Moving culling discussion....

out of respect to LadyDove.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by wolfsoul
Yes I did. Infact you reacted to my posts and quoted them.

Twisterdog, I know that culling is still done in many places by many people, but it is frowned upon, that is what I meant. :) A responsible breeder would never cull. Neither, like it has been stated, would they use terms like "teacup," and even though both culling and "teacup" frowned upon, it's still there, and it still exists.

---

Ok I am going to bed, I swear.
But first I have to respond. (Yes I am like my sheltie I can never keep my mouth shut).

Responsible breeders do cull.

First of all they cull by selling their pet quality dogs on spay neuter contracts. Secondly they might cull at birth if the dog is born with a severe genetic problem.

I don't see anything wrong with this.

cull
tr.v. culled, cull·ing, culls
To pick out from others; select.
To gather; collect.
To remove rejected members or parts from (a herd, for example).

n.
Something picked out from others, especially something rejected because of inferior quality.

You are right though in that responsible breeders don't use terms like tea cup.
And I think responsible dog owners shouldn't use those terms either. Instead they should go about educating the public so they don't buy into this well known marketing gimmick. That was the intent of my original post in the original thread.

You know what I meant, because you had "forgotten" to mention what I had also written:

Quote:

---

. Technically culling doesn't always mean killing

---

Yes, responsible breeders cull by discontinuing any line that doesn't respond well to the standard or isn't in good health. But a responsibe breeder would NEVER kill a puppy if it doesn't match up to a standard.

And I don't think that a genetic disorder is any reaon to kill a puppy without giving it a chance to live. My dog has cancer -- a genetic disease. Would I kill her? No way in Hell! Maybe if it was a disorder where the pup's chances of living are minimal and that the pup would likely suffer, then is the time to consider euthenization.

"But a responsibe breeder would NEVER kill a puppy if it doesn't match up to a standard."

That's not true at all. I'm not sure where you would get that idea. Of course a responsible breeder might kill one of the puppies they bred. In fact, concern and adherance to breed standard, the ability to recognise adherance or deviance to standard and the absolute refusal to breed a dog that is not of the highest confirmation to standard is exactly the definition of a responsible breeder. Yes, the majority of breeders will sell a sub-standard pup as pet-quality on a spay/neuter contract. However, responsible breeders also kill puppies that have defects so severe as to affect their quality of life. As they should. It is NOT always the most humane alternative to let a creature live no matter what, sometimes death is a much kinder fate than a severely curtailed life.



"My dog has cancer -- a genetic disease. Would I kill her? No way in Hell!"

But that is YOUR dog, not a dog you are ultimately trying to find a home for. Your dog already has a home, so of course you try to cure any ailments she has. However, if you can't get her cancer into remission, and it is terminal and she is suffering ... you will be forced to make a hard decision. Should you be condemmed if you should decide that she has suffered long enough and humanely euthanize her? Of course not. And neither should a breeder if he or she makes the same educated assessment of the future of a pup they bred.


(I can't get the quote feature to work tonight for some reason.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by wolfsoul
You know what I meant,

---

No actually I'm having trouble understanding what you mean.
On one hand you say culling doesn't mean killing. Then on the other hand you say responsible breeders never cull pups.
So I'm not sure what definition you are using.

Quote:

---

And I don't think that a genetic disorder is any reaon to kill a puppy without giving it a chance to live. My dog has cancer -- a genetic disease. Would I kill her? No way in Hell! Maybe if it was a disorder where the pup's chances of living are minimal and that the pup would likely suffer, then is the time to consider euthenization.

---

I have to admit I don't know much about cancer. Is it a genetic disease?

Anyways what I meant by that is what you state in the last line there. I'm talking about an obvious birth defect such as a severe cleft palate, or maybe a deformity.

Ok, so your definition of a responsible breeder is different than mine. :) In my book, a someone who is responsible doesn't kill someone because they are ugly or don't look right.

Take my breeder for instance -- she doesn't intend to breed homozygous merles, but in a merleXmerle breeding, sometimes they pop up. Does she kill them? Nope, she finds a good home for them. :) And I like her for that.

Quote:

---

I have to admit I don't know much about cancer. Is it a genetic disease?

---

Yes it is. :( I believe that my Leather actually got it because she wasn't spayed until she was 7. My dad was going to breed her. :mad: But he says he doesn't remember what kind of cancer it was, so I can't say for sure. But cancer and tumors are genetic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by wolfsoul
Ok, so your definition of a responsible breeder is different than mine. :) In my book, a someone who is responsible doesn't kill someone because they are ugly or don't look right.

Take my breeder for instance -- she doesn't intend to breed homozygous merles, but in a merleXmerle breeding, sometimes they pop up. Does she kill them? Nope, she finds a good home for them. :) And I like her for that.

---

Well in my breed, a merle/merle breeding is a big no no and responsible breeders wouldn't do it. Pups in that kind of breeding can end up being born without eyes, born blind or deaf. That's why breeders don't do it. I'm not sure if that's the same in your breed or not.

And I didn't say I agreed with killing pups because they don't look right. I said that I agreed with it if they had a genetic deformity that was detrimental to their quality of life. Or that's what I meant to say :)

Quote:

---

My dog has cancer -- a genetic disease.

---

Actually, not to split hairs, but cancer isn't really a genetic disease, per se. A genetic disease is one in which a gene is passed down directly from parent to offspring, and that gene is responsible for the disease, specifically. A classic example of a genetic disease is hemophilia, where the gene responsible for the blood's inability to clot is stored on the Y chormosome. While certain types of cancers do tend to certain genetic dispositions (i.e., if your close female relatives all have breast cancer, you will be more likely to get it than someone whose family has no history of the disease), cancer has not been shown to be directly genetically passed from one generation to the next. And, of course, there is absolutely no way to tell which dog - or human - will get cancer later in life.

Quote:

---

In my book, a someone who is responsible doesn't kill someone because they are ugly or don't look right.

---

I never said that. Are you referring to my posts? If so, I think you should re-read them. I said instead, "responsible breeders also kill puppies that have defects so severe as to affect their quality of life. As they should. It is NOT always the most humane alternative to let a creature live no matter what, sometimes death is a much kinder fate than a severely curtailed life." I said nothing - ever - about killing an "ugly" puppy.

Quote:

---

she doesn't intend to breed homozygous merles, but in a merleXmerle breeding, sometimes they pop up. Does she kill them? Nope, she finds a good home for them.

---

Oh my. Your breeder intentionally crosses merles to merles? What breed is this? I agree with Shelteez2, I've NEVER heard of ANY breed where merle to merle crossing was acceptable. Most, if not all, breed clubs I have heard about can and do ban members who breed merle to merle intentionally. I've seen first hand the excessive number of deaf merle Australian Shepherds that wind up in animal control or shelters, because an irresponsible breeder bred merle to merle to get "pretty" dogs, and ended up with "pretty" deaf dogs, which of course they sold anyway ... and of course, most owners can't handle. I would strongly advise you to look into this for yourself, IMO it's quite a serious thing.

Well in biology we learned that cancer can be genetic, and my friend has skin cancer as well as most of her family, so I don't know..

Quote:

---

I never said that. Are you referring to my posts?

---

Sorry, but I was...You said that a responsible breed will kill a pup that doesn't match up to the standard...

Sorry about the homozygous merle confusion, it seems I'm not sure now if my breeder breeds merleXmerle as I read her article wrong.
Here is her article if you'd like a good read :) http://www.bconnex.net/~langevin/Color/color.html
By the way, I was talking about catahoula leopard dogs. Here is her article about deafness: http://www.bconnex.net/~langevin/Deafness/deafness.html
I see that for her upcoming litters she is only breeding one merle each time, so I'm not sure. I'll ask her. :)

It's interesting stuff.

A couple of months ago, there was a huge heated discussion
amongst the breeders on the Collie list about this very
subject of merle to merle breedings.

Quite a few of the well known breeders came out and said
although it would be a rare occurance, if they felt a
merle to merle breeding would improve their line, they
would do it. Statistically speaking they explained that only
25% of the puppies would be Double Dilutes (50% Merle
and 25% Tri) and not all of the Double Dilutes would have
any health issues. In some rare cases, they felt that the
small risk was worth improving the breed overall. If any of
the Double Dilutes had health issues, they would immediately
put them down. They absolutely would not sell any of these
puppies.

They were speaking freely about this on an open list and
didn't seem to have any fear that they would be banned
from the breed club, so I got the impression that it's not a
totally taboo thing to do.

Note though, I'm not saying I approve. Just wanted to pass
on some information that I read from the Collie breeders on
this subject.

Par...

I have stayed out of this discussion because I know absolutely nothing about breeding (being the pound dog girl my entire life), but Parnone's comments about breeders taking the risk of possible birth defects by breeding merle on merle combinations raised my hackles a bit.

Correct me if I am wrong, but these breeders seemed to be willing to do this to improve their show quality rather than their health quality. Isn't there a risk that these genes will be passed on to future generations even though they may not show up in some pups? Now I may be totally off the mark as I don't know anything about breeding, but it seems pretty risky to me.

And personally I would rather see breeding that improves the health of a breed, such as breeding smaller GSDs that have less problems with hip dysplasia; or larger Chihuahuas so they don't have joint problems; or longer nosed Pugs so they don't have as many respiratory problems. I always thought the point was for the good of the animals, not the good of the trophy.

Just my 2 cents.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clara4457


Correct me if I am wrong, but these breeders seemed to be willing to do this to improve their show quality rather than their health quality. Isn't there a risk that these genes will be passed on to future generations even though they may not show up in some pups? Now I may be totally off the mark as I don't know anything about breeding, but it seems pretty risky to me.

---

Actually a double merle can't pass any problems onto it's pups unless it's being bred to a merle or another double merle and results in more double merle pups. It's because the problems result from the lack of pigment -- if the pups are solid coloured or in most cases regular merles, they won't have the same problems because they will have more pigment (Solids and regular merles can have the same problems of course, but they result from other stimuli or heredities). :)

Oops, wait, I see I read your post wrong, you were referring to merleXmerle breeding. :) Well, the same thing goes. The double merles might have problems (deafness, eye problems, skin problems etc) from the lack of pigment, but the other pups and their pups should be free from any problems. :)

Quote:

---

A couple of months ago, there was a huge heated discussion amongst the breeders on the Collie list about this very
subject of merle to merle breedings ... In some rare cases, they felt that the small risk was worth improving the breed overall. If any of the Double Dilutes had health issues, they would immediately put them down. They absolutely would not sell any of these puppies.

---

Well, that's quite a sad and disheartening thing to hear, although I suppose I'm not too surprised. Just like Clara4457 said, breeders have made pugs and English bulldogs that can't breathe, GSD's that can barely walk, and deaf dalmatians and Australian shepherds galore.

I do not believe for one minute that a genetic cross known to create dogs with serious genetic defects "improves the breed overall" ... no more so than the hemophilia or sickle cell anemia gene improves the human race. I do not believe that breeders who intentionally do this are responsible breeders in any way, shape or form, no matter how well-known their kennel name is. Just MHO. It's very sad that the breed club is not taking a stand on this. I believe it will be to their ultimate determent ... and sadly, innocent dogs will pay the price, as usual.

Dear friends,
first, hello..........secondly = I had a bedlington who died in my arms spewing up black blood. This was because her breeder did not first d.n.a. test the parents for the liver storage disease.
Now, it seems that it is allowed to breed a carrier of the disease to a non carrier. I do believe that if I was a breeder I would destroy the ones who carried this terrible disease....having been an owner of one who had it.
regards Mich.

I'm so sorry for your loss.

It is an irresponsible, uncaring breeder who does not do genetic testing. Your dog's illness is a horrible example of this.

All we can hope for is that one person, somewhere, learns something from posts and tragedies such as this, and thinks twice before breeding.

posted by Twisterdog:
It is an irresponsible, uncaring breeder who does not do genetic testing. Your dog's illness is a horrible example of this.

Twisterdog, great statment, and unfortunately many breeders
do not do genetic testing.

Mich, I am also sorry for your loss.
The pain and frustration of seeing your beloved
pet suffer is unbearable.

I know many show breeders, who say they are breedin gfor the bettment of the breed yet every breed they have claimed to have "bettered" cant work worth a darn, are highly unhealthy,can barly walk, cant barly breath, etc.. this is exactly why I am completly against AKC, they do not care about health or ability the ONLY thing they care about is looks, that is what is happening with border collies they claim the barbies are no differnt then borders just more bueatiful, they then change the story a bit to say that a barbie collie is what borders orginally looked like. then they change in again and say that that all they are doing is toning down the herding instinct. then they say that without AKC border collies would not exist :eek: thats an awfully bold statement, considering that before AKC recignized them they were healthier, active when needed, and mellow when needed, lived longer, could work longer, and were just overall healthier. since when was looks a factor is "bettering the breed?" :rolleyes: