New Puppies

by **furever_pit** » January 8th, 2009, 1:10 am

Wow. Interesting to say the least.

Karen, I get that you don't want to spay Dilly until after she gets her title. That's all good. I understand that you might not want to use the hormonal abortion treatments because of the potential side effects. However, handing the pups out without either speutering them first or requiring it in the contract is well, ridiculous.

In complete honesty, I don't even think you should be selling the pups because of the genetic defects. In fact, I think you should proceed with a culling. Cull all females because of the high likelihood that they will be carriers. Then cull all males that show symptoms of the day blindness. *IF* there are any pups left, YOU should KEEP them and speuter them. No outcrossing. No "hiding" this gene anywhere else.

Oddly I am reminded of another hypocrite that is involved with pit bulls. Shame shame. :devil:

by **TheRedQueen** » January 8th, 2009, 1:12 am

furever_pit wrote:Wow. Interesting to say the least.

Karen, I get that you don't want to spay Dilly until after she gets her title. That's all good. I understand that you might not want to use the hormonal abortion treatments because of the potential side effects. However, handing the pups out without either speutering them first or requiring it in the contract is well, ridiculous.

In complete honesty, I don't even think you should be selling the pups because of the genetic defects. In fact, I think you should proceed with a culling. Cull all females because of the high likelihood that they will be carriers. Then cull all males that show symptoms of the day blindness. *IF* there are any pups left, YOU should KEEP them and speuter them. No outcrossing. No "hiding" this gene anywhere else.

Well said... :clap:

by **iluvk9** » January 8th, 2009, 6:48 am

pitbullmamaliz wrote:Joyce has one named Bo who is evil. She would send him to you. Just sayin'.

I am afraid to reply in that thread about my cat.

by **BullyLady** » January 8th, 2009, 3:28 pm

Where did Karen and Katrina go on this thread? I would like to hear more from both of them.

by **mnp13** » January 8th, 2009, 3:47 pm

furever_pit wrote:In complete honesty, I don't even think you should be selling the pups because of the genetic defects. In fact, I think you should proceed with a culling. Cull all females because of the high likelihood that they will be carriers. Then cull all males that show symptoms of the day blindness. *IF* there are any pups left, YOU should KEEP them and speuter them. No outcrossing. No "hiding" this gene anywhere else.

Excellent idea. I didn't think of the idea of straight culling, I had only considered speutering, but straight culling is just as good.

by **amazincc** » January 8th, 2009, 3:51 pm

"Culling" as in... killing the puppies once they're born??? :shock:

by **TheRedQueen** » January 8th, 2009, 4:11 pm

amazincc wrote:"Culling" as in... killing the puppies once they're born???

I changed my mind on culling a few years ago...it's fairly common with Aussie breeders to cull white pups...as it's linked to deafness and various eye issues (including missing eyeballs). I thought the idea of killing pups that were merely disabled was horrible.

Until I saw the sheer number of "lethal-white" Aussies up for adoption, and how few folks can/want to take on a dog with issues like this. :shake:

It's sad...

I don't agree with breeding dogs that you KNOW will have problems (breeding merle to merle produces a high number of "flashy" colored merles, but also a certain percentage of white pups)...but every so often if one pops up...yeah, I can see culling it.

by **mnp13** » January 8th, 2009, 4:11 pm

amazincc wrote:"Culling" as in... killing the puppies once they're born???

Yes.

by **amazincc** » January 8th, 2009, 4:15 pm

Well, crap... I personally couldn't do that. :oops:

I personally would make damned sure not to let such a breeding happen in the first place.

And ya'll wonder why I hate people... :nono:

by **LMM** » January 8th, 2009, 4:23 pm

In my head I guess I understand the need for culling. In my heart, not so much. Just the sentence "killing the puppies once they're born" makes my stomach queasy and my heart ache

by **mnp13** » January 8th, 2009, 4:24 pm

amazincc wrote:Well, crap... I personally couldn't do that.

It is my personal (and extremely controversial) opinion that to be a truly responsible breeder you must cull. That would be why I'll never breed, because the idea of killing puppies makes me kinda sick.

by **TheRedQueen** » January 8th, 2009, 4:33 pm

mnp13 wrote:
amazincc wrote:Well, crap... I personally couldn't do that.

It is my personal (and extremely controversial) opinion that to be a truly responsible breeder you must cull. That would be why I'll never breed, because the idea of killing puppies makes me kinda sick.

What she said. I could never do it myself...I just couldn't.

I know breeders that regularly breed and then cull, and repeat. and repeat. I just find that plain wrong.

by **amazincc** » January 8th, 2009, 4:33 pm

mnp13 wrote:It is my personal (and extremely controversial) opinion that to be a truly responsible breeder you must cull. That would be why I'll never breed, because the idea of killing puppies makes me kinda sick.

Oh, I "get that" in theory, and in theory I agree. Could I do it??? Absolutely not.
Would I put myself and my dog(s) in that position in the first place? Again - absolutely not.

Irresponsible people SUCK.

Dammit... I wasn't even going to get involved in this thread... :rolleyes2:

by **Leslie H** » January 8th, 2009, 7:20 pm

Katrina, I can appreciate your comment about doing what you can for rescue; however, my opinions remain the same. There are no accidental litters! If you choose to keep the litter, it is not an accident it is purposeful and it jeopardizes currently living dogs lives.

I'll disagree that Katrina's dogs will jeopardize currently living dogs. I'm not speaking for Katrina, she doesn't even know me. But, the work that one of the pups she produces should be able to do, shelter and rescue dogs are very rarely able to perform at the levels Katrina's dogs will. The people she sells or places a dog with are likely not looking for a pet, they're looking for a high level working dog. They would not be getting a shelter or rescue dog. They want the odds stacked in their favor.

So, personally, I do think there is a huge difference between the 2 litters.

by **BritneyP** » January 8th, 2009, 7:33 pm

Leslie H wrote:
Katrina, I can appreciate your comment about doing what you can for rescue; however, my opinions remain the same. There are no accidental litters! If you choose to keep the litter, it is not an accident it is purposeful and it jeopardizes currently living dogs lives.

I'll disagree that Katrina's dogs will jeopardize currently living dogs. I'm not speaking for Katrina, she doesn't even know me. But, the work that one of the pups she produces should be able to do, shelter and rescue dogs are very rarely able to perform at the levels Katrina's dogs will. The people she sells or places a dog with are likely not looking for a pet, they're looking for a high level working dog. They would not be getting a shelter or rescue dog. They want the odds stacked in their favor.

So, personally, I do think there is a huge difference between the 2 litters.

VERY well said, Leslie. :clap:

by **airwalk** » January 9th, 2009, 12:41 am

As long as there are no Mal's and other quality working breeds in rescue or shelters I would agree with you...as long as there are..I politely disagree.

As for cullling pups I can see the need in theory, I couldn't do it in practice. Good thing whatever idiot was responsible for Scooter didn't practice culling or I wouldn't have had the opportunity to know him.

I cannot support culling when someone breeds a litter that they fully expect genetic defects and yet permit the breeding anyway. In those circumstances, the human made a knowledgeable decision and they are responsible for the animals that decision produces. They should hold until the pups can be sterilized and then at worst place them as companion animals....and ultimately stop breeding the original pair with the genetic defect.

by **BritneyP** » January 9th, 2009, 12:54 am

airwalk wrote:As long as there are no Mal's and other quality working breeds in rescue or shelters I would agree with you...as long as there are..I politely disagree.

Diana, I think the point Leslie was trying to make is that MOST top level sport competitors and police departments are not going to be getting their dogs from shelters... and as someone who has experience with both these venues, I can confirm that.

by **airwalk** » January 9th, 2009, 12:57 am

I guess I fail to see the point. They would if there were not other choices...but since breeders offer other choices then the rescue/shelter dogs remain where they are...thus, the pup takes a home from an existing dog.

by **BritneyP** » January 9th, 2009, 1:01 am

I apologize, I thought you were referring to breeding accidental litters and taking away from lives of shelter dogs. You must be referring to breeders all over the world, in that case, as if there were no breeders in this country offering dogs, they would simply get them in europe, as they already do.

Also, I find it hard to agree that they "would if they had no other choice", because just because breeders are offering other options, doesn't mean that all the Mals and GSDs in shelters are suitable to be police K9s, unfortunately.

by **BullyLady** » January 9th, 2009, 1:04 am

BritneyP wrote:Also, I find it hard to agree that they "would if they had no other choice", because just because breeders are offering other options, doesn't mean that all the Mals and GSDs in shelters are suitable to be police K9s, unfortunately.

No, but if the breeders were offering fewer options then the police K9s would look harder at what's in the shelters and probably find dogs that could very easily be made suitable.

New Puppies

Who is online