Can you say how many is the average for this breed lincolnimp?  Are we saying that the bitch may have a litter of 9 or 10 or is the litter much greater for her to contemplate culling?

then run away and hide whilst you all slag me off



Don't worry I wouldn't do that, each breeder makes their own decisions on these things, it's not for others to dictate. :-)

Myself though with a gap of 3 years in-between matings, I would have thought that plenty of time for the breeder to have a stronger waiting list than for just 7 pups, just going to shows/or working competitions would make interest or advertising a future  litter on the breed club sites.  People do wait for the right breeder, especially for a rarer breed. Bitches have 10 teats and can happily cope with even a few more pups not to mention a little hand rearing thrown in, to me there is no need to cull at all.  I can't believe that she can not generate enough real solid potential owners in the 3 years before breeding.

I guess she does this from habit now.

But, it is her choice, her responsibility and her dogs, ce la vie. :-)

Im in two minds about it.

Sentimentally - I very very much doubt if I could bring myself to cull even a new born pup, unless clearly that pup was not going to make it, ie cleft palate.
The idea of culling a pup I have helped raise and train  who is several months old is even worse.

Rationally though - I think culling is a valuable and crucial part of breeding and there are plenty of good reasons why one would or even should cull (all of which I think have been laid out here already).

One thing that does occur to me, whilst bitches can and do give birth to very large litters, this is something WE have engineered through feeding and healthcare and our domestication of dogs - whilst they may have large litters (though I doubt any wild canid would have 15 or 18 pups!) in the wild, they will rarely raise more than half their litter.

Culling to keep litter sizes reasonable wrt homing and also wrt the bitches health stops dogs ending up in the wrong homes - thats important for any breed and I think becoming more so every day as the anti dog feeling around the world rises.

Be nice if we didnt have to, if we could keep every mismark until they could be neutered, trust that people buy a pup understanding whta they are taking on and that if they are wrong about wanting that dog they have the good grace and sense to return to the breeder rather than as so often happens, telling lies to rescues that teh breeder wont take the pup back, if we could all have the room to own more dogs (and the time, and the money)...

But we dont have these things, so for the good of the many, some pups must be culled.

As far as pups where the bitch is not capable of raising the litter, say a huge litter and the bitch is ill - most definately, cull some or most in preference to hand raising. Hand raised pups are NOT behaviourally 'normal' in comparison to naturally raised pups - and as has been said, there arent enough homes in this country for perfectly normal dogs, let alone ones hampered from day one with problems.

One thing I could and would do, and this is going to make me about as popular as a fart in a space suit...

Rescues who have bitches in who then have pups. I think they SHOULD cull all but two (so that the bitch still has two and isnt seriously traumatised) of litters like that, if they havent spotted the pregnancy and spayed the bitch to abort the pups.

I cannot see how rescue can castigate breeders for responsibly breeding litters, and then sit back and let crossbred, unhealthy bitches, too young or too old or too tired... have huge litters and raise  them, or split litters up and send them out to foster carers to raise, which takes huge amounts of time that other dogs could benefit from, ditto money, and as ive said, hand raised is no where near as good as naturally raised, with the addition that these pups wont have come from healthy parents with sound temperaments either.

> surely breeders have a duty of responsibility to hold their breed in trust for future generations.

Why? Is it right to deliberately breed, then deliberately kill, so that years in the future people we'll never know can have that breed?

> Should a breed that has existed for hundreds of years and is part of our nation's heritage just be allowed to die out?

Heritage and tradition have a lot to answer for and are not a good reason to keep doing anything. Its tradition to fight dogs and to use them to kill other animals but this is now illegal.

These reasons are for human selfishness "I want, I want, I want" rather than for the good of the dog.

Our GSD rescue has been castigated in the past for "culling"litters born to bitches in rescue.

I won't mention the sentiments expressed in the offensive emails & PM's I received, however cross GSDs especially if the father is not known, can be loaded guns with the safety catches off. if anyone the puppies turned out to be a problem due to parentage & the Rescue is of course to blame. It has long been the policy to cull to one or two males if the father is known to be a GSD & the bitch is an adult & all of the puppies if the father is unknown. This has always been done with the full support of the Rescue's vet.

The vast majority of pregnant bitches that have come into rescue have been puppies expecting puppies & a termination is the preferred option, but obviously not all the bitches are a period in their pregnancies where this is possible, so a elective C section is done instead, with the puppies PTS immediately & the bitch spayed at the same time

> Can you say how many is the average for this breed lincolnimp?  Are we saying that the bitch may have a litter of 9 or 10 or is the litter much greater for her to contemplate culling?
>

I would guess the average is around 12, but I have known of 15 - if there were 9, or even 10 I doubt she would cull.

> Myself though with a gap of 3 years in-between matings, I would have thought that plenty of time for the breeder to have a stronger waiting list than for just 7 pups, just going to shows/or working competitions would make interest or advertising a future  litter on the breed club sites.  People do wait for the right breeder, especially for a rarer breed. Bitches have 10 teats and can happily cope with even a few more pups not to mention a little hand rearing thrown in, to me there is no need to cull at all.  I can't believe that she can not generate enough real solid potential owners in the 3 years before breeding.
>

Unfortunately, this is a breed with very specialist needs - certainly not for the faint-hearted, although very appealing as fluffy puppies. It is not easy to find suitable new owners.

> I guess she does this from habit now.

Definitely not. She hates having to do it, but feels that this is the responsible thing to do.

>

> Though just to throw a spanner in the works, how would you feel if say the Dam had 15pups, became ill and could not feed them, no foster mum was available, so hand rearing commenced (which would need to be feeding 15pups every 2 hours day and night) once they had finished it would be time to start again, say the breeder only had themselves and possibly just a partner to help, it would kill them to do it. If they couldn't cope with this as they were too tired as each pup would take approx 10 mins to feed and took the dreadful decision to cull some of the litter to enable them all to survive, would you still not wish to buy a pup from them?

Does this hypothetical breeder not have any friends who could help? Friends from shows? Stud dog owner (they should be responsible too)? Puppy owners who are on the waiting list?

With internet access it's easier to find people who could help. Even without wouldn't the breeder know about their breed club who could offer to help by putting out requests?

How about using the money they've set aside for such emergencies to hire someone to help, a rescue might even have a human fosterer who could take on some of the litter (only as a helping measure, not to rehome).

These are from the top of my head, if I was actually in that situation I'd give it much more thought and maybe come up with other ideas.

Though just to throw a spanner in the works, how would you feel if say the Dam had 15pups, became ill and could not feed them, no foster mum was available, so hand rearing commenced (which would need to be feeding 15pups every 2 hours day and night) once they had finished it would be time to start again, say the breeder only had themselves and possibly just a partner to help, it would kill them to do it. If they couldn't cope with this as they were too tired as each pup would take approx 10 mins to feed and took the dreadful decision to cull some of the litter to enable them all to survive, would you still not wish to buy a pup from them?

20 years ago my sister in law faced the same problem when her German Shepherd bitch had 13 puppies and was very ill and had to have an emergancy operation.The vet advised  being pts for at least seven of them to make things 'easier'. We hand reared all 13 puppies,it was very hard work but how could we have chosen who lived and who died when they were all the same size and in perfect health? They all had good homes waiting for them.I had one Sammy,they were all very laid back dogs and with the exception of one,lived to a good age ,(sammy was 14)

Karen1 I completely agree with you. It may be a shame to see a breed die out, but breeds of dog are a man made creation, it is not the same as the threat of extinction that endangered species face.

> Its tradition to fight dogs and to use them to kill other animals but this is now illegal.

This shows how society as a whole has changed, in general the lifes of animals are much more valued today than years ago. Thankfully some of the breeds we have no longer are used for thier original purpose (baiting, fighting etc..). If breeds are so specialised that they no longer have a place in todays society then they should be allowed to die out. Breeds were developed to suit man, it shouldn't be a case of keeping a breed going when it doesn't suit man.
The breeders that cull healthy puppies and who would not go to great lengths to help an ill/weak puppy, defend the culling by saying it is for the good of the breed, and by helping a puppy struggle for survival with an uncertain future is cruel, but isn't assisting a breed struggling with existence even more cruel, deliberately producing unwanted puppies?

ETA, this was in response to karen1s first post on this page.

>Bitches have 10 teats and can happily cope with even a few more pups not to mention a little hand rearing thrown in,

Some bitches have 10 teats. 8 is in fact just as usual, and even then the front pair are pretty useless when it comes to producing milk. Basically it's unfair to expect a bitch to rear more puppies than she has teats.

>If breeds are so specialised that they no longer have a place in todays society then they should be allowed to die out.

How many gamekeepers need a large dog nowadays?

>> If breeds are so specialised that they no longer have a place in todays society then they should be allowed to die out.

>> How many gamekeepers need a large dog nowadays?

I don't think we should ban certain breeds but if breeders cannot or don't want to raise entire litters then perhaps they shouldn't be breeding.

If a breed naturally dies out because of this it might be sad for the people who love that breed but the dogs won't care.

> How many gamekeepers need a large dog nowadays?

I'm not sure what you mean?
Do you mean that there are a lot of gamekeepers that need a large dog ?? (I'm thinking along the lines that this is a reason to keep a specialist rare breed going, in which case there should be ample homes for litters of such a breed)

If you had a slightly weak puppy, would you cull before trying to assist?
Alhough i dont breed i would consider part of a breeders role is to deal with this sort of situation. Either to assist with hand rearing or medical attention. Thats part of the deal when you decide to breed from your bitch. There is a risk that with every litter there could be problems so if this happened and there was a weak pup that is part and parcel of breeding isnt it?
Would you cull a litter where (for whatever reason) mum can't rear them?
As above, i imagine being a breeder you have to be prepared for this to happen and therefore step in. Culling the litter seems like shirking your duties to me. Would you get rid of the bitch because she couldnt fulfil her role?No, probably (hopefully)not so the pups are no different.
How would you feel, as a client, if you went to a reputable breeder and found they had culled half the (healthy) litter?
The people who have pets here, if you had found before you purchased your puppy that some healthy puppies had been culled, would you have bought from that breeder?
In all honesty no i probably wouldnt have bought a pup from them but would appreciate an explanation as to why they did it. I'd prefer to buy a pup from someone who breeds on a low key scale and takes time and effort and has genuine love for the pups, not sees them as a money maker

I feel quite strongly about this. I think people that do the things mentioned are what give breeders/pedigree dog owners a bad name as it is seen as so cruel to put a healthy animal to sleep.
Unless it is a genuine medical reason and the dogs life will suffer i think it is inhumane. A deaf dog may need a more experiance owner but its life wouldnt suffer so should not need to be culled.
As a breeder you must be prepared to step in if the bitch cant rear them/be prepared to keep any pups that are "runts"/find good homes/take back any dogs whose owners no longer want them(for whatever reason).
It like being a parent.
Its not the same but see where i am coming from.....some have children that dont cry much and sleep through the night, others have babies who scream constantly and sleep little. I wouldnt get rid of a child that was more of a handful and hope my next child was better :-)
At the end of the day (providing all pups have homes) you have pups at home as the breeder for 7-10 weeks depending on breed size. Is 2 1/2 months of caring for a pup that may not be 100% too much to ask?

my reply isn't to anyone in particular but I detest the idea of people playing God.  Who is to say that having a curly tail, white feet, pale eyes, wavy coat etc makes the dog less than a great dog.  If people were debating this around the issue of less than perfect children there would be an outcry. 

I agree with putting a pup down if it is too ill to lead a meaningful life but feel that breeders have a social and moral responsibility to look after any pups that are born and some of the posts on here that have spoken about responsible breeders culling dogs as this means they are not money grabbing puppy farmers has sickened me.  I'm just waiting for the next batch of "I'm a responsible breeder because I health test, show my dog and cull the ugly ones or if there are too many"  How bizarre.  Each to their own but I would like to think I would not ever buy from a breeder who culled dogs for any reasons other than humane ones.

>not sees them as a money maker

Putting the sentiment of the pups aside, can't you see that in many ways, the total opposite is true.

The example on the other thread of Dobermanns which had not found good homes by 5 months is a prime example - I have no doubt that the breeder in question could have made money by lowering her price and saving the euthanasia bill, but her conscience would not allow that.

Ditto the specialist breeds that have been discussed. The myriad crossbreeds with fancy names selling for many hundreds of pounds are proof positive that a good marketing campaign can make people part with money very easily. Again, I have no doubt that cute pictures and some slick words could do the same if all these breeders were interested in was making money.

M.

I fully agree, i would never cull ANY healthy puppy, i once had a puppy that had a stroke at a few days and was left with some minor problems, his not really all the ticket bless him, but i couldnt home him and the only other 2 choices where pts or keep him and for me it was not a difficult choice he is now 3 years old and a happy boy and i wouldnt part with him for the world - i did however have to pts a puppy from my last litter this year as he had a severe heart condition and my vet advised he would suffer in the future (he was already stuggling at 3 weeks) i was heartbroken and sobbed for days - i feel responsible for EVERY puppy that i bring into the world i just wish all breeder did!

I only PTS if its for health reasons. In a previous litter I had to have two pups PTS, one due to a large cleft palate the other because it lacked the natural sucking reflex and on the advice of my vet I had him PTS. Although I felt sad that this had to be done, it was the only option regarding that situation. To try and keep either pup alive would have been foolish, even if they did survive they would have more than likely been weak with other possible hidden defects.

In the most recent litter there was a mismarked pup. I certainly wouldnt even entertain the idea of having her PTS and she went on to live with a lovely couple and be thoroughly spoilt.

With regard to having too many pups/not enough suitable homes. Thankfully I keep a waiting list and dont have the issue of no homes/unsuitable potential owners, as I can pick and choose the ideal family for each pup. Although having a popular but not over populated breed does help! Anyone considering breeding should account for their actions and make sure they have good permanent homes lined up. If for whatever reason a dog was returned to me I wouldnt turn it away. I'd sooner undertake rehoming myself than risk it being sold on to an unsuitable owner or end up in kennels.

er...mastiffs were not the usual gamekeepers dog, bullmastiffs were as mastiffs are lazy lumps :)

as such lazy lumps they make great house pets, their temprements are perfect for family life and as such they fit well in the modern world.

i think that mastiff lover is saying that clearly something about certain breeds no longer suits the modern world and as such perhaps they are obsolete? not sure how i feel about that though, i can understand a breeder wanting to do everything in their power to keep their breed. i really don;t feel right about culling though. i think we make a choice to breed and should not do so unless we are in a position to care for the animals properly. if someone killed pups at birth then got a call from a wonderful home the next day how would they feel? i just couldn;t do it to a pup without a really compelling reason

i think jeangenies point was about why breed mastiffs then as they are not used anymore (though not usually for gamekeeping aids anyway)

> Myself though with a gap of 3 years in-between matings, I would have thought that plenty of time for the breeder to have a stronger waiting list than for just 7 pups

Unfortunately in the 'I want one now' society we live in, lots of people won't wait 3 years for a puppy to be born.  I have people ask me about pups and I always say I only breed when I want something myself so they will have to wait, they say yes, but then lose patience.   

My first LM came from a culled litter.  His dam had 11 pups of which 9 were males, LM males sometimes aren't the easiest to find homes for so the breeder made the decision to cull 5 of the darkest dogs (An all black LM not being desirable).   Brown & white LM pups were always culled  but now people have found a market for them, some are charging about 75% of the full LM selling price for something that can only ever be a pet & can't have full Kc registration.

> If you had a slightly weak puppy, would you cull before trying to assist?
> Alhough i dont breed i would consider part of a breeders role is to deal with this sort of situation. Either to assist with hand rearing or medical attention. Thats part of the deal when you decide to breed from your bitch

i mostly agree with this. in our litter we had one pup who ended up with brain damage though oxygen deprivation (she had a difficult birth). we kept her and tried for 2 days till we lost her. at the time it seemed totally right though thinking back i'm not sure we should have. given the obvious level of the prob and a second time round i probably would have put her to sleep simply because of the poor quality of life she'd have had. however if she;d lived mum and dad were going to keep her.

basically i think it depends but you should try.

> Would you cull a litter where (for whatever reason) mum can't rear them?

no, no way. if the decision is made to breed then they are your responsibility.

> How would you feel, as a client, if you went to a reputable breeder and found they had culled half the (healthy) litter?
> The people who have pets here, if you had found before you purchased your puppy that some healthy puppies had been culled, would you have bought from that breeder?
>

unless a very very good reason was given this would really put me off to be honest.

> i think jeangenies point was about why breed mastiffs then as they are not used anymore (though not usually for gamekeeping aids anyway)

I thought that maybee was the reason, but didn't want to jump to the defensive as I normally do. Well then, the Mastiff is quite suited to life as a companion, the reasons it were bred for died out a long time ago but interest in the breed has not been lost, they truly are mans best friend and do not need to work to be happy.
They generally aren't a breed for everyone because they are huge, they eat, slobber & fart alot and socialisation & training can not be skimped on & in general are quite expensive to keep. I'm thinking the rare breed refered to must be specialist in the sense it's instinct to work for what it was bred for needs to be met on a daily basis and the breed needs homing with somebody who understands how to controll/harness it's natural instincts, a Mastiff just needs love, training and lots of food & cuddles :) house proud people need not apply ;)

> er...mastiffs were not the usual gamekeepers dog, bullmastiffs were as mastiffs are lazy lumps :-)

lol, I only just noticed this post AFTER I had waffled on a bit about Mastiffs!!  Mastiffs lazy??? - what gives you that idea ;)

> i think that mastiff lover is saying that clearly something about certain breeds no longer suits the modern world and as such perhaps they are obsolete?

Yep, that's what my ramblings were meant to be about. I'd hate to think that Mastiffs would die out, but I would rather that happen than healthy pups be killed due to there are not enough homes for entire litters.

> what gives you that idea ;-)
>

ohhh... let me see... my lad sitting down in the middle of the forest and refusing to move when he figured he'd walked enough... sleeping so soundly he didn't notice the mouse that was snuffling his ear one time... and many other instances :)

i wouldn't worry about mastiffs going out of style. i think when i next get a dog for me (i'm about to inherit one and then my bf gets next pick...) it will probably be a mastiff. as i said, they've just got the perfect temprement for families, so laid back and cuddly but with a size that many find appealing :)

> house proud people need not apply ;-)

lol, so so true.

to be honest i cannot imagine most mastiffs working, they are such lumps! my breed has always been the bullmastiff but then we got a mastiff and the difference was enormous! i always thought the bullies were lazy but they are way way more active than the mastiff. made me really see why the gamekeepers developed the breed.

> they've just got the perfect temprement for families, so laid back and cuddly but with a size that many find appealing

I love 'em :) Everybody must be as completely smitten by thier favorite breed, all the traits that I love in the Mastiff may well be somebody elses idea of hell. But ones love of thier own breed makes it even harder to imagine people not willing to wait for a rare breed puppy, as I've said before I would wait a few years for a Mastiff and they're ot rare.

> One thing I could and would do, and this is going to make me about as popular as a fart in a space suit...
>
> Rescues who have bitches in who then have pups. I think they SHOULD cull all but two (so that the bitch still has two and isnt seriously traumatised) of litters like that, if they havent spotted the pregnancy and spayed the bitch to abort the pups.
>
> I cannot see how rescue can castigate breeders for responsibly breeding litters, and then sit back and let crossbred, unhealthy bitches, too young or too old or too tired... have huge litters and raise  them, or split litters up and send them out to foster carers to raise, which takes huge amounts of time that other dogs could benefit from, ditto money, and as ive said, hand raised is no where near as good as naturally raised, with the addition that these pups wont have come from healthy parents with sound temperaments either.

Your not alone with the above, that is exactly my view, and I have gone in print with it after seeing an RSPCA program where an old GSD bitch was taken into a rescue centre and whelped that night.

It was a large litter and the bitch was extremely stressed rearing them, so they took them away from her at 4 weeks, hardly the best start fro a pup.  Wasn't very popular with the RSPCA PR person who replied to my letter in Dog World.

As far as pups where the bitch is not capable of raising the litter, say a huge litter and the bitch is ill - most definately, cull some or most in preference to hand raising. Hand raised pups are NOT behaviourally 'normal' in comparison to naturally raised pups - and as has been said, there arent enough homes in this country for perfectly normal dogs, let alone ones hampered from day one with problems.

Could I ask what is wrong with handreared puppies, and why they are not behaviourally normal? ta! :)

> Some bitches have 10 teats. 8 is in fact just as usual, and even then the front pair are pretty useless when it comes to producing milk. Basically it's unfair to expect a bitch to rear more puppies than she has teats

Jeangenie is right here.  Just checked one of my girls with pups.  8 teats, and the front pair no good to man nor beast, no milk there at all. 

When it comes to puppies born from rescue bitches, I think that sheds a different light on things. No one knows if the sire is her son, her brother, her father, or even the same breed as her and a bad cross in terms of potential behaviour. His health is not known, he could suffer from a multitude of ailments that could eaisily be passed down or be of unsound nature. Even if he is known, all the previous problems stated could apply.The bitch could also suffer ailments that could be passed down that cannot yet be seen in her, she could be malnurished and full of worms which will not give the potential of a healthy puppy. Her nature may also not be one that would be desired in her puppies. The bitch herself may be in such a poor state, or be to young or to old to rear a litter. In these circumstances then I really do think a vet should be called to pts some/all of the puppies, and much time then be put into the bitch to help her overcome the dreadful circumstances she has found herself in.
This, however, is not culling healthy puppies from a healthy litter from a responsible breeder, simply to keep numbers down.

   > Some bitches have 10 teats. 8 is in fact just as usual, and even then the front pair are pretty useless when it comes to producing milk. Basically it's unfair to expect a bitch to rear more puppies than she has teats

Jeangenie is right here.  Just checked one of my girls with pups.  8 teats, and the front pair no good to man nor beast, no milk there at all.

yet bitches manage to rear 10 or more puppies, with no harm to her or them, with the teats mother nature provided her with.....and, if she can't cope, then there is the option to assist with top ups of formula milk.

i am confused- doesnt take much :)
on one hand experienced owners & breeders on here are saying that anyone who seriously wants a particular breed , if they are serious could save £50 amonth for a yr to buy a pedigrre puppy- yet in the next sentance they say that good potential owners are not willing to wait for that puppy- leading to culling of puppies.
which is it??

Replying to calmstorm

> Could I ask what is wrong with handreared puppies, and why they are not behaviourally normal? ta!

They are raised by a human, not a dog.

They dont learn the things they ought to learn - also common practice in rescues is to split orphaned or litters removed from mum for reasons of the mothers health up into pairs, so they often lose the benefit of most of their litter mates (imagine a two really bouncy pups who love rough and tumble, neither backs down, they dont stop each other playing those games and theres no bitch to stop it either.. by 8 weeks you have a pair of hooligans and in rescue they will often wait longer than that to rehome, and often they wont have any other adult dogs to associate with either so by the time they are homed they are a nightmare, cannot communicate properly with other dogs and are set up for a long period of being constantly shouted at by other dogs (if they go to a home with adult dogs capable of this, if they go somewhere with submissive adults they become horrid little despots!))

Ideally if you have orphaned pups, find them a surrogate bitch. Otherwise given we are all about setting people AND dogs up to lead happy, well balanced lives (and in a time when dog behaviour is scrutinised more than ever before, this becomes ever more crucial...) - rescues allowing pups to go off into their lives with unknown health status, thoroughly inappropriate first stages in life, unknown parentage... its just not doing dogs in general any favours.

I think a responsible breeder IS taking responsibility for their pups if they decide to cull rather than hand raise an entire litter. Some may be in the best position to raise a litter without their dam, if they have other bitches who will help, lots and lots of time and they are merely providing the food and cleaning bottoms, and it is a breed where that would work (and some would and some wouldnt), then I have no problem with that at all.

But struggling to raise pups where there is no other suitable dog to assist in teaching pups how to be dogs, rather than humans with fur, splitting litters up before the appropriate time, not good, not the wisest of actions.

Who would buy a pup that was hand reared? I would want to see the set up and it would depend on the breed and the breeder - but it would be a serious factor in my decision. Would it not bother anyone else?

the worlds' greatest salesman is a  puppy ....almost any puppy will eventually find a home whilst it is still at the cute stage ....but unless the breeder has been really careful about finding the right home many pups will end up in rescue. .......and I bet my bottom dollar that the number of deaths of healthy dogs by rescue organisations far outweighs the number of pups  culled. ....not to mention the miserable lives that many of rescue dogs will have had prior to being PTS.

In America there is  a HUGE problem with the over production and eventual killing of dogs - their rescue shelters are overrun with dogs and the numbers killed every year are horrendous ....yet hand in hand is the view that all dogs are 'fur babies' and the internet is rife with adverts for 'cute' fluffy pups - (no culling here)- credit cards accepted and shipping arranged ! - of course once they stop looking like 'babies' they are simply discarded.

You cannot escape the fact that some dogs will have to be killed because there are just not enough suitable homes for them....now you could say that we should all just stop breeding but that just leaves the door wide open for the BYB and puppy farmers who view every pup that is born as a money maker and sells irrespective of the suitablilty of the prospective owner.

I believe that culling is done very rarely - in fact I do not personally know iof anyone thaht has done this ...but I DO view it as the actions of a  breeder that is taking responsibility for what they have bred.

Yvonne

i am confused- doesnt take much
on one hand experienced owners & breeders on here are saying that anyone who seriously wants a particular breed , if they are serious could save £50 amonth for a yr to buy a pedigrre puppy- yet in the next sentance they say that good potential owners are not willing to wait for that puppy- leading to culling of puppies.
which is it??

:-D :-D  I think the phrase boots and fits comes into it.

Today, there is no reason to cull a healthy litter, good knowledgeable homes for any breed can be found with a little hard work, breed clubs are there for a reason with hundereds if not thousands of members for every breed. The proffessional breeder of today should have contacts and plenty of friends to do with their breed, otherwise they are just hobby breeders in which case no different to the pet breeder wanting a pup from their pet.  The whole point of a proffessional breeder who does health tests and breeds is to continue their line with other breeders involved in that process, in which case they should have lots and lots of contacts. Therefore lots of people who would be willing to take on a pup in knowledgable homes.

Only under exceptional circumstances, ill health etc should culling a healthy litter be necessary in this day and age.  The world of dogs is a very big world, with many, many people in it for every breed.

>on one hand experienced owners & breeders on here are saying that anyone who seriously wants a particular breed , if they are serious could save £50 amonth for a yr to buy a pedigrre puppy- yet in the next sentance they say that good potential owners are not willing to wait for that puppy- leading to culling of puppies.

A year, IMO, is about as long as it's reasonable to expect a keen person to stay on a waiting-list for a puppy. But in some very sound, healthy, but demanding and not 'fashionable' breed it could take 6 years or so to build up a complete waiting-list so that theoretically every puppy born had a home.

Here's a scenario. A person has a very good quality bitch, so in the fullness of time plans a litter from her. The breeder has done all her homework, is a member of the breed club etc. Obviously the bitch must have this litter before she's too old for it to be healthy for her, so she'll be no more than 5 years old. That doesn't leave enough time to have built a full enough waiting list to cover all possibilities from the litter - number and colour (if a breed with variations) of each sex that potential buyers are interested in. For example, if I'm on a waiting list for a liver bitch puppy I won't buy a black dog puppy just because that's what's available! So what's the breeder to do? People won't wait on a list forever - after a while they'll go somewhere else - maybe even import - so people are leaving the waiting list as well as joining it. And if you wait too long your very good bitch, whose genes are needed to keep the gene pool healthy, will become too old to breed from at all.

It's a question of balancing the demands of each side.

>breed clubs are there for a reason with hundereds if not thousands of members for every breed.

Really? The labrador clubs or other popular breeds might well have thousands of members (combined, not individually) but what about the minority and specialist breeds such as the Otterhound? Delightful, but large, noisy, naturally 'scented' (for want of a better word) due to the coat requirements for their job, and not suited for the average family home? How many in their breed club? How many genuine good homes are there, seeing that the hunt outlet has pretty much closed?

Even in my very popular breed a bitch puppy of the particular colour I wanted can take a year or 18 months to find a breeder willing to sell one. I have heard of breeds where virtually no breeder will sell a bitch puppy - interesting how things differ from breed to breed. I think my bitch has 8 nipples of which 2 are pretty much useless.

but what about the minority and specialist breeds such as the Otterhound?

Specialist and minority breeds do come under IMO a different category, where they would still be in a breeding programme being so small in number and would have close ties with others of that breed to keep the line going.  That is where I do diverse from my opinion on culling. Where a line is so small or where a line is trying to genetically breed in or out temperaments and health issues.  In the name of the breed, culling is acceptable for me as previously stated.

But for general breeds, with no numerical, breed specific or genetic problems there is no excuse to cull, just a little more hard work to find proper placements for the pups.

Unfortuantley, the example used of someone only keeping 8 pups and culling the rest does not say to me this was a specialist breed, a specialist breed would only need one or two pups for breeding purposes and then cull the others.

One point which hasn't been raised here is the fact that however carefully one plans a litter and takes as many points into consideration, the one factor that cannot come into any equation is the fact that, even in a relatively rare breed, all of a sudden, just as you have your carefully-planned litter, there are another dozen litters on the ground at the same time.

**Welcome back stranger!*** :-)

Yes, Lokis mum, that is a possibility, and I know that does happen but most of a persons waiting list will have built up a good relationship with their clients so another litter generally would not be a problem.

But........... hyperthetically if clients were lost and I found I was left with a few from a litter, would I cull, NO!  I would be on to my breed club, my contacts to find replacement homes, or I would raise the litter and bring them on, my responsibility, I am the breeder, it is all part and parcel of the 'what if's' and things that can go wrong, and hopefully I would eventually find suitable homes, even if it took a year. It's what you sign up for as a breeder.  No pup would pay for it's life down to bad luck on my part.

In Response to claraclogs

Most people are not prepared to wait several years for  a puppy (when my bitch missed last season I passed most of my enquiries onto other breeders as I had a full order book, only oen or two were prepared to wait over anotehr 6 months), so it becomes catch 22. 

The breeder may have to wait 3 to 5 years to get together a good size waiting list and still need to cull.

The breed I was referring to in particular only had 14 puppies registered last year,a and 7 pups the two years before that.

An average potential owner no matter how suitable would need a lot of patience to wait that long otherwise most would get something on similar lines, which is probably what happens, thereby making the problem worse for the breeder trying to make sure they only breed when they have enough potential homes. 

in response to the number of teats, bitches can happily feed more pups than teats as they are fed on a rotation system and milk is supply and demand so the more sucking, the more milk produced-as in humans. im not saying it wont be wearing for the bitch but it can be done and small pups can be topped up with a bottle

> Specialist and minority breeds do come under IMO a different category, where they would still be in a breeding programme being so small in number and would have close ties with others of that breed to keep the line going.  That is where I do diverse from my opinion on culling. Where a line is so small or where a line is trying to genetically breed in or out temperaments and health issues.  In the name of the breed, culling is acceptable for me as previously stated

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you, these are exactly the situations we are referring to.

I am sure every breeder from an emotional and financial point of view would prefer to rear all viable pups.

My own breed falls just outside this category (if there are more than two litters born close together it invariably means a long wait to home some of the pups if there has been a lot of one sex), and I know no-one who culls.  I have been fortunate in that my litters have averaged just under 6 pups a litter with most often 4 or 7 pups for some odd reason.  some of my girls ancestors have had up to 14 pups in a litter.

Problem can be if pups are not homed by a certain age, and litters are fairly easy to find many potential owners prefer to go for younger pups.  It isn't quite such an issue with our breed as the lack of pups for a month or so will take up the slack of older pups not yet homed (usually because the litter was mostly one sex).

I believe a breeder has the right to evaluate their own circumstances and chances of finding suitable homes when making such decisions, which can never be made lightly.

I believe a breeder has the right to evaluate their own circumstances and chances of finding suitable homes when making such decisions, which can never be made lightly.

Agreed, it is a heartbreaking choice and even though in many cases I most probably would not agree with it and would perhaps wish to do a lot more to find a future for said pups, I don't disagree that in the breeders mind they are doing it for the right reasons, they care not to have their pups put just anywhere and obviously fear for their futures.

But, I think perhaps this thread gives the wrong impression to many reading in that culling is widespread when it isn't, at least from my perspective it would be extremely rare. :-)

Yes I agree it is extremely rare.  Lets face it the majority of pups are bred by people (not real breeders) in it for the money who just want the cash for the pup and forget them once out the door, and come back is then handled by the overstretched rescues.

Just look at the awful problems Siberian Husky rescue have, and then there is the crosses of these breeds. 

I am alarmed at the number of my breed being part of crosses.  I have seen adverts for litters crossed with GSD, Sibe (like the one I am fostering that ended up in Battersea as a purebred Elkhound), and Maremma sheepdog.  To my mind none of these crosses is positive for either breeds involved.

>I would raise the litter and bring them on, my responsibility, I am the breeder, it is all part and parcel of the 'what if's' and things that can go wrong, and hopefully I would eventually find suitable homes, even if it took a year.

Considering how many experienced multi-dog people find it very difficult to raise two puppies at once, I genuinely can't imagine how someone could raise 6 or 7 even adequately.

A breeder should know their breed very well, and be schooled in training and dog behaviour how else can they help their pups new owners? If needed.  Most breeders although they would find it much more difficult could certainly cope with bringing up two pups. If more were left over from a litter it would be even harder work yes, I doubt many would be left with 6 or 7 extremely unlikely, but if so, they would have to set up their home to segregate or buy a kennel or two, (which would be deducted from profit for tax purposes) whatever it takes until gradually homes were found.

Looking at it from the perspective of 'it's too much hard work so I will cull' is a terrible signal to be giving out as a breeder.

okay- fair enough.
but i still dont understand why people are saying that breed rescues are not there to help out the reponsible breeders. just the poor dogs bred by BYBs. in my breed i know of good breeders who have gone to rescue to help rehome older dogs that have not sold to ensure they went to good homes where they were wanted & not just selling to any tom dick & harry. surely the breed resues would be more than happy to help the responsible breeder who has done all they can to produce healthy pups- but due to odd numbers are not selling?
arent they there for the dogs? as someone else said- a well bred pup in rescue is a nice surprise for a potential owner. i have three rescues- the eldest two with severe health problems due to poor breeding. my youngest is a very good example of the breed who through no fault of his own ended up in rescue at 7 months. we also get whole litters gifted in & ive never known a dog be turned away yet.

>If more were left over from a litter it would be even harder work yes, I doubt many would be left with 6 or 7 extremely unlikely, but if so, they would have to set up their home to segregate or buy a kennel or two, (which would be deducted from profit for tax purposes) whatever it takes until gradually homes were found.

Perhaps if you could explain how this is done you could save puppies, so please share this information!

The sad reality is that, without intensive one-to-one input at an early age, a dog will grow up psychologically unable to be a 'normal' pet, therefore making finding a suitable home even less likely. This is where neighbours complain, the council steps in and demands the removal of X number of dogs, the RSPCA prosecutes the breeder for neglect and the dogs end up being destroyed anyway, after months of suffering. How much better to have culled them at birth?