http://dogstodaythinktank.blogspot.com/2011/10/is-freezing-to-death-cruel.html

Saw this today on the Cold Wet Nose blog Spot. I have never heard of a breeder doing this has anybody else? Could the informant be confusing this with breeders freezing the bodies of pups born dead that they are going to send to labs/vets for autopsy?

Earlier this year I was chatting with a friend about what we do if we have kittens born with something seriously wrong, so they need putting to sleep straight away (i.e. serious deformities and similar). I've always gone to the vet, and did the same the one time I had a pup I knew wasn't going to live. She told me her vet had told her the quickest, cheapest and kindest way was to freeze as they just go to sleep. I don't think I could ever do it (in fact would not even consider it), but this did come from a vet.

It is - apparently - one of the "humane" methods used for killing rodents that are to be fed to snakes... adults as well as newborns. It begs the question that if it's OK for one sentient, pain-sensitive species, why is it deemed to be wrong for another?

Regardless of whether it is done in other species I was surprised to see this on the blog spot simply because I have never ever seen a breeder or heard of a breeder doing this. If the informant has proof why didn't the proof and the name of the 'breeder' doing this get published? Or is this another scam to get at pedigree dog breeders? We have PDE 2 coming up in the new year....

Oh I bet you anything that's what it is. It will be something like "Crufts breeders freeze puppies to death!" and they will have dug out some puppy farmer who once showed a dog at Crufts 25 years ago, that does it. I've never heard of anyone doing it -everyone goes to the vet on such occasions. Then stand there and sob.

And it very craftily mentions breeders wanting to kill puppies because they might be embarassed as they are mismarked (or something along those lines) before it mentions that puppies may be culled because of birth defects.

I have been unfortunate enough over the last 30 years to have had baby pups (4 - 14 days) who needed to be euthanised.  Never, ever has my Vet suggested 'freezing' them was the way to let them go.  I held each one whilst the final injection was given.  I am talking about pups with health issues, usually fading puppy, and rather than watch them slip away in agony, with the advice of my Vet, I have made the decision that enough is enough.  I too sense an opportunity to, yet again, have a go at 'pedigree breeders'.

I'm sorry this is a bit off topic,  (which is pretty grim, in my inexperienced opinion)... but you've just reminded me of something. I was briefly researching Rotties as a possible breed I'd like to own.  I came across a seemingly knowledgeable and sensible breeder's website, when explaining all the steps they went through to ensure they produced socialised and well adjusted Rotties, they listed putting them in the freezer for about 5 seconds when a few days old to acclimatise them to traumatic experiences.  Anyone heard of this before?  It struck me as utter nonsense, but what do I know :-)

In all my years, I have never, ever, heard of anyone doing this, I'd like to know the source too, another witch hunt by the sounds. :-(

> knowledgeable and sensible breeder's website, when explaining all the steps they went through to ensure they produced socialised and well adjusted Rotties, they listed putting them in the freezer for about 5 seconds when a few days old to acclimatise them to traumatic experiences.

Really sensible and knowledgeable breeder? Sounds like a complete crack pot to me!

I said seemingly knowledgeable and sensible as until I read that everything sounded really good.  I've just had a google and I think it may be more of an American idea, and generally fridge rather than freezer. 

ETA still not something I like the sound of though!

I had heard this mentioned as a method of dealing with unviable newborns from an American breeder, not sure if it was something done many years ago, or current practise. 

Frankly I was horrified, but then it may have been from the same era when puppies and kittens that were 'mistakes' would be routinely drowned.

Like the rulings about catching rats in a cage trap. Common practice used to be to drop the cage into a water barrel. This is now illegal and the rat must either be shot whilst still in the cage or removed from the cage and hit with a heavy impliment The mind boggles - it would take a braver person that me to try and catch an angry rat and hold it still while they bludgeoned it to death :-)

So it could very well be that the 'report' is from someone who did this as a breeder 50yrs ago, it wouldn't surprise me knowing todays journalism, well I guess something happening 50+ years ago wouldn't surprise any of us, the fact that it is being reported to happen today is a terrible way to yet again slander breeders in 2011.

Well, regardless of who said it, suggested it or when, the AVMA in 2007 lists Hypothermia as an "UNACCEPTABLE METHOD OF EUTHANASIA"  this list considers all the available methods and their suitability for different species.

AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia

Can't view the BVA document as it needs a log in.

Does seem that someone is trying to muddy the waters again

So according to that document I have to give poultry an anaesthetic before I can kill them. Would that not make the meat unsuitable for human consumption?

This is yet more sensationalistic journalistic rubbish being used in an ever desperate attempt to whip up anti show dog breeder feeling - and you know what ? - we need to say this loud and clear on her blog spot - come on folks post a denial on there and let her readers know what really happens - in nearly 30 years involvement in showing and breeding I have NEVER heard of this practice   ..  I do however know of many who fight desperately to save pups, who cry their hearts out at the vets when they fail, and who mourn the loss of each and every pup  - now THATS the true picture and we need to say it !!

Yvonne 

> So according to that document I have to give poultry an anaesthetic before I can kill them.

I don't think so.  The document is published by an American association but I doubt it would be seen as a sensible proposition there either.

I have never ever heard of people freezing puppies either.

> come on folks post a denial on there and let her readers know what really happens

The problem is this means more hits on the website and the profile is then raised.  Perhaps providing a motive for posting more contentious comments no matter how rediculous? 

I have not even looked at the link posted by Polly to avoid doing this.

The relationship between BC and JH appears to be a symbiotic one.  The one needs copy for her publications and the other is happy to provide it to maintain her profile.  I prefer not to feed it.

I feel it better to just support other organisations such as the Kennel Club who put forward the case of responsible breeding.

It sounds like they are doing early neurological stimulation but not doing it correctly, poor little pups probably got freezer burns. 
Here is the correct technique.

http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/breeding/ensp.htm

ETA sorry this is in response to CVL
Mel

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">So according to that document I have to give poultry an anaesthetic before I can kill them. Would that not make the meat unsuitable for human consumption?

This document is discussing Euthanasia - humane death, NOT mass killing of chickens for food consumption.   The two are poles apart.

It sounds like they are doing early neurological stimulation but not doing it correctly, poor little pups probably got freezer burns.

According to that document the normal practice of daily weighing and 3x daily cleaning out the whelping box and putting in cool clean vet beds and leaving a different surface for the pups to toilet on would be enough to produce pups who are mentally more stable and would do better in family homes.   So most breeders here would have that covered ;)

> This document is discussing Euthanasia - humane death, NOT mass killing of chickens for food consumption.   The two are poles apart.

I'm not sure about that Dill, the poles apart bit :). 
I think all animals killed by us deserve to have as little suffering as possible.  Having said that I do not think it necessary to give anaesthesia to small animals and birds before effecting a quick end.  If fact I would question whether giving anaesthesia just prolongs the matter involving more handling etc.

> According to that document the normal practice of daily weighing and 3x daily cleaning out the whelping box and putting in cool clean vet beds and leaving a different surface for the pups to toilet on would be enough to produce pups who are mentally more stable and would do better in family homes.   So most breeders here would have that covered ;-)

I certainly agree with that Dill.  What a load of old tish tosh eh.  We will be exposing them on mountains like the Spartan mothers next :-D

The only time I've heard of freezing being used for euthanasia routinely is for sick fish - and it's widely known that it is anything but humane (actually the heavy implement/hard surface method is preferred by a lot of fishkeepers and it's one I've used myself).  How can it be?  Nobody just 'goes to sleep' when frozen - it is incredibly painful and drawn out before hypothermia sets in, an horrific way to die.

I'd already posted a comment before I read your post, Stooge. I'm surprised to see that my comment and others along the same vein, have been put up.

Sounds like a bit of a myth to me.  Mind you - it you can convince yourself that they don't suffer, then you are saved having to hear or see them as they are behind the freezer door.  I would take a very dim view of a breeder who did this. 

Well we know both BC and JH read CD as they often comment on it, so they'd have no excuse for not having seen our comments here.

I'm not sure about that Dill, the poles apart bit

Not MY judgement ;)   

There is however a HUGE difference between Humane killing and killing 'en masse'

Sadly though I doubt that the fact that we say it does not happen will be newsworthy enough for those who seek to blacken the names of good breeders and caring dog owners :(

In the interests of balance (shame more people do not practise that) I should point out that JH has commented.

"We have had a few reports of this (and 'bucketing')- although I really don't think it happens very often in these more enlightened days and I am sure most breeders today would be absolutely horrified by the thought of it.
It is done in the belief that it is a painless death - that the pups just go to sleep - and I can see how someone might convince themselves of that. It also saves a trip to the vets and of course a vet bill. I suspect that, today, it's mainly confined to those breeds in which culling for wrong colours and mismarks used to be commonplace - in other words where there was a culture of it - with a few 'legacy' breeders still continuing with the practice."

Unfortunately though I suspect "mission accomplished"

Jeff.
edited because I am better than that!!

> although I really don't think it happens very often in these more enlightened days and I am sure most breeders today would be absolutely horrified by the thought of it.
>

Rather a faint retraction I would say when nobody else seems to have ever heard of it in the UK.  Don't know about you but my family didn't have a freezer 50 years ago :)

After all, all she needed was ONE Cavalier owner who allegedly allowed a dog with SM to be used at stud, to tarnish the entire breed.

There is now a response from the person 'in the know' on the blog

A bit off topic, but it strikes me as such a shame JH is so caught up in her own myths, to my eyes, both she and her supporters, and responsible breeders all want the same thing, happy healthy dogs.

I suspect that, today, it's mainly confined to those breeds in which culling for wrong colours and mismarks used to be commonplace - in other words where there was a culture of it - with a few 'legacy' breeders still continuing with the practice."

I suspect TRUTH, ACCURACY and EVIDENCE are not paramount to JH as long as her name gets more publicity.

There's no need these days to actually accuse anyone of anything.   Merely stating a suspicion and intimating that you have "had a few reports" are enough to condemn the whole dog breeding establishment if you can get a wide enough audience. 

As you say Jeff, Mission accomplished :(

One has to wonder why she has never turned her attention to the puppy farmers?

I have just written a comment..has to be reviewed first, whats the betting that it wont be published!

One has to wonder why she has never turned her attention to the puppy farmers?

Oh but they don't SHOW so they can't be as bad as we are!! What other reason could she possibly have?!

A lady i know & trust from the breed club told me about this a few years ago.  To say i was sickened is an understatement.  Literally had nightmare's about this esp. because a few years previously i had bought 2 of my dogs from the same breeder.  This breeder does not show (or have any interest in it) but was breeding several litters at a time from her home.  There was a young person that used to 'help' her occassionally & that is how this disgusting act became apparent.

That is terrible to hear and from your description not what I would call a proper breeder - none of us want this type of person breeding.
Jeff.

I believe that she has moved house several times since she was found out.
It shocked & sickened so many people that are responsible, caring breeders.

regarding putting puppies in the freezer for 5 seconds thias sounds like an American thing to me, whilst in America at a breeders with 2 week old pups she touched their feet with a cotton bud, turned them upside down and then got an ice pack out of the freezer and put it on the tummy for 10 seconds, she stated that this desensitised them to future problems, this was done once a week from birth. I was horrified

I suspect that if this horrific practice is in reality carried out, then it will be the puppy farmers who are doing it. Someone breeding large numbers of litters from unfit/unhealthy bitches with minimal observation and poor husbandary is bound to have puppies which are not thriving and of course these 'breeders' are not going to put the effort in (feeding every couple of hours, sleeping next to the bitch to be on hand for problems etc) to try and save a pup which will probably only end up as a runt that won't sell. If the pup doesn't die naturally then I'm sure they are 'finished off' by one method or another. I can't see puppies from these places being taken to a vet either so their end will probably be very far from humane. This is another reason why this 'industry' needs much stricter control and restrictions. Please take note Jemima!!

I found where the report came from, so in fairness here is the link to it.

''As many as one in four harlequin Great Danes may be born deaf and put to sleep -- something a professional breeder might "take care of" by simply slipping a new-born puppy into the freezer.'' http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2010/03/we-love-our-freaks.html .March 8th 2010.

Both JH and BC seem to take Terrierman's word as gospel.

I replied early this morning with the link to show where they got the information. Oddly enough my post has not been accepted for publication on the blog. Just shows how one sided the blogs are.

> ''As many as one in four harlequin Great Danes may be born deaf and put to sleep -

There is a MASSIVE and gaping hole in this statement.....
It is simply NOT POSSIBLE to know if a puppy is, or will be deaf, at birth.
The ears do not open until later - I think 10+ days - and you would not notice as the breeder/observer which, if any, were deaf until at least 3 weeks of age. It could be unilateral deafness, bilateral, or just a reduction in hearing, and that would need to be BAER tested for proof when the puppies are older.

I don't have experience of breeding deaf puppies, but I do have experience with deaf kittens.

>As many as one in four harlequin Great Danes may be born deaf

All puppies are deaf at birth, just as they are all blind at birth. Their ear canals haven't opened; that's why bitches never vocalise to their new offspring - there's no point. Deafness can be suspected from about four weeks of age and only confirmed by BAER testing from five weeks at the earliest.

How can a serious journalist take this easily disproved codswallop as gospel? Oh yes. I forgot which journalist ...

From reading previous "Terrierman" pieces in Dogs Today, I got the impression he was based in the US, perhaps this is more common over there.

> I found where the report came from, so in fairness here is the link to it.
>
> ''As many as one in four harlequin Great Danes may be born deaf and put to sleep -- something a professional breeder might "take care of" by simply slipping a new-born puppy into the freezer.'' [url=http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2010/03/we-love-our-freaks.html" rel=nofollow]http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2010/03/we-love-our-freaks.html[/url] .March 8th 2010.
>
> Both JH and BC seem to take Terrierman's word as gospel.
>
> I replied early this morning with the link to show where they got the information. Oddly enough my post has not been accepted for publication on the blog. Just shows how one sided the blogs are.

Had a quick look. Most of the time I can't stand this gentleman's opinionated rants (he appears to despise anyone who doesn't acatually use their dog for hunting/sport) but I did love the picture of the minature pony and the dane :-)

1. This is an American report and so it's relevancy to goings on in the UK is questionable.
2. It is a considerably dated piece of information and seems to be based on quite a lot of heresay.
3. Who are 'professional' breeders anyway?
4. I think the gene for harlequin danes is the same as merles/dapples in other breeds so I'm presuming puppies with defective hearing/sight would be recognisable from their lack of pigment from birth. This is not the same gene(s) which control the amount of white in boxers?
5. People (on the Think Tank blog) are critisising breeders for euthanasing (by whatever means) puppies which are 'mismarked'. This is an entirely different issue to having hearing/sight impaired or physically deformed puppies euthanised. I don't think anyone could condone killing a puppy because it is the wrong colour but is it ethically right to raise one with severe disabilities which will significantly affect its quality of life? (Doesn't mean they would merit the freezer treatment of course :-(  )

I sincerely hope this isn't going to be the foundation for yet another attack on 'show' breeders as it appears to be wholly without substance and factual evidence. I stand by my earlier comments in relation to the methods used by puppy farmers though. This would stand investigation!

3. Who are 'professional' breeders anyway?

Exactly what I was going to point out. To me a professional is somebody making a living from it, i.e. having breeding as their profession, hence a puppy farmer. There we go again, another opportunity lost to expose the puppy farmers. I'm starting to wonder if these people actually have shares in puppy farms specialising in poo puppies.

5. People (on the Think Tank blog) are critisising breeders for euthanasing (by whatever means) puppies which are 'mismarked'. This is an entirely different issue to having hearing/sight impaired or physically deformed puppies euthanised. I don't think anyone could condone killing a puppy because it is the wrong colour but is it ethically right to raise one with severe disabilities which will significantly affect its quality of life?

Forgot to reply to this part. The KC code of ethics doesn't allow for it anyway!

This thread brought to mind an article I read on the web whilst doing some research on another JH thing (the trimmed whiskers issue).  I found an american piece about doing the sensory thing to acclimatise to trauma and I think a dip in the freezer was mentioned.  Have now been unable to find the thing again to quote, but from memory it was an oldish article (of an age with the original thing about the whiskers which JH had trawled up).

She seems to be getting a bit desperate for controversial subjects - her blog on Am. Cockers being more suited to the toy group brought hilarity rather than uproar -yeah, toy breeds at 28lbs?  At least they won't be called handbag dogs!  That one had a lack of research and insight too - a dog in full coat cannot lead a dogs life? Don't think she has ever heard of bathing and blowdrying!