in which case how is it possible that they need to get dogs culled? could the breeder not let the other fanciers know that she;s had say 3 more pups than are booked and see if people could find a suitable place for them? i would think that in such a rare breed (what are we actually talking about btw? are we ok saying?) that breeders might consider shufflingvtheir kennels about a bit to make room for a new pup simply because with such small numbers there is a real risk of the breed dying out if say there is a terrible run of luck and a couple of bitches are infertile, one misses and is then to old, a good stud gets an infection then another bitch gets a pyo etc... not totally beyond the realms of possibility i think if the numbers are so small. as such i'd think that any litter born would be jumped on by enthusiasts.

There are not enough enthusiasts to soak up a large or unbalanced litter, and many people who would make suitable owners are not prepared to wait several years (the time it woudl take to get a big enough waiting list) for the planned litters, as I said catch 22.

I would prefer not to mention the breed with the issue generating so much feeling.

i can see the logic in this. is it the case that the need this breeder feels to cull only occurs rarely then? i presume scans are sone in advance of birth to estimate numbers and the maximum number of potential homes are arranged? it;s just i would hope that absolutely everything in the breeders power would be done before such a drastic action would be carried out. i still don't agree with it but i can understand the reasons you've given, they do make sense but i still find the notion of culling planned pups with no congenital defects abhorrent.

primitive as in driven by very base instinct to conduct their appointed task i think. eg. bloodhounds are often described as primitive because their entire drive is based on tracking, thats one of the reasons that they are a very difficult breed to keep.

> 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)??
>

By primitive, I mean that they are not as suited to living as family pets as most other breeds are.  Most breed traits include the dogs being  biddable, fairly easy to train, easy-going family pets.  This breed has the strongest hunting instinct of it's type that I know of.  They are more like cats than dogs really - and anyone who's tried training a cat will understand how hard that can be :-D

> 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?

Those breed listing are for breeds native to the British Isles only, not all breeds.  This is not a native breed.

The breed in question had 14 registrations in 2005 and just 7 in 2006 with another 7 in 2007 - that is indivdual puppies, not litters.
The price of a puppy in this breed is the average price for a well bred pedigree dogs.  No difference is made in price whether show potential or not, nor by the sex of the puppy so money doesn't come into it at all.

HTH

Debs

Edited to add:  Sorry Barbara, you got there before me :)

Yep can't get much lower registrations than that, and yes fortunately the need for culling is obviously only when the litters are large and there are no homes available or likely to be.

I think the comparison to Dingo quite apt, except bigger, LOL

I know someone who has a dingo as a Pet and it was an interesting experience rearing and training it.  It decided that trying to dig up a concrete floor to make a den would be a good idea, as it is it managed to dig up the parquet flooring..

As for people not being able to afford the price of a puppy, rubbish
I would beg to differ with that statement. £600 + is a hell of a lot of money to find out of a truely limited income, and if you are short on cash its a hell of a lot to hand over in one go, with the addition of vaccination adding near to £100 on the purchase price. The budget may well allow dog food and the money for monthly ins, but that big bit...maybe even more than the monthly food bill. There are other considerations to monthly budget, clothes, school uniform, toys, car maintenance and fuel, which simply means that the huge price tag cannot be afforded or even justified if saved up for. Yet a wonderful home can be provided. As a child there is no way my family would have justified such an outlay, yet our dogs were well looked after, mutts that they were.
They don't want to show, or pay for expensive stud fee's or importing a new line, which could be beyond the budget of most that simply want a pet, as you spend your saved money on these things, traveling to shows and expensive entry fee's, they keep their family and have a few other luxuries too. The addition of a dog into the budget may cut some things out, but a huge price tag is something else to contemplate. Especially in this current financial climate.

We all choose what luxuries we alow oruselves. 

I would save for a dog, others would view a new outfit, TV or playstation, better car as something they wish to have.  Whatever they can all be saved up for, even if it takes a while.  No-oen ahs to have any of these things.

As you say the alternative is an older rescue dog.

If they can afford the food and Insurance costs, say £50 a month then they can save £50 a month for 11 months to get a pup, and then continue to spend that amount keepign a dog.

>do you know if you can do selective termination for dogs?

No you can't. It's incredibly risky even for people, but it's not a possibility for dogs.

thats a pity as in cases such as this i could see the value

Scans aren't even reliable at assessing numbers, let alone the gender and health of the foetuses.

You say in one post.........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.

then....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.

So what is it? And how are the pups that are selected for culling before hardly taken a breath actually culled? A bucket of water? I somehow doubt in a normal whelping that a vet will be there for each birth. So how is it done?  How are they selected to be culled, simply by being number 3 onwards when only 2 of that sex (most likely a boy) have already been born? Are girls culled too, or they allowed to live even when their booked number have been passed?
How do you select the puppies to be culled at a later date by the vet when all are aparently healthy? Does this include bitches too, or is it just the potentially harder to home boys, which may cost more to rear and advertise and more work for the breeder by training and socialising.

I totally agree with culling a litter to assist a poorly bitch, in some circumstances, let her keep a couple of puppies for her well being and maternal health, but from a bitch in good condition, with healthy pups, why breed the litter if you know you could have problems finding homes for them, especially boys, and going into the mating knowing full well any boys over a certain number will be culled, and this could well cover the majority of the litter.

I thought the days of drowning puppies was consigned to history, except for those that are not going to make it.

I assumed that a UK breeder, going to the trouble of continuing lines to the point of needing to cull puppies would be trying to preserve a British/Irish breed from the heritage perspective. As the breed you reffered to only had 20 registrations in 2007 it must be the impoted Beuceron (the only breed in 07 with 20 registrations).

This is a french breed and 'recently imported' to the UK, with an average litter size of 6-7 puppies and a need for a lot of open space for free-running. It seems strange to me that a UK breeder is breeding a French dog that has such little interst the litters require culling. People moan about the abundance of dogs from puppy mills and irresponsible breeders, but I think it is equally irresponsible to be breeding foriegn dogs, for the preservation of a breed that has nothing to do with native heritage.

ETA A foreign breed that has few registrations in the UK, only means it is in danger of not surviving in the UK and the preservation of fsuch dogs should be left to it's native country as there is obviously no place for them in the UK.

ETA, I've only just noticed some other posts, so it probably isn't the Beuceron ??

> I totally agree with culling a litter to assist a poorly bitch, in some circumstances,

I agree, and it is totally different to culling puppies because the breed is not sought after and there are not enough homes for the entire litter :(

We all choose what luxuries we alow oruselves.
This is true. There are many people that only have older models of everything, and cannot afford the high price tag of a pedigree, yet still want a good dog as a family pet. It may not be just the price, but justifying the spending of it. Even those who can spend the price tag eaisily may not wish to, I don't see an older rescue dog as an alternative but as a choice.

Why is it judged so badly when, as a family unit, you can't have a little bit of everything?

> I assumed that a UK breeder, going to the trouble of continuing lines to the point of needing to cull puppies would be trying to preserve a British/Irish breed from the heritage perspective. As the breed you reffered to only had 20 registrations in 2007 it must be the impoted Beuceron (the only breed in 07 with 20 registrations).
>

No I said less than 20, a further post has actually stated that there were 14 pups registered in 2005 and 7 in 2006 and 7 in 2007.

The breed has been established in this country for a long time, but even in it's native country is rare.  It is amazing that it is such a healthy breed, which shows how dedicated are it's preservers.

>how are the pups that are selected for culling before hardly taken a breath actually culled?

You select at birth, and when the vet comes to check the bitch and litter post-whelping (cleft palates etc) that's when they'd be put to sleep. A few decades ago they'd have been drowned at birth (I'm told that the water should be warm so as to make their demise almost indistinguishable from their existence in the uterus) but I've not heard of that happening for many years.

As for the gender desired - that depends on the waiting list, and what other bitches in the breed are producing. For one litter I had loads of dog enquiries - for the last litter, not a single one. There were plenty of other dog puppies out there. That's why I have two dogs when I really wanted a bitch myself, but I had to sell 'my' choice because there's no way I could rear three puppies to my standards.

> Why is it judged so badly when, as a family unit, you can't have a little bit of everything?

No-one is judging, but it doesn't excuse poor breeding on the cheap, be it pedigree or mongrel.  A breeder should breed with all possible tests and knowledge to stack the odds in favour of producing healthy typical pups of the breed concerned.  In such circumstances the potential owner can have confidence in what they are taking into their family (in as much as it is possible with a living entity).

I pointed out that pedigree pups in the majority of breeds are a similar price relative to earnings that they have ever been, it is in fact the crossbreeds, mongrels, and unregistered purebreds,  that are now fetching comparable sums that has changed where once they would have been destroyed at birth, abandoned, gone free to a good home, or for a nominal sum as an adoption fee.  That is money for old rope, as no effort or extra cost has gone into their breeding.

How do you know, at less than 24 hrs old, which puppies in a litter may develop something that will not show its self untill the puppy is into its first few weeks? As has been said, some can die naturally at a few weeks, how can you justify culling at birth when you could well have culled the healthy ones?

>how can you justify culling at birth when you could well have culled the healthy ones?

Most of the 'natural' deaths at a couple of weeks of age would be due to accident - crushing or getting wet and chilled. But with a conscientious breeder and the proper whelping situation those deaths won't happen.

You simply make an educated guess.  For all you know one of them might have the potential of being a future Crufts Best In show winner.  You choose the smallest least vigorous seeming ones, Yes ytou amy then go on to loose one of the survivors too.

Who said breeding was easy and that hard decisons were not part and parcel.   Evey time you mate yoru bitch you risk her health and welfare.

    > Why is it judged so badly when, as a family unit, you can't have a little bit of everything?
yet on here, everytime the high cost of pedigree dogs is mentioned, the old reason for not being able to make that cost is turned round to whatever else may be in the home, as if the children that have these things are somehow spoiled, and the price of a dog should be foremost. Having a pedigree dog could well be seen to be 'one of the must haves' to others. In my young days pedigree dogs were owned by people with money, the majority of dogs that ran on holiday with their families and in parks etc were mongrels, there was far less disposable income than there is today.

I agree that buying the best you can find, from a really good breeder who puts their dogs first and follows all the rules etc is the best way to go, I'm not saying buy a cheapie or a crossbreed that has been doubtfully bred, it would seem there are good crosses out there, from responsible breeders, no I'm saying that the high price tag is not an option for all, and that a good old fashioned mongrel is a choice not a lower option for many. if there were not people out there that thought like that, the rescues and their puppies would all be destroyed. Which would give fewer family pets, fewer agility/working/ etc dogs. And what a shame that would be.

Think is even with people happy to take on a crossbreed or rescue dogs (mostly these) are still put to sleep, so their breeding should not be encouraged.  that would leave the genuine accidents or purpose bred dogs.

We all agree there are many dogs in bad homes, so a reduction in the dogs available would not be a bad thing.  Trouble is that good breeders have over the years reduced the breeding they do, but the BYB's and Puppy farmers just increase their output.

Q was....    > 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? :-(

Ans was......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

This sounds as if the 'whelp' is culled as soon as it is born. Am I wrong? Did anyone else read this comment the same as me?

I can totally understand a puppy being put to sleep for any congenital defect, and my heart goes out to anyone that has to have their puppies hearing tested then have to make the choice of having them pts. I don't have any problem in this, none at all. But to look at a healthy litter, and chose the 'whatever number to whatever' number to cull...just because they are the wrong sex for bookings, well surely to god the breeder could try harder to find homes, or not have bred the litter in the first place. I have a close friend who, with her mum, showed and bred Dobes many years ago, totaling around 50 years before she retired, and not one of those puppies culled, she found homes for all, good homes too, even if it did take more hard work and time and expense, and she had a personal loathing for those that culled just for the sake of it.

I really can't make head or tail of this, are only the boys culled, or are healthy girls culled too?

> I really can't make head or tail of this, are only the boys culled, or are healthy girls culled too?

Depends on the situation.

Also how soon after birth ti is practicable will also vary.

In the case of the crossbred litter with the very young undernourished dam the Vet had to be called to help the bitch whelp (Oxytocin shots) and he PTS straight after birth.

Once again - Dobes are easy to find homes for.  The breed in question is not.  If the bitch had 8 bitches and 2 dogs, some of the bitches would be culled (unless the dogs were particularly unhealthy of course).  The culling is done as soon as the bitch has finished whelping.  It is done by a vet who comes to the house.  Like I said before, there are people out there who would happily buy a puppy, but the RIGHT homes for this breed are very few and far between.

Debs

>Q was .... 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?
>Ans was......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

Can you not see a difference between a newborn puppy and an adult dog or older pup that has been homed and then returned?

>are only the boys culled, or are healthy girls culled too?

As I said in another post, it varies. Sometimes there is a high demand for dog puppies, sometimes everyone seems to want bitches. Until spaying became more commonplace from about the 1960s very few people wanted bitches because of the seasons and risk of unwanted litters. That's not an issue nowadays, so generally the demand is fairly even; but that doesn't mean that the bitch will oblige with the genders in demand!

> Can you not see a difference between a newborn puppy and an adult dog or older pup that has been homed and then returned?
>

The difference I see is that a new-born pup is full of potential (as Brainless has said - a 'blank canvas'), an older pup that has been returned to the breeder has most likely been returned due to behaviour problems/poor owners unable to train a dog properly, in which case it is much harder to re-home an older dog/puppy for that very reason. If a breeder can't find homes for a new-born puppy, what chance have they got of finding a home for a puppy/dog that has been returned to them?

>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.

>Most of the 'natural' deaths at a couple of weeks of age would be due to accident - crushing or getting wet and chilled. But with a conscientious breeder and the proper whelping situation those deaths won't happen.

It is all far too confusing, on the 1 hand it is natural for pups to die anyway, but on the other hand a conscientious breeder wont have any deaths. So the culling must either be a case of a poor breeder speeding the process of pups that will die anyway, or a 'good' breeder killing healthy pups, pups of a breed that not many people want and it take a specialist to home them.
Why is it worth preserving an imported breed that not many people want and not many people can handle? it can't be for the good of the dogs within that breed or the healthy pups wouldn't be killed, it has to be solely for the personal fullfilment of the breeders and the limited fanciers, so the individual dogs are not the issue :(

>a new-born pup is full of potential (as Brainless has said - a 'blank canvas'), an older pup that has been returned to the breeder has most likely been returned due to behaviour problems

A newborn pup isn't capable of independent life - it can't even urinate or defecate by itself. It's blind and deaf and has a very undeveloped brain and nervous system. An older puppy or adult dog is totally different, and is an independent physical entity.

By the way, the most common reason for dogs being returned isn't behavioural at all - it's marital break-up or other change of financial circumstances that means they can no longer keep the dog. There's generally no fault with the dog at all.

>It is all far too confusing, on the 1 hand it is natural for pups to die anyway, but on the other hand a conscientious breeder wont have any deaths. So the culling must either be a case of a poor breeder speeding the process of pups that will die anyway, or a 'good' breeder killing healthy pups, pups of a breed that not many people want and it take a specialist to home them.

Let's see if I can explain it better. :-) Nature arranges multiple births as the norm to allow for 'natural wastage' - it's expected that only a small proportion off the offspring will survive to reproductive age. When a breeder 'plays God' and upsets nature's arrangements, it takes a very long time for evolution to adapt the animal to only have single or twin births to compensate for the over-population.

Q was....    > 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? :-(

Ans was......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


JG......
Can you not see a difference between a newborn puppy and an adult dog or older pup that has been homed and then returned?

yes, of course, but I put the whole post up to show what had been said. But what is quite clear is that a puppy is culled at birth, the defining part of that being barely taken breath which certainly indicates culling at birth, ...........

not waiting till the vet arrives, or a couple of days later when the puppies are established.
So. puppies are culled at birth, which is certainly far to early in the huge majoity of cases to see if it is healthy or not, will survive or not, not with it's first draw of breath.

There is someone on here with a new litter. She has a couple of 'little' ones, shes helping with a bottle. perhaps she should have culled them? Would you advise it?..........:( But no, she cares and will do her best.

Does everyone take their bitches to a vet post whelp? Even the experienced breeders who avoid the vet like the plague as they 'don't know about breeding?'

Just maybe the culling of puppies simply because of numbers and failing to find enough homes pre mating, or not being willing to find homes regardless of how long or what hard work and expense it may be, is what puts vets off breeders in general? Maybe they don't actually agree with destroying life that has just started simply because of numbers, thats not really what they signed up for.

Anyone in animals has to be strong enough to handle death of the animals, and the culling of the sick or sorry. But culling a healthy, strong puppy?

Perhaps when you all define a good responsible breeder, you should add to the list that you should also be prepared to cull any puppies that you do not have homes for at birth. The breed clubs should recommend this. I'm all for assisiting Mother Nature when there is something wrong, but I can't agree to play God with puppies lives that are healthy and kill them simply because the breeder hasnt done their homework, or is too disinclined to get out there and find homes.

This is so off track from the question I asked. :(

>There is someone on here with a new litter. She has a couple of 'little' ones, shes helping with a bottle. perhaps she should have culled them?

Perhaps. That's her choice as a breeder, and she shouldn't feel coerced into culling or hand-rearing.

>Does everyone take their bitches to a vet post whelp?

No, I don't. I get the vet to come to me to examine the bitch, the day after whelping. He then returns two or three days later to take off the dewclaws.

>Perhaps when you all define a good responsible breeder, you should add to the list that you should also be prepared to cull any puppies that you do not have homes for at birth.

A breeder should always be prepared to cull puppies. If they don't feel able to do that then the responsibility of breeding is too much for them.

    >Does everyone take their bitches to a vet post whelp?

No, I don't. I get the vet to come to me to examine the bitch, the day after whelping. He then returns two or three days later to take off the dewclaws.

Splitting hairs...but ok, I will rephrase, does every breeder have the vet come out post whelp to examine their pups.?

A breeder should always be prepared to cull puppies. If they don't feel able to do that then the responsibility of breeding is too much for them.

Ah, but I am talking about healthy puppies, culled by means unknown directly after being born which is what has been said on here and no one has clarified what way it would have been culled because a vet is rarely there at birthor days later by a vet, simply because homes have not been found for them before they were born. W

What stance does the KC and the breed clubs have on this? Do they recommend culling simply because you may not have homes for them? or that it may be hard to find homes.....nothing is impossible if you work at it. There could actually be very suitable people, already vetted, just waiting for one of these 'hard to home' breeds on the breed club Sec's list or welfare/rescue list that would be overjoyed to take on a puppy. This is not dumping on rescue, if people are waiting and there is nothing available why should they not assist, it's in the breeds interest after all.

>ok, I will rephrase, does every breeder have the vet come out post whelp to examine their pups.?

I don't know - I can only speak for myself.

>What stance does the KC and the breed clubs have on this?

As long as culling is done humanely it's acceptable.

>nothing is impossible if you work at it.

Not always, unfortunately - hence the heartbreak of the woman who had to put to sleep her 7 dobermann youngsters that nobody wanted; despite extensive advertising no suitable homes were forthcoming, and at 5 or 6 months of age they'd naturally become a pack, despite the very best efforts of her and her family to socialise and train them. This is not what breed rescue is for - that's for dogs whose breeders aren't preared to accept the full responsibility for their puppies.

The breed in question is not.

No one has said what that breed is, but if they are so hard to home, why breed them unless you know for certain you can home at least 5 of each sex. 

The culling is done as soon as the bitch has finished whelping.  It is done by a vet who comes to the house.

So its hardly when they have first drawn breath then, as has been said on another post. I have yet to find someone answer me as to how the puppy who first draws breath is culled. because this seemed to be given as the otimum time for culling. So this would have to be by means unknown then, as no one even the poster wants to clarify it, and I don't for one minute believe a vet is present at every whelping. The time carries on then, unless you have your bitch checked by your vet after whelping, if the pups are born on Friday/Sat evening they are quite established on the mlkybar by the time the vet comes out to cull them. I guess it gives a better choice of which looks to have unwanted markings, bits of unwanted white, colour mismatches, things which might lower their value. :(

I have had the vet come to my house to check the bitch and puppies after every litter bred.  I cannot speak for anyone else, although JG has stated that she does the same.

Please try and understand - in the breed being discussed - there ARE no dogs in rescue normally.  I think the breed has had 2 in rescue in the last 7 years.  Why is this?  Because the greatest possible care is taken to ensure the RIGHT homes are found.  The breeder in question takes back any dog, no matter what the age, that they have bred.  This has resulted in 2 dogs returned in 30 years!  Why?  Because she is responsible enough to ensure quality of life, not life at any cost.  These dogs were kept with her for the rest of their natural lives.

I was a member of two breed clubs for two different breeds that stated in their code of ethics that breeders must be prepared to cull a litter.  These code of ethics were passed as acceptable by the KC.  I am no longer a member of either so I cannot say if they have changed or not.

I did state in an earlier post that the pups were culled when the bitch had finished whelping by a vet.

Debs

> if the pups are born on Friday/Sat evening they are quite established on the mlkybar by the time the vet comes out to cull them

If my litters were born on a Friday or Saturday evening, the vet would be at my house on a Friday or Saturday evening once the bitch had finished whelping (barring any problems with whelping of course, in which case they'd be out sooner).

> I guess it gives a better choice of which looks to have unwanted markings, bits of unwanted white, colour mismatches, things which might lower their value

Marking do not matter in the breed in question.  It is nothing to do with the monetary value of the puppy.  Quite the opposite in fact.  The puppies are culled even though the breeder could get hundreds of pounds for them should they wish to sell them to just anyone.

Debs

o put to sleep her 7 dobermann youngsters
Perhaps she could have lowered her prices, perhaps the breed club and rescue could have worked with her to find homes for these puppies when they were younger, when she must have known she was struggling? I can see no reason for rescue not assisting in finding homes, they must have plenty of carefully vetted homes on their waiting list being such a popular breed, and could have given 7 people a nice suprise. And good homes for the puppies. I thought breedrescue was about rescue and welfare, attempting to assist anyone. Thats what members of the public put their hard earned cash towards, and this woman, having no doubt taken some money from sales, could well have put the price of a puppy into rescue to help them with looking after other Dobes. I am suprised that they turned away a responsbile, caring breeder that is a club member when she needed their help so badly.

>Perhaps she could have lowered her prices,

She was charging the same as breed rescue suggested to her. There happened to be several predominantly male litters born in the same few months as hers, and no matter what you do you can't make people take your dogs, especially when they generally want a baby puppy not an adolescent. She could have stuck them in the freeads as 'Free to a good home' and got shot of them that way, but how responsible is that?

Thankyou Debs for straight, informative answers to my questions.

I have to swallow my anguish for it, but reading your post does make sense. Its a tough one, not a decision I would want to make. I don't know the breed, I don't know the woman, but I will say for many breeds it seems more than harsh.

I did state in an earlier post that the pups were culled when the bitch had finished whelping by a vet

Yep, :), its not you that made reference to the culling after their first breath.

Wasn't the post comparing a grown animal to a newborn "which had barely taken its first breath"? It's the comparison that was important, not the literal counting of inhalations. At least, that's the way I understood it.

She could have stuck them in the freeads as 'Free to a good home' and got shot of them that way, but how responsible is that?
Oh for goodness sake.....I'm not suggesting that for one minute! There are loads of litters of dobes all across the country every week. People can travel, so the amount of litters hardly counts for anything, if you have done your homework and have exceptionally good dogs. Did breed rescue refuse to assist her in homing these dogs? if so, what age did she go for help? And why did they refuse? Perhaps had she gone there when the puppies were 10 weeks and it was obvious they were not going to be homed rescue could have. There are enough Dobe rescues around the country, and breed clubs, surely someone could have found 7 homes for well bred Dobes? I find it apauling that rescue could not have helped out a breed member that was down on her luck regarding homes. I wouldn't expect them to have to home every litter she bred, in fact I would think after this fiasco she should have hung her breeding gloves up....

Barely taking its first breath is not the same as a few days old.

Oh well, as I have said, this is not the road I expected my original post to go down, the culling or not of healthy puppies.

I guess then, everyone who breeds on here, being responsible breeders, does/has/will cull their litters for reasons other than health. Despite calling the survivors 'their babies'.......I just find it hard to accept that on one hand the breeder can be gushy and maternal and call them 'my babies' when they may have killed 3 or 4 or more of their siblings.....

And I'm bowing out on this note. Have a good BH everyone.

Bear in mind this was 15+ years ago, and dobermanns were going through a phase of being popular with 'undesirables'.

>in fact I would think after this fiasco she should have hung her breeding gloves up....

She did.

I believe the KC is currently having discussions with a breed club (not mine!) about their Membership requirement to cull pups with a particular cosmetic (not health-rrelated) fault.

Ok....so i have to ask...what about all my breed rescue questions......or can you not answer them?

From what I have read here, the Kc is a law unto itself, run as a business, so long as they make money thats fine.

> Yep, :), its not you that made reference to the culling after their first breath

That was me and I did not intend for it to be taken literally, coming from an era when pups are no longer bucketed as they may have been 50 years ago, I felt it was obvious that a Vet would do the deed, maybe after more than a breath, but very soon after birth.

I thought that was obvious from my post about the unplanned litter from the rescue bitch which started this off topic part of the thread.  This bitch had been booked in for this to happen, which I am sure would be the same for any planned litter culling.

Also regarding culling of healthy animals.  Half of all newborn Egg laying breeds of poultry are gassed at birth (the cock birds).  Most male calves born to Milk producing cows are shot within days of birth.  Vets accept and do some things with Farm animals that they are squeamish about in Pet animals.  Baby piglets have their tusks cut out and tails docked without anaesthetic, Lambs are castrated using rubber bands, and docked that way too.

No matter how we dress it up Companion animals are bred for our use and enjoyment just as much as the Meat or Wool bearing ones are kept for their meat and Wool/Skins.

We have domesticated and changed them to fit our increasingly unnatural environment.  The fact that a few people choose to perpetuate a more primitive ancient breed over some of the denatured breeds pedigree breeders are criticised fro moving away from nature seems sad.

Whether someone chooses to preserve British cultural heritage or the canine heritage from another country is immaterial.

The fact that the breed are so conscientious and careful regarding breeding with all the constraints and difficulties already pointed out and the breed is a healthy good natured one is a testament to their hard work.

It must be very hard to sometimes have to cull a litter for the reasons outlined, but it has been found to be the best way of protecting the breed.  As a result there is no rescue problem and what breeding is done is done properly.  Very unlike several breeds that have appeared in this country since just the 80's or 90's who are not really good breeds for the average pet home, now have huge rescue problems, and lots of unscrupulous breeders because people recognise them from films etc, and want one of those dogs, often using the film title to describe the breeds.

This particular breed could be popularised by clever advertising and would probably attract some of the wrong type of owners to use fro their abilities, probably to crossbreed with too, and the breed would be ruined.

When a breeder breeds the ultimate responsibility is to the breed, not just the individuals in it.

The disgracefull way that farm animals are treated is not an exscuse to do the same to our pet animals,  but I'm not getting into that. I have caused this thread to go way off topic allready.

Calmstorm - it was me that picked up on the culling and starting the thread going on a tangent, I am sorry, I didn't meant to ruin your thread :(
Back to the topic:

>Having a 'meander' on the Kc site re cross-breeds I was a bit suprised to find they seem to be not against cross-breeds. I see you can register any cross on the activity register (which is great because they can compete in classes organised by the Kc other than showing) or the 'companion dog' register for cross or pedigree, and they have special dog shows for crosses 'Scrufts' and they activly ask to know about your cross-breed. Apart from the 'activity' based things, I was a bit suprised to find they would have anything to do with dogs other than those eligable to be registered by their 'pure bred' status. How does this help people who don't really know what they are buying when the Kc is happy to register (for a fee) any dog regardless of parentage? I suppose it has been happening for years, but I was suprised that an organisation that is for pedigree dogs would be involved in those that are not, excluding activity. Or, am I missing something? 

I think it's great that the KC show support for the cross breeds, a dog is a dog and deserves to have as full as life as possible, regardless of who decided to breed it and weather it is a mutt or not. BUT after some of the things discussed on this thread I think it is all about money for the KC, not about the dogs :(

> The disgracefull way that farm animals are treated is not an exscuse to do the same to our pet animals,  but I'm not getting into that. I have caused this thread to go way off topic already.
>
>

This was just to show that what Vets sign up for isn't just treating animals. 

Right back on topic.

I agree I think the comapinonclub especially is about an opportunity for the KC to make money out of crossbreeds too, after all no dog needs any form of registration to take part in companion show activities, only in the formal competitive activities which have cumulative awards so that the animal can be individually identified (on the obedience and working register).

I think the excuse of getting people under the KC umbrella is a bit spurious, especially as there is no open membership and say in governing our hobbies for those involved in canine pastimes as there is in other overseas governing canine bodies