I think lethal culling is called for if the pup is not viable, or has a problem that will cause a lifelong disability. (I always cringe when I see the heart rending pleas to raise money for shelter puppies born without front or rear legs. On deafness or blindness, I think it is a judgment call. There are actually people out there who are specifically looking for these dogs. Have a friend who is on her third deaf Aussie. And I've known deaf dogs (and blind dogs) who live great lives. What is important is that they are with someone who understands the condition and is able to willingly cope with it. What is really heartbreaking is when someone brings you their boxer or cattledog puppy who "doesn't listen" and you have to break the news to them that it's likely that they aren't listening because they can't hear you. For people who were expecting a normal dog, this can be devestating. When it is both though, I think culling is a reasonable option. For an adult, the only real reason I can think of is that the dog is dangerously miswired. I have known some stockmen who would kill a dog who wouldn't work. Their reasoning that the dog would not make a good pet, and they don't want someone breeding that. These are old timers (the one I specifically remember saying this is passed on now - but he produced some awesome dogs). I couldn't do that, though. But I never actually bred for working stockdogs,

 

I believe animals should be PTS in only two situations: the animal is sick and seriously suffering and there's nothing that can reasonably be done for it, or the animal is aggressive or fearful and again, nothing can be done for it. Otherwise, I think there is no reason to PTS any animal.

Now, I totally agree with breeders speutering dogs that don't match breed standards. That's fine, speuter them and either keep them as your own pet or sell them to a qualified pet owner. We have way too many homeless dogs in the US, hundreds are PTS every day, speutering a dog you can't ethically breed is a good thing.

I will say that I do sympathize with Rhodesian Ridgeback breeders in the UK. Pedigree Dogs Exposed made a big deal about RR breeders PTSing RR puppies born without ridges. It turns out that RRs without ridges look like pit bulls. Pit bulls are banned (at least in large portions) of the UK, so there are no homes for these ridgeless puppies. I'm not sure PTS healthy puppies is something I feel comfortable with, but in that situation where they're always going to be at risk, I do sympathize.

 

I know breeders who cull hard. Could be anything really just up to the breeder and what they expect out of a pup. Some breeders will cull 8 out of 10 pups or even them all if they don't have certain traits they desire such as range, appearance, gritty etc... I'm talking about working/hunting stock type of dogs though.

I know most would rather cull the dogs they can't find a home for then place it in a non-working home that eventually the family won't be able to put up with because the dog is too intense for them and will only end up in a shelter and possibly water down the breed.

 

I know breeders who cull hard. Could be anything really just up to the breeder and what they expect out of a pup. Some breeders will cull 8 out of 10 pups or even them all if they don't have certain traits they desire such as range, appearance, gritty etc... I'm talking about working/hunting stock type of dogs though.

I know most would rather cull the dogs they can't find a home for then place it in a non-working home that eventually the family won't be able to put up with because the dog is too intense for them and will only end up in a shelter and possibly water down the breed.

Gee, if only there were a way to permanently prevent a dog from breeding. . .

I also think that the only acceptable reason to kill a dog is if it is suffering in a way that can't be mitigated to a reasonable extent or if it is dangerous in a way that can't be managed.

 

I'm still waiting to hear from the people who believe the German system is better - about whether they still use the breed warden system, which culls (kills) substandard or excess puppies.

 

I could never support such a system, it reminds me too much of what they did to the Jews, which is why I'll never move to Germany!

The only time a pup should be hard culled is if there is a serious disability that would cause quality of life issues, since there are so manay ways to maintain QOL via wheelchairs and training it means htere are very few situations where I'd condone hard culling. As far as adults being Euthed, only if they are severly tempermentally unstable or if they are seriously ill and (again) QOL is affected

As far as Culling via S/N in pups any that would have serious faults should be sold on a strict S/N contract to PET homes after it's breeders discresion.

Adults should be taken out of a breeding program if it's found they carry any health conditions that could cause harm/be passed to pups, if they turn out tempermentally unstable or if they prove they are unable to produce quality pups (for show or work)

 

I'm not familiar with that system? Explain?

I only know how they do it in the working dog/hunting dog world and it's harsh and cruel at times but very necessary to maintain those certain traits. What's funny is one of these dogs I'm talking about would cost 1/3 of one of those toy breeds Do they really cull anyways?

 

You are saying that like not culling is a bad thing. And no, the papillon breeders I know do not kill healthy puppies.

 

The only time I would euthanize a pup is if it had a problem that could not be dealt saith comfortably or reasonably.
Pups that don't meet working standards would be neutered and placed or kept. It's not easy to find pet homes for such high drive dogs.
I don't agree with culling/killing because a litter is too big, or there is a small problem with a pup. Though it happens more than most know, I wouldn't support or buy from a breeder that practices this. That cuts down on who I would import from, and many breeders in the states.
I often take in 'sub standard ' dogs and attempt to get them working.

 

Only way I can think of is to cull the dog to begin with or have it fixed and sent to a home. Just my .02 cents. It gets more complicated to do that when you've got a high prey drive type of dog.

 

Hope this doesn't get heated. So far, so good.

It's interesting to read different views.

I don't have time for a lengthy response now but i will say culling 8 out of 10 or whole litters seems like you are doing something wrong. Maybe one needs to take another look.

 

It's a very good discussion to have IMO because the only views I ever hear are from working stock type dogs. I'm not sure how they cull on toy breeds or others if they even do so. I figure they only cull though because of health problems. I don't agree with culling 8 out of 10 pups but then again I don't breed and not sure what is expected in that particular yard. I've heard some people cull around 6 months - 2 years old depending on the dog.

Most of the time I'll see a litter born from some hog dog stock and by 8 months old only 2-3 pups out of that litter are finding hogs on their own while the rest aren't so they get culled. Most common I usually see.

 

I know back in the fifties when I was working at a Ridgeback kennel, they culled all pups that did not have a perfect Ridge. They never had a puppy without a ridge but sometimes it was the biggest, healthiest pups they put down just because their ridge was not perfect. I never liked to go and see the puppies until they were a few days old so I did not have to see it and certainly had no say in whether they did it or not. As it was not unusual for Ridgebacks to have very large litters, sometimes up to 16 pups, they still raised a lot of dogs.

 

So I guess when people say "good breeders don't add to the shelter problem" we need to put an addendum on: "because they kill the rejects themselves"? I'm getting disillusioned.

 

No. Good breeders take responsibility for what they produce, not for killing pups that have minor problems.
.I wont even bother with a spay contract, because in the time it takes to get the dog back, it could be bred. That ups my responsibility to ten dogs instead of that bitch, or more for a male. If it shouldn't be bred, the pup stays here, is altered, then placed.

 

They kill puppies correctly! Yay!

I apparently have excellent reason to be "always disillusioned".

 

Well if proper culling was done the hunters in your area that kill their dogs if they don't hunt or are gunshy might be a tad less and might be easier on the dogs than getting shot by their disgruntled owners. Or just turned loose to run free and starve in the fields. You have mentioned that problem in a few replies.

At least proper culling is done by the responsible breeder.

 

Its not a lack of homes that is the problem. There is a big need for police k9s, military, border patrol, etc. Even with strong lines not everydog can handle working in extreme conditions, have the nerve and ability to handle the job. Its not fair to the dog to try to work if it isn't suited for it. So these breeders strive to produce top nerve, high drive, fearless dogs. Then most buyers only want dogs a year old or over, they don't buy puppies. The dogs that don't have the stability or drives, are very had to put into pet homes, because they are way more than most people want to live with. Its a fine line. There is a need for good dogs.

 

And, um, WHY is this harshness and cruelty necessary to "maintain certain traits"? Humans with big brains can't figure out any other way?

 

I'm for culling pups who have a severe defect or problem which will inhibit quality of life. For adults I think certain health issues could warrant it, they cause pain. Also unstable temperament. Those are reasons for lethal culling.

Non lethal culling can include a number of reasons.
Structure problem, lack of drives, lack of confidence, like a shy type dog, minor health issue (mainly a genetic one), and of course any dog which doesn't possess or produce the traits you want in your line, a dog that fails health test, or one that produces a genetic defect (carrier of an issue). These are some good reasons to eliminate a dog from a breeding program imo but not reason that they need to be killed because they could still be good pets. Though a less confident or shy dog can be iffy you want to work with them and make sure the owner knows the dogs natural disposition. This is also different temperament then being soft.

 

Good explanation.

 

The word "cull" makes my skin crawl. It means to kill animals for the sake of population control, but the only situation I can see that as a "responsible" thing to do is if (1) the group numbers of a specific animal endanger other animals or the natural habitat, so you hunt the animal for food and other byproducts; or (2) same as above (threatening other wildlife) and you humanely remove a certain number of the animals (generally done with animals that humans do not readily consume as food). Most of the time, population problems are caused by humans herding certain animals into small areas, so I hesitate to say I like the idea regardless if there is a legitimate reason, but I understand it.

"Culling" puppies from a litter may be justified as "population control," but if you are a responsible breeder, there's no need to control the population of your well-bred dogs. Moreover, the dog population problem is more of a problem for the dogs (due to irresponsible people) than the environment. I don't see dogs wreaking havoc on natural habitats of other animals. Killing puppies that could find homes is inexcusable.

I certainly understand humanely euthanizing very sick and injured animals who don't have the hope of recovery. I can see humanely euthanizing puppies who will, most likely, live a very short life due to disease or defect. In rare circumstances, I can see humanely euthanizing dogs that have a incurable temperment issue that will never allow them to live safely among humans.

 

Wrong. It is correct in the terms you speak but not as it applies in general or to breeding dogs.

Cull doesn't only apply to wild animal slaughters or hunting.

It also means

To remove or set aside as inferior, especially when breeding
To pick out from others

No where does it say kill in these and similar definitions.

You can set aside as inferior without killing.

By means of s/n or simply nor breeding said animal.

When I chose to cull a male I made the decision not to breed him (though he's staying intact) and remove him from my breeding program. Not remove him from the living. It is not required he be killed to be culled.

 

The gist of this thread is "yes, some good breeders kill healthy dogs/puppies. You can't say they're bad because of this". I would consider that to be a bad breeder. And a bad person. But evidently it is not uncommon or looked down upon. If it is tolerated and not condemned, it's hard not to "paint them all with the same brush".

 

Not unless you think you have the right to impose your sense of ethics on everyone else. It is, btw increasingly uncommon to cull (kill) healthy puppies as we view our pets more and more as family members and less and less as animals bred for a specific purpose.

 

Less common, yet someone who does it still gets to be "one of the top Aussie breeders" and is evidently still well-respected.

If we never imposed ethics on other people, there would be no laws. It just depends on what the majority wants.

 

You cannot impose ethics on anyone. You can punish them (if you can catch them) for breaking laws.

 

Pazk9 I was thinking the samething about those who do it.

 

When I chose to cull a male I made the decision not to breed him (though he's staying intact) and remove him from my breeding program. Not remove him from the living. It is not required he be killed to be culled.

I'm gonna assume that this is one of many changes that have occurred since old school days but nothing in this world is 100% or perfect so to speak

 

I can't imagine that ALL "old-school" breeders killed dogs. Was compassion completely lacking in the past? Was empathy for animals only recently invented? Did only the old Natives believe life was sacred? Ugh.

 

My mother bred Dobes for nearly 30 years and then GSD for 10, she and as far as I knew, the people she dealt with (using her Studs or she using theirs) did not hard cull unless the pup was severly deformed, which rarely happened. This was in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's.

 

Before there were vaccinations a lot of pups died from distemper. Worms were a big problem and effective natural de-wormers have a pesky side effect of sometimes being fatal. I'm not sure that an old Georgian Shepherd could afford to kill any of his surviving dogs as long as they worked at least a little. Soldier dogs that didn't work out probably were killed---but what did they do with men who didn't want to be soldiers? Probably killed them too. And I know that routine s/n has been available since the '30s at least. . .maybe not common but available. Just seems like too many people like to justify their actions with "it's the old way" when things are so different now that any "old ways" are obsolete and unnecessary.

 

Yes and no. With vaccine and modern wormers we can save the part of the population which would be susceptible to this. On the other hand not having vaccines would cause survival those susceptible to distemper would die out, the other live, reproduce and create a resistant strain. This is proven fact, so its not as if every breeder of old faced this problem.
At times to half the litter could be lost but other survive. Out of the remaining 5 pups only the best need be kept.

Anyway they couldn't afford NOT to kill them. If they won't protect the flock they are useless and if they harm stock and can't be trusted they are a huge liability.

Also I don't believe nomadic tribes today have access to vaccines. When breeds survive and thrube without such at times you end up with a breed that has a high resistance to infectious disease.

I'm not sure on men being killed, its possible but it serves to prove my point the mentality was different.

Even in sometimes working breeders have culled for cosmetic reasons.
Blue Pits were culled at birth by some
Dutch Shepherds ended up with dogs being culled over color. At the time standards were being introduced and dogs being shown BUT these were still working dog breeders that killed dogs who were the "wrong" color when people decided what should or shouldn't be allowed.

I've seen working dog breeders say they don't care what it looks like as long as it works and scream bloody murder over show breeders like RR who cull pups born with white legs or no ridge yet some working breeders are just as guilty of killing pups over a color believed to be inferior, an off colored pup because its "abnormal" or simply because everyone else did it.

In the breeder context, you are correct that the term "non-lethal culling" is used. But a good portion of this thread was talking about lethal culling, which is what I responded to. Lethal culling is not "to set aside" - it is in line with the standard dictionary definition of "culling."

This thread is about culling. Lethal and non lethal.
I made note of non lethal and definition because you said the word makes you cringe but yet it doesn't always mean an animal must die. That's what I was pointing out. Good breeders must practice selective breeding but it doesn't mean they have to kill.

 

I've heard farmers referring to "culling" their heifers. . .but they don't sell the ones they cull out to slaughter; they go to auction to be sold to other farmers to use for breeding. Just because one farmer doesn't want to use her in his breeding program doesn't mean she isn't a good heifer. I'm not sure if "cull" is used more often in the fatal sense or the non-fatal sense. But that's why I don't like the word--too vague. And I think that some people use that vagueness to deliberately mislead others.

 

I think that's a good point. Before looking into it (admittedly, after I saw this thread), culling had really only one definition for me. I'm not a breeder; I don't know breeders; the only dogs I have is adopted and the only dog I ever lived with that came from a breeder was a 8-pound toy fox terrier my parents bought when I was 5. It's a poor word to use nowadays if you're using it in the context of non-lethal treatment because for some people it sparks thoughts of very lethal actions.

 

Gah. OK, the conversation was "it's not required he be killed to be culled" then the response of "this is one of many changes since old-school days". It sounded like he was saying that never ever happened in "old-school days". I can't imagine that's true.

 

It was a comment in passing about life being viewed as sacred. Not a history lesson.

 

They viewed life as Sacred so they prayed to the spirit of the animal to help them make the hunt successful and to sacrifice itself that they might live. Every race of man has a violent and ugly background towards other humans and animals, none have ever been above wholesale slaughter.

 

Originally Posted by Willowy
The American Indians here refer to themselves as Natives. I've never heard them use anything else and they especially dislike being called Indian (because they're not from India!). It's not traditional for them to kill animals for any reason other than food, and even then they give thanks to the Spirits that provided that animal's life, because to them all life is sacred and must be accounted for. So that's what I meant by "old Natives" (as opposed to old non-Natives) .

And comments about "old-school" methods sure makes it sound like it was everybody. If they lived in old-school times they must have engaged in old-school actions, right?

I can see why they had to kill some puppies/kittens back before spay/neuter was available (well, spaying anyway; castration has been done ever since animals were first domesticated) but now it just seems uncivilized.
I guess for some.

Others no unless its

All life is sacred except those we chose to scalp, ect.

Natives in many country had plenty of uncivilized ways.

It was also VERY common for Native Americans to stampede entire herds of buffalo off cliffs, so, yeah. They were no better or worse than any other human beings.

 

It was also VERY common for Native Americans to stampede entire herds of buffalo off cliffs, so, yeah. They were no better or worse than any other human beings.

That's a type of hunting that's been done by humans since Neanderthal days. Heck of a lot safer than running up to a Buffalo (or Mammoth) and poking it with a spear. I would say that the white settlers who killed 95% of the Buffalo and left their corpses to rot on the plains were a magnitude more cruel than people who were trying to survive, and who kept in balance with the herds for thousands of years.

The whole idea of 'sportsmanship' in hunting only flies when someone is doing it for fun, and not to live.