Culling - Page 3

I would not hesitate one minute to cull.  It has to be done to keep the weak and pups not able to stand their own.
Mother nature gives the german shepherd of all the dogs I have seen, the best equipment to tell if her pup has something genetically wrong.

I only had one incident and I do not even think twice.

I agree totally with Jenn and Mojack . I also agree that too many people  use heart and not their heads, not only in breeding practices but in teaching a dog proper obedience .

YR

DELETED AS A REPEAT POST...


I sorry  I am so gun shy I thought my thread had been deleted before I ever got to read it...it was on next page...I do not think I can weather all this     walking on egg shells.....

Steve ...you made me chuckle  for sure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yr

I have actually culled (PTS at the vet) an older puppy for unstable temperament.  The dog was bred by me and I kept a couple out of the litter to see how they matured.  This dog had come after me a couple times and for reasons unknown....It was difficult but necessary! 

I have also PTS a female that I purchased that ate a 4 month old puppy.....she didn't just kill it but she killed and ate it!  She was able to get ahold of the puppy through the wire of the kennel and pull it through piece by piece till she had it all!  This happened when I was at work and  I was horrified and livid and my gut feeling was to strangle the bitch with my bare hands but I took it to the animal emergency hospital and told them to put a needle in her.  That has been the ONLY dog that I have euthanized and not stayed with and held while crossing the Rainbow Bridge!

Vickie
www.PowerHausKennels.com

Do not discuss this topic on this forum, because Peta is listening? Would be better in private. Peta doesn't kill animals? We should live in fear of activists. I think the biggest problem is people can't except death. They think it's a bad thing. I have killed many animals in my lifetime under many different circumstances. From hunting and taking fur bearers, harvesting domestic animals for eating, to pest control, culling, and putting an animal down to end it's suffering. I will not leave my responsibility to another. This I owe to them. I take it very seriously. There should be no need for animal shelters if others took their responsibility seriously. There are many forms of suffering to an animal, not just the physical pain most are concerned about. There are many reasons to cull, and (cull) can have more than one meaning. Death is a part of that meaning, suffering is not. There is a right way and a wrong way to do just about anything. Moons.

PUCK FETA!!!!!


"Do Right and Fear No One"

The Good Captain Max's Motto

Preston is right, but so is Moons.

As far as culling by placement...well, that depends. "Somewhat nervy" can be interpreted so many different ways. To simplify, if the dog is nervy in a way that could make it dangerous, then it gets the needle. If a dog is nervy in a shy, reserved, submissive way, and I know of someone who wants it, then fine- take it. "Nervy" is a broad term. There are people who would call a low drive dog w/no desire to do SchH "nervy". I don't agree many times on dogs people label as "nervy," as I have seen far too many times where the people and their behavior are causing the problem, as has already been mentioned. I've had dogs (not from my breedings) where people said they were too aggressive and I've been unable to duplicate it in my home. A genetic temperamental issue would have been apparent; obviously, these were handling issues. My point is there are no absolutes in terms of definitions and what does or does not constitute "nervy."

In summary, w/out going into too much detail and splitting hairs, if it's got a screw loose and is a nutjob, it gets the needle. If it's a pet, it gets a pet home, and there are so many people who want a pet out of working lines due to improved chances of good health (HD, etc.)

Totally agree w/Vickie's post- I would've also had a hard time not strangling that bitch myself. I have a zero tolerance policy for aggression against a pup. I know there are people out there who defend it, attributing it to "prey drive" or the noises pups make setting them off, but IMO, that's a NUTJOB, and not only will I not breed them, regardless of pedigree or titles, but I won't have them on my property. Period. I'm admittedly extreme in my standards of temperament, but I also think that may be why I have better than average luck w/the temperament I've produced thus far. Of course anyone can get a subpar pup at any time, but if you're that much pickier about your breeding stock I think you get that many fewer duds. I really question the people who have one or more in every litter- either they SUCK at judging temperament or they really need to re-evaluate the dogs they're breeding.

Preston,  PETA or similar are going to do what they do anyway and always have.  It's every breeder's responsibility to produce dogs that are healthy and to also place them in good homes...and certainly not pass along health or temperament problems to the owners.  I've placed dogs in homes twice that I shouldn't have, but live and learn...Where temperment and physical soundness is concerned, putting them down is the best option.

Vickie & Jenni   


Pretson, I must disagree with you.

Culling is something that SHOULD be talked about and discussed openly. If that option was viable and more well accepted, I believe we'd have a lot less unsound and unhealthy dogs out there today. In the old days, culling was an accepted normal practice and even EXPECTED. I believe the whole "head in the sand" and "keep quiet' attitude that's been adopted today is a huge part of the reason why our breed is in such a sorry state today. Never mind fear of the AR nut jobs, just look at the crap dogs being produced left and right. Why have standards been lowered so far that breeding dogs with faults, questionable temperaments and health problems is acceptable?

Maybe because silence is interpreted as tacit approval?

Virtually every breed of dog in the world, at its inception, was shaped by culling. Some breeders still do. Not the show/commercial type breeders. I know some AmBull breeders who boar hunt do. They keep the strongest, best pups for themselves and cull the rest, they don't want those dogs in pet homes. Good for them for accepting the fact that making a buck off your extra pups isn't what's good for the buyers, the dogs, or the breed.

That's really the problem, isn't it? Our bleeding heart society doesn't help, but when a breeder can sell a pup to some sucker for $1,500, why would they cull it? PETA wants to make breeders out as greedy animal pimps, but the breeders that would never consider culling are the greedy ones.

There are tons of nice dogs out there that need homes. GOOD quality GSDs dumped in rescues and shelters because the owner can no longer care for them. Why on earth would I put a dog with a physical or mental problem, that I can identify at a young age, out into the world?

I'm not going to make it out that all breeders who cull have their heart in the right place. I'm sure some culling is done from arrogance, they would not ever want anyone to know that their dogs produced this or that fault.

I'd like to talk about color. Tons of people have said that color is in no way genetically related to other issues. However, why is that certain disqualifying colors have a much higher percentage of particular faults/health issues? I suppose it could be that those faults are more prevalent in overall poor quality lines anyway. But if you met (not going to use real colors here and get my head bit off) lets, say, multiple purple dogs and every purple dog you met had poor nerves, or every green dog you met had health issues, can you blame a breeder for wanting to cull a puppy that comes out those colors?

I'm not trying to get into another nasty debate about off colors, just curious what everyone's thoughts/experiences were.