I don't think he's a troll, he just has drastically different view on dogkeeping than most people here.
Aside from him, for the record, culling, as in killing, instead of speutering has advantages.
The legistlation controlling our ownership of dogs is dictacted by the public. If all the public sees and hears about are good examples of the breed, they won't try and ban the breed. Take, for instance, a Cane Corso. These are rare dogs; the average person is going to see very, very few. They might only see one or two in their life. If they meet your Cane Corso with fear issues on the street, and they go to pet it, and you have to say "Sorry, but she's very fearful and she won't be comfortable with that" What is that person going to think about your breed? That it isn't safe, even to pet. Now it seems everyone on the internet has lab horror stories, but in real life, I have never seen a lab that was anything but reliable and safe. They have a well deserved reputation for being sweethearts. And even if there is a whacko in the bunch, the average person will see 100 good ones to counter it.
These are not dog people, they don't know anything about them and don't care enough to research. When the topic of banning them comes up, do you really think they'll put of much of an objection, if they have bad experiences with the breed?
Likewise, having one that flops on its back around other dogs and bounds up to everyone like a labrador is not good for the Corso. Why? Because it gives the 5,000 people a year that see it the wrong impression about the breed.
To me a breed should be defined by its temperament as much as its appearance. If someone buys a German Shepherd they should be able to count on it acting like a German Shepherd, otherwise, it's not much of a German Shepherd. With dogs, and rare breeds in particular, it just confuses people when a quarter of the dogs out there have out of standard temperaments. Which leads to problems.
ETA Also. Contracts. If you really want to breed a dog, you can do it. If the breeder has the money, they can sue, I guess, but oftentimes the damage is done. Someone who has a cattle ranch with kelpies might not have the money and time to be chasing puppy buyers around. Some would say that he shouldn't be breeding. Yet, as far as maintaining the breed, no one would no more about a dog's true working character as someone who uses in them in "real life," and has it around stock all its life. Trials are one thing, real life is another. And it's not like there's a surplus of cattle ranch owners that have the money and time to chase after buyers.
Quietly culling dogs that don't make the cut has never, ever and will never harm a breed. I do believe that it is a disservice to the breed to give out weird breed examples, even to good owners. The alternative, of course, is pretty sad. It just comes down to whether you place more value on the breed and its integrity or the lives of individual dogs.