they are to reproduce and how many of their offspring we need to meet our needs, like any other domesticated animal.

We have children for our own pleasure (I don't know of anybody who has children to continue the human species), from the moment they are capeable of independant life, allbeit supported life, (approx 24 weeks into pregnancy) they have thier own rights, the same should apply to all living creatures. This world does not belong to humans, we share it and as the most intelligent & advanced species on the planet, a species that is capeable of sending man to the moon we should be able to plan a litter of puppies and find homes for them all.

Sorry, but quoting from collins english dictionary..

cruel
Adjective
1. deliberately causing pain without pity
2. causing pain or suffering [Latin crudelis]

Culling via legally recognised as humane means is NOT cruel.

Or do you believe that death is the worst thing that can happen to an animal - I most certainly do not.

I dont think anyone here is talking about people killing puppies either newborn or older for fun, for kicks, or in illegal cruel ways - what they ARE discussing is culling for any number of good reasons, all of which ultimately are to prevent suffering, either of that specific animal, or indirectly of other animals (the bitch who has too many pups, the bitch pup who goes to a less than ideal home and ends up bred from over and over, the pup who spends 8 months with his brother at the breeders and is not properly socialised (despite the best of intentions and efforts) who ends up a behavioural nightmare and the new owners are too ashamed to return to breeder so ditch him with a rescue...)

I can hardly imagine ANY one posting here or indeed any reputable breeder taking culling lightly nor doing it purely for their own benefit.

It is I agree better for someone not to produce a litter they cant home, but if that information is not available, if they are under the impression they CAN home all the pups... and then the bitch pops out 5 more pups than is bargained for, and then the waiting list suddenly drops by half.... i know no breeder who can turn back time!

I do not agree with livestock being culled for reasons such as 'wrong sex' or 'surplus'

so what do you suggest I do with all the male chicks that hatch ? ...

they have thier own rights, the same should apply to all living creatures.

...by that logic we would not raise and use animals for our benefit at all - the world would be vegan and keeping domestic animals such as cats and dogs  for our pleasure would surely be against their 'rights'.

Quite obviously we do not give them the same rights as our own children ...we do use animals in a myriad of ways for our own benefit and part of that is to control their reproduction ( after all a dog left to it's own devices would have the 'right' to mate any bitch in season and produce pups ....and nature would do the culling !).

or a 'responsible' breeder planning litters knowing they will cull some of the puppies instead of home them

but they don't plan a litter with the knowledge that they will cull some of them...if they COULD home them then they would .....

Yvonne

A hypothetical question for you.

What would you do if you had a Rottweiler litter of 12 puppies ( quite common) of about 1 week old, a fairly full order book and THEN
....... A huge story of an attack on a child hits the press. It's all over the Tv and there are huge calls to ban the breed again.
Potential buyers are backing out in droves (as they do apparently every time this occurs)

What would you do?

In Response to tooolz

This has happened recently with rescues trying to cope with dogs being dumped and with breeders pups who can't be homed.

There are worse things than death and in my opinion the breeders should have had the courage to PTS rather than burden already overstretched breed and general rescue, after all they decided to breed.

At the time this issue was last loud in the press on another forum a Pet breeder was merrily breeding their first Rottie litter.

All puppies are cute, and will probably sell if you just accept anyone with the money or will to take them, it  is what is likely to happen to them later that counts, but for many irresponsible/naive/hopeful puppy producers, out of sight is out of mind.

I really feel that any puppy, pedigree mongrel what have you should legally have to be identified as to who bred it.  It then would be very easy to determine where dogs in rescue come from.

In Response to mastifflover

> This is the problem - culling healthy puppies that have been bred from a planned litter is cruel and the best interest of the LITTER should be taken into account, not what best suits the breeder. It is far more responsible & humane for all puppies involved for a breeder not to produce a litter when they know they can't home it.
>

No-one is telling you or anyone who feels that all life must go on no matter what, to cull a litter, but then people who are that sentimental and cannot face hard life or death decisions should not be breeding animals, as the responsibilities are huge and should not be taken lightly, and sometimes hard decisions have to be made.

> Just because some of us don't like the idea of culling planned puppies is no reason to stop the world keeping dogs, treating a dogs life (or any animals life) as disposable is the problem, weather it be a BYB producing loads of pups with no regard for their future welfare, or a 'responsible' breeder planning litters knowing they will cull some of the puppies instead of home them.
>

I completely disagree, the welfare of dogs in general and the breed in particular are more important than preserving the lives of surplus animals.  They should either not be bred at all, or if they are bred and some found to be surplus for any reason then it is the breeders responsibility to ensure they do not burden society, as sadly there are plenty that already do.  The planned litter is bred for a reason with homes assured for at least those the breeder is keeping. 

> There are worse things than death

Couldn't agree more B.

What would you do if you had a Rottweiler litter of 12 puppies ( quite common) of about 1 week old, a fairly full order book and THEN
....... A huge story of an attack on a child hits the press. It's all over the Tv and there are huge calls to ban the breed again.

Just a general question to this. Would it bother the responsible breeder of rotties? If bookings were there before the mating I would imagine they would be from homes that the breeder had vetted and they would also be homes that either know the true nature of the breed and know that they are buying from a good place, so wouldn't take a lot of notice of press report, or maybe a first timer who can be reassured by the breeder that these things can happen in any breed, and the press overblow it. The breeder would check their waiting list and make sure the people still wanted one, so they could 'start again' should one or two drop out. Would someone who is put off a breed really be someone for this breed anyway? As they seem to have such large litters, wouldn't there be a full order book, and reserve list, before the litter was bred? Therefore even if the puppies were 6 weeks old when this happened, there would still remain potential homes waiting?

If the question is.....do I think that it is better to home any breed just to any home to get rid of it from the breeders premises....or is putting to sleep a kinder option....the straight black and white answer would be there are worse things than death, so yes, pts would be the answer. But I wouldn't ever expect that person to breed again if they can't/won't put the time and effort into finding plenty of homes for each sex before the mating, can't cope with training and socialising and rearing puppies whatever the age until such a time as a home can be found, even if it means giving the puppy away. Provided the home is right for the puppy in question. Why bring a litter into an overpopulated world of dogs unless you can be sure of homes before the mating, and should some be lost or more of one sex than another, you don't have the time, facilities and inclination to rear them, and use putting to sleep as a way out of your responsibilities.

>Culling via legally recognised as humane means is NOT cruel.

So if a breeder were to have pups/dogs returned that they would struggle to place in good homes they would have them PTS then?

If a new owner found that they couldn't cope with a puppy (eg. at 10 months old) so they had it PTS would that be cruel if thier reason were that they thought the breeder would be overstretched because there are a lot of litters of that breed around at the time?

A lot of people keep saying there are worst things than death, I believe torture and misery are worse than death. Why would a few months kenneled with a breeder be worse than death?

>A lot of people keep saying there are worst things than death, I believe torture and misery are worse than death.

Some dogs become incredibly distressed in kennels.

> Why would a few months kenneled with a breeder be worse than death?

Homes for the occasional well-trained, well-adjusted adult returnee aren't too difficult to find. Homes for semi-trained (and even if an owner has a single puppy of their own to concentrate on, as an adolescent it'll still only be semi-trained!) adolescents are harder to find - indeed, that's when many people who've bought puppies in good faith find that they're too much and 'get rid'.

Humane 'putting to sleep' is never 'cruel' because the animal doesn't suffer. That doesn't mean that it's a first choice of action, and it's distressing for the people who do it, but it's not cruel to the animal - and it's the animal that matters.

> but they don't plan a litter with the knowledge that they will cull some of them...if they COULD home them then they would .....

yes they do, that is what started the topic, a 'rare' breed being bred when the breeder knows they wont be homing the entire litter, yet they produce the litter anyway and kill the surplus puppies at birth.

I can understand why shelters have dogs/puppies PTS, the shelter is there to help all they can and there are limits to the number of dogs they can help, but a breeder makes the choice to bring a litter of puppies into the world, they should put the effort into homing them not cull them as soon as thier born.

>Homes for the occasional well-trained, well-adjusted adult returnee aren't too difficult to find. Homes for semi-trained (and even if an owner has a single puppy of their own to concentrate on, as an adolescent it'll still only be semi-trained!) adolescents are harder to find - indeed, that's when many people who've bought puppies in good faith find that they're too much and 'get rid'.

When I asked earlier in the thread about what happen to puppies/dogs returned to breeders, the answer was that an older puppy is not the same as a new born puppy, but by your response, a breeder is likely to have a returnded older pup PTS because they are a hanful and therefore harder to home.

>A lot of people keep saying there are worst things than death, I believe torture and misery are worse than death.
>Some dogs become incredibly distressed in kennels.
> Why would a few months kenneled with a breeder be worse than death?

If death is preferable to a dog getting distressin in kennels, what about the puppies/dogs that get distressed by vets - does that then make euthanasia cruel? If it is acceptable for a dog to get PTS regardless of it getting distressed by it then it is acceptable for the dog to be in distress in a tempory kennel.

Homes for the occasional well-trained, well-adjusted adult returnee aren't too difficult to find. Homes for semi-trained (and even if an owner has a single puppy of their own to concentrate on, as an adolescent it'll still only be semi-trained!) adolescents are harder to find - indeed, that's when many people who've bought puppies in good faith find that they're too much and 'get rid'.

So, they have made a mistake and 'got rid' back to the breeder who has always said they will accept a puppy back, at whatever age it is, because of all the reasons so often stated on here. Rather than try to sell it themselves, they give it back in good faith that it will be found a good home. Are you then saying the breeder is likely to go to the vet and have it pts because they don't have the time, inclination or even room/space/facilities to sort out any problems that can be fixed by training, and then find a new home? Is this really what happens to a returned puppy?

Humane 'putting to sleep' is never 'cruel' because the animal doesn't suffer. That doesn't mean that it's a first choice of action, and it's distressing for the people who do it, but it's not cruel to the animal - and it's the animal that matters.

Of course this is very true. The dog feels no pain, it's life has usually ended peacefully and that is that. Problem solved for the breeder.

>Rather than try to sell it themselves, they give it back in good faith that it will be found a good home.

No, the people who 'get rid' in this way are usually the ones who turn the dog in to rescue (either breed or general) and not return it to the breeder. Sometimes they pass the dog on to anyone who'll take it, and the poor thing ends up passing through several unsuitable homes getting more and more screwed up each time.

>Are you then saying the breeder is likely to go to the vet and have it pts because they don't have the time, inclination or even room/space/facilities to sort out any problems that can be fixed by training, and then find a new home?  Is this really what happens to a returned puppy?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all - it's quite the opposite.

>The dog feels no pain, it's life has usually ended peacefully and that is that. Problem solved for the breeder.

And even more so for the dog.

> Why bring a litter into an overpopulated world of dogs unless you can be sure of homes before the mating, and should some be lost or more of one sex than another, you don't have the time, facilities and inclination to rear them, and use putting to sleep as a way out of your responsibilities.

Because sometimes this is the only way to continue the breed or lines.  No breeder enjoys the prospect of having to cull.  If prospects are poor to home a large or unbalanced litter they prefer to do it at birth rather than be faced with the prospect of what to do with the surplus pups later.

I am so glad that I have never had an enormous litter or had to run on pups to the age where it was hard to provide each with what they needed, or been faced with having to cull older pups (past eyes opening) for health reasons.

Maybe good breeders breeding with the best interests of their breeds wouldn't' be faced with these hard decisions if there was not already an over population of poorly bred dogs bred by people who don't take any responsibility for them once off their premises, and if they can't sell them give them to a rescue.

If there weren't so many dogs so easily available maybe potential buyers would research better and be prepared to wait longer so that a breeder could get a full order book.

But this thread was not supposed to be about Responsible versus irresponsible breeding, but in fact the whole issue is inextricably linked.

In Response to calmstorm

> So, they have made a mistake and 'got rid' back to the breeder who has always said they will accept a puppy back, at whatever age it is, because of all the reasons so often stated on here. Rather than try to sell it themselves, they give it back in good faith that it will be found a good home. Are you then saying the breeder is likely to go to the vet and have it pts because they don't have the time, inclination or even room/space/facilities to sort out any problems that can be fixed by training, and then find a new home? Is this really what happens to a returned puppy?
>

No as the likelihood is that this will be one puppy/adolescent/adult dog, which can be catered for and rehabilitated without too much disruption, or if the breeder physically can't have the dog back it can be placed with someone temporarily (fostered), kennelled until a home is found.  This is where breed rescue can help out by listing the dog of any surplus enquiries they receive.

This is not the same as several pups at once being run on for want of a home becoming a pack and harder to train and adapt to living as a possibly lone pet dog.

I imagine the only time a breeder would resort to putting returned do to sleep is one that has been so screwed up from being passed from pillar to post that it becomes unhomeable, but the same would apply in a rescue centre.

   Q > Why would a few months kenneled with a breeder be worse than death?

A...Homes for the occasional well-trained, well-adjusted adult returnee aren't too difficult to find. Homes for semi-trained (and even if an owner has a single puppy of their own to concentrate on, as an adolescent it'll still only be semi-trained!) adolescents are harder to find - indeed, that's when many people who've bought puppies in good faith find that they're too much and 'get rid'.

Sorry if I read it wrong, but the answer seemed to be in reference to a puppy returned to a breeder.

But this thread was not supposed to be about Responsible versus irresponsible breeding, but in fact the whole issue is inextricably linked.

I agree.

> Sorry, but quoting from collins english dictionary..
>
> cruel
> Adjective
> 1. deliberately causing pain without pity
> 2. causing pain or suffering [Latin crudelis]
>
> Culling via legally recognised as humane means is NOT cruel.

Qoute from online dictionary - Cruel Meaning and Definition
(a.) Attended with cruetly; painful; harsh.
(a.) Causing, or fitted to cause, pain, grief, or misery.
(n.) See Crewel.
(a.) Disposed to give pain to others; willing or pleased to hurt, torment, or afflict; destitute of sympathetic kindness and pity; savage; inhuman; hard-hearted; merciless.

Euthanising an animal to end it's suffeing is humane and not cruel. If a breeder is planning puppies that will suffer (suffering being an acceptable reason to PTS) they should not be breeding them. Knowing an animal will have a pitifull life, yet creating that life regardless IS CRUEL, killing the puppies does not make it right they should not breed them in the first place..

A hypothetical question for you.

What would you do if you had a Rottweiler litter of 12 puppies ( quite common) of about 1 week old, a fairly full order book and THEN
....... A huge story of an attack on a child hits the press. It's all over the Tv and there are huge calls to ban the breed again.
Potential buyers are backing out in droves (as they do apparently every time this occurs)

What would you do?


Tooolz, that is an excellent question. And I agree after such an attack, I would think that rescues would have little - nill chance of any resident Rotties getting placements at all. I would certainly be very wary myself not knowing temperaments.

However, those on puppy lists are different, they are already very interested in the breed, obviously love it, know it, and are waiting for their pup, I don't think they would be put off and realise it was just that dog that did the deed and Rottweilers can be as soppy as any other dog, these are not the people needing convincing.  I personally don't believe it would affect the puppy list.

You know what breed you like. :-)

Unfortunately it seems that bad publicity will make some people change their minds.  I was contacted by a breeder of this breed shortly after the last attack, they are thinking once their old ones die thinking of changing breeds. 

Not because they don't love the breed but because of the reduced pleasure they get from owning them caused by other peoples perceptions of the breed.

I have heard in some areas Rottie owners being vilified in the street, their dogs threatened etc, enough to put off some would be owners, who do love the breed.

I was very pleased that the good Reputation of a few Rottie breeders in the area and the Rotts owned around here as a result did not result in such a backlash locally.

Here's a question can you not abort a certain amount of puppies if you no how many your bitch is having like they can do with horses and people? Have watched a show on breeding horses the mare was carrying twins which would have been to much on her and they aborted one, on another show they removed the fetus and placed it into another mare so not to cause stress on the original mare. So with that said could not some of the puppies be aborted and keep the amount you desire this way no culling of perfectly healthy born puppies? Or another option what about removing one of the uturn horns this way only one uturn horn for carrying puppies which would mean less puppies to be born. I know my bitch when she was pregant we did the scan and she had like 3 in one horn and one in the other... Or artificial insemination and only insert the desired amount of puppies you want- Can they not do something like that- you no when people can pick the sex of their baby then have it placed into them- does that make any sense?

These purebreds are something that man made what gives us the right to kill them? Is it because we made them? Just so we can parade them around like a beauty pagent and then sell them at top dollar? The miss marked pups that come out is what god created and breeders say the color is off so lets destroy them- to me thats cruel... Thats almost like being prejeduce wrong color, size ect ect- either way you look at it a dog is still a living creature and if your gonna end up culling at birth or so many months down the road (because really you don't no if the dog has show potential till atleast 6 months anyhow) so why not find other options before the litter is even concieved? Even if its more pricey then still isn't that in the best interest of the animal instead of bringing an unwanted living creature into this world anyhow?

I know a breeder that is having trouble selling her puppies- but you no she has not bred another litter because she still has her pups- Thats life she brought them here so she figures they are her responsibility so they live with her till either she finds a suitable home or they remain her family- killing them was not the answer and she fixes them--- if a breeder is always willing to take back a puppy but NOT willing to have that puppy live out the rest of its life with them that makes me sad- shouldn't produce more if you cannot raise the ones you already produced- with those words then you should not be breeding anymore-

It isn't possible to selectively terminate a litter (or choose the sex born).  as for part spaying  bitch, don't know if that would work as the uterine horns are joined, and also would it actually reduce the number of pups?

I don't believe markings or size etc can be an issue with the breed originally discussed as all markings acceptable, and you won't know eventual size etc.

In other breeds the mis marks may be the ones chosen if culling needs to be done, with the emphasis on needs to.

Dogs were developed by man for various uses, and life and death is decided by him rather than nature which would actually kill of most of a litter, some at birth some later bu most in their first year of life.

Yes we are playing God, and have been doing so since we first went from hunting animals (or including) to domesticating them.

>Here's a question can you not abort a certain amount of puppies if you no how many your bitch is having like they can do with horses and people?

No, that isn't possible. Scans are notoriously unreliable at ascertaining numbers, and won't reveal the sex of the puppies.

>Or another option what about removing one of the uturn horns this way only one uturn horn for carrying puppies which would mean less puppies to be born.

The bitch's health and welfare seems to be taking a bit of a back seat here ...

>Or artificial insemination and only insert the desired amount of puppies you want-

AI (which isn't generally allowed in the UK) inserts sperm, not embryos. You have no control over numbers or gender.

That is a very interesting debate dollface, I know there will be plenty of reasons why it would not work, i.e scans don't show colours, markings, sexes can be hard to determine and the amount of pups is hardly ever accurate, (sheep scanners much more so) whether pups are healthy, so much against it!

But I like it!  It would be a much, less heart wrenching way for a breeder to 'cull' it would then be called abort wouldn't it? And easier to just let go an embryo than a living newly born, or in some cases when choosing breeding stock a much, much older litter eventaully being destroyed.

I wish there was a way that could work dollface, I just think there are too many negatives to it unfortunately.

>Euthanising an animal to end it's suffeing is humane and not cruel.

Euthanasing an animal for whatever reason is humane and not cruel, as long as the animal doesn't suffer during the process.

> If a breeder is planning puppies that will suffer (suffering being an acceptable reason to PTS) they should not be breeding them. Knowing an animal will have a pitifull life, yet creating that life regardless IS CRUEL,

I don't know of anyone who 'plans to have puppies that will have a pitiful life'. The plan is that they find good permanent homes and have long, happy, healthy lives. But sometimes plans go awry; this is where the problem lies.

> But I like it!  It would be a much, less heart wrenching way for a breeder to 'cull' it would then be called abort wouldn't it? And easier to just let go an embryo than a living newly born, or in some cases when choosing breeding stock a much, much older litter eventaully being destroyed

Strangely though in a few threads where we suggest an unplanned  pregnancy is terminated people throw their hands up in horror.

In my last litter 3 bitch pups were born and the one whose lungs didn't inflate properly, and who died the next day despite all eforts was likely the best of the three.

but a breeder makes the choice to bring a litter of puppies into the world, they should put the effort into homing them not cull them as soon as thier born.
Totally totally agree with you. It is the breeder who decided to breed the pups and if they cant find homes for them etc etc, then it is them to blame and in my opinion taking an easy way out by having pups PTS for such small reasons i.e not health issues

As said before the breeder wants pups, and has homes for pups, but not necessarily for all that are born. 

There is nothing easy about deciding the best course for the individual litter, breed or breeder is to cull. 

The easy way out is to sadle someone else with unhomed pups.

The breeder may be the one to blame when say 6 puppies cannot find a home - but does that mean the puppies should then suffer, because as has been said several times, it is extremely hard if not nigh on impossible for anyone to raise long term, that many puppies, and give them all the best care and attention that would lead to them finding homes.

It is, in the long run, the dogs that suffer the most, not whoever is 'to blame'.

Whoever quoted a different dictionary's definition on the word cruel - yep, cruel can mean harsh or hard hearted - that is entirely irrelevant to the puppy who is pts though, they don't know and so it doesnt affect them. My point in defining the word cruel is that the animal in question has to have some understanding of what is happening to be damaged by it. Until we breed pups with a veterinary degree, who can identify the contents of an unmarked hypodermic needle, it isnt cruel because they dont know what will happen.

Harsh, yes. Sometimes we need to be. Hard hearted, yes, again sometimes we need to be! That still does not equate to culling causing suffering to the puppy though.

I've never bred a litter of puppies and probably never will, but have read this with interest.

Just looking at some of the dogs near me, there is a Rottiie a few doors away who is locked up in a shed with no or little exercise most days. And when I see Staffies being paraded round by a bunch of thugs trying to look tough, I pity the poor dogs who get no love or attention.

I think it woud be better for the dogs' sake if they were dead - the quality of life they have is appalling.

I have noticed on some sites, dramatic price cuts in some older puppies who have not been sold - maybe due to the economy? - and can't help thinking that their owners are getting desperate and will sell too anyone. Who knows what the future holds for these poor dogs if they can't be sold (or even if they) - will they be abandonned, PTS or end up in rescue?

a very interesting and emotive subject...

Firstly, I must say that I am new to breeding, having only bred one litter which was last summer, though I have had lots of support and advice from other breeders....

the breed I have my limited experience in is Deerhounds, which have to be tested for liver shunt at 8 weeks. I was fortunate in that all the pups that survived whelping in the summer had excellent results for their liver shunt tests, so I did not have to consider culling. In the litter last summer there was one pup that we tried hand rearing, but it died after 2 days, it was a c-section birth, and my personal opinion is that the pup would probably not have survived a natural birth, so although I was heartbroken that the pup didn't make it, I am sensible enough to realise there was a good reason why...

re liver shunt - this is a condition that affects pups from about 4 months of age, they don't thrive, and can suffer from mental disorders too, if I ever have a pup with the condition, I think I would probably keep it at home until it became ill, and then PTS....I've known affected dogs live to 2 years, it must be heartbreaking, so maybe it would be more sensible to PTS at point of diagnosis...I guess I'll tell you if and when I cross that bridge

I can't see how a large litter of seemingly healthy pups can be culled prior to this test being undertaken....sods law and all that, but maybe the highly experienced breeders of the past recognised other symptoms??

Deerhounds are not a hugely popular breed, I believe there were 297 registrations in 2007. I could have sold the pups from last summer 3 times over, I am extremely happy with the homes they all went to and am in regular contact with them. I would certainly hope for the same result for any future litters, but I would not consider culling just re lack of demand, if I ever thought that was an issue then there would be no point in me breeding another litter, and even now I can't say when, or even if, I will have another litter....if that makes sense??  My ultimate aim is to breed from one of the bitches born last year, with careful research into desired traits etc...so I'm talking at least 2 years down the road

Maybe we should resurrect this thread in 10 years time and see if any of us had to consider culling, and if so what were the reasons etc, I'm sure with a lot more experience I may have a completely different view 

> However, those on puppy lists are different, they are already very interested in the breed, obviously love it, know it, and are waiting for their pup, I don't think they would be put off and realise it was just that dog that did the deed and Rottweilers can be as soppy as any other dog, these are not the people needing convincing.  I personally don't believe it would affect the puppy list.
>

Carrington,
Unfortunately this has not always been the case. Many people on these lists considered the adverse publicity(from media hysteria) to be enough to change their mind. Bear in mind that these people have neighbours, friends, their children's friends and other people who would be totally terrified to come to their homes. You and I may be able to be able to distinguish truth from fiction but when a new purchase of a dog coincides with a media campaign to ban it, many would hold off to see how things would settle.
A whole litter cannot wait until the dust settles and you'd be suprised how many rock solid buyers did (and still do)put their request on hold whenever these flair-ups arise. They may not have changed their opinion of the breed but they are waiting until others do.

> if a breeder is always willing to take back a puppy but NOT willing to have that puppy live out the rest of its life with them that makes me sad- shouldn't produce more

Agree totally.  If I had a dog returned, I wouldn't feel it ethically right for me to then pass it on.  If I breed a pup, then I am responsible for it, if the new owner is no longer able/willing to accept that responsibility.  Any pup, or older dog, returned to me, would be neutered and kept as a much loved pet.  I feel that I owe them that much.  And I always make sure that I am most emphatic with new owners, so they are in no doubt that I want my dog back if they are no longer in a position to keep it. 

Oh come now that is going a little too far.

If that were the case most breeders would have to stop breeding and would only have the dogs returned to them.  I have kept one of the pups that needed a change of home, but the other 5 have gone onto other loving homes, the oldest is now 13 1/2.  For a start I only keep bitches and of those 6, 3 were males. Each of thsoe five other re-homed dogs are still in their new homes and are between 4 and 13 years old.

Unfortunately this has not always been the case. Many people on these lists considered the adverse publicity(from media hysteria) to be enough to change their mind. Bear in mind that these people have neighbours, friends, their children's friends and other people who would be totally terrified to come to their homes.

This they would have already taken into consideration though, surely, as lovers and being knowledgable of the breed, what other people may say. They know some people will shun them, not want their kids at their house etc etc, this breed already has a bad reputation in many circles, so another media outburst can mean very little to the people who know what they are.