I don't know what the rules are about identifying which breed club so I won't but I was quite shocked to see on a breed club's website recommendations for culling pups with certain medical or (what, as far as I know, are) cosmetic faults (I can't say what as it is breed specific and might reveal which club and get me in trouble). I can possibly understand culling in the case of medical problems but what about the cosmetic ones- surely neutering would be the solution? Is this common among breed clubs? Is culling a common practice among breeders? Sorry if I seem to be over reacting it's just it never really occurred to me that pups might have to be culled. Plus the word "culling" makes me think of lots of puppies being killed en masse even if they aren't.

well, if its on the clubs own site, cant see what right they would have to complain if you  mention them on here. you could quote or link?

im shocked by that policy too

Are you sure it is cosmetic?  Some matters of appearance are closing linked to physical problems.

I think it is a case of we can't tell without knowing the full story.

However most breeds that get cosmetic faults in dogs the breeders sell those pups on to pet homes, normally cheeper then the other puppies, under the agreement they are neutured and never bred from or shown.

Is it my breed? 

Our main club mentions culling of ridgeless pups at birth, however does mention that breeders may find that morally impossible and mentions selling such pups without papers, etc.  Personally, I couldn't and wouldn't cull a ridgeless puppy and nowadays finding a vet to do this would be really difficult.  It also mentions culling puppies with a dermoid sinus.  In my opinion, this depends on the seriousness of the sinus and how viable an operation would be.  I would want to give a puppy the best possible chance but would not want to cause unnecessary suffering so would try to do what was in the pup's best interests.

I wonder if any newborn puppies would ever be culled by a vet anyway, so the question of finding a vet that would do it would be irrelevant.

I can understand how a love of a breed and wanting to improve that breed could lead some one to the decision to cull puppies for improvements sake, but for me that would be reason enough not to be involved with breeding.

Culling because there is no ridge for instance is just one step to far, as some one has already pointed out, sell with out papers and ensure as best you can that they're neutered.

Being a complete sentimentalist I take the view that no dogs life is worth less then a rosette on a wall.

Yes Vets will cull newborn puppies such as those in unwanted litters.  Better at birth than when older and no home in sight.

"I wonder if any newborn puppies would ever be culled by a vet anyway, so the question of finding a vet that would do it would be irrelevant."

I'm not too sure exactly what you mean by this, Robert?  Do you mean that you would expect the breeder to do it themselves?  Whilst I would be prepared to take the responsibility to cull a puppy that had a defect that would affect its health, I would take it to the vet.  I've been breeding for over 20 years but would not be prepared to kill a puppy myself.

Do you mean that you would expect the breeder to do it themselves?

Well, there is the old expression 'bucketed at birth' which I have read in an old  breed book written by an old tyme breeder.  Mismarked pups should be bucketed at birth, a quote from memory. So I guess it may have happened. or has, or does, in some circles. Maybe thats what Robert was refering to.

I was told how to do it humanely but luckily I've never felt the need to do it at all. Not something I'd want to do. It used to be the most humane method in the days before modern injectible euthanasia drugs.

Old breeders did used to hold a puppy/kitten in warm water simulating what would have happened if they had died in the uterus minutes before they were born instead of minutes afterwards.  I'm not sure that this isn't more humane than removing them from their Mother, driving them to the surgery, waiting for a Vet to be on site and then a Vet injecting into the stomach of a puppy when they can't find a vein on one so tiny. :(  But whether is is more humane or not is irrelevant as it's now illegal.

Is it illegal?  I understood the law stipulated that an animal has to be destroyed humanely it does not necessarily mean it has to be done by a vet or by injection.  Not sure whether the law would regard this as humane but they do regard bolt guns etc, even death by desanguination as humane so I think it is possible they would do.  It is just evidence of suffering they would look for.

>But whether is is more humane or not is irrelevant as it's now illegal.

No, it isn't illegal. (See recent news article. You're absolutely right that a vet can't inject into a vein with newborns - the intention is to inject through the ribcage into the heart, but it's not always easy. :(

Oh interesting!  A Vet in Berkshire wrote an article in the local paper some years back about it being illegal.  I thought that the law had changed.  Obviously not!  Thanks. :)

I've seen many newborns euthed and they've always aimed straight into the stomach, which takes ages. :(

Well, there is the old expression 'bucketed at birth' which I have read in an old  breed book written by an old tyme breeder.  Mismarked pups should be bucketed at birth, a quote from memory. So I guess it may have happened. or has, or does, in some circles. Maybe thats what Robert was refering to.

Thats exactly what I was referring too.

Being involved in rescue and reading a fair amount of information about various practices involving dogs, I'm not naive enough to think that every one treats dogs as they should.

On this forum I would think that we are preaching to the converted in most cases anyway.

Hi Robert

I thought that's what you probably meant - but perhaps you could have worded your comment

"I wonder if any newborn puppies would ever be culled by a vet anyway"

a bit differently, to take those of us into account who do try to treat all our pups as humanely as possible.

Also a breeder has no control over if a non standard or otherwise faulty dog is bred from.  Plenty of litters born from white boxers for example that should never be bred from.  Unless the breeder was to go down the route of having 8 week old pups neutered they have no way of ensuring the faulty animal is not bred from.

Culling of defective pups is a very ethical thing to do, as there are plenty of healthy ones in need of homes without rearing weak and unhealthy individuals.

Cull does of course not always mean kill, means remove from the breeding population.

To certain types the non-standard ones have so-called 'rarity' value and can be even more likely to be bred from despite promises not to and endorsements, etc.

Absolutely, that's the reason the albino dobes are cropping up more in this country, regardless of the shocking conformation and often questionable temperament of the dogs.  I'd be willing to be it's also why I'm seeing more and more blue and fawn dobe pups for sale as well - if I'd looked at a reputable, responsible breeder for my first dobe he wouldn't have been a fawn unless one just happened to show up in a littler unexpectedly.

I suspect it's rarity value that at least played a part in Remy's being bred - 'two dilute parents, let's see what we get' kind of thing.

I could never cull a dog that wasn't up to breed standard i.e. colour etc, but I do sell them cheaper than the ones that are a correct colour.  The only reason I would want a puppy killed is if it had a serious medical problem any other reason and i know that I personally couldn't do it.

Admin has said it's ok to name the breed club as it was on their website. The club was Rhodesian Ridgeback Club of Scotland. The cosmetic thing it referred to was culling ridgeless puppies. http://www.rhodesianridgeback-clubofscotland.co.uk/ Under the guidelines section it says:
"It is strongly recommended that puppies with dermoid sinus should be culled."- This is understandable as it can be life threatening and painful. But they then go on to say: "Ridgeless puppies should be culled at birth.  If this is not possible, for whatever reason, they should be neutered and homed with an endorsed KC Registration certificate." They seem to make allowances for those who do not wish to cull for moral reasons but they do specify it at the beginning that they should. Are there any medical problems relating specifically to pups without ridges or is it merely a cosmetic thing?

It's interesting to hear differing opinions on this matter.

>Ridgeless puppies should be culled at birth.  If this is not possible, for whatever reason, they should be neutered and homed with an endorsed KC Registration certificate.  This certificate goes some way in providing proof of breed type in the event of the dog being mis-identified as a pit bull type.<

Can't see a valid reason why the ridgeless dogs should be culled, but it looks like maybe they are scared for the dogs' being mistaken for another breed?
What is dermoid sinus? (off to have a look)

>What is dermoid sinus?

Dermoid sinus

I have know someone who had ridgeback pups -a few were ridgeless. Large litter of 14. She found it virtually impossible to sell the ridgeless ones -because, after all, without the ridge, they don't look like their breed and even the breed name doesn't seem to fit. Therefore it's unlikely that any buyer would want one -because even those wanting a pet are presumably wanting a pet of that breed BECAUSE they like the breed, and they aren't happy with a dog that looks like something else. So I can see it being a big problem for breeders to find good homes for these pups. Now personally I could not contemplate the thought of having such pups put down, but on the other hand these pups I knew of ended up being sold very cheaply at something like 14 weeks of age -with the condition they were not brought back could the new owners not keep them!

I couldn't do it personally but I can see, in these sort of circumstances that you describe Marianne, that breeders may decide it is the lesser of two evils.  I suppose it is all down to the learning and understanding you do about a breed before you commence breeding and if it is not for you, warts and all, you don't embark on it.

Those of us in breeds that are medium size and don't ordinarily have huge litters (mine have been usually 4 to 7, though 14 has been known) don't usually have to consider this, but I don't think we can judge when people in large breeds, that have huge litters, especially rather specialist breeds that aren't the dog for the average home decide this is necessary if they wish to breed.  I am sure they would far rather their bitches had just the pups they needed for their own breeding program. say two or three of each sex for choice.

I always say my ideal litter would be 4 bitches and two dogs, or two of each in  a smaller litter (I only keep bitches).

I applaud the bravery of people who test their pups for deafness and then have the heartache of putting to sleep those that fail at 6 weeks of age.

Hi Salukipup

I had guessed that you were referring to Ridgebacks (see earlier post)

No - there are not any medical problems relating specifically to pups without ridges.  Ridgelessness is becoming an increasing problem in the breed - it is appearing in a huge number of litters.  Maybe we could put this down, at least in part, to people not being prepared to cull them?  I'm not saying that I agree with that, and, as I have already said, I would not put a ridgeless puppy to sleep.  

People used to cull mismarks in lots of breeds I have heard - thankfully not so much, though as others have said there is the danger of the 'rarity' value. People who aren't wanting to show often like the mismarks, and there's nothing wrong with that if only the unscrupulous wouldn't make them think they are worth more!

I was at the vet a few months back and a lady came in with a deformed puppy to be put to sleep, so I know they will do that, but of course that's a different matter.

Everyone here has said that if culling puppies they would cull the sick, deformed or weaker pups or even mismarked etc.

So suppose you know there are a lot of unsold puppies in your breed and your bitch produces a litter of say 10 males, and because of potential owners being given advice such as only buy bitches because they are better with children, other dogs and not as boisterous, would you cull some of the male puppies even though they were healthy? Or risk running on three or four males until they were nearly a year old?

Personally I am of the opinion that if you don't have room to keep unwanted pups on - don't breed them. I don't believe puppies should be bred and then culled because the breeder can't home them, or they are not cosmetically correct - thats so unbelievably unethical. These is LIVES we are talking about and we should not play God in such a way. We're not breeding handbags for goodness sake :(

I agree with you Carla.

Lindsay
x

A person I knew had a long waiting list for a planned litter of dobermanns, but the litter contained 2 bitches and 12 dog pups. At 14 weeks she still had 7 dog pups left, getting bigger and bigger and more and more unsaleable by the day, because people only want 'baby' pups, not lanky near-adolescents. She realised she should have cut the number of dog pups at birth and saved a lot of heart-ache when they had to be put down later, because she was far too ethical to dump them on breed rescue - it was her problem and she faced up to the responsibility.

Slightly off topic....... When I bred mice, at one point when I was breeding for myself only, for showing, and found it very hard to home excess stock, I always culled all male babies in the litters at 2-3 days of age. Male mice often can't be kept together as they fight, they also smell horrendously, so by only breeding females it solved a lot of problems. However it's a bit easier to cull pinkies than pups I dare say, both mentally and physically.

Same with the Rabbits in English rabbits you only get 50% marked and many of those will be poorly marked.  I would either cull at birth or keep some to rear for the freezer.  Often you would mate 3 does on the same day and keep the best babies and give them to one doe to rear and mate the others again hoping for that one with good markings, as you had about a one in 50 chance of a showable one.  Fortunately you could tel at birth.  A friend used to feed the babies to his cats.

I would either cull at birth or keep some to rear for the freezer.  Often you would mate 3 does on the same day and keep the best babies and give them to one doe to rear and mate the others again hoping for that one with good markings, as you had about a one in 50 chance of a showable one.  Fortunately you could tel at birth.  A friend used to feed the babies to his cats.


I know nothing at all about showing any type of animal but I am actually quite horrified that rabbits are bred and then culled like this in order to have a 50:1 chance of an animal suitable for showing   

I am not against showing but it does make me think I could never be involved in that world if this is normal practice. I personally can't see the justification in culling 50 anything in order to get 1 possible :(

Would you feel happier if they were bred just for meat?  If you can handle that, would you be happy to know that 1 in 50 were removed from the feed chain and shown and bred from?

People view Rabbits in two ways, as companion animals like cats and dogs or livestock like chickens.  Most serious Rabbit keepers breeders and exhibitors are in the latter category.  Other livestock are shown just as seriously as Dogs be they sheep cattle etc, but their prime use is as food for the table, as are Rabbits.  I culled what I didn't require for the freezer or for the show bench.  If I showed Poultry I would do the same, the excess chicks (mainly cocks are killed at hatching).

I know nothing at all about showing any type of animal but I am actually quite horrified that rabbits are bred and then culled like this in order to have a 50:1 chance of an animal suitable for showing

yep where I used to live we and several local families used to take in some rescues smuggled away from Rabbit and Guninea pig show breeders by a lad who worked for the breeder and was supposed to kill the mismarked baby rabbits.  We Kept them in a big open run where they had access to a big shed with a couple of hutches and they could hop around and burrow to their hearts content. One neighbour now runs a big rabbit rescue centre.

Funny but rabbits now are very expensive to buy as pets. I don't know why they cost so much at a pet shop when they also get killed for having a spot in the wrong place.

The babies ar killed when they are first born (you hit their heads against a wall) so how the hell did he rear them???  If they reached 10 or 12 weeks they woudl have gone in the pot.  Very yummy.

In my day a Rabbit was worht its carcase, or about £3 to £5 in a Pet shop, depending on the price of feed it may or may not ahve been worth feedign them up to killing weight at about 12 weeks.

Rabbits were very rarely taken to the Vet, if one ailed it was killed as it certainly mad n9 economic sense to treat beyond first aid for an animal worth a £5, and they make bad patients as by the time they are shoing il health they are done for.  Trimmign nails and teeth etc are something the owner should know how to do.

This is sick guys!
I dont wanna know about how to cull a baby rabbit, its well upsetting! warn people before you start talking about stuff like that!!

The only dogs I know that are culled because of cosmetic is the Dalmation, when theyre spots are not 'to standard'

very cruel.

>The only dogs I know that are culled because of cosmetic is the Dalmation, when theyre spots are not 'to standard'

Wrong! The patched ones make very popular pets, and there are many to be seen. Parti-colour poodles are usually culled, as are white boxers etc etc.

its still disgusting just cause it doent look right gives no one the right to cull it.

how would people like it if kids were culled because they didnt look right when theyre born, how anyone can kill a perfectly healthy puppy is beyond me, its barbaric, if i see anyone doing it i would do something about it, god dammit.

That would be appalling but we are talking about dogs that have entirely different welfare issues. 
Please do not blaspheme, some of us find that offensive.

>just cause it doent look right gives no one the right to cull it.

If only people thought that every time they squashed a spider.

I take it you are a vegetarian then Rach85 :)  Most of the posters here are not so should not be surprised or disgusted to hear humane methods of slaughter discussed.  We also discuss other adult subjects such as euthansia, the mechanics of breeding etc without feeling the need to flag up warnings.
Actually, I would feel a lot more comfortable about eating Brainless' rabbits than farmed animals that travel many miles to slaughter by strangers or, very much worse still, factory farmed chickens that people gleefully buy for pennies in a supermarket with never a thought to their welfare.

Isabel im not getting into a discussion with you because of last time ok and people dont want this post closed which is common of when you start an conversation but i will say I still think that to cull an healthy animal is horrible and shouldnt be done, and thats my opinion and no matter what anyone says, nothing will change that and i know we talk of euthanasia and as long as the situation is needed then so be it to help an terminally ill pet or something along those lines.

>which is common of when you start an conversation

I beg your pardon?
Threads get locked when people can't talk in an adult way without using insults rather than rationales to support their arguement. 

Humane death should never be taboo subject, and shouldn't offend anyone with a grasp of reality. :)

>I still think that to cull an healthy animal is horrible and shouldnt be done

You're vegetarian, then?

Just to clarify.  I have already said I think the culling of healthy puppies is an individual thing but regarding your comments about slaughter of meat animals, which is what I responded to, I would say, unless you are strictly vegetarian, I cannot see how you can possibly criticise anyone for doing it. 
As regards the method used, I believe if you are truly interested in animal welfare, far from rejecting discussion about it, you would seek to inform yourself fully before making any decisions regarding the sources of meat that you might choose to buy.