Ethics - Pup cull
Strange question I know, but I'm wondering what are the ethical issues with producing a litter and culling some of the pups.
Do any good breeders actually take pups they don't like out of a litter or do they try to home them all.
If a pup does not conform to recommended standards should a pup be culled?
If a fearful pup is born should it leave the yard?
Should deformed pups be culled?
Should pups with a health issue be culled?
Can experienced breeders recognise a temperament or health faulth early in the pups development?
I think a reason for issues in dogs is the size of litters is too big. People get the last pick dog and breed off it and so on, so the future generations end up from a weaker stock than whats possible. Also some of the pups would die of natural causes or they would injure the mother only for the intervention of the humans and vets.
At 5 weeks and on, the mother wants to get away from the pups to some degree as she is starting to dry up and basically at this stage if the mother could run free in the woods maybe she would loose some weaker pups along the way.
I know my friends dog hated to loose a pup and was frantic when she did but they found it again. But when people came to collect the pups she was cool. She didn't miss them at all.
What are peoples thoughts on it?
Is it cruel to even consider culling a pup and is it necessary part of breeding?
Would you ever consider just breeding for yourself and culling the rest instead of getting into the money business of selling etc?
Would there be as many pups in shelters if there was a different attitude towards dogs and pups instead of seeing them as little teddy bears or piles of cash?
Anyone gonna attempt an answer on this thread??
From what I've gathered by talking to breeders this isn't something really talked about. Kind of hush hush. I'd be interested to as if anyone answers. I believe culling was an important part of getting the working line GSD to what it is today.
Sent from Petguide.com Free App
I don't think it's so much hush-hush. I think some breeders might decide to let "nature take its course" and others perhaps, " interfere/intervene"...?
IDK. I don't breed.
Either way, it'll be a HOT TOPIC, I'm sure.
Yes, breeders must cull for the good of the breed. Culling does not necessarily equate to killing these days. If there is a severe health or temperament issue or deformity, than having the pup euthanized may be the only ethical route to take. Other faults are typically "culled" from the gene pool via placement on spay/neuter contracts. No reason to kill an otherwise sound, healthy puppy.
I don't think most breeding dogs know enough to make such decisions first off. At least not in my book. some are pretty good at evaluating litters, I don't think most know what they have. It's why they breed names and papers and market the same way. They rarely compete with dogs of their breedings, they continually get new ones to breed from somewhere else etc.
Anyway, today in this country resources aren't so limited. you can "cull" a puppy without taking it's life. you don't have to walk far to find a vet that will do an early spay or neuter and there are lots of people willing to take on a free puppy.
But if a breeder did want to cull, as in remove it permanently, i'd have no issues with that either. Unless it was along the lines of tossing them in a bag in a river or something like that. There are plenty of ways to do it that are quick and over. No need to be brutal or cruel about it.
I think there are lots of good (and overlapping) thoughts on these threads:
For me personally it would come down to whether I thought the puppy would be able to live a safe and happy life as someone's pet. If so (minor deformity like a clubbed foot, "off" coat color, etc.), then I'd place it for free or with a nominal fee and a spay/neuter agreement. If not (major deformity, severe health issue/temperament problem), then IMO humane euthanasia is the better option.
One interesting wrinkle to the cull/not cull issue that I recently became aware of is that some breeders of working Malinois in Europe will reportedly cull otherwise fine puppies who happen to be born long-coated, but there is a market for these puppies among working Tervuren breeders in the U.S. because a long-coated dog born to Malinois overseas can be registered as a Tervuren with the AKC (and therefore can be used to expand a very small gene pool), whereas long-coated puppies born to domestic Malinois have to be registered as "Malinois."
It's an odd and, as far as I know, unique situation that's been artificially created by AKC registration rules, but it amounts to a lucky break for some of those puppies.
I have the opinion that if a pup is viable and capable of living a healthy, normal life, say perhaps it's simply the wrong color or pattern, then it should be homed with a spay/neuter contract, with incentive offered when the spaying or neutering is performed. (I offer spay/neuter incentives even if there's nothing at all wrong with the pup, so to do this for a pup that's obviously not within standard is a no-brainer to me.)
If a pup is born and it is obviously determined to be unhealthy and there is no chance of it thriving and living a reasonably normal life, then I believe it's acceptable for the pup to be culled at birth.
If the pup is older before it's health issues are detected, then it'd be up to the breeder and owner to come to an acceptable agreement.
If it were a pup I'd bred, I'd offer to take it back and replace it with another pup and depending on the issue may or may not have it euthanized. If the owner decided to keep it, obviously their contract would be voided, but I'd still offer any type of support I could, to help them out.
We've not had to cull pups, but we have had to cull goats and chicks... We had a chick born this past spring that didn't have the bottom portion of it's beak. We knew we'd be able to syringe feed it and probably make a pet out of it and it'd live a reasonable life, but was that a fair option for the chick? I decided no. And my husband took care of it. It wasn't pleasant, but it was what was best for the chick. We had a goat two years ago that was born with a deformed front leg. He wasn't able to stand and his mother stepped on him, breaking his other front leg. We could have fixed the broken leg and amputated the deformed leg, both we'd spoken to our vet about, but the goat would not have had a normal life, would never have been able to be a part of the herd, would not have been able to run from predators, so my husband made the decision to cull it. He was about just over 24 hours old. It was very difficult, but it was what was best for him.
Raising animals is a special journey. It's one you have to be prepared for. You have to know and accept that things aren't always going to go like you plan, and sometimes it involves the health and overall well being of the animals you're producing. If you're not emotionally or mentally able to handle that reality, then you shouldn't decide to breed.
Culling by putting down a puppy was common a few (human) generations back....there was even a rule in the SV that a bitch could only raise a certain number of pups and the rest should be culled....I don't know if they were allowed to move pups to another female for raising...I would think that happened now and then tho!
Today, culling is not done by anyone who will acknowledge it as a normal practice...we limit the inclusion into the gene pool of pups by limited registration, by spaying and neutering. But we also have a problem with genetically inferior or flawed animals being bred by people with no knowledge or experience.
Physical culling (PTS) is usually only practiced on newborns and very young pups when there is an obvious birth deformity..missing limbs, tails, mega e....even dwarfs are not really obvious until 6 - 8 weeks old....and most people will put them in a pet home.
in the old days, they used to cull for mega-e, but today is a different world.
Mega-e, in Gsheps, is completely livable and manageable. I've yet to see a mega-e Gshep in a bailey chair. I took one in and so did some friends of mine, and going on two years now, have now had to hardly assist in their eating after 3 or 4 months of age. Its actually a study in science right now on how of all dog breeds, Gshep's seem to be the ones who adapt to Mega-e the most easily, and other than that 'throaty' sound when they are excited/worked up, it's like the deficiency isn't even there.
Anyway's, pups with mega-e can easily be placed in a home for free without registration(I don't believe in spay/neutering. The statistics show that the cons far outway the pro's. If you can't keep control of your animal, you shouldn't own a dog).
|All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:05 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2