Culling

[furever_pit]

Okay, maybe that came out wrong. I don't mean wonderful as in "YAY! Let's go kill some puppies." I meant wonderful in that it is a good tool for breeding purposes. Two totally different things.

And, honestly, of the breeders I know who do cull none of them actively look forward to it. It's something that they need to do for their lines and for the future of the breed. It's not something that these people brag about, but rather a sacrifice that they carry in their hearts.

[LMM]

Yea, definitely wrong word choice. Like it's been said, it's a necessary part of responsible breeding.

I don't mean to pick it out but seriously, for people like me who have such a hard time with this whole concept, word choice can send me over the edge. And this is the exact reason you won't see me breeding. Ever. Well, just one reason of many anyway.

[furever_pit]

Wow, way to be nitpicky.

[LMM]

Ok you seem to have skipped over that part of my post

So anyway yes, I am being nitpicky, sue me. For all of you who are perfectly fine with this whole concept, please remember there are those of us who really aren't. At all. Are we more emotional about this? Probably so but the word choice is important because it most certainly is not effin' wonderful.

[furever_pit]

No I saw that point in your post. But you seemed to have missed the tail end of mine.
I used to be just as emotional about culling as you are now. I used to think that it was wrong. But then I did some research and I talked to some breeders and I have come to appreciate its purpose. Do I think it is an easy thing to do? No. Is it a concern for me IF I ever breed? Yes, of course. How would I do it? IF I could do it?

Both sides of the argument use words and phrases that offend the other side, that is the nature of the beast. Yet, I didn't get my panties all up in a bunch when someone said that I should be culled because of my beliefs on this one issue. It seems only fair that if you are going to go off on one word on my post that those who are against culling refrain from referring to those who believe in it as being cold-hearted or heartless.

I had already ammended my use of the word "wonderful" and attempted to explain it to you. It seems silly to me that you continued to harp on it, hence the eyeroll.

[LMM]

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.

[furever_pit]

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]

Necessary tool? Maybe, most definitely according to some. Wonderful? Not effin' likely.

I agree with this. In my opinion, it is an unfortunate thing but necessary - wonderful? not so much. I also don't think it is as black and white as some people think or are making it out to be. There are going to be some dogs that are not the "absolute ideal" and some that are perfectly good working dogs, but perhaps not to the level or activity intended by the breeder. High level competition comes in many forms, I don't think a high level agility is any less deserable than a high level protection dog.

Oh, and for those people who have "reject" dogs... so do we. We have one purchased dog who is a nightmare of issues. One who was pick, then sold, then returned, then given away, then returned, then given to me (I was actually present when someone offered to buy Riggs, but the breeder didn't feel it was a good fit), we found out after the fact that he was going to be put down if we hadn't taken him; yes, put down rather than placed in an inappropriate home, and I respect that. Our third was starved to the point of near death then thrown in a dumpster, you can't get more of a "reject" than that.

There are a ba-zillion dogs out there that are "pet quality" - they are in shelters and rescues all over the place - do we really need breeders producing more of them? Responsible breeders who are breeding for a specific purpose and placing dogs exactly where they need to be are NOT the ones who are the problem here.

I know of a breeder who routinely sold high drive dogs to completely inappropriate families knowing they would be returned... after being house broken, raised and have basic obedience. How charming. Those dogs could have ended up in a shelter just as easily as being returned. More intentionally bred dogs filling up shelters and rescues. Great.

I don't find culling to be a "fun" issue. I don't think it is enjoyed by any breeder (and if it is, they are sick individuals). I don't take this discussion lightly. I don't relish the thought of deciding which puppy should live and which one should not. That's why I don't breed. "Enjoying" something is VERY different than feeling it is necessary and just "dealing" with it as an unhappy reality.

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.

No, I don't consider spay/neuter to be culling. It is spaying and neutering. Culling is putting a puppy to sleep - yes, "killing" but just like saying they are "murdered" it's verbiage that is being used to add emotion and drama to an already difficult topic.

[LMM]

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.

And likewise, you don't know me well enough to assume I have my panties in a bunch or if I am "going off". Truce?

No, I get that it's to preserve and improve the breed! I do and like I said, I can see how it's necessary with medical and temperament issues. I think the callousness (as I see it) that is sometimes displayed is where my comfort level starts taking a nose dive. But again, this is why I will never breed. I'd keep them all, breed standards be damned. A life is more important than breed standards for me.

[LMM]

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.

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?

[mnp13]

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?

Well, I wasn't there of course, but it included guarding not the usual puppy-needs-a-manners-lesson, but the I-can't-believe-this-is coming-from-a-puppy-and-not-a-dog kind. As well as other behaviors that you wouldn't expect from a puppy but would see in an adult and just consider training and management. Mom corrections and sibling corrections - which would normally fix those behaviors - weren't effective. This is just what I remember being told, but it was a few years ago, and that's the jist of it. I know there were other things as well, but can't remember the details. I trust the judgement of the breeder on this, their temperament wasn't "flawed" per say, it was just out of line with the normal activity of their age. Riggs was number three in the "puppy attitude" lineup, and he's got enough for two dogs as an adult. I can't imagine what those other two would have been like!!!

In other words, what does a breeder look for in order to make this type of decision?

I don't think there is one answer for this. In a breed that is supposed to be very outgoing and confident, extreme shyness could be one thing. If the breeder is looking for conformation dogs (which is a different topic all together) it’s apparent early on if the dog is going to be suited for showing. Breeding is an art, which is why there is mentoring. I know a little bit about it from talking to experienced breeders, but to really judge things I think you have to have seen a lot of puppies and worked with a lot of dogs of the particular breed.

Can dogs with less-than-perfect structure or less-than-stellar temperaments make great pets? Of course, but there are millions of dogs who are not sound out there already. I think the point here is why intentionally add more to the mix?

Ruby is ramrod straight in the back end, very down in the pasterns, is east-west and has a fiddle front. Those are things that are genetic, since then she’s had other issues crop up and some of them are directly related to her bad structure – like arthritis in her elbow at the age of 3. I love my dog, and can’t imagine life without her, but frankly if her breeder wasn’t such an egotistical idiot (every dog he has ever produced is a “genetic masterpiece,” just ask him) her structure alone would have sealed her fate because he supposedly only breeds “superior working dogs.” We bought her as a performance dog, and went on the breeder’s word because we didn’t know better, her structure and temperament are anything but suited to performance. If we physically pushed her the way we do Riggs and Connor she would fall apart, she’s just not put together right.

How much of the temperament can be evaluated at a very early age is a question someone else will have to answer, but I know that it’s done quite reliably by people who know how.

(the following is a general observation not directed at anyone in particular) I know this is a controversial and difficult issue, and it’s hard to express thoughts and opinions on it without emotions taking over. However, name calling and nastiness just gets in the way of intelligent discussion. I would like everyone to consider your exact choice of words and tone as this thread continues. I think it’s great discussion, but talking about “murder,” belitting people on the opposite side of the topic and other stuff like that doesn’t further the discourse, it stops it. Thanks.

[LMM]

At this point I'm not actually looking to answer the question "why add more to the mix", ME personally I'm just not. I know, it was mostly a rhetorical question. Breeding in itself, in my opinion, can add more to the mix. And by more I mean homeless pets, contributing to an already insurmountable problem (at this point). Not many, if any, breeders out there can fully guarantee that their dogs will never, ever end up at a shelter. And obviously some do. 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]

I think what a breeder is looking for when making a decision about culling is going to vary from breeder to breeder. Some breeders never cull. And some do it very seriously on every litter. Some breeders don't even think about putting their offspring in other homes. Others are perfectly happy with spay/neuter contracts as long as the dog doesn't have any temperamental issues or medical problems that will be detrimental to its quality of life. Some breeders will keep the dogs with the "issues" and try to work with them to give them some kind of life. Some breeders decide to keep the entire litter until they are 6+ months old before deciding which ones to keep and which ones to place. Everyone is going to be a little bit different in their beliefs and approaches to culling. A lot of the decisions for the cull will be based on what the breeder's intended purpose of the breeding was. But I think, or I guess hope, that every breeder who culls thinks long and hard about what they are doing and do it with a purpose, not willy nilly just because it is something "responsible breeders do."

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. But then one of the pups in the litter has some medical/temp issue that you don't want to put on anyone else's shoulders. What do you do then? Do you forget about taking the first pick pup even though you may have been waiting for this kind of breeding for years? Do you rehome one of the other dogs on your yard to make room for the "damaged" pup (sorry, couldn't think of a better word)? Do you place the "damaged" pup for free with someone you know personally and who has proven themselves to be a responsible owner (obviously you would disclose whatever issues the pup happened to have to the prospective owner)?

Culling is not a black and white issue and I think that is part of the reason people have such a hard time with it. We're always wondering where is the line; at what point does this practice become cruel. But, really, I think that is something that all potential breeders need to decide for themselves because they are the ones who are going to have to live with those decisions.

[Jackuul]

I have a simple, but for me, way of looking at things. Overcomplicated ideas often breed gray areas, and while some issues are that way - for me, and in my opinion, culling is not one of them. If the dog has a fatal genetic disorder - one which it would not live to be even the age of 1 or 2, be hyper-aggressive, or anything else that would lead to excessive issues, then yes, culling is fine.

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. Rather, removing it from the genetic line, not papering it, and basically just saying it is undesirable for breeding purposes is as far as I would go, and offer it out for adoption for the fee of how much expense it was to raise it and have its vet stuff done.

If all misfits were culled, my Spot would have never graced my life. He had a crooked jaw, two teeth that jutted out like Dick Cheney, and he had two bad knees along with being born with "extra" back leg toes that had to be removed. He was a slow learner at times, he submissively peed everywhere until he was a year - and still dribbled until he was three if he got excited. He didn't know what hunting was, and when he would catch something (rabbits mostly in Omaha) he would lay down with it in his front paws and give it a "well now what?" kind of look. He was most certainly genetically inferior, but of all the dogs I have ever had - he was the one I consider the best and my favorite.

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.

I do understand quite plainly the need to prevent the excess numbers of dogs, and the current overpopulation problems and the poor quality controls now. However solving the problem has to be much larger than culling the undesirable from the breed, when rendering them sterile is just as effective in removing their possibility to pass on genetic information. What must be stopped is backyard breeders, mills, and things like that. That can be stopped with education, and also continuing the education of folks to spay and neuter their animals. Eventually I think we're going to see the numbers decrease, and I hope one day that shelters will across the board be half empty, rather than overflowing.

If an undesirable puppy, having been spayed or neutered, can find a home - why then deny it the opportunity to have a good life with someone who would care for it?

[mnp13]

How many BYBs do you think there are for every truly reputable breeder?

1,000 to 1, if not more. No exaggeration intended.

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 appreciate that and don't take it for granted. I'm just glad you're willing to see the other side (not to say you have to agree, just that you're willing to hear and consider)

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!!!"

And the difficult thing is knowing what is "learned" and what is just part of the genetic behavior of the dog. I am currently training two dogs that are siblings. One is a happy wiggle butt with an ultra soft, begging-to-please-you temperament who is just fun to be around. His brother is suspicious and withdrawn and when I started working with him, was just plain dangerous. For them, the difference was upbringing - one had gone straight to his current family, the other was in a household that "disciplined" him with a rolled up magazine and chucked him in a crate... or a closet. It's sad to see them together - one is what the other "should" have been. BUT sometimes those two dynamically different temperaments show up at 6 weeks, without outside influence, and that's what's really being discussed here.

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.

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.

And that's what we're talking about here. Some breeders don't feel that selling / giving away a dog that will die at 5 years of age as being the best thing for the dog or the family. And just like me with Ruby, you never would have known what you missed.

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

I don't think there is ever anything "easy" about culling.

[furever_pit]

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.

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]

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?

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.

[amazincc]

Okay... *sigh*...
For me, personally, this is a somewhat tough subject, I guess. If my choice of words have offended anyone I apologize.

My "problem" stems from me not being a big people-person, I guess... my dogs/pets are an intrical part of what makes up my family. I care for, and about, them, and I tolerate a LOT from those "family members" - just like I do from the human ones.
I try to "fix" things that aren't up to standards, as best as I can... Mick being a great example. In the breeder world Mick should've never even been born, never mind be allowed to live once he was here.
Yet I can't imagine my life without him, seriously. To me he had potential... I just had to look a little harder. And you all know what a love story that turned into...
The other thing is... I was born and raised in Germany. Part of my family was "culled" by Hitler long before I was born.
I know that we're talking apples and oranges here, but the terms "culling" and "selective breeding" will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.
If you aren't prepared to care for the living, breathing being that YOU (as in general you) help bring into this world, because it's not up to standard (whatever that may mean to the individual)... then you have no business being in the business.
I am NOT against humanely euthanizing a puppy who has a painful/life-threatening condition at birth, but that's as far as I'd be willing to go.
I'm not comfortable "playing God" and deciding who lives and who doesn't... never have been, never will be. Even when it's "just an animal".

[furever_pit]

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.

I would never advocate euthing a dog just because someone doesn't have room. That is certainly not at all what I meant. IMO euthanasia is a last resort, to be preceded by a number of other efforts first.

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?

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.

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.

I also think that in my original example that keeping a "damaged" pup from a litter is different from taking a dog back from an owner. IMO dogs with temperamental issues require more time and effort than a stable dog. Just because someone does not have the ability to keep said pup does not mean that they cannot provide a long-term or even lifetime home for a healthy animal. Honestly, most of the people I know take dogs back not because of any health or temperamental issues but because the owner was no longer able to care for them, or decided they were not cut out for bulldogs. I guess that is where culling and taking dogs back goes hand in hand, huh?

[amazincc]

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.

Then the set-up needs to be improved. That would be the responsible thing to do, IMO.

Responsibility = accountability... The obligation for the proper custody, care, and safekeeping of property or funds entrusted to the possession or supervision of an individual.