Culling puppies

[Fran101]

I just think that if the breeder is going to take the risk of breeding a merlexmerle.. which i don't think is right, then they should have to take the responsibility of all the pups. its just too seems to easy to just "oh breed the merles. and then just euthanize the white pups"

I think MORE emphasis needs to be made against merle x merle breeding.. instead of that whole things about what to do with the product. and making it acceptable to just "get rid of" the consequences.

[Xandra]

What do you think would be easier on you, killing puppies or finding them a home? A breeder who culls is taking responsibility for them- in my opinion, more responsibility than "rehoming" them.

[DanL]

Originally Posted by Xandra

What do you think would be easier on you, killing puppies or finding them a home? A breeder who culls is taking responsibility for them- in my opinion, more responsibility than "rehoming" them.

I can't disagree with this. Culling was a pretty widespread practice back when many of our current breeds were being defined. GSD's were often culled to remove unwanted traits from the breeding pool. Whites, blues, weak ones. Back then there was no "pet home", either dogs worked to earn their keep, or they were put down. In today's feel good society this seems like a barbaric process, but really, it's the smart thing to do.

[sillysally]

Originally Posted by Xandra

What do you think would be easier on you, killing puppies or finding them a home? A breeder who culls is taking responsibility for them- in my opinion, more responsibility than "rehoming" them.

Since when is doing a known risky breeding then killing the resulting unhealthy pups (that the breeder knew they were likely to create) in pursuit of the "perfect" dog responsible? Why should pups have to die for a breeder's convenience? It's not like the pups just happened to pop up in the litter--the breeder who breeds these pairs KNOWS that there is a decent risk of this occurring.

[Romy]

Originally Posted by DanL

I can't disagree with this. Culling was a pretty widespread practice back when many of our current breeds were being defined. GSD's were often culled to remove unwanted traits from the breeding pool. Whites, blues, weak ones. Back then there was no "pet home", either dogs worked to earn their keep, or they were put down. In today's feel good society this seems like a barbaric process, but really, it's the smart thing to do.

While this is a practical approach Dan, the part of the merle X merle culls that I hate is that you can avoid it altogether by simply not doing a merle pairing. It's that easy.

And anyway, like I said before it doesn't make sense to knowingly limit the number of prospects from a litter. There is a high chance the best pup in there could be born with a defect that won't let it work, which to me makes doing that kind of pairing a foolish decision for someone who is looking for specific traits from a breeding. Not responsible or smart.

Anyway, culling a double merle isn't removing a defective gene. Culling the double ones doesn't make it any less possible for more doubles to be bred. If that was the aim, ALL merles would be culled. Doing so would mean a lot fewer flashy looking aussies, but the incidence of blindness and deafness in the breed would go down drastically.

IMHO, a breeder who knowingly makes a pairing that they know is very likely to produce culls isn't responsible or smart. In the vast majority of cases producing culls on purpose doesn't improve the breed.

[Xandra]

See my post on the first page:

Originally Posted by Xandra

Within each litter, breeders should also strive to produce the greatest number of AWESOME representatives of their breed (note: I don't mean greatest number of litters). To me it is beyond ridiculous that you would breed where the best temperament of the litter could be in a deaf/blind body? WHY?!?! wouldn't you just breed your bitch to a non-merle stud?

To reinterate: I think the breeding is stupid in the first place, because when striving to produce the best dog, it makes no sense to risk your best temperament being in a blind/deaf pup. That's just stupid, in a breed where there are lots to choose from. If we were talking some rare breed, sure. But not something like an Aussie.

However, if someone feels the need to do a merle x merle breeding for whatever reason, I don't think it would be "taking the easy way out" to cull the double merle pups. It would be much easier to pawn them off on someone wanting a pet.

Breeding that litter= not responsible. Culling that litter once it's born= responsible.

ETA ditto Romy

[Miakoda]

Originally Posted by DanL

I can't disagree with this. Culling was a pretty widespread practice back when many of our current breeds were being defined. GSD's were often culled to remove unwanted traits from the breeding pool. Whites, blues, weak ones. Back then there was no "pet home", either dogs worked to earn their keep, or they were put down. In today's feel good society this seems like a barbaric process, but really, it's the smart thing to do.

I have to agree as well.

[Laurelin]

I must agree with these two.

Originally Posted by ihartgonzo

Merle to merle breeding is irresponsible, period.

Bringing a dog into this world with a 25% chance of being blind or deaf is unfathomable. I have worked with many deaf and blind dogs, neither or which live full lives, because of the selfishness/irresponsibility of the people who bred them. Blind dogs especially just break my heart. Always bumping into walls, hurting themselves, and in a state of perpetual confusion. :,( Deaf dogs are much better off and sometimes I don't even realize that they are deaf, but literally 1 out of 10 Aussies in rescue *at least* are deaf or blind, and it's so difficult for them to find a home. I wish their d-bag breeders would take responsibility and keep all of the unsound dogs that they produce, rather than killing them or dumping them at a shelter.

This. Even contemplating a double merle breeding is reprehensible in my view of the world. I've had an Aussie who was the result of a double merle, O'Riley. He was an amazing animal, born blind (both eyes severely deformed), but he was the bravest creature I've ever known, brilliantly intelligent, and totally affectionate and devoted to us. He would even leave his food, knowing there were other dogs around, in order to be petted. I never once regretted bringing him home from the pound, where he was about to be euthed, since no one wanted a 3 month old, high energy, blind puppy, but whoever bred him should be strung up.
__________________

I've seen it done in shelties too. (because if you get a good double merle, you can end up with entirely flashy merle litters). I personally think it's extremely irresponsible to do for whatever reason. Working, show, or not I can't condone it. The risk isn't worth it.

Culling unavoidable problems then I agree. But this is something a breeder knows will happen if they breed merle x merle.

[Pops2]

Originally Posted by Xandra

Breeding that litter= not responsible. Culling that litter once it's born= responsible.

agree.
the double merle problem is huge among the byb catahoula breeders (something that only happened after they were discovered by the general public). i don't just mean producing them but actually breeding them. IMEdouble merle/lethal whites have a higher rate of mental illness which brings me to the best reason for culling those defective pups. people will ignore spay/nueter contracts and some WILL wind up being bred because they "are such sweet dogs" and BTW the owner can make a few dollars. so culling is also a way of protecting the breed.