This subject has ran on from my original question regarding KC and crossbreeds. Its an emotive subject, which has been discussed but only by a few.

So, what is the opinions of those on here to culling a litter of healthy puppies? There are loads of breeders here, and those who have recently had litters, your comments too please
If you had a slightly weak puppy, would you cull before trying to assist?
Would you cull a litter where (for whatever reason) mum can't rear them?
Would you tell your clients, when they ask how many were born, that some were culled because there were no homes waiting for them? Or would you say only the number on offer where the ones she had.

How would you feel, as a client, if you went to a reputable breeder and found they had culled half the (healthy) litter?
The people who have pets here, if you had found before you purchased your puppy that some healthy puppies had been culled, would you have bought from that breeder?

Some have to be pts, those with problems such as Dearlady bought up (could you post on here please? ) or those with deafness, or any other health problem that can cause illness and suffering in the young dog.

Discuss...

this is a difficult one - I am forunately in a breed that does not have huge litters and is relatively easy to home so have never been faced with this dilemma.  Finding good homes for huge litters of an unpopular breed can be well neigh impossible though and I guess my short answer would be that I would rather cull than risk pups of my breeding going to unsuitable homes and suffering later on.

The alternative is to allow breeds to disappear as they become less popular - but by that logic we would soon be left only with Goldies, Labs, Staffy's and a plethora of designer cropsses !!!! or breeds with such reduced gene pools that they become unviable anyway.

...having said that I am very thankful that I have never had to face this heartbreaking choice !.

Yvonne

i wouldnt cull any health puppies,
i think of the word cull. my thooughts go to the seals that were hit over the head,

i think the word should pts.yes i did put a litter to sleep of liver fcr beacuse they had kennel cough at 2 weeks and to see what they were going though with secoandaly infection i could not sell on puppies that were going to have fits or health problems in life later with their new owner or have the puppy back later in life beacuse of that reason,
i even had one pts at 8 weeks,beacuse he was fitting,from this litter.
yes to gentice faults at birth,

I left the crossbreeds thread because its depressing that so called dog lovers can be so heartless.

If I bred I wouldn't cull any puppies unless they had serious health problems that would cause them to suffer (deafness doesn't cause suffering to the dog but would need extra special homing). All hypothetical as I'll never breed, there are far too many dogs being bred.

Surely all the things mentioned in the first post should be thought through by a breeder long before they breed? Don't you all get big waiting lists? Plan to be there 24 hours to help a large litter, weaker pup? Have the money to be able to raise the litter well?

If you don't have enough homes waiting don't breed!

I would never knowingly buy a pup from a breeder who culls healthy pups. As I'd never show (breed shows for me is like watching paint dry - sorry) or breed a litter, I'd be more than happy to have a pup not up to show standard for colour, markings, size, etc.

Most important as a "client" I'd think that a breeder who cannot be bothered to raise and home healthy pups is very unlikely to want to take an adult dog back a year down the line for whatever reason. They might take back the adult dog but straight to the vet to be PTS. Pups are much easier to home than adult dogs.

I do not agree with culling healthy puppies - especially when the litter has been planned! In my opinion if you decide to breed your dog, then you take responsibility for all the puppies that are born, and if that's not possible then you shouldn't be breeding your dog.

Nope could never ever cull healthy pups.  Have tried to keep alive pups in the past who have become ill but if it was a no hoper then went to vets to have the PTS. 

Quite agree Rach. Ethically I could never cull any healthy puppy, even one that looks like it is struggling is given a chance of life. Only if it is suffering would I take it to be pts. My breed has large litters and no matter how many potential homes you may have you can guarantee that someone will back away, or there aren't enough of the correct sex, so you still have to look for more homes. I wouldn't breed unless I had some homes already available though.

I have a breed which generally has fairly small litters and they are a very popular breed which are fairly easy to find suitable homes for so, luckily I don't think I would ever be likely to be put in the position where it would be unlikely to find homes for any puppies. I am dreadful for trying to save every animal and will spend a fortune on the slightest chance that the animal involved will make it but, that doesn't always make it right. I am beginning to think that these things happen for a reason and we are probably weakening the breeds ourselves by saving the ones that really wouldn't survive without our help. It really should be the strongest that survive and their genes that get passed on as nature intended. That said I will still handrear, give runts a helping hand and do pretty much everything I can to save my puppies but, I can also see the point that was made on the other thread too. That breed is difficult to find homes for and they are unfortunately a breed that has larger litters. I'm sure none of the breeders looks forward to the moment that they are born knowing that if there are a huge amount what will have to happen but, if it is a choice between that or them leading miserable lives in the wrong homes then I can see there reasoning.

Anyway, I personally could never cull a healthy puppy. In fact if I'm being honest, even an obviously very poorly one with little chance is given every chance of survival. I do have the space, time and facilities here to take back any of my puppies for whatever reason should I need to but, I have a breed that do mix well and are no problem to rehome when older either. 

Debbie

As a child I had a female mouse which we kept in the barn as my mother hated them, and a wild mouse chewed it's way into her 'mansion' that my dad built for her. Well, dah, dah she had a load of little mice.   but my mother insisted that they be culled, I wanted to let them go (there were 12 of them) but my mum said that I had to kill them. She gave me a bucket of water and told me to drown them.

I did it, and I cried and cried and cried. I felt like a murderer, which I was.

Never in a million years could I ever kill anything healthy again. I could do it, if a pup were born deformed, I couldn't do it if the pup were older though, only when first born, I would take a pup with a severe problem to a vet to pts, my own thoughts would not overcloud quality of life for a pup or the fact it could not find a home due to a health problem.

Would I cull excess from a very large litter, No, I would work my but off to find the right home, or have to make room and keep them. I'm sorry but I just could not kill anything healthy myself.

But now I diverse from my own feelings:

I actually do not have a problem with founder breeders doing this, after all how do you think we have the breeds that we have today? All our dogs are mixes of others over centuries and generations of breeding.  To get a KC standard breed the right colour, size, shape, coat length, how do you all think this happens? Those of the right standard are chosen from litters to begin a breeding programme, those not to standard are culled, the pups that will forge the standard are bred from only for generations and generations until the genetics are right. All the breeds of dog we have today, have come from generations of culling.  That is how a breed is made, without culling there would never be a breed standard at all. You could not have thousands of surplus pups with no homes due to a breeding programme.

Take the labradoodle just as an example, if the KC were ever to accept this breed there would have to be a standard, now they all look different, some more terrier, some more lab, a size, shape and look would have to be accepted they would have to enter a breeding programme to get that look.  Pups not to standard would have to be culled , there would be too much surplus, not to mention pet breeding going on to ruin the programme.

Pet to pet breeders have no excuse to cull, if they have surplus they should not be breeding in the first place.

A breeder breeding for the right genetics or a new or small numerical breed needing a stud or bitch to continue the line, I have no problem with the culling to just get the one dog/bitch it is being done for a purpose.

So I have very mixed feelings depending on why it is being done.  Culling is necessary in many situations, and I would never look horrified at any culling from certain breeders, I just would not ever be a founder breeder, or have a numerically small breed where I needed to ever cull as I know I don't have the heart for it.

i had a wonderful friend who was one of thoserare things...a vet and a stockman and a dog breeder. Without fail he would cull hounds born with white feet. He would be turning in his grave if he could see some of the white socks appearing recently in a line in the UK  
I would certainly cull cleft pallate or similar puppy....also 3 legged one, as someone I know once had in a litter!

>If you had a slightly weak puppy, would you cull before trying to assist?

It would depend on the size of the litter. If a very small litter of maybe 4, then I'd probably try for 24 hours. If it was in a litter of 15, then probably not.

>Would you cull a litter where (for whatever reason) mum can't rear them?

Again, it depends on the litter size, and if there was a foster-mum available.

>Would you tell your clients, when they ask how many were born,

It's not a question I've ever been asked.

>How would you feel, as a client, if you went to a reputable breeder and found they had culled half the (healthy) litter?

I'd ask the reasoning, and accept it. They're the experts.

If I knew a breeder culled healthy puppies I would not have a puppy from them no matter how much or little they were charging, I wouldn't even take one off thier hands for free.
I was planning on getting another pure-breed in a couple of years time, but I really don't know if I can now,  I will have to be 100% certain that the breeder doesn't cull, if I can't be certain thenI wont get a purebreed.

I don't think being a foundation breeder is an excuse, the very fact that BYB/puppy farmers exist just goes to show that dogs below the breed standard can be homed. If a foundation breeder only had a couple of pups in a litter that were worthy of the breed name, there is nothing to stop the other pups from being homed without being registerd & with stipulations that they wont be bred from (ie they are nutured).

I thought the whole point of continuing/improving/inventing a breed was to breed from desired traits, not to cull puppies that didn't show those traits at birth.

I dont understand how somebody who deliberatley produces puppies, thinks it's a viable option to kill them.

I could never take the life of any healthy living creature, this includes the disgusting insects & spiders I can't stand - I don't feel I have the right to even kill them and if I ever had the inclination to kill puppies i had produced on purpose or by accident, then I know that I nolonger should have anything to do with dogs. (I am not a breeder)

I certainly wouldn't cull any puppy in any circumstance unless its problem was incompatible with life.

Reproduction is an amazing thing and if a puppy has servived the birth process then it has a right to be nursed, loved and found the right home.

If i had an ill puppy i would certainly try to save that puppy, its my nature. If the mum died or too ill to feed her pups then i would do it.

How do of us really know what a dog feels about her litter, if some are taken and not returned does she or doesn't she know that some are missing. She would only reject ill puppies so what right do we have to take the lives of her healthy ones. My bitch got very upset if any of her babies were moved too far from her.

A definite no no for me.

When my friends staff x patterdale got herself pregnant at only 8 months of age. I drove her to her rspca vet to find out if she was pregnant and the vet there confirmed the pregnancy and did ask the owner if she wanted could abort the pups, the vets main concern was that her being so young and small if the sire was a big dog it might kill her.
My friend look horrified as is against abortion in general so kept the litter.
To let her give birth and then kill or cull  the new born pups would of been the most logical thing to do as finding homes and caring for 6 puppies is expensive.

Well I'm glad to say she didn't and I helped her look after them after 3 weeks they came to my house as I had the better set up to care for the growing pups. They were advertised and in no time at all were all sold at 8 weeks of age, they all became wonderful family pets.

What I'm getting at by writing this story is mistakes do happen, things never go according to plan.
We should be there to take responsibility for our animals , everything has a right to life once its born surely?
Obviously if there had been any health problems I know that my friend would of not sold that pup kept him and given him a quality of life, she would of not pts. 

Being a breeder it is obviously about money if you have 7 people wanting bitches and you end up having  boys to cull them is the easiest way of coping financially- rather than bringing the boys up as it is very costly rising pups and not having owners waiting in the wings so to speak. Personally I couldn't do that as I love dogs to much. 

That is the main difference between being a breeder of animals and an owner 

> the very fact that BYB/puppy farmers exist just goes to show that dogs below the breed standard can be homed.

ANY dog can be found a home.  But the RIGHT home is something entirely different. 

Debs

So puppy farmers and backyard breeders are better than responsible breeders as they home to anyone regardless of puppies welfare , they home regardless of puppies health , they sell to people who aren't capable of looking after a dog. Yes they can always find homes is that better than pts ?

Would you cull a litter where (for whatever reason) mum can't rear them?

For clarification, I mean hand rear them if there is no readily available foster mum.

Would you tell your clients, when they ask how many were born, that some were culled because there were no homes waiting for them? Or would you say only the number on offer where the ones she had.

The full question above, changed to say...Would you tell your clients (sorry, can't think of another term than clients as dog breeding being costly seems to be looked on as a business when working out costs, perhaps I should say potential puppy owners ) should they ask how many were born, that some were culled because there were no homes waiting for them? Or would you say only the number on offer were the ones she had?

the very fact that BYB/puppy farmers exist just goes to show that dogs below the breed standard can be homed. 

Of course they can be homed. But the breeds are already here, created and registered by the KC as a breed standard, what goes on today with BYB and puppyfarms is something else, unlike 'real' breeders who breed to create or continue lines, for the love of the breed working hard to keep it, others do it purely for money, or to have a go.

To be honest I would love to see all this excessive breeding put a stop to, generations of that hard work is being undone all the time, with breeding from none standard dogs in look and temperament, all those years to get everything just right is being undone every day.

Yes, all these pups find a home, everybody loves pups, pups will always sell, but some go to the wrong homes, they grow up into dogs which are not so appealing and many end up in rescue, our rescues are overflowing. In an ideal world only specialist breeders should breed dogs which are more difficult to raise and keep, therefore even an extra large litter will find a forever home for every pup as the waiting lists would be so long.

If dog breeding were not so wide spread, litters would only be bred from a waiting list, only the best bitch and stud would be matched by experts, the rescues centres would practically go out of circulation as there would not be overbreeding of any breed of dog, and everyone would get good quality pets too. Culling in nearly all breeds would not ever need to happen.

So puppy farmers and backyard breeders are better than responsible breeders as they home to anyone regardless of puppies welfare , they home regardless of puppies health , they sell to people who aren't capable of looking after a dog. Yes they can always find homes is that better than pts

As I read the comment about BYB/puppy farms, it was not that they are any better than responsible breeders, but this was shown as an example that there are wonderful homes out there that are more than happy to have a puppy from a litter where the puppy is below standard, by means of colour for example, as a loving family pet. This does not mean the home offered is an irresponsible one.

However, on that theme of puppy farms, I agree with you, those that breed for money as their first and foremost objective, with little regard for the homes or life of their puppies, may let them go to the sort of homes where being culled at birth may have been a better option. Some, however basic their beginings, can go on to live full and happy lives, lets not forget the ones that do land lucky, not all owners out there are bad simply because they didn't chose the correct breeder through lack of knowledge.

Could I please ask that this does not decend into a puppy farm v responsible breeder debate.

I could never cull a healthy puppy and would fight to save an ill puppy and would only PTS if I couldn't save it. I believe that it was my decision to bring those puppies into this world and they are my responsibility, whether or not there are too many boys or girls etc. If responsible homes could not be found then they would have to stay and take up room in my home. As I say, my responsibility.

Could I please ask that this does not decend into a puppy farm v responsible breeder debate

We'll try.

But..................... that is the difference you see, you won't often get a puppy farmer cull as each pup is a pound sign £££ they don't care where they end up at all, they certainly don't have them back and many BYB's are the same.

A good breeder will always take back their pups, always research carefully the homes, turn people unsuitable away, match good bitch to stud.  And may very well cull for many reasons.

Each case has to be looked at differently, no two cullings will be for the same reason, and to be honest I doubt happen very often today anyway. To love and raise a litter takes a lot to cull must break the breeders heart, it is something many of us will not ever understand, but my own view is it takes a special person to make a decision like that, and I don't doubt it is done out of love and care for their breed.

We'll try.

Thankyou
and to be honest I doubt happen very often today anyway.

From your usual well balanced and informative posts, I have chosen this part sentance to point out that, in my other posts on crossbreeds where the culling subject arose, it did seem from some older/longer established breeders, that this does happen quite often and any breeder must be prepared to do this even with healthy puppies if homes are not booked for all the sexes produced. In fact the Kc also recommend this, as do breed clubs. Hense the post to find out others view points on this, as breeders and as owners, pet, show,working, who are part of CD, to see what everyone thinks. And how they handle clients if they should question this.

> If dog breeding were not so wide spread, litters would only be bred from a waiting list, only the best bitch and stud would be matched by experts, the rescues centres would practically go out of circulation as there would not be overbreeding of any breed of dog, and everyone would get good quality pets too.

It has been said that a responsible breeder will cull new born puppies that have not got a home, so these breeders must allready be breeding to a list, which is why it seems even more bizarre and cruel.
We are talking about breeders who go to the trouble to find a well matched pair to breed then don't get homes for the entire litter, so kill them instead, it seems to be a contradiction in terms, on the 1 hand these people claim to be responsible breeders, so by that token they would have put an awfull lot of thought, effort & probably money into producing the litter in the fisrt place, yet they go-ahead with the litter without finding enough homes and kill the puppies (or whelps as breeders prefer, but every new born puppy is only capable of life with support so using that as an excuse for culling surplus to be exeptable is another cop-out).

How would you feel, as a client, if you went to a reputable breeder and found they had culled half the (healthy) litter?

I'd ask why and then make my decision. On a sensible note I would rather a puppy was culled than it be sold to an idiot, screwed up and passed on, ill treated, breed from by people who don't know what they are doing, dumped by the side of the road and many other situations that could easily happen.

I know its a hard line to take but I always think what about all those poor dogs siting in rescue centres because someone made the wrong decision.

If I knew a breeder culled healthy puppies I would not have a puppy from them no matter how much or little they were charging, I wouldn't even take one off thier hands for free.
I was planning on getting another pure-breed in a couple of years time, but I really don't know if I can now,  I will have to be 100% certain that the breeder doesn't cull, if I can't be certain thenI wont get a purebreed.

Today Mastifflover I would be completley shocked if many pups were culled, I would think you can happily go from breeder to breeder and they would be horrified that you even asked them such a question. Your breed is already created and unless a breeder is doing something unique I would doubt any would be culling today. So don't worry.

Though just to throw a spanner in the works, how would you feel if say the Dam had 15pups, became ill and could not feed them, no foster mum was available, so hand rearing commenced (which would need to be feeding 15pups every 2 hours day and night) once they had finished it would be time to start again, say the breeder only had themselves and possibly just a partner to help, it would kill them to do it. If they couldn't cope with this as they were too tired as each pup would take approx 10 mins to feed and took the dreadful decision to cull some of the litter to enable them all to survive, would you still not wish to buy a pup from them?

We are talking about breeders who go to the trouble to find a well matched pair to breed then don't get homes for the entire litter, so kill them instead, it seems to be a contradiction in terms, on the 1 hand these people claim to be responsible breeders, so by that token they would have put an awfull lot of thought, effort & probably money into producing the litter in the fisrt place, yet they go-ahead with the litter without finding enough homes and kill the puppies. 

In total agreement there. It is a contadiction, but the reasons behind each mating are different. There should always be an excess of people on a waiting list that way even if the inevitable happens there is never a reason to do such a thing.  Speaking for myself with a good year to plan a mating there is no excuse. I always have my waiting list and a back up list if anything should happen.  There is no excuse to not have enough homes.

> Though just to throw a spanner in the works, how would you feel if say the Dam had 15pups, became ill and could not feed them, no foster mum was available, so hand rearing commenced (which would need to be feeding 15pups every 2 hours day and night) once they had finished it would be time to start again, say the breeder only had themselves and possibly just a partner to help, it would kill them to do it. If they couldn't cope with this as they were too tired as each pup would take approx 10 mins to feed and took the dreadful decision to cull some of the litter to enable them all to survive, would you still not wish to buy a pup from them?

I really don't know. If it was a case that the breeders had done everything in thier power to ensure the welfare of the dam & pups than being forced to pts some of the litter may be the only humane thing to do, but it is far removed from culling newborn pups because they are the wrong sex or they haven't been found homes.
If a large litter can't be reared by thier mum & the breeders are struggling, the health of the pups are at stake, but if it was common for the breed to have such large litters than a responsible breeder should have back-up plans in place I only have 2 pet dogs, but before getting them I made sure I have several family member who would be willing to step in and look after/home my dogs if anything should happen that would make me uncapeable of doing so.

> Today Mastifflover I would be completley shocked if many pups were culled, I would think you can happily go from breeder to breeder and they would be horrified that you even asked them such a question. Your breed is already created and unless a breeder is doing something unique I would doubt any would be culling today. So don't worry.

But this is what got me - it is being done today in a rare breed, that is hard to home because it is large & not for the average hosehold - apart from the rare bit, that could apply to alot of dogs, eps. Mastiffs & the other big guarding breeds

Though just to throw a spanner in the works, how would you feel if say the Dam had 15pups, became ill and could not feed them,.........

In that case, which is an excellent point, I would say you would have to cull the puppies you didn't think had the greatest chance of making it to give the very best chance to the stronger puppies. This is one of the 'grey areas' and a difficult decision to make, but one that would be essential for the wellbeing of the remainder of the litter.

Today Mastifflover I would be completley shocked if many pups were culled, I would think you can happily go from breeder to breeder and they would be horrified that you even asked them such a question.
Which would be good to know, but it has been said on my other post that breed clubs and the Kc are to recommend healthy puppies from large litters to be culled. If this is true, then this is something which is being talked about/considered/happening now.

Yes but the comment about BYB and puppy farmers being able to find homes suggests that responsible breeders should be able to as well I was trying to point out they dont apply the same values and will not turn away unsuitable homes unlike breeders who take full responsability for their pups.

I understand what you are saying, I guess being in the world of dogs for so many years, I know of the genetic culling, but can honestly say in the last at least 30 years I have not heard of anyone I know culling any pups at all. I always think of these cases today as being the extreme, which is why in a way I am taking it quite lightly.

But maybe you are right to worry, maybe it is not in the extreme, I can only speak for myself and the breeders that I know.  I would be interested to know from others who wish to join in on the post.

How many cullings have taken place that you know of ............... in the last 10 years?

I'd like to put Mastifflovers mind at rest.................. or maybe not?

Which would be good to know, but it has been said on my other post that breed clubs and the Kc are to recommend healthy puppies from large litters to be culled. If this is true, then this is something which is being talked about/considered/happening now.

Your not wrong this did come out, either last year or the previous, (memory is shocking) I think most of us said if a litter was too large for a bitch to raise herself, most of us would hand rear.  I don't think many wanted to cull.

To be honest that is a debate in itself as to why this was suggested by such large authorities, my own thoughts are the huge numbers of dogs being bred, it was a way to cut down on even more surplus, as I doubt they were thinking of the bitch.

> I'd like to put Mastifflovers mind at rest.................. or maybe not?

lol, I hope any responses do pup my mind at rest!!

But I don't think we are likely to get a true picture here now, it is obvious that oppinions are strong on both sides of the argument and I can't see any breeders wanting to potentially give thierselfs 'bad press' by confirming that thay do/have/know-of culling.

I would imagine, but have no evidence/numbers, that it still occasionally happens within my breed when people are determined to do blue merle to blue merle matings and get white pups which may be blind and/or deaf.

Whilst I strongly disagree with these matings taking place (and have made myself unpopular by refusing to allow a stud to be used in this way), I actually have more respect for people who are prepared to take responsibility and have such puppies PTS. Really disapprove of the adverts I have seen looking for a 'special home' for that blind or deaf puppy which could have been avoided. Keep it yourself or cull it, don't pass the problem on to someone else ... and probably charge them for the pleasure too.

Wouldn't do it myself, but I can kind of see how people may be lulled into taking the chance in my breed, if they have seen other people do it and be lucky with the results - genetics is a lottery and you could do the mating and end up with 100% tricolours, 100% merle, 100% white, or anything in between.

From the original post that sparked the discussion, I would also have a great deal of respect for the breeders who aren't prepared to let their pups just go anywhere and would rather take a very hard, but responsible decision.

M.

> Yes but the comment about BYB and puppy farmers being able to find homes suggests that responsible breeders should be able to as well I was trying to point out they dont apply the same values and will not turn away unsuitable homes unlike breeders who take full responsability for their pups.

I get your point, but what I meant with the refernce to BYB is that people after a pet do not hold a breed standard in the same light as a breeder or breed enthusiast does that is how the BYB survive. To somebody who just wants a pet, a dog is a dog, regardless of cosmetic faults, wrong tail set, wrong height, wrong build etc.. this attitude doen't =  irresponsible owners - I have a mutt (from a shelter) and couldn't care less what he looks like, but I love him to bits and I don't think he could have a better life with anybody else.
Even the poorest example of a breed can be found a loving, responsible home, there is no reasnon why a breeder should cull healthy puppies.

Right as I have been arguing that culling can be the responsible decision in some cases. Then here goes no I've never culled and no I dont personally know of breeders that have culled healthy pups.  I did say in the previous thread I believed it was rare.
Health issues are different I do know of someone who did have to put to sleep a whole litter due to an abnormality which only became aparent when they didnt open their eyes.

I understand that but if they are not suitable owners for that breed should a breeder not turn them away even if the pup can then not find a home or should she home the pup to them anyway and walk away?

>if they are not suitable owners for that breed should a breeder not turn them away even if the pup can then not find a home or should she home the pup to them anyway and walk away?

IMO it would be wrong to take a gamble with a home, just to get a pup away.

On the subject of culling pups that say have white toes (as has been mentioned). What about the rest of the puppies in that litter? If, as far as can be told, white toes have not appeared before, surely the remainder of the litter could pass on a white toe if they are bred from, or down the line? or could it be a case of a breeder keeping this to themselves, culling the white toed ones and saying nothing? Does this happen? In responsibly bred puppies I mean now, not the BYB etc. Could the bitch or sire of these white toed puppies ever be used again in a breeding program?

MMMM this may be going slightly off topic LOL, Its all going to depend on the inheritance of the white toes isnt it, if its a dominant trait then no it won't crop up in the offspring of white toed puppies siblings however if its recessive then put to another line that carries the same recessive trait it would. Rather like CEA being carried unseen for generations and only showing up when another carrier line is bred to.
I dont think it happens these days as genetics is more understood then previously and colours carried can be tested for so that doubling up could be avoided.

Interesting quote on this topic from "The Book of the Bitch" (page 60):-"Many people fail to realize that they may have to face having the puppies they have reared humanely destroyed when only a few months old simply because they cannot be found homes". Then on page 62 (re surplus puppies) :- Are you clear thinking enough to decide that the greatest kindness is to have some puppies put down at birth?.......Many people want to produce a litter from their bitch in order to give the children experience of seeing mating and birth, but for some, the total package of deformity, death or elective culling (my italics) may be too much to handle." I must admit I was surprised to read these passages, in my 2003 reprint of the book, as I had never heard of this happening in recent times. I remember my mother talking about people drowning puppies and kittens, but she would have been going back to pre-2nd WW days

MMMM this may be going slightly off topic

LOL .......so if it did turn up, there would be no need in a careful plan to run the risk of having to cull more puppies for this in another litter? or to have them in the first place.

Today as we have the breeders with their dogs to breed standard any white feet or other defects just go to pet homes.

Agree with everything above and is my experience and position.

I do have a numerically small breed though and the number of pups born and the potential homes are fairly;y balanced, so ti is not uncommon if an imbalance of sexes is born over a couple of litters to find older pups still available.

A friend recently didn't home the last of her male pups of a predominantly male litter (there were two other litters also mainly male within a short time span) until they were 18 weeks old.

Most people in my breed would count themselves really fortunate to have all pups homed at 8 weeks, and in fact most of us prefer pups to leave home slowly over the space of a couple of weeks.

I do think this situation does probably put off prospective exhibitors from breeding themselves though.

Even in the time I have been in the breed the annal registrations have gone from around 120 - 150 pups a year to 80 - 100.  In the 70's our breed registrations were in the region of 350 - 400.

Compared to similar looking more recently introduced breeds that have become fashionable they are easier to own, a nice size and temperament, so fashion really does not seem to equate with ease of ownership.

Breeds that for whatever reason become numerically small often fail to attract new enthusiasts simply because people have never seen them or know anything about them, and then of those who might consider them some people are not prepared to wait for a pup and get something more readily available.

Even numerically small breeds end up with rescue problems because someone will choose to breed commercially and the dogs get into unsuitable homes, or those that lack commitment.  Breed enthusiasts then get protective of their breed and hide them and so a vicious circle of decline occurs.

I would have them pts if they had cleft palates / hopeless deformities / missing legs etc, but not just for white feet / mismarkings etc. I've seen appeals and videos etc for dogs with terrible deformities, and while I admire the owner or breeder's dedication in going to such lengths, I can't help but feel there are many deserving dogs and puppies which weren't born with such terrible odds against them. Of course if something happened to one of my dogs to make it deformed / missing leg etc, so be it and I would care for them and give them good quality of life, but I wouldn't deliberately keep alive a newborn like that.

I'm with you there Lucy, have seen such appeals for rescue dogs - thousands of ££££s raised through appeals, to give a dog a chance at a disadvantaged life. I really can appreciate that rescue people have to make fantastically hard decisions, and that sometimes a particular dog will really fight and tug at the heartstrings ... but when so many need help, I can't agree with it.

Sorry, am diverting ...

M.

> I'm with you there Lucy, have seen such appeals for rescue dogs - thousands of ££££s raised through appeals, to give a dog a chance at a disadvantaged life. I really can appreciate that rescue people have to make fantastically hard decisions, and that sometimes a particular dog will really fight and tug at the heartstrings ... but when so many need help, I can't agree with it.
>
> Sorry, am diverting ...

i don't think this is far from the topic. Yes rescues undertake large campaigns to find homes for disadvantaged dogs, but that is because healthy dogs don't have the same problem finding new homes, and healthy puppies have people queing up for them (I know a lot of those homes wont be suitable) which comes back round to the topic - why should a responsible breeder have the need to cull healthy planned puppies?

> ) which comes back round to the topic - why should a responsible breeder have the need to cull healthy planned puppies?

If a breed is so specialised or with such small numbers that it takes years to assemble a reasonable waiting list (most people won't wait even more than 6 months on a waiting list), then culling or extinction are the only options.

I am sure the breeder would prefer to rear and sell the excess pups.

I do wonder how many suitable homes there are for a Mastiff for example.  Do they have very large litters, how many are bred and are they easy to find responsible homes for, do breeders cull?.

It would seem for instance with DDB's that a lot end up in totally unsuitable homes, so getting a rare breed noticed has often a negative effect.

The same population explosion occurred with Akita's, Huskies and now malamutes with rescue being a real problem.

I am fostering at the moment a bitch that was taken to Battersea as an Elkhound (will figure in theri rehoming stats as an Elkhound).  It is quite obvious that she is an Elkhound Siberian Husky cross.

She is only 18 months old with a charming personality, good on lead, gets on great with other dogs, and has been in rescue for the last few weeks.  Where is her breeder? 

Maybe it would have been better for many breeds if culling had been more common, but the people interested i £ signs preferred to rear, sell and leave others to pick up the pieces?

As for keeping several unsold pups, that is not a practical option for nearly anyone.  Even if you had kennel facilities and acres of land dogs need individual attention, especially in puppy-hood and adolescence.

OK. I'm going to put forward a completely different view - then run away and hide whilst you all slag me off

First, I don't breed, so I've never had to make a decision as to whether to cull or not. I did work as a vet nurse for seven years, and got to know a wonderful lady who has a very rare British breed, regarded as vulnerable by the KC. She has superb facilities, loads of space, big dog paddock, and is very concerned about health matters. She keeps 5 or 6, dogs and bitches, and has one litter every three or four years. There is always space if one of 'her' pups is returned (very rare) and several of her pups come back each year whilst their humans are on holiday. In short it really is an ideal set-up. She's a lovely, caring and very knowledgeable lady.

Her bitches only ever rear 8 pups. This is a big breed, very appealing as puppies, but definitely not the breed for anyone who is an inexperienced owner, nor for those who aren't prepared to give LOTS of exercise. Her reasoning is that she will have suitable homes for 7 pups (she only ever breeds when she wants to keep one herself) every few years, but cannot guarantee more than that. It breaks her heart, but her very practical vet agrees 100% with her reasoning, and visits as soon as the bitch has finished whelping. Rearing 8 pups also means that her bitches are not completely exhausted and drained when the litter is weaned.

You could argue that she should just not breed at all, but as I said in another thread, surely breeders have a duty of responsibility to hold their breed in trust for future generations. Should a breed that has existed for hundreds of years and is part of our nation's heritage just be allowed to die out? There are excellent homes for this breed - just not as many as might be hoped. As a matter of interest, this breed had a lot of publicity a year or so ago, around Crufts, with appearances of cute puppies on TV and in the papers. Literally HUNDREDS of people made enquiries about puppies to the breed club. Perhaps luckily there were no litters around at that time. By the time puppies were available most of these had lost interest, and in the end probably only two or three pups went to families that had made enquiries through this publicity.

In Response to lincolnimp

This is exactly what I mean by responsible breeding.  The breeder makes the hard choices for the god of the breed.

> If a breed is so specialised or with such small numbers that it takes years to assemble a reasonable waiting list (most people won't wait even more than 6 months on a waiting list), then culling or extinction are the only options.

If a potential owner is not willing to wait more than 6 months, then surely they are not an ideal owner anyway? If they know that the specialist breed in question is rare and if they knew surplus pups would be killed, I'm sure any suitable/responsible owner would wait (in the case of a rare breed the potentail owner has little choice but to wait).
I know I would wait years for a Mastiff puppy if they were rare, in fact I waited 3 yeas untill my circumstances were more suited to getting a pup and then another 18 months research on the Mastiff breed, even knowing they are not rare I was prepared to wait at least a year to get the pup from the breeder I liked, but I got lucky