>How can deliberately breeding more pups than you can home be the hight of responsibility??

Can't you see that a breeder has no control over how many puppies there are in a litter? This particular one is only deliberately breeding one for herself and enough to fill her waiting list. Any extra ones aren't deliberately bred, and she's douing the responsible thing by ensuring they don't end up in bad homes.

Thank goodness, someone i agree with on this topic!
It really makes me feel very distressed to hear that all you 'pure' breeders think it is just fine to kill dogs just because they aren't pure bred

This is in agreement with Mastifflover.

Look what PR has done for the latest small fluffy crossbreeds, the latest must have dogs , that end up in a rescue not much more than a year later if that. Most breeders would love to win at Crufts but they also heave a sigh of relief when their breed doesn't get the increased publicity that a BIS brings and every Tom ,Dick or Harriet decides they have to have one. PR doesnt find specialist lifetime homes. JMHO

> Can't you see that a breeder has no control over how many puppies there are in a litter?

She knows that the breed has large litters, so pups surplus to requirments are allready expected - that is deliberate.

> and she's douing the responsible thing by ensuring they don't end up in bad homes.

I would class a home that would knowingly breed more puppies than can be homed & then kill the 'spare' puppies, as a bad home to start with.

I am astounded at this and am starting to think it is common practice? Breeders here will moan about puppy farms being imoral, but no body seems to mind that puppies are being bred, when the breeder know she can't home them all, and is then killing them!!!!

>She knows that the breed has large litters, so pups surplus to requirments are allready expected - that is deliberate.

Large litters are never guaranteed - for my breed, 10+ is common, with 8 being a mere average - I once had a litter of 4.

Once a bitch reached the age of 5 she either has to have a litter (to perpetuate the breed) or not at all, because after that age it's too risky for a first litter. Not many people will want to be on a waiting list for very many years - let's face it, most people don't want to wait at all! And evenif you have a waiting list for 20 bitches and you end up with 7 dog puppies, you're stuck! You have to choose the best time for a litter from every angle. If someone could invent a way to guarantee the right sized litter with the right gender split then they'd make a fortune!

Blimy the issue of cross breds stirs the blood. Personally, we always had cross breds as a family we were too poor to get posh ones. When the last dog died about 12 years ago we stopped having dogs as we both worked. Last year we got two posh dogs my Whistler via the kennel club web site - he's beautiful. And his Jake, a ISDS dog not kennel club. If we want Jake to do agility we must regitster him on the kennel club. (but kennel club cannot register their dogs as ISDS).
I did not or do not approve of puppy mills, but, any dog (including once mine) can get caught.
Not all responsible dog owners can afford £600+ for a pedigree, they just want a dog to love, and train
I agree responsible people research their dog, buy their dog, pay a fortune for vets, insurance etc.. But some people aren't that rich and my life would have been so much poorer, and my kids with no dogs. They taught my son's responsibility, caring, exercise so much and yes they were mutts and I loved them.
If a dog is good enough to be agility trained why not allow them to compete? the KC have just accomodated mutts, to agility show with pedigrees. Saw them at Crufts this year and they were fantastic, if it gets KC more money to assit with more dogs great.

> If someone could invent a way to guarantee the right sized litter with the right gender split then they'd make a fortune!

and I think many of us would opt just to have that one special pup for ourselves to do away with the worry of finding the others homes.  Though of course the up side of homing the pups is to hopefully bring new enthusiasts into a breed.

As for people not being able to afford the price of a puppy, rubbish.  I am of limited means yet could save up over time for the dog I wanted.  The price of most pups in the majority of breeds is about two thirds to a months salary for my daughter who is 20, and in an average paid job.  When I bought my first pups it was the same.

Going back into history pedigree pups have ever been about this price range.  I know in the 50's to 60's I saw adverts for 8 and 10 guineas.

Of course if someone is happy to take on a rescue dog then all to the good.

The average pedigree pup cost little more than the latest games console, or average TV, and about twice the latest mobile phone.

Completely agree with you mastifflover.
It would be a very sad world in the future if we could only own breeds of dogs deemed pedigree.
Far too Aryan nation if you ask me !
People who own and breed horses mainly have a cross I ride a thoroughbred x shire.. There is no looking down the nose of horse rescue centres because the horses is not one type only.
People who truly love dogs should love them all whoever their parents are.
Just the same with white boxers drowning them at birth was the norm before people who loved dogs first started having litters from a loved family pet.

I don't think anyone on here looks down their noses at crossbred dogs.  Most of have probably owned them at some point.  I think you may have missed the point completely.

Dens

Yep the point is that dogs should only be bred if the greatest care is taken for them to have the highest chance of being healthy and having loving homes to go to.

The point of known heritage is so that there is a record of ancestry so that positive traits can be selected for and negative ones selected against.

We can do that with animals (and need to because of much smaller populations), whereas with human beings we rely purely on random mating yet have 10 times the number of hereditary diseases in the human population.  With our animals we are moving more and more to being able to eliminate health issues through DNA testing by selective breeding, but this only happens with breeders who care enough.

White boxer puppies at one time were culled, not because of their colour but because they had a high chance of being deaf and therefore less likely to lead as full a life as their hearing siblings, and also harder to home and train.  Many bad breeders would not do this because they could sell the white pups instead.  Good breeders can now hearing test these pups, and responsible ones have the pups put to sleep.  There may be some people kind, wiling and able to rear and train a deaf pup, but with plenty of healthy pups in need of homes, and the more restricted life a deaf pup and owner will have means many responsible  breeders believe they should be put to sleep, and in fact this is part of the club rules in one breed with a high incidence of deafness.

Sadly there are few people in other breeds where colour linked deafness occurs more than normal who test their litters, Bull Terriers, Blue eyed Huskies, Border Collies with a lot of white etc.

I am a little surprised at the attitudes to selection express as we accept abortion and have tests done before birth with a view to possible termination if a serious disability is found, yet I have sen people react negatively to the idea of terminating a canine pregnancy or painlessly destroying unwanted/unplanned new born whelps.  We accept euthanasia of our animals, when older, and have to accept that will be the fate of many homeless ones, so why be horrified at the idea of a breeder preventing such an eventuality?

> I am a little surprised at the attitudes to selection express as we accept abortion and have tests done before birth with a view to possible termination if a serious disability is found, yet I have sen people react negatively to the idea of terminating a canine pregnancy or painlessly destroying unwanted/unplanned new born whelps. 

Killing a new born puppy is not the same as aborting a foetus, the same goes for abortion inhumans - you kill a neworn baby and it's MURDER not abortion.

> We accept euthanasia of our animals, when older, and have to accept that will be the fate of many homeless ones, so why be horrified at the idea of a breeder preventing such an eventuality?

Unfortunately euthanasia of homeless animals is the only option left in some cases and is totally different than a breeder that breeds more dogs than they can home so then kills the 'spare' puppies. This is lifes we are talking about, not a disposable comodity. Breeders preach about the poor ethics of BYB/puppy farmer - where is the ethics in producing more dogs than can be homed & then thinking it is OK just to kill them???
Euthanasia of an ill dog is far different to snuffing out the life a puppy, bred by somebody who allready knew they would not be able to home it.

A breeder who has a RARE breed, is so commited to contining the line, they kill the puppies????? I now see breeders in a whole new light :(

This is lifes we are talking about, not a disposable comodity

Unfortunately euthanasia of homeless animals is the only option left in some cases

and there's the paradox ! .......just who is being the most ethical here ? the breeder who culls a litter of pups yet takes full responsiblity for every pup she sells ? or those that churn out and sell  pups to anyone who hands over the money  ? ...statistically it is the latter group that are responsible for the most deaths because they truly DO view their pups as  disposable commodities and have no further contact with their puppy buyers once the money has been handed over !!! ( and therefore offer no kind of safety net ) I do not think that culling is done because the breeder does not care about her pups or her breed but because she does ( although thankfully it is not something I have ever had to do !).

Not all responsible dog owners can afford £600+ for a pedigree, they just want a dog to love, and train

... are you argueing for the continuance of 'cheap' pedigree or deliberately bred crossses or mongrels then ?

Health testing is not cheap....travelling to find the best possible sire for your bitch is not cheap...importing new blood lines is not cheap ....'testing' the results of your breeding against the best of the rest in the show or working arena is not cheap...why would you expect a truly well bred pup to be cheap ????

those that can be bought for a 'special offer ' price are usually churned out by the bucket load from those that do none of the above and by buying form them you ensure that cycle of puppy farming and BYB continues.

...and Brainless as usual you and I are singing from the same songsheet LOL !

Yvonne

> wonder where all our pure-bred dogs come from, I mean how each breed was started - aren't they a mix of desirable traits from different breeds/types of dogs (therefore from cross-breeds/mongrels), this done repeadedly untill the end result = pure-breed??

yes but the thing is the majority of crosses are not deliberately bred and of those that are they are not usually bred for a purpose (honourable exceptions to the working types mentioned earlier in the thread).

for example when we consider the mastiff (since you have one) it was deliberately crossed with the bulldog to produce the bullmasitff (since i have them :))- the matings were generally carefully planned to produce deliberate traits, as you'll find with working lurchers etc today. i think the point people were making is that the kc shouldn't tacitly approve (by registering etc) the production of random, unconsidered crosses.

saying that i think there needs to be a degree of acceptance for working type events like agility. not sure i like the idea of the shows. the basic purpose of a show is to showcase breeding stock, which for crossbreds i am emphatically against.

> Not all responsible dog owners can afford £600+

> But some people aren't that rich

i am a student and when i buy my next dog i will be saving up to buy a purebred, quality dog. everyone has the ability to save up. frankly if i was a breeder and someone came to me saying "i;ve saved for 2 years for this pup" they'd be well in!

> Grossly overweight labradors, GSDs that wobble about on their hind legs

would not get terribly far in a show...responsible breeders don't breed this way

gotta say i am a tad offended by the suggestion that my dogs might be "freak show dog"s

>Breeders preach about the poor ethics of BYB/puppy farmer - where is the ethics in producing more dogs than can be homed & then thinking it is OK just to kill them???

Far better cull them at birth than sell them to whoever will pay, no matter what their prospects for a good life. No life is better than a life of misery, cruelty and suffering.

i must say mastiff lover i do agree with you. we've bred one litter in my lifetime and i couldn't have done that to them, i simply don't understand how a breeder could! i think that as soon as you stand your bitch those pups are your responsibility and that means for life, which i think we have no right to curtail once it has begun

> No life is better than a life of misery, cruelty and suffering.

Which is why a responsible breeder shouldn't be bringing dogs into this world when they allready know the dogs will not have a home!!!

I am no longer suprised that not everybody looking to re-home an adult pure-breed will take it back to the breeder  - if a breeder will kill thier own new-born pups, what will they do to adult dogs/older pups that get taken back to them? :(

> Health testing is not cheap....travelling to find the best possible sire for your bitch is not cheap...importing new blood lines is not cheap ....'testing' the results of your breeding against the best of the rest in the show or working arena is not cheap...why would you expect a truly well bred pup to be cheap ????

I wouldn't expect such a well bred, expensive, though-out litter to be culled at birth!!!!!!

> I am no longer suprised that not everybody looking to re-home an adult pure-breed will take it back to the breeder  - if a breeder will kill thier own new-born pups, what will they do to adult dogs/older pups that get taken back to them? :(

That is rather different to a newborn whelp that is blind and deaf and has barely taken breath, and coudl well die in the first week or so after birth.  What do you think happens to those dogs if a shelter can't home them?  Not all shelters can keep dogs for as long as it takes to home them, less so in the UK than in the USA, but a proportion are destroyed every year.  I think the breeder has a better prospect of homing their own breeding.

>Which is why a responsible breeder shouldn't be bringing dogs into this world when they allready know the dogs will not have a home!!!

But they don't already know that! Nobody, not even the bitch involved, knows how many puppies she's going to conceive and bring to term.

As it is, it's normal for a proportion of a litter to die naturally within the first couple of weeks after birth, whether in the wild or in a domestic situation. If a prospective breeder can't deal with the idea of death, they're not ready to be a breeder.

> I wouldn't expect such a well bred, expensive, though-out litter to be culled at birth!!!!!!

The excess puppies would be, not the whole litter.  We aren't talking single but multiple births here.  A breeder may have a waiting list for half a dozen pups, say four bitches and two dogs, and they get 12 and 8 of those are males, what are they to do with 6 surplus males?

Fortunately those in rare small breeds with small litters are less likely to be faced with this dilema.

Only caught the end of this but I agree with Mastifflover, in this day and age there is NO EXCUSE for culling puppies - there is a solution - DONT BREED THEM!!!  We could all use that excuse and say 'oh lets cull half the litter because we cant sell them'.... rubbish!!!  Dont breed them in the fisrt place if you cant find homes for them.

One of my litters was 6 males and 4 females.... I had 7 bookings, I didnt cull the rest they all found loving homes. 

The attitute of culling for the reasons stated is archaic!  And people say docking is cruel??? well in my eyes culling healthy puppies is far worse and should also come under the Welfare Act.

Most breeders know what an average litter will produce, if they cant cope with excess puppies then dont risk a litter.

Sorry but that excuse is diabolical.  How can a caring human kill a puppy because they have too many they cant sell it???  DISGUSTING!!!

>One of my litters was 6 males and 4 females.... I had 7 bookings, I didnt cull the rest they all found loving homes. 

And I know someone who had to have 7 male dobermanns put to sleep at the age of 5 months because they were still unsold (bookings for bitches, but the litter was predominantly male) and impossible to home at that age. Far better that they never made it past the first day of life.

>How can a caring human kill a puppy because they have too many they cant sell it??? 

Simply because they care.

So tell me in a breed with large litters but very few potential owners how do you preserve the breed if you do not cull the pups that are not realistically going to find homes.  If your breeding once a generation every five years already?

It's a catch 22 situation.  There are few potential homes for some breeds, yet most people who might like one are not prepared to wait up to five years for one, so the number of potential homes are cut even more to the die hard enthusiast.

Surely a breeder would not cull pups they could sell instead if their motives were other than in the breeds interest.

Well they shouldnt have been breeding in the first place if they cant sell their puppies and I hope they never breed again.  How irresponsible and stupid can people be????  Its the dogs that suffer in the end, and stories like this make my blood boil!!  I bet they didnt health test either!  This should be a lesson learnt to anyone who thinks "oh lets have a litter and earn some money".  Any the person who PTS 7 puppies at such a young age due to their own ignorance should be shot!!!

Because they care??  RUBBISH!!!  Sorry but there is no way I am buying your reasons for culling.  The bottom line is there is no excuse.  If the breed were meant to produce small litters then they would.  Ok if the demand is so small they why so many breeders having pups?  Shouldnt the breed clubs get together and limit it?  I dont breed for the sake of it, if I didnt have a bookings I would reconsider breeding rather than panic about selling and there is no way on this earth I would cull healthy puppies, this is barbaric beyond belief.  I know a few Old Skool breeders this culling is OK but NO WAY should this be allowed to happen. 

And I love the term 'in the breeds interest'  most big breeders I know think in terms of 'their interest' - the 'breed' is a mere excuse...

Have you ever seen how large and bouncy a 5 month dobe is, let alone 7 who in a few weeks could well have started fighting.

The breeder had bookings, but the wrong sex.  Probably the reason they couldn't sell them was because they were particular about the kinds of homes such a powerful guarding breed went to.  They could easily have sold then to anyone prepared to pay to later turn up in rescue.  There are worse fates than death, an uncertain future for one.

I know a lot of dobe breeders and have a great fondness for the breed but I couldn't breed them knowing that one they tend to have litters of 10 as the norm, and also are bound to attract the wrong kind of person wanting to buy them as guards/status symbols, and that if someone gets the rearing wrong a returned dog might well be beyond rehabilitation.

Yes I have as I happen to show and breed Dobes and have recently had a litter of 8 - all sold by 6 weeks!  I also have 5 Dobes who have all been past the 5 month stage and beyond!  Rubbish to booking of the wrong sex (nobody knows what sex they will have) would love to know such a breeder, surely other breeders would pass queries on?  Dont give me the 'powerful guarding breed' thing, ive owned dobes since the 80's. 

I would love to know the breeders who have 10 as the norm....  yes large litters are not unheard of and neither are litters of 1 or 6!!  I know because I have had a litter of 1. 

And as for attracting the wrong person as an owner well you are talking to the wrong person.  NONE of my puppy owners want their pets as guards or status symbols, the majority have owned dobes before and are vetted in advance and have all visited my home. 

Sorry but if you are looking as using this breed as an excuse for culling then you are way out as this is my breed and I know the breed inside and out!   I might only have 22 years in this breed but my father has 50+ and your reasons are laughable!

Edited to add I have an 8 week old male Dobe running around my kitchen as I type, he goes to his new home tomorrow afternoon.  To think he 'could have been culled' just breaks my heart, he didnt ask to be bred, nor did any other puppy so surely they have a right to life, if there is no call for the breed then dont breed them!  I would ask any so called breeder to come and see him at 8 weeks and then honestky ask themselves if they could have killed him at a few days!!!

Its not like well bred Dobermanns are hard to find homes for.

The breed I was discussing was not the dobe it is one that has registrations under 20 a year, and I do not know the dobe breeder concerned, but if they felt that was their only option then that is their right.

If I had to cull I certainly would prefer to do it at birth and not older pups as when they fail hearing tests for example.  Fortunately I have only ever had newborns put to sleep if they failed to thrive.

> Yes I have as I happen to show and breed Dobes and have recently had a litter of 8 - all sold by 6 weeks!  I also have 5 Dobes who have all been past the 5 month stage and beyond

Apologies, obviously you can imagine 5 month old dobes, but I can't imagine having 7 of them in my house, let alone my other dogs.  The most I can manage at a time is 6 medium size dogs maximum full time (which is why I don't keep more than five, to allow for one coming back or visiting) and a litter.

> Edited to add I have an 8 week old male Dobe running around my kitchen as I type, he goes to his new home tomorrow afternoon.  To think he 'could have been culled' just breaks my heart, he didnt ask to be bred, nor did any other puppy so surely they have a right to life, if there is no call for the breed then dont breed them!  I would ask any so called breeder to come and see him at 8 weeks and then honestky ask themselves if they could have killed him at a few days!!!

I have been really upset by this culling of pups. Every time I look at my Mastiff it just chokes me to think there are breeders out there that see it as 'thier right' to cull pups that they can't find homes for. I am not a breeder & never have been and was starting to worry that this is done by every 'reputable' breeder. I am so glad FooFoo, that you see it the same as me, I take some comfort in knowing it isn't ALL breeders, it's still very saddening to think that it happens atall though as before I was under the impression that good breeders could always find homes for thier pups :(

Fortunately it is rare to have to cull for that reason, but sadly breeders of Dalmatians are expected to cull any totally deaf pups, and that at several weeks of age and not at birth, and of course pups with serious congenital defects would need to be culled too.  Life and death are part and parcel of breeding.

I can understand pups being euthanised that had serious congenital defects that are going to effect the quality of life for that pup, but I think it's sad that deaf dogs are culled - surely they can be homed & spayed/neutured?
My old dog is deaf, he has been for 3 years, it doesn't effect his quality of life atall and he knows what he is missing as he could hear for 11 years. OK we needed to re-train with hand signals but he really doesn't care that he is deaf, even at his old age other senses have compensated. He can tell if somebody has walked into a room by the vibrations through the floor, he can tell when somebody has come in the front door by the scent etc... somebody who didn't know him would never guess that he is deaf, they may well think he is stubborn, because he wont come if you call him, but he will come if you 'bekon' with a hand signal :) The only thing he misses out on is being startled by loud/sudden noises, he was laid next to a balloon today and didn't notice it burst!!! This is great for the pup though, the pup has learnt through the old dog that noises don't need to be reacted too, I can have both my dogs out in the garden not paying any attention to my neighbours dogs who are throwing thierself at the fence & barking.

Could a whole large litter of the breed Brainless was refering to be sold without the need for culling? Yes, more than likely.   Would some of the those puppies end up in unsuitable homes if that was the case?  Yes, absolutely.  This is because these dogs are not for the faint hearted.  They do not make your average family pet like a lot of other breeds do.  I'm sure the breeder could have sold the puppies had they not culled.  But those puppies would now be coming back, or being passed on to others without the breeders knowledge.  They are a very ancient specialist breed and therefore MUST have specialist owners.  It's not like they fight or are nasty in any way, it's just that they're extraordinarilly primitive.  They are the perfect dogs for those who understand the primitive breeds - unfortunately, not many people do.  Far better to have the RIGHT homes and have to cull than the RIGHT NUMBER of homes and have dogs going backwards and forwards all their lives,  moved from pillar to post, never being settled, never living the life they deserve and more than likely being put to sleep well before old age because they're such hard work for your average person.

Deb

> I know a few Old Skool breeders this culling is OK but NO WAY should this be allowed to happen. 

Unfortunately this new 'rear everything at all costs and sell to anyone who'll pay' is the puppy farmers' mantra, and adds to the welfare problem further down the line.

Obviously crossbreeds deserve as much love and devotion as pedigrees, I think the debate was whether they should be doing stuff in the KC or not?Abortion is the same as killing a baby at birth (I think its very wrong). I can see a point for culling excess/deaf pups tho' I dont like it very much.

Erm Your dog was basically trained though and was used to looking at you for direction all be it verbal direction it would be far easier to get him to then start watching you for hand signals than it is to get a totally untrained puppy that is deaf from birth to bond with someone. Deaf puppies can be very very difficult and finding a specialist home for them isnt easy. Deafness can and does effect the pups quality of life. I speak from knowing a collie deaf from birth.
There are times when responsible breeders have to make decisions that are heartbraking but unless they can make those decisions then IMHO they shouldnt be breeding. Remember the culling is not done by themselves it is done humanely by their vet.

As it is, it's normal for a proportion of a litter to die naturally within the first couple of weeks after birth, whether in the wild or in a domestic situation.

Just to clarify the situation, then, presumably, therefore, the breeder does not even actually cull at birth but would wait to see which puppies survive the first few weeks, before that the breeder would not know what her 'surplus' was.

>Just to clarify the situation, then, presumably, therefore, the breeder does not even actually cull at birth but would wait to see which puppies survive the first few weeks, before that the breeder would not know what her 'surplus' was.

No, you haven't quite understood. With large litters Mother Nature intends a proportion to die, so for a breeder to assist this process so that the deaths occur quickly and painlessly, rather than have them being long-drawn out, isn't wrong.

No RReeve,

They are culled as soon as the bitch has finished whelping, by a vet.  I don't understand your comment of it being normal for a proportion of a litter to die within the first couple of weeks.  I've never lost a puppy.  The breeder in question has never lost a puppy either.  I understand that it does happen, but I would consider it ABnormal to lose a puppy.

Debs

I expect the breeder at birth will know which pups had a difficult time being born, and were slow to get going.  In large litters some pups will be smaller and weaker than their siblings and without human intervention (or even with) are the ones likely to be lost. 

These are likely the pups that will be selected for culling, and I would expect it to occur on the day of birth or the next day with the Vet coming out.

In the case of the poor rescue bitch I mentioned who had been badly supervised in the dogs home and mated there (I assume unnoticed), the pups were taken away just after whelping.  Two of the strongest a dog and a bitch were kept to assuage her maternal instincts, as homes had already been found for them.

This poor underweight bitch of just 10 months old had 9 pups, and the Vet had agreed when the pregnancy was discovered it was in her best interests not to rear an entire litter.

The reason some species have multiple births is to allow for the fact that only some are expected to survive to maturity.

In the wild in a bad year none of a litter may survive.  In good years all the pups may survive for a few months, but starve in the winter.  Only the hardiest and luckiest survive.

If a bitch were left entirely to her own devices it is likely that through crushing, chilling or lack of the mothering instincts kicking in quickly enough a proportion of the litter (estimated as up to a third) would die.

I have lost the occasional puppy, it usually was obvious at birth that the pup might not make it, but we do tend to try.  The oldest was at two weeks, as there was obviously something wrong (pup convulsing after feeds from 3rd day and actually stopped breathing at one point), it went from the heaviest to teh lightest in that time.

As it is, it's normal for a proportion of a litter to die naturally within the first couple of weeks after birth, whether in the wild or in a domestic situation.
The quote above came from a breeder posting on this site, not me.

the thing is if theis is such a rare and specialist breed surely the members of the members of the breed club could get together and plan a litter together and as such plan who in the breed was looking for a pup. as i understand it in numerically small breeds the enthusiasts are pretty 'tight' and know each other and each others dogs etc and so could probably arrange things between them.

i just feel that you breed your dog knowing that they are going to have up to X number of pups, as such you should plan to accomodate the maximum number of pups. my breed have large litters generally and we ended up with more dogs in our litter than were booked, i could never have let them be killed simply for being born male though. they were healthy and perfect and suitable homes were found for each of them even though it took a wee while.

out of interest does anyone know if vets do selective terminations for dog pregnancies?

> Abortion is the same as killing a baby at birth

no it's not, abortion is the removal of a cell mass that could not survive independantly of the womb, not the murder of a living, breathing independant creature

> the thing is if theis is such a rare and specialist breed surely the members of the members of the breed club could get together and plan a litter together and as such plan who in the breed was looking for a pup

Yes, everyone does normally know who's having a litter and enquiries are passed around.  It doesn't alter the fact that there just aren't the number of people who are suitable to own the breed.  I think until you've lived with a primitive breed like this you can have no idea of what I'm trying to say.   If breeders in this breed were breeding willy nilly and there were 50 or so litters being bred a year in the UK it might be a different story.  The fact is that in some years there are no litters born at all simply because there is no interest in puppies.

> you breed your dog knowing that they are going to have up to X number of pups

That's just not true though.  In this breeders last litter there was a smaller number of puppies and she didn't have to cull at all.

Debs

> the thing is if theis is such a rare and specialist breed surely the members of the members of the breed club could get together and plan a litter together

That is more or less what happens.

> They are a very ancient specialist breed and therefore MUST have specialist owners.  It's not like they fight or are nasty in any way, it's just that they're extraordinarilly primitive. 

What do you mean by 'primative'?? I thought primative, when used in reference to dogs, means lack of domestication (as in a Dingo), but a specialist breed would imply that it was specifically bred to serve a purpose and therfore could not be primative (due to the selective breeding and subsequent domestication by man)??

Looking through the the most vunerable breeds of Britain & Ireland I can't figure out what large breed would be classed as a specialist primative breed, other than maybe the Sussex Spaniel, as that is discribed as a guarding breed & quite possesive of it's owners (I can't see that making the breed any more specialist than the Mastiff) but that breed had 61 puppies registered in '07.

ETA, According to a list I found of the KC 06 registrations the Glen of Imaal Terrier was the rarest with just 41 registrations. The breeder who needs to cull surplus puppies does produce big litters - but 41 puppies must be from severl litters - in which case why aren't the breeders getting to gether to make sure they aren't producing a surplus in the first place? I wonder how much these puppies are sold for and I wonder if the very fact they are rare (and kept rare by culling), is keeping the price up?

> That's just not true though

of course it's true, you can estimate the maximum number of pups you will have- in my breed litters of 12 or 13 are not unheard of (though unusual) so while that kind of number might be problematic you should work out things based on that assumption.

do you know if you can do selective termination for dogs? i should think thats a much more effective way of controlling numbers if you could

> I wonder how much these puppies are sold for and I wonder if the very fact they are rare (and kept rare by culling), is keeping the price up?

The breed as far as I am aware are not expensive to buy at all.  Also the list of rare and endangered breeds only refers to British and Irish breeds, there are plenty of other breeds (including my own) which would fit this category if they were British.