Culling puppies

Lilavati

Arbitrary and Capricious
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
7,644
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
47
Location
Alexandria, VA
#21
I have to side with the no merle X merle crowd. There's something deeply repugnant about breeding a "perfect" dog at the cost of the lives of puppies. Perhaps in a very small breed it would be justified on rare occasion, but there is no shortage of good Aussies in the world.

Its not the culling I find repugnant here . . . its creating a 25% chance per puppy of a need to cull that's really disturbing.
 

Romy

Taxiderpy
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
10,233
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Olympia, WA
#22
I have to side with the no merle X merle crowd. There's something deeply repugnant about breeding a "perfect" dog at the cost of the lives of puppies. Perhaps in a very small breed it would be justified on rare occasion, but there is no shortage of good Aussies in the world.

Its not the culling I find repugnant here . . . its creating a 25% chance per puppy of a need to cull that's really disturbing.
Exactly.

If you are producing a litter, chances are not every puppy is going to be a super prospect for what you want anyway.

So why on earth would you do a breeding that has a 25% chance of producing unviable puppies?

So the sire and dam are perfect matches....so what if the puppies that happen to be born with the perfect bodies/drive you wanted have no eyes? That does nobody any good. You're narrowing your choices of what you can work with from the litter, by doing a breeding that is known and likely to produce deformities.

The only way I could accept a merle X merle breeding is if it was an accident with an unexpressed merle.
 

FoxyWench

Salty Sea Dog
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
7,308
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Connecticut
#23
im with romy and the others on this zoom...

i could understand if this was some extreemly rare breed with a very limited gene pool and having to do the best with every dog there is in the world...

but in a breed like aussies, there are more than enough aussies in the world that theres absolulty no reason to think the ONLY great match for a good merle girl is a merle male...there are plenty of other potential mates for that girl...

a responsbible breeder breeds to BETTER the breed...
to do this even in a working breed, you choose a dog to compliment the bitch in question...
this includes drive, personality and MOST IMPORTANTLY HEALTH...
you wouldnt breed a female with hip displaysia to a male with hip displasia as it increases the risks that the puppies will also have displaysia...

so why is merle to merle any different...
there are other choices for a stud, if the goal is to produce the best, why automatically add yet another risk?!
 

ihartgonzo

and Fozzie B!
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
5,903
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Northern California
#24
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.
 

LauraLeigh

Active Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
3,752
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Brighton Ontario
#25
actually lizzy its EASIER to train a deaf dog than it is to train a hearing dog...
the biggest challeng is recal since they cant here you and most people training deaf dogs for recall use a vibrating collar (or ligths at night). but hand signals dont have to be "official" (i make most of mine up when i was working with my past deaf dog and the deaf foster dog) and dogs learn hand signals MUCH quicker/easier than they do human words.

blind dogs just need ot be trained on verbal commands and need a person whos willing to build confidence through guidence (the dog must trust its owner) and one whos willing to keep their house layout how it is and keep a routein...most blind dogs learn they way around a new place in no time, ok so they bump into a few things in the beginning but there no harder to train than having a dog who can see...
my friend has a blind aussie who runs agility, obedience and frestyle...in truth if you didnt look at her face you would have absolutly no idea she had no vision (shes missing both her eyes)

blind dogs are certainly a little more of a challeng than most deaf dogs, but neither are so disabled that they are hard to train...
i think the lessening number of people willing to take on "disabled" dogs is based on 1: having the "prefect dog" people forget that these dogs can be just as if not even more perfect...King, my dane growing up was my angel, he was 100% deaf and blind in one eye but he was smart as a whip and will alsways be my first true heart dog...
and 2: based on the fact that most think raising these "special needs" dogs is going to be millions times more "challenging" than raising a normal puppy...in truth, its the exact same, you just modify the training method a little.

:)

thus far every deaf dog ive had trained easier than those with perfect hearing, and ive never seen dogs bond as strongly to their people as those with vision impairments.
Off topic, but while I think doing obedience is great, I cannot imagine doing agility with a blind dog.... I am pretty sure you would not even be allowed at the venues I compete at...

I have a fully blind dog, and have competed at agility, I just cannot imagine how it would work... How would they know when to jump, where the end of the contact eq. is? I can't even imagine letting Di on contact eq. without vision, what if she tripped?

I think letting a blind dog on agility eq. is very unsafe, no matter how well trained the dog is!! I just can't wrap my brain around that.... Di is so good in her own environment, that many have been shocked to hear she is blind, even away from home she does well when verbally reassured. I had her at the Vets today for her check up and one of the people in the waiting room was amazed how quickly she adapts... but I still would never do agility with her.

ON topic....

I see no reason to cull (as in kill) pups that will be healthy but don't meet a standard, etc... These pups can go to pet homes, Pups that have a serious issue that will affect their quality of life I do understand...

I don't know much about the Merle issues, but would, from what I do know, never do a breeding that had a high chance of ill pups...
 

FoxyWench

Salty Sea Dog
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
7,308
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Connecticut
#26
they dont compete in formal events.
they attend an agility club who do "fun runs" and modified courses for special needs and underconfident dogs.
the jumps are all done on verbal cue and other obsticals are done by touch. its also not done at high speed.

its more of a confidence building excersize but the point being that a blind dog CAN do these things with the right training and confidence building excersizes and the right person, they can still absolutly lead full happy lives doing things a dog who can see can do...

her dog LOVES it, she says the word "agility and she gets super excited, cant wait to go and has to be held back at the go line.
ob is done on long line and freestyle is extreemly close contact lol but she loves to do it all, shes also a therapy dog and works with "special needs" children showing them that their "disabilities" dont have to hold them back :)
 

Zoom

Twin 2.0
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
40,739
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
41
Location
Denver, CO
#27
The "best merle to merle" was more of a practice from the earlier days of the breed, when these were strictly ranch dogs and ranchers were working with the surrounding 'best' dogs. There wasn't the ability to go get straws from 1000 miles away. It's not a practice that needs to be carried out today and 98% of ASCA agrees completely with not breeding merle to merle. There are those who are still willing to gamble to get the best cross possible, especially when they're dealing with their own ranch dogs/lines.

Neither are practices I agree with.

There is a flood of lethal white dogs out there right now because idiots and millers have started doing merle x merle breedings because then they figured they're 'guaranteed' to get all merle in a litter, which will sell quicker because they look more unique and flashy. I actually do wish those jerks would take responsibility and cull their LW's, because it's not bad enough they're producing blind/deaf dogs, but epilepsy does run in Aussies, and there is an increasing amount of HD cases...and having a dog that got lumped with all those issues, it's just kinder to cull at birth. But everyone knows rescues love the hard luck cases and everyone can sit back and go "oh don't kill that dog, it can have a great home! no, I don't want it, and no one I know wants a blind/deaf lame dog with epilepsy either but you can't kill it!"

Maybe I'm just too pragmatic/realistic, but with all the healthy, fully adoptable Aussies sitting in rescue/shelters/foster homes right now, it just doesn't seem right to deny a very adoptable dog for one that has a "hard luck" story in the hopes someone's heartstrings will be tugged enough to take on that challenge.
 

Xandra

Active Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
3,806
Likes
0
Points
36
#28
But everyone knows rescues love the hard luck cases and everyone can sit back and go "oh don't kill that dog, it can have a great home! no, I don't want it, and no one I know wants a blind/deaf lame dog with epilepsy either but you can't kill it!"

Maybe I'm just too pragmatic/realistic, but with all the healthy, fully adoptable Aussies sitting in rescue/shelters/foster homes right now, it just doesn't seem right to deny a very adoptable dog for one that has a "hard luck" story in the hopes someone's heartstrings will be tugged enough to take on that challenge.
Very true.
 

lizzybeth727

Active Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
6,403
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Central Texas
#29
But everyone knows rescues love the hard luck cases and everyone can sit back and go "oh don't kill that dog, it can have a great home! no, I don't want it, and no one I know wants a blind/deaf lame dog with epilepsy either but you can't kill it!"

Maybe I'm just too pragmatic/realistic, but with all the healthy, fully adoptable Aussies sitting in rescue/shelters/foster homes right now, it just doesn't seem right to deny a very adoptable dog for one that has a "hard luck" story in the hopes someone's heartstrings will be tugged enough to take on that challenge.
:hail: My thoughts exactly.
 

FoxyWench

Salty Sea Dog
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
7,308
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Connecticut
#30
while i agree with you on that zoom...

i also feel that instead of telling breeders to simply "cull" the potentially "damaged" offspring from a merle to merle...
mabe make it more taboo to BREED merle to merle...mabe back in the day...but now theres plenty of other aussies in the world to not have to breed that kind of risk.

the stuff on the breed club page just makes it seem like they dont care if you merle to merle as long as your willing to cull the puppies...and the part about getting hit by the family car because it didnt hear/see the car is like *blink blink* wha?!
while im sure on a ranch the risk of tractor is there, in a normal home (where a vision/hearing impaired puppy woudl go) no dog should be running around loose around a driveway...
 

Fran101

Resident fainting goat
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
12,546
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Boston
#31
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

Active Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
3,806
Likes
0
Points
36
#32
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

Active Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
3,933
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
61
#33
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

Obey the Toad.
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
5,074
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
A hole in the bottom of the sea.
#34
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

Taxiderpy
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
10,233
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Olympia, WA
#35
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

Active Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
3,806
Likes
0
Points
36
#36
See my post on the first page:
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
 
Last edited:

Miakoda

New Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
7,666
Likes
0
Points
0
#37
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'm All Ears
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
30,963
Likes
3
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Oklahoma
#38
I must agree with these two.

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

Active Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,072
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
UT
#39
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.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top