LMM wrote:I didn't miss the tail end of your post and I wasn't harping on it, I was simply trying to explain why I felt that way Honestly if you wanted to get your panties waded up about some of things said in this thread, that's your right. Some of the stuff was pretty harsh and you won't see me making generalities like that. But you most certainly seem to be getting your panties all waded up over this.
Btw, if you think this is me "going off" I got news for you I pointed out a poor word choice, nothing more or less. You amended it, no harm no foul.
Back to the original point of the thread. I've since done some research about all of this and I still think it's wrong but maybe a necessary evil. I think when there a medical and/or temperament issues is when it becomes necessary. I will never, ever think it's necessary to cull simply because of pet quality.
Having said all that, I don't think I can ever fully appreciate its purpose in any case. I do think some breeders take it very much to heart and it has to be difficult for them. But then for me, that begs the question why do it. Breed that is.
LMM wrote:Necessary tool? Maybe, most definitely according to some. Wonderful? Not effin' likely.
furever_pit wrote:LMM wrote:I didn't miss the tail end of your post and I wasn't harping on it, I was simply trying to explain why I felt that way Honestly if you wanted to get your panties waded up about some of things said in this thread, that's your right. Some of the stuff was pretty harsh and you won't see me making generalities like that. But you most certainly seem to be getting your panties all waded up over this.
Btw, if you think this is me "going off" I got news for you I pointed out a poor word choice, nothing more or less. You amended it, no harm no foul.
Back to the original point of the thread. I've since done some research about all of this and I still think it's wrong but maybe a necessary evil. I think when there a medical and/or temperament issues is when it becomes necessary. I will never, ever think it's necessary to cull simply because of pet quality.
Having said all that, I don't think I can ever fully appreciate its purpose in any case. I do think some breeders take it very much to heart and it has to be difficult for them. But then for me, that begs the question why do it. Breed that is.
. You clearly don't know me at all. I'm not upset at all by the things that have been said. Believe me I have heard much worse things when discussing culling and its place in breeding. I was simply trying to get you to understand my point of view as much as you were trying to get me to understand yours. That is what a discussion is.
As for the part in bold, I can only answer for myself. I look at breeding as an opportunity to preserve and improve a breed. I think it would be terribly sad if the only people breeding APBTs were BYBs who were producing poor quality dogs with health issues and who do not have the temperament that the breed is intended to have (well that goes for all breeds, not just Pit Bulls). I guess I see it as an opportunity to carry the torch if you will.
mnp13 wrote:LMM wrote:Necessary tool? Maybe, most definitely according to some. Wonderful? Not effin' likely.
If I found just the right female, would I breed Riggs? Yup, and there aren't many dogs out of that litter who would be available to anyone. That's just the way it is, which is why I haven't bred him. He's a hard, hard, dominant, difficult dog (that I adore) - most people would have handed him back to his breeder or put him down a long time ago; it's likely at least some of his puppies would be just like him. Two of the puppies from his litter were culled - they showed extreme dominance before they were even ten weeks old. Yes, there are people out there who want dogs like that, but those usually people already have them because there are plenty. I've found that I (sometimes) enjoy the challenges that come with his "issues" because there are also great rewards that come with them as well.
LMM wrote:So, I have a question. Since I am not a breeder and have not been in this position ever. What kind of things were these puppies doing (if you know, or anyone else who has experience with this) that would be considered extreme dominance?
In other words, what does a breeder look for in order to make this type of decision?
LMM wrote:How many BYBs do you think there are for every truly reputable breeder?
I find in my experience that the people who are against this are very emotional about it. Me included, I readily admit it. The loss of life on any level for whatever reason just hits me at my heart. For me to try to understand and concede that it may be necessary in some cases is a big concession on my part.
And I really am truly curious how they determine which pups to cull. I know there isn't one pat answer but you did give me a few examples to provide me a better idea of what is looked for. I think I've seen some of what you've described in over the top puppy behavior. I say that because I can remember thinking to myself "I cannot believe an 8 week old puppy is acting like that!!!"
furever_pit wrote:I think there are also other constraints that come into play here. For example, available room for new dogs. Say you breed a litter and you are taking first pick out of that litter knowing that you have the space for one more dog.
Jackuul wrote:If he had been culled because of his defects, I would have never had the experience of the five years with him, even if they did doom him to an early death at the age of five.
Jackuul wrote:However, if the dog is simply just not "what is looked for" I do not believe culling it is the right answer, but instead it is the easy answer
mnp13 wrote:furever_pit wrote:I think there are also other constraints that come into play here. For example, available room for new dogs. Say you breed a litter and you are taking first pick out of that litter knowing that you have the space for one more dog.
I don't think that individual has any business breeding. What if 3 dogs are returned when they are a couple months old? Responsible breeders take dogs back; they are responsible for the dogs they create for the life of the dog. Now, yes, that sounds contradictory to my position on culling, but in my mind culling puppies is culling puppies, after they aren't puppies anymore it's a different matter.
furever_pit wrote:I totally agree that a breeder should be ready and willing to take dogs back. To me, it is another one of those things that responsible breeders do. And I actually don't think that the two systems are contradictions of one another. You cull puppies, you euthanize dogs.
As for being ready to take dogs back, that does not have to be permanent. Many dogs that are returned to the breeders are then rehomed with someone else. And honestly I think everyone has constraints as far as how many dogs they can maintain (and I include giving each dog attention and training every single day). I see dogs being rehomed off of yards every single day in order to make room for the new blood. Lets think about someone who has no more than one litter a year, if they have one a year. They have 3 litters, one of 8 pups, one of 9, and one of 12. That's 29 dogs and if they kept one dog out of each litter that still leaves them with 26 dogs. Do you really think most breeders have the ability to keep 26 additional dogs?
mnp13 wrote:furever_pit wrote:I totally agree that a breeder should be ready and willing to take dogs back. To me, it is another one of those things that responsible breeders do. And I actually don't think that the two systems are contradictions of one another. You cull puppies, you euthanize dogs.
But euthanizing a dog because "you just don't have room" is not the same thing as culling.
As for being ready to take dogs back, that does not have to be permanent. Many dogs that are returned to the breeders are then rehomed with someone else. And honestly I think everyone has constraints as far as how many dogs they can maintain (and I include giving each dog attention and training every single day). I see dogs being rehomed off of yards every single day in order to make room for the new blood. Lets think about someone who has no more than one litter a year, if they have one a year. They have 3 litters, one of 8 pups, one of 9, and one of 12. That's 29 dogs and if they kept one dog out of each litter that still leaves them with 26 dogs. Do you really think most breeders have the ability to keep 26 additional dogs?
mnp13 wrote:No, it doesn't have to be permanent, but finding a proper home could take months or even years. People definately have limits on how many dogs they can properly maintain, and that should factor into how many puppies they produce. The BYB that created Ruby has about 10 litters a year at his kennel and more through other people's. He has been known to dump extra dogs and puppies at shelters. He does take some dogs back, but I've seen more than one that is being re-sold or given away. I don't think it's unreasonable for a breeder to keep a handful of spots "open" as a just-in-case measure.
furever_pit wrote:
I agree, in a perfect world every breeder would have a few spots "open" just in case. But not everyone does, and some breeders have to deal with the constraints and consequences that come from such a set up. Does that mean they are not or cannot be responsible breeders? I don't think so.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users