Culling puppies.

The very idea of culling puppies is anathema to all dog lovers.    However abhorrent it is, sometimes it is in the best interest of the dogs that these puppies will become. 

I'm not a pedigree snob - we've had Rescues in our "pack" at many times in our lifetime.

All of the members of this forum  cherish our dogs.   We do our best for them, we don't treat them as "part of the family" - they ARE part of our families.   And when we plan on breeding a litter we do so in the knowledge that we are embarking on this adventure with the aim of breeding the "perfect" puppy for ourselves - and that we can share this pleasure with others who also want a puppy from our beloved dog and who will care for that puppy as part of their family - so in effect, every puppy is a wanted puppy.

Sadly though, this isn't always the case.   We all know the people who say to us "oh you can make a fortune if you breed your bitch" - but we also know that there are dog owners who believe this to be true - and breed from their bitch because they want a holiday/extension to their house/new car.   And they find another dog of the same breed, put the two together - and then start asking questions about how to raise a litter, etc etc etc.    Oh of course - they just know that they will be able to sell the puppies - friends have said that if they breed, they will have a puppy, etc etc etc.   Sometimes they get away with it - nothing goes wrong, they find homes for the puppies and they all live happily ever after ....or do they?

We know that there are breeders out there who pay lip service to taking back puppies if something goes wrong - but I think I can say that 99.99% of us who are members of Champdogs and who  breed would take our puppies back in a heartbeat.   But what about Mr & Mrs Muggins down the road, who had a litter of labs last year - his brother is now having problems with the puppy he got - well he's not obedient, still messes sometimes, is still eating his way through the house - will Mr & Mrs Muggins take him back?   Like 'eck they will!   So poor old bad puppy lab is taken in by lab rescue - hopefully he will find a home soon - but there are another 20 like him in rescue already L

And the couple with the staffie bitch - she got out when she was in season, and she had 10 puppies - found homes for several of them through the freeads - not sure what sort of people bought them - they all paid cash and took the puppies quickly, leaving no names & addresses  - hope they're not intended for dog fighting..and the other puppies had to go to rescue because the family had organised a holiday with the proceeds of the sale of the other puppies and didn't intend to keep several dogs and pay for them in kennels.

The bad publicity surrounding staffies always means that the next picture of a snarling staffie brings a rush of dogs to already overwhelmed rescues.

Does the life of a puppy or dog in Rescue sound good to you?   Of course they are cared for - they are fed and kept warm and dry - they will be played with - for a few minutes in a day - by volunteer workers who are hard-pressed, trying to keep up donations, scrounging food and bedding and at the same time living lives with their own beloved dogs?   They will be surrounded by other dogs, there will always be another dog barking or howling - they won't have the freedom to wander around at will, sniffing the cat, looking out a window, playing tuggy with the washing (!) or all the other things that our "wanted" puppies will do.   Does that sound good?

And its for these reasons, and these reasons alone, that when I hear about an unplanned litter from a very young - or very old bitch - especially when it is a breed that is already overbred, or when the parentage is unknown/questionable, I raise the suggestion of culling part of the litter - or preferably, having the bitch treated with the Alizen injections.

You can call me Cruella DeVille - but I truly believe that culling can be better than life to some poor puppies - puppies who should never have been conceived.

i second all of the above 100%, well said Lokis mum.

Quite so.

Absolutely agree - sometimes there actually is a 'fate worse than death'.

Anyone who spends time in rescue kennels would agree with you 100% Lokis mum.  Whilst everyone is doing their best, it really is no life for a dog, waiting for months (sometimes years!) on end for a new home. :(

But then nor is being abandoned anywhere when the delinquent teenager becomes a problem at home because of lack of time, knowledge and training.  Rarely do pet breeders hear of the demise of their puppies.

The situation is out of control with anyone owning a bitch producing puppies and it's very sad. :(

I raise the suggestion of culling part of the litter - or preferably, having the bitch treated with the Alizen injections.

You can call me Cruella DeVille - but I truly believe that culling can be better than life to some poor puppies - puppies who should never have been conceived.

Your certainly not Cruella DeVille :-) but someone who cares for the welfare of future pups, as do most of us on the board. People shouldn't think twice about having an unplanned litter terminated, it should always be suggested and I'm always glad that it is for all and more of the reasons you have already given.

Culling perhaps may be a different story so much harder to do, so I can understand why many just couldn't cope with doing it, you need to be completely selfless to cull something already breathing, but many with a feeling of great responsibility towards the pups produced can, and I salute those who can make that difficult and lets face it often responsible decision if it is too late for the injection.

I hope some will indeed take heed of your post, but the cynic in me thinks otherwise I am afraid. Much breeding is not done for the breed, but for the human instigating it. :-(

I don't make many post at all , but i read this forum everyday ..........

I have to say i am planning my 1st  litter with my girl who i love & adore , i can honestly say that money to spend post pups has not entered my head once , i have been more concerned about making sure i have the money available to spend on having the litter and having enough spare for any things that might go wrong , even to the point where i know it could cost more than i would actually make .............. not to mention my worse fear ever which is the fact that i am putting my girl at risk in the 1st place .

I have thought long & hard about doing this & my head is so full of info it all gets fuzzy lol :0) , but i really believe my girl is a good example of my breed , both in looks , size & most of all her personality ......... she is a cracker .

Anyway that being said , i agree with the original poster sometimes you really do have to be cruel to be kind ......... i have the same view towards  dogs as i do children ............ they do not ask to be born so if you make that choice either child or dog  it's your job to be there whenever needed end of story :0)

Excellent post Mika's mum

I could not agree more

K

Culling is not something that I could ever bring myself to do but then I'd like to think I was responsible enough to never be in a situation where I needed to do it so its hypothetical.I have never bred a litter and probably never will.I do agree with Westcoast that the number of puppies being bred especially in breeds like Staffies is totally out of control,there just aren't enough homes about-its a very sad situation and I think we could well end up in a few years time like the States where huge numbers of unwanted dogs are being destroyed.

A few years ago when i heard that other countries have it stipulated that a bitch can only rear a certain number of puppies and that the remainder have to be culled i was horrified.

There is a flip side to this and that is to keep the numbers down.

I have to agree I can't believe that anyone would go ahead with an  unplanned litter when there are so many options open to a person before it even gets that far to abort them. I would of thought that any vet would/should of given this as an option to a 'known non breeder'..

I have to share with you that i visited a rescue centre at the weekend and i can't say why, but felt the need to see some dogs.. I came out crying, literally:-(   The dogs in there for reasons as 'children mistreated dog' or 'Dog Warden removed dog as wasn't being card for'. The sad and sorrowful faces on some of them, all they want is to be loved, cared for and treated right..

I really think that as most rescue centres are at bursting point will soon start turning people away, which means dogs being dumped and possibly having more roaming strays as they do in lots of other countries. That worries me.

I don't breed and if i ever contemplated it i know i would need a lot of available cash and the space to keep puppies should they not find their perfect home or get returned. Plus a breed mentor

Please people think, go around some of these rescue places, they break your heart and then think about how you are contributing to increasing numbers..(not directed at the reputable breeders out there)

Well said Suejaw.

I dont think I could cull pups, but I have never been in the position to have too.

The post definately gave me some thinking to do.  I know I am a good breeder, looking out for the welfare of my dogs, and the dogs I produce, and I would take any back in a heart beat if the new homes couldnt (or wouldnt) keep them.  But its always good to take a look at yourself with honest eyes, and say "what would I do", "am I doing all I can?"  etc. 

Thank you for posting this!

sometimes helenmd, its not a question of being irresponsible........sometimes a situation is put upon you.........i know this from experience, and sometimes culling a proportion is the right thing to do.

I'm heartened to see so many agreeing with me - I've had quite a few emails & PMs calling me a heartless bitch because of what I've written in the past - its not an easy thing to suggest - but especially with the present economic climate, more and more puppies and dogs are being placed in Rescue/abandoned for the local Dog warden to pick up and it breaks my heart.

Mis-mates happen to the best of us - yes it happened to us - and immediately we took our bitch down for the mis-mate jab ....and Thor also saw the vet for his "little op! :(   Afterwards some people said - oh - how could you - you could have had lots of little austradors ......they'd be soooo sweet :(   No, we said, we'd have had badly bred mongrels with a father with bad hips :(

i agree 100and 10% with you lokis mum ...if youd wrote this when i 1st came on here id have been horried but not any more im now living in the real world where ive seen just how bad things have become sadly xx

What an excellent post Margot.

> sometimes there actually is a 'fate worse than death'

So very true.

It is just not the crossbreeds/mongrels that are placed in rescue or abondoned.  It is across the whole of dogs, pedigree included, far too many dogs are bred whether it be crossbred or pedigree and the majority of people do it for profit - I hate saying it but it applies very much to pedigree breeders.  It becomes a nice little earner for someone who wants to work from home.   We have all heard, "Oh well, she is so typical of the breed, her temperament is excellent, and our friends want one just like her, so we thought we would have a litter, but we are not keeping one this time"!!!!!!!!

How can one find a lot of those super, forever homes is beyond me.

I can find no excuse for overbreeding.

> It is just not the crossbreeds/mongrels that are placed in rescue or abandoned.

I think you will find very few of the responsibly bred dogs fitting in this category,a s most breed clubs insist that breeders take a lifelong responsibility towards the pups they produce.

Just from a financial point of view it is in my best interests to vet homes really well so that pups and adult dogs do not need re-homing, but when the need does occasionally arise it is up to me to step up to the plate.

The only way to stop 'casual' litters is for the breeders to be tied to the pups they produce and liable (along with the relinquishing owner) for their upkeep and re-homing.

Certainly I would be very much for a legal requirement for all puppies to be permanently identified and registered against the person that bred them.

This way it would be clear from where the rescue problems came.  It is far to easy to abandon an animal.

Just because a breeder cannot keep a puppy from every litter bred does not mean they are overbreeding if their aim is to improve the breeds gene pool and encouraging new breed enthusiasts who buy their pups.  In fact in many breeds it is a big problem getting new people deeply involved in most of  the breeds with falling figures at shows/trials etc.

Dog breeding should have a purpose beyond simply producing puppies, which is where the commercial breeding fails. 

Unfortunately it seems that is is the Show breeders that are getting the blame, and the leaks of Bateson are implying (based on PDE) it is the show world that has caused the problem, not the demand and supply of poorly bred pedigrees solely for the pet market, where any dog or bitch will do for breding.

The only way to stop 'casual' litters is for the breeders to be tied to the pups they produce and liable (along with the relinquishing owner) for their upkeep and re-homing

Yes, this would be the most responsible and effective idea to ever be put foreward. Most of us on the board do this anyway but it is the thousands of people each year thoughtlessly breeding willy nilly who need to do the same.

It is only when you go or work at a rescue or see the world through the eyes of many of those working for the RSPCA and such, that you see the full horror of the numbers of dogs and the abuse many are put through, it just doesn't get through to people no matter how hard we try because all these willy nilly breeders think it won't happen to their pups, it will always happen to someone elses. It is something that is and has always been in the mind of the responsible breeder, which is why we do our utmost to offer re-homing services and vet as carefully as we can.

If we could look into a crystal ball and see the life of each pup some having the most terrible things happen to them including horrendous deaths, ending up in resuce being the best of the bunch then many would give the injection and cull immediately even the most irresponsible hopefully, but because we can't have that crystal ball most don't even think of it, how wrong they are not to do so.............. especially for the poor pups brought into this world.

I agree entirely that the person responsible for bringing the little life into this world should be forever bound to it's care.

> I think you will find very few of the responsibly bred dogs fitting in this category,a s most breed clubs insist that breeders take a lifelong responsibility towards the pups they produce.

>

I have to disagree with that statement, in my experience whether breed clubs insist or not has very little reflection on what actually happens. There is nowhere where there is a system that records all of the pedigree dogs that are rescued/rehomed and where they actually come from i.e. who is the breeder.  There is no record of pedigree dogs that are not registered - one does not have to register all of the dogs in a litter.  In most instances when a dog is rescured/rehomed everything is confidential. Some overbreed, and use all sorts of excuses for doing so, even the one to 'improve the breed'.

I agree that a lot of responsible breeders do commit a lifelong interest in the puppies they produce, taking back and rehoming where they can, but I still maintain that there are a lot who do not, for various reasons, and that most of these belong to Breed Clubs.   A Breed Club may not even be aware that a breeder has broken their Code of EThics unless the person abandoning their dog contacts them, the rescue centres, as far as I am aware, do not contact Breed Clubs saying that Mr or Mrs X., breeder of XXXXX have a dog in of their breeding.

I would say that it is not the just the BYB that are causing the problem, it is all breeders that overproduce.  You only have to look at the KC records to see kennels that have 5 litters from a bitch, some of these have lots of brood bitches (some of these are top known affixes in all breeds) - what reason is there for that other than money?

I think that the whole system needs re-looking at, but it will not happen, well not in my lifetime, change is coming but it will take a long time to re-educate people as many see certain breeds as 'moneyspinners'.   You will not get new people interested in some of the breeds, because they are not popular, and if they are entering a breed with the purpose of having a bitch to breed a 'one-off' litter then obviously a popular breed is the one to aim for!

Then the other side of the coin how do you know that the people approaching you for a puppy will give lifelong committment to that pup?  They say many things that breeders like/want to hear - you can only go by your gut instinct and if you do not like them, for whatever reason, then they do not get a pup.  But unless you are a fly on the wall of the new home where your pup is going, then at the end of the day you will never really know.   Is it going to be banished to the garden to sit out in all weathers, will it be regularly walked, will it receive the necessary veterinary attention if needed, many more scenarios exist.

To ensure I can be contacted should any puppy I breed end up in rescue I have them ear tattooed, other breeders rely on chipping (but they do not necessarily keep the breeders details as the Tattoo register do.

Also you try to maintain contact with your puppy buyers, not all wish to do so regularly, but if you start off keeping in touch you can almost guarantee is there is a problem they will be in touch, otherwise I and friends in my breed would not be getting calls to take back dogs  up to a decade after they left us.

What is your definition of responsible breeders as you mention unregistered puppies etc, those do not qualify, or those who want a one off litter, again there should be a purpose/plan to ones breeding.

There are some successful breeders in their sphere that have a great demand for there puppies,a and if they breed more than one bred or have several partners/family members involved in breeding and showing/working then five litters is not excessive, but would keep the breeders pretty tied up away from their other doggy pursuits, most fit breeding around these, and have to fit a litter in from a bitch around her showing and working commitments, so she will never have time to be over bred.

I certainly know of no breeder in my own breed that has regularly bred more than a couple of litters in any year, and then only because some litters were singletons or they had a special reason where it couldn't wait (a maiden bitch getting too old, a chance of a stud getting too old etc).

Most breeders of my acquaintance average not much more than a litter or two a year, some years two some years none etc.

As I have said what would be a good idea is compulsory registration of the breeder of any puppy.  The puppies would then all be identifiable and traceable back to the breeder, and statitistics could easily be kept.

Sadly rescues also fail good breeders by not contacting them when they have their details available.  Stud dog owners offering to help dogs sired by their dog that have returned up in rescue also get short shrift.

> What is your definition of responsible breeders as you mention unregistered puppies etc, those do not qualify, or those who want a one off litter, again there should be a purpose/plan to ones breeding. 
>

I agree that there should be a plan - but unfortunately it does not always happen (only in a perfect world), there is no law as such that says that a breeder has to register all of the puppies in a litter - so how would you know if the unregistered pups came from a 'responsible' breeder or an 'irresponsible' breeder.    A responsible breeder is one that does not overbreed from their bitch, neither taking a first litter too early (depending on the breed), nor taking a litter too late, not breeding on consecutive seasons, and leaving at least a 12 month period between litters from any one bitch (preferably longer), as physically it takes the same length of time to recover whether a bitch has 1 or more pups, ensuring that all breeding stock are health tested and that the results are acceptable i.e. one does not health test and then ignore the results.   A responsible breeder ensures that they will take back a dog/bitch throughout its lifetime and are on the end of the phone at all times.  A responsible breeder only breeds to try and improve on both parents, and does not just mate any two dogs together, so this means putting the best to the best to obtain the best, mediocrity to mediocrity usually only produces mediocrity.   A responsible breeder should have the best facilities available to whelp and rear the subsequent puppies, and should not try to do it on a shoestring.  All pups should have their registration documents endorsed, and these endorsements will only be lifted at the breeders' discretion. No doubt, I have left something out.

> There are some successful breeders in their sphere that have a great demand for there puppies,a and if they breed more than one bred or have several partners/family members involved in breeding and showing/working then five litters is not excessive, but would keep the breeders pretty tied up away from their other doggy pursuits, most fit breeding around these, and have to fit a litter in from a bitch around her showing and working commitments, so she will never have time to be over bred.

I am considered a successful breeder and I have a great demand for any puppies that I produce, some will and do wait for up to 4 years to buy a puppy from me, however, as most litters only contain 1 or 2 puppies (unless you are very lucky) that I would consider to be of show or breeding potential, then I have to find good companion homes for the other pups.   Although I also believe that these good, forever companion homes are usually the best homes as they do not have any expectations as to whether their pup will have show or breeding potential.   The worry of having to find let us say 20 homes would be a nightmare.   I have also have a member of the family that is involved in the breeding and showing, and I do not overbreed approx 1 litter every two years.   What I said was that five litters from any one bitch, is in my opinion overbreeding, and that some of these are from well-known affixes, and how is it possible to keep track of every puppy that you produce, if the new owner does not want to keep in touch.   It is not possible. 

If you had say 5 breeding bitches and had only 1 litter per year from each of approx 7 pups (in a large breed) at let us say £700 per pup that would be £24,500 is that correct? a nice little earner working from home

There are many changes that need to take place to make the life of dogs better all round, it is happening but only slowly - and yes, I know that there are many caring breeders, but I still think that there is a majority of the uncaring sort and it is all about money.

>
>

> Just because a breeder cannot keep a puppy from every litter bred does not mean they are overbreeding if their aim is to improve the breeds gene pool and encouraging new breed enthusiasts who buy their pups.  In fact in many breeds it is a big problem getting new people deeply involved in most of  the breeds with falling figures at shows/trials etc.

I struggle to undersatnd this as I cannot understand why someone would put their bitch through the risk etc if not planning to keep a pup.

I can see that if there was nothing of suitable quality in the litter ( my breed average 2-3 pups) then perhaps the sad decision may be not to keep something but would neber have a litter unless breeding something for myself.

I am sure they go to great homes just not a risk I would be willing to take

>>If you had say 5 breeding bitches and had only 1 litter per year from each of approx 7 pups (in a large breed) at let us say £700 per pup that would be £24,500

Not after your taxes (surely HMRC would be expecting to see this as declared income), stud fees, vet bills, registration and general upkeep...you might be considered to do reasonably well to walk away with half that, even if you do sell all of the pups. Given the risk and start up capital you might be as well playing the stock market for pin money. I wouldn't be tempted to try, least of all for the money, much as I love my breed, even though I would gladly keep every pup not placed in the very best home I could find. I have huge respect for the breeders of my three dogs, I know they dedicate their lives to the wellbeing of this breed and am so glad they trusted their dogs to me. I hope one day I have half the skills they have.

> Not after your taxes (surely HMRC would be expecting to see this as declared income), stud fees, vet bills, registration and general upkeep...you might be considered to do reasonably well to walk away with half that, even if you do sell all of the pups

Yes, but the point is would they declare their income, I know that you are supposed to but would they?   Would they pay a stud fee or would they use their own dogs, do they call out the vet when needed, some bitches can whelp quite well without needing veterinary attention, especially in those breeds which are known not to have whelping problems, how many do call in the vet for a post whelping check?  How many have all of the pups checked by a vet before going to their new homes?  Some breeders even put the price of the registration and puppy packs on top of the price of the puppy.

I think we agree as to what is a responsible breeder. Then I think you would have to agree that responsible breeders and responsibly bred pups are not a cause of the rescue problem.

that is not to say that a good breeders pups may never need to be re-homed or rescues, as sh*t happens, but that they are least likely to be and are most likely to be re-homed responsibly with the breeders help.

If only such people bred, there would e no shortage of homes or suitable people for the puppies or re-homed adults.

The main issues with regard to rescue is unsuitable homes supplied by poor breeders, with good owners then taking pity on the resulting mess, and good breeders and dog lovers pouring their hard earned money to help these unfortunate animals.

If every breeder and owner had to take responsibility for the dogs they breed and own (as responsible breeders and owners already do) then the only real rescues would be the result of breeder and owner both in dire circumstances or dead.  These few could be far more easily helped by those who are already supporting the huge numbers in rescue at present, with money to spare.

There are already plenty of laws on the statute books if enforced that would stop the vast majority of over breeding or abandonment (which is illegal).

Why do local authorities licence puppy commercial breeders/farmers for numbers of bitches/litters that cannot possibly be cared for properly.

I tried to work out what a couple occupied full time breeding could rear properly (we are here assuming there is nothing wrong with breeding purely for profit, not a view I hold).

Those who have bred would probably agree that one person could not care for more than two litters of puppies each at a given time.  The other person would need to care for the breeding stock.

So let just say this couple have two litters at any time, with very obliging medium size bitches whelping 6 puppies each, two months after the previous obliging bitches do. 

They are bred from once a year for the maximum 6 litters allowed (far too many for a medium breed in my and my breeds option, where the maximum is four).

That would give them 12 litters a year from 12 different bitches, allowing for the average miss rate about 10 litters in reality.

Assuming a breed like my own needing the basic health tests of hips and eyes and one DNA test each bitch would need around £500 in health testing, so spread over an average of five litters (lets assume a bitch misses once etc).

10 litters of say 5 puppies (they will need to keep some, some may die etc) sold at £500 each gives a Gross income of £25000, but that is before taking into account the costs of rearing the puppies and keeping the breeding stock, which could be easily a third (in a responsible show/occasional breeder sparing no cost on food etc more like half).

That does not give a huge income NET for two people, and then paying tax on it, investing in kennelling etc.

So how could a commercial breeder make money from breeding puppies and keeping stock properly?  If they have more dogs and puppies they need to employ staff which will eat up any potential extra profit.

Purely commercial breeders can only make a profit from breeding by doing it badly.  other breeders can get a little top up income for their other income, but no breeder doing anything like breeding properly can make money from it.

Especially if they then take moral and financial responsibility for the resulting puppies beyond rearing.

So puppy farming as it is practised today and excessive commercial breeding could be stopped by the Local Authorities applying the law properly.

The casual BYB litters can only be addressed through education of potential buyers and making the casual breeder responsible for the puppies they breed too.

How often do you hear the excuse from a one of breeder 'I'm not a breeder just let Milly have a litter  all that testing doesn't apply to me she is healthy as is Rolly down the road who is the cute pups dad, my puppies will never be unhealthy as they are family pets.

It is the latter kind of breeder that does the most damage I believe as their individual litters taken on mass are not seen as being so bad, as a commercial puppy farmer that buyers may avoid,a nd actually buyers will be quite sympathetic to wards a chance/pet bred litter, not realising that en masses they a re probably the biggest proportion of the rescue problem, lacking the knowledge and commitment needed for lifelong responsibility for the puppies and vetting new owners well.

As a start if every puppy bred had to be permanently identified by it's breeder, those who are homed without this would be picked up by the Vet and have to be ID'd then with the new owner having to submit the breeders details (a small fine payable by breeder for not doing it), or failing that their own details would go on as first owner.

This way any dog coming into a rescue would have the breeder or first owner on record.  This person would then be jointly liable with the owner for the costs of kennelling, homing or PTS.

perhaps then dog ownership and especially breeding would not be so casually entered into.

The requirement for permanent ID would not cost the government anything as the registers for chips and tattoos already exist.  the Local authorities already have to pick up and look after strays, so simply scan or read the ID.  it is at this point that some bureaucracy would come in at the fining/billing stage.  Such already exists for fees applied for collecting a straying dog that has been kennelled by the LA.  I am sure the LA would become quite diligent in collecting fines, but they woudl certainly know from where the problems of rescuye dogs came and repeat offenders (be they breeders or owners) could be taken to court.

> How many have all of the pups checked by a vet before going to their new homes? 

New owners would invariably take their puppy or dog to the Vet eventually and if the pup is not identified or the breeder not given, then the owner becomes responsible, so I think most owners would give the breeder details, these can then be followed up.

I have to say I do not routinely take litters under vacciantion age (10 weeks) to the Vet, the new owner is advised to do so to get their own vets opinion and arrange vaccinations etc.

> I struggle to undersatnd this as I cannot understand why someone would put their bitch through the risk etc if not planning to keep a pup.
>

If your aim in breeding is to develop a line then you need to breed more pups than you can in this day and age keep yourself.

This is why you mentor your new puppy owners into getting involved with your breed and in turn they may go onto become breeders and you then can incorporate the descendants of what you have bred back into your line.

The days of most people being able to keep large kennels to keep all from their lines they might like to (especially those who keep their dogs for life) are gone, and breeders have to network and co-operate to develop lines and maintain their breed.

For example my youngest bitches sire I bred myself from a litter that I did not keep one from myself.  One has gone also to a  very successful breeder in Ireland, and that top winning bitch will be bred from, and something of hers I may be able to use at a later date.

So even if I can't or won't be keeping anything from a given litter each litter is planned so that it may be of benefit to myself or the gene pool as a whole if (and that is big if) any get into the gene pool.

It is also very easy with few animals kept by a breeder to loose a line when a bitch has pyometra etc, and having let others have your breeding means all is not lost as you can borrow or buy in something from your hard work.

> How often do you hear the excuse from a one of breeder 'I'm not a breeder just let Milly have a litter  all that testing doesn't apply to me she is healthy as is Rolly down the road who is the cute pups dad, my puppies will never be unhealthy as they are family pets.

My daughter has a friend that falls into this category but what makes it worse in my eyes is that she breeds and shows pedigree rabbits and scorns pet quality rabbits being bred from, yet that is what she is about to do with her bitch! Her bitch must be about 3 yrs old now, the dog she intends using is local, she couldn't get her head around me doing a 20hr round trip for both my dogs so that doesn't surprise me, very much doubt if she has heard of health testing and I doubt if she has any homes lined up for any pups. :-(

I agree Brainless with a lot of what you say, but disagree that all breeders that are a member of a Breed Club are necessarily a responsible breeder, for the reasons I gave earlier.

Yes,it is possible to enforce the majority of overbreeding or abondonment, but it does not happen often, too many dogs still end up in rescue/rehoming.   I do not know why the LA licence puppy commercial breeders who cannot care for the number of bitches/litters that they rear.

When I had a kennel of 8 dogs/bitches (not all used for breeding) it was a full time job, just feeding, cleaning, grooming, walking, the young ones required different exercise to the oldies, I cannot mention the cost, it was expensive, they are a large breed, my day started at 5 a.m., and did not finish until I went to bed, after they had all had their last walk at night and biscuits and made sure that they were all dry and cosy for the night.

Now that I am older I have not replaced some of them and I am now down to 2 dogs, but they still have the same requirements.

Even two care for two litters of a large breed is almost impossible, it is constant feeding, cleaning, 24 hours a day.   That is if you want the pups to be done well and look well when they leave your premises.

Did not mean to take a litter of pups to the vets for a routine health check, but for the vet to come to your premises - which is an extra cost.

I can see your point Brainless but still not for me unless I want to try to keep something.

> If your aim in breeding is to develop a line then you need to breed more pups than you can in this day and age keep yourself.
>
>

I developed a line it took over 30 years to do so, by not breeding more pups than I could cope with.  I also sell to new fanciers to the scene and they have gone on and bred, so now I am in a position to have something back in if I should so wish.  

but disagree that all breeders that are a member of a Breed Club are necessarily a responsible breeder, for the reasons I gave earlier.
I agree that just being a member of a breed club is not a guarantee of responsibility but in my numerically reasonably sized breed, there are only a very few flies in the ointment.  Hopefully, if they are not just members then they have shared knowledge and a network of contacts if they do need help with rehoming an older dog which pet producers don't have. 

If you look at the dogs in rescue, they are all particularly bad specimens of their breeds or cross breeds.  These are generally not bred by serious breeders but by pet breeders or backyard breeders.

Most breeds have their own breed rescue and take care of their own.  The only time a well bred pedigree tends to be rehomed by a general rescue is because they won't release the dog to breed rescue because they charge more for pedigree dogs.  Certainly NCDL used to I'm not sure of they still do.

Did not mean to take a litter of pups to the vets for a routine health check, but for the vet to come to your premises - which is an extra cost.
In 25 years I have never had a litter of pups checked by a Vet either after whelping or before going to their new homes.  I'm quite capable of knowing a regular heartbeat, checking eyes, ears and bottoms, which is all I've ever heard of a Vet doing for a whole litter.  I do have eyes checked by an Opthalmologist at 6 weeks.

> I developed a line it took over 30 years to do so, by not breeding more pups than I could cope with.  I also sell to new fanciers to the scene and they have gone on and bred, so now I am in a position to have something back in if I should so wish. 

That is exactly what I said, you cannot these days develop and keep a line all by yourself, not unless you have very deep pockets, can employ staff, which would depersonalise and take away most of the day to day pleasure of actually having the dogs. 

It gives immense satisfaction to mentor new breed enthusiasts with your stock, and also helps with your own future breeding plans.

There is no one absolute right way of breeding and establishing/maintaining lines, but plenty of wrong ways and reasons to breed.

This is why we must beware of saying I would never so no one else should, but there are some things that are just wrong.  it is the same as retiring breding stock.  I can't do it, but if the dogs interests are to the fore can see why some good breeders choose to do so.

The same as this question of only breeding a litter is you aim to keep a  puppy from it.  if that was my way I would only ever have one litter from each bitch.  I would not learn as much about the liens I am working with, or proceed any diversity for others.

This is not an issue with some numerically strong breed where a breeder can see what various studs produce to similarly bred bitches or what lines gel well ans which don't without having to breed the litter themselves.  My view might be different if I were not in a numerically small breed that has never had more than 3200 pups registered a year, and in 2008 only had 55!

As regards breed club membership, most breeds have codes of ethics and can expel anyone not adhering to it.  If the codes are weak then the breed club members can strengthen it.  Breed club membership is not made up only of breeders but many pet owners too, the majority who have the breeds interests at heart.

> I have never had a litter of pups checked by a Vet either after whelping or before going to their new homes.  I'm quite capable of knowing a regular heartbeat, checking eyes, ears and bottoms, which is all I've ever heard of a Vet doing for a whole litter.

Ditto, and of course the owner is more likely to be reassured by their own vet that the pup is healthy.

That is a big difference Brainless 3200 pups registered in one year and in 2008 only 55 - why is that?

In our breed we only have on average 1,500 pups registered each year and this has remained fairly static over the last decade, when I first entered the breed in the 70's it was a lot less.

Not only are pups checked out by a vet before they leave the premises, the new owners are also given a Contract in which they have a fortnight to take the puppy to a vet of their choice and have them checked again, if not satisfied for whatever reason the puppy is taken back and money paid refunded.  Think that is more than fair, it reassures my mind that there is not an obvious congenital defect when leaving, especially appertaining to male pups and their entirety, when the pup has gone into the owners' vet to be told that it is not entire, and you have already had it checked by ones own vet and know that at that time of sale it was.  Just the way that I like to do it, same as I like my bitches to have a post whelping check, to make sure that they do not have a retained foetus or placenta, they are all given a long acting antibiotic to lessen the risk of metritis etc.   Could never forgive myself if I made the wrong decision and the bitch was ill because I did not call the vet out.

Mmm I prefer less veterinary intervention and the infections that they may bring with them and less drugs. 
Similar intentions - the best care of pups and bitch - different ways of achieving it. :)

> That is a big difference Brainless 3200 pups registered in one year and in 2008 only 55 - why is that?
>

the numbers have almost halved in just my time in the breed.

some of it is for the best of intentions, good breeders breeding fewer litters as they get older,a nd modern times making it harder to keep larger numbers, breed without getting problems with neighbours etc.  I expect this is the case among the good breeder in many breeds that are not on of the fashionable breeds.

having seen a huge population explosion in breeds of a similar look that have appeared in the UK since 1980's like the Mals, Sibes and Akitas, with huge rescue issues we have gotten off quite lightly with the rescue situation in our breed mainly through commercial kennels selling pups bred mostly in Ireland.  The rescue problem has caused even more breeders to scale down.

The all time low of 55 was primarily due to 23 dogs coming into rescue and all breed enthusiasts withe fostering homing or helping home these dogs, so no-one bred unless they absolutely felt they had to.

Then you have more of the older more prolific breeders die or stop breeding and newer owners not getting into breeding (we have a robust code of ethics and most breeders endorse to ensure health testing) or only breeding rarely.

I do sometimes think that perhaps our breed has been a little too protective of the breed and not done what the breeds mission statement says promote the breed, it's more like hiding their light under a bushel.

There is worrying trend for some bad breeders wanting to cross them with the harder to manage fashionable Spitz breeds to get an easier pet.

Maybe being in the hound group with only another similar breed means we don't get any cross pollination of breeders from other breeds adding them to their s as they re too different from any sight or scent hound.

Most of the younger general public have never heard of them so unless they know one would have no idea what sort of family dog they could make.

It's a difficult one.  If a bred becomes popular you get more of the wrong people attracted to the breed,a nd especially breeding, and if you hide the breed the breed becomes almost unviable.  Without regular imports of expensive new blood the breed would cease to be viable in the UK.  Even the numbers bred in Scandinavia (where they are numerically strongest, but reducing in relative popularity being seen as primarily a working breed) are only a few thousand as they have smaller dog populations.

That must be difficult for you Brainless, especially when you wish to breed and having to find a suitable stud when the numbers of new stock being registered is so low.

Have seen adverts for crossed mals, sibes etc., being offered for sale as 'wolf looka likes' - anything to happen to your breed like that would not bear thinking about.

It is a difficult situation, I know that in our breed we are protective of it and our Code of Ethics is fairly robust, but we still do get those that come in with a view to seeing the breed as a money spinner, they begin by buying in a number bitches and their own stud and then set themselves up as 'breeders' with a view to churning out puppies, without any great knowledge of the breed, its health problems, and how difficult some of the breed can be to live with.  Most of our breed that come into rescue are usually males aged about 18 months (when they are at their most delinquent), so our Breed Club is protective in an effort to lessen the number of pups bred, that may end up in unsuitable homes.

It is good though when a breed is in the hands of caring breeders, although numbers are low the breeding becomes easier to control, whereas in Labradors how many are registered a year is it approx 45,000?  Can you imagine as a breed club having to cope with that.

Quite agree it is much easier in a small breed with mostly caring breeders to ensure everyone sings from the same human sheet.

We did recently in the breed have a rogue breeder who had bought a bitch with endorsements, had a so say accidental litter using her own male and tried to use emotional blackmail and then got nasty trying to get the endorsements lifted.

Pups ended up not registered with KC, and despite there being a shortage of bitch pups from reputable sources the persons still had two unsold at 4 months, so they won't be repeating the exercise.

Strangely enough it was suggested she get the hips and eyes, and DNAtest of the stud dog and the bitches eyes, DNA and then hips when the pups were weaned so she could register them then.  Hasn't come back with any health tests.

But of course doign things properly would cost her a coll £1000 in health tests alone.

The bitches breeder was most concerned about pups future, but it was pointed out having them KC reg would not make the breeder find them any better homes,a and would only lien her pockets at the breeds expense and probably encourage her to breed improperly again.  No doubt some of that litter will turn up in rescue.

What really gets me is that it was all explained to her when she bought the pup of what is expected of a breeder and she would have been helped by any of the her dogs connections if she had been prepared to do things properly or rectify the situation.  chances are some of the pups may well have been useful/good ones.

It is much better if the buyers of a breed are more discerning and insist on certain basics.

so the real cure for bad breeding and the rescue situation is educated puppy buyers and responsible attitude to dog owning.

If people won't buy badly bred pups then the people will stop producing them, up their anti or get out.  As has been said to do things properly will cost money so real commercial breeding (rather than clawing back some costs, topping up the pension) would cease.

Unfortunately as in the USA what may happen if the government get heavy handed is that the very people who bred the occasional litter in pursuit of their canine pastimes and to maintain their breeds will be priced out of being able to breed at all, and the commercial outfits that will be clean and tidy producing expensive pets will be the only ones to survive.  they will follow the letter of the law and have x amount of space per dog, staffing levels and produce puppies in a a clinical environment.

How many real breeders could or would want to meet boarding kennel standards of materials used segregation criteria.

Most of the best litters I know live in the kitchen for at least half their time, wouldn't pass muster for hygiene standards for commercial breeding.

I hope that the ABS inspectors don't expect fancy kennel facilities etc when I get my visit, as they won't find one.

All my dogs live together, I only separate Mum and her litter in another room for the length of time the bitch requires, and the pups are in the kitchen with the rest of them while I cook.  I do have a double kennel outside that some of the dogs sleep in and are evicted from so that pups get a play area.  This si t3eh dogs and my home not a kennels.

We have exactly the same happens from time to time in our breed.

I think that one can only lead by example, and if they are also members of a Breed Club, they can see how the older/longer serving members keep their house in order, and hopefully they will follow suit.  And they can also meet and talk to other members who have the same interest and thereby become educated to that breeds' specific needs and requirements for breeding, keeping, feeding and really basic management.   If they are outside of a Breed Club then there is no control at all, majority of our reputable breeders do belong to one or more of the Breed Clubs.

I suppose eventually, as you say the small hobby breeder would be forced out and commercial breeders will take over, rather like the smaller shop-keeper and other small businesses that have had to close down due to the market forces of the 'big boys' whether it be buying clothes, food (human) and also dog food, well these days it covers anything that is marketable.

Not many hobby breeders can or would have the space to meeting boarding kennel standards, plus the initial cost to set up.   I do have purpose built outside kennels, plus a purpose built whelping room, all tiled out and heated with a large covered run for pups or adults.   Hardley ever use it - my dogs are in the house!!   Though it is useful when pups begin to need more space.

Certainly NCDL used to I'm not sure of they still do.

No - they charge the same whether crossbreed or pure bred. I have a GR from them - now called the DogsTrust- who cost £75 as a 9 week old puppy 5 years ago and a terrier cross who cost £80 from there two years later.

We have as a breed found the Dogs Trust much more willing to work with breed rescue.

I recall a few years back Brainless seeing a NE on the DT website. I was not happy about this and contacted the breed rescue who said they'd not been informed and would deal with it. So they aren't always that great are they?? Unless they have improved?

The local rescue i went to recently work very hard with breed rescue if they can, as in the breed rescue's have space to take another one on.

It probably depends on the Branch management.

As an owner and past  breeder and rescue worker I wonder if  I may mention this.
In the past in Labradors before chocs came popular they were often culled from a litter,I am talking about a long time ago they were classed as liver and not acceptable now of course they are an accepted colour and exploited by some comercial breeders /puppy farmers.
On new years day we took in four labradors all from same family all fourteen months old three bitches and one male its not certain wether the male is related but within two days one bitch had whelped 8 pups  another bitch is due any day and thank goodness  the third bitch didnt show up any pups in the scans we had done.
One of Our rescue volunteers is caring for the litter already born and another is caring for the second and the third has gone to a new trusted  home booked in for spaying on monday.
The pups are doing ok considering the bitches had no special care in pregnancy I suppose people may say some of the pups should have been culled but we couldnt do that obviously when the time comes all homes will be vetted etc..but it is food for thought  what would have happened if they hadnt come to us.

What a very interesting post & may I say a brave topic to bring up?

I work with stray dogs and I am very good at keeping my work seperate from my own dogs otherwise I would be bringing home several dogs a month!
I totally agree that kennels is not a nice place for a dog to live. But would a dog rather be in kennels than out straying on the street - probably not but at least they are safe/warm/fed/watered and receive any vet treatment they need. Not to mention protecting the public from RTA's/agrressive dogs/dog fouling etc.

Too often dogs come into our place that are in season and members of the public have commented that they have seen the dogs mating, or we may suspect that a bitch is in whelp what do you do? If the bitch has just been mated then the easiest thing to do is a trip to the vets for the 1st of 2 vaccines to prevent a pregnancy. However it is not as simple as that as the dogs do not become property of the council till the 8th day of being in their care, often that is too late for the injection. So if we interfer by taking the dog to the vets before the 8th day then we have to think of the reactions of the owner, if they come forward - what if they wanted their dog to have pups and create more crossbreeds? The council would then become liable and possibly face charges of criminal damage. If we suspect that a bitch is in whelp then it will be scanned if it is confirmed in whelp then we can not rehome it so the poor thing will sit in our kennels till the pups arrive & trust me its not a nice place to have pups. During this time the staff become very attached to the dog and we work hard to ensure that the pups have the best possible start in life with the limited resources available.

Last year we had a litter of Xstaffys one of which was a lot smaller than the rest she was struggling to put on weight but there was no obvious problems with her. The staff took it in turns to take her home and bottle feed her. I am sure that we all knew what the outcome would be but when you are surrounded with constantly putting healthy/nice tempered dogs to sleep the fact that it was a pup and that we could have found her a nice home we could not bring ourselves to do it. At approx 2weeks of age, after I had looked after her all weekend, the boss made the decision to put her to sleep. He did not tell the staff what he was about to do and although we all knew it was the right thing we did resent him for it. So faced with a new litter of pups, could I destroy any of them then I think the answer is no. It is upsetting enough to hold or put to sleep an adult dog but for a pup that did not asked to be born I would have to give it a chance & I know that I could certainly not be part of the pts process.

On the other hand I have recently had my second litter from one of my girls. Myself and a few of my collegues show/breed our dogs and it is often a source of debate as to how we can be adding to the dog population when we are also trying to control it. Personally I live for my dogs and I do get a lot of enjoyment out of them so when I wanted to add to my doggy family then it made sense to me to have a litter so I could keep one. As with everyone here who has had a litter I belive that my bitch is wonderful as she has a fantastic temperament/ looks and would contribute to the improvement of the breed. With the help of family members I put a lot of work into rearing my pups and try to make sure that they go to the best possible homes. I have kept in touch with all the people that have taken a pup from me and they all know what they do for a living & I have made it perfectly clear that if under any circumstances they can no longer cope with the dog then it comes back to me. Even if I have to do a 500mile round trip I don't care. I bred the dog therefore I am responsible for its well being no matter what the age.I hope that I will never find that any of my 'pups' have ended up in a rescue centre & using up valuable funds! All my pups are microchipped before they leave and when registering them with the chipping company I have asked them to put a note of my details on the record so should one of the dogs finds itself in a rescue centre then I will be made aware & will collect if necessary.

It has been very interesting reading other peoples posts & in theory I do agree with you and the culling of puppies would help in trying to control the dog population. Putting it into practice is a different matter & sorry to say that the day I am made to be part of something like that I will be hanging up my dog lead!