Fear_the_Sheeple wrote:When people are completely set on a purebred dog w/ papers for a pet, you refer them to a responsible breeder, correct? There are always those people who are convinced a purebred w/papers puppy is going to be better than a rescue so you say fine, I'll refer you to a responsible breeder so you don't go support a byb. So what if all responsible breeders culled pet-quality pups? Where would those people go? BYBs or pet stores, right? There would be no other choice. Obviously not all responsible breeders cull pet-quality pups, but I'm hearing that people think this is a good practice.
I think there is a market for purebred pet dogs, and that if there weren't any, all it would do is send more people to bybs and pet stores.
babyreba wrote:I'm saying is, is it right for me to actively go to a shelter, take animals into my foster program and after figuring out which I liked best, put the rest to sleep? I personally don't think it is. But I equate that to the rescue version of what breeder culling is about. Like POP said, if you can't provide for a life you bring into the world, you shouldn't bring it into the world. Likewise, I do think if this were a different circumstance and a rescue org. posted a litter of pups they picked up and told everyone that they were only going to adopt out the cute ones and PTS the rest, the entire board would be in uproard. Not that this topic didn't create uproar where it was posted, but still . . . I'm not naive, but I am a bit surprised how accepting people are of this practice.
babyreba wrote:So basically, I'm judging all breeders who, in this modern day and age, cull based on looks and conformation.
babyreba wrote:When people thought Diane Jessup may have euthed Guppy based on the fact that she may have been too soft, temperament wies, for the work Diane wanted her to do, people seemed to be upset about that. And the implication was that, if she did so for that reason, it was inappropriate.
babyreba wrote:Why would that be inappropriate if it's OK for a breeder to cull?
babyreba wrote:Again, I'm not trying to argue, I genuinely want to know.
I guess I just don't see the rationale in purchasing a pedigreed dog from a breeder (especially in these times of overpopulation crisis) if you are not going to work the dog, or show the dog as breeding prospect. I won't spend my money for a pedigreed pet. JMO
Fear_the_Sheeple wrote:There are people, however, who insist on a pedigree.
So I wouldn't say that everyone out for a pet quality dog from a responsible breeder is just in it for the peds.
Fear_the_Sheeple wrote:So I wouldn't say that everyone out for a pet quality dog from a responsible breeder is just in it for the peds.
I agree. I was basically talking about John Q. Public who wants a purebred dog, and referring them to go to a responsible breeder rather than a byb. They initially didn't know the difference, but just wanted a purebred dog.
Your example is another good reason why I think responsible breeders should keep their pet-quality pups.
SisMorphine wrote:But then I remember that I, myself, want a pet quality and not a show quality. My two halfs collide.
mnp13 wrote:SisMorphine wrote:But then I remember that I, myself, want a pet quality and not a show quality. My two halfs collide.
Do you 'want' a pet quality, or would you 'accept' a pet quality?
I don't mean that in an arguementative way. If there were two pups left from a litter and everything else being equal, would you definately go for the dog that was less 'flashy'?
(Personally, I think underbites are cute)
mnp13 wrote:Connor was walking on three legs while he peed.
Red wrote:Well, some people (like myself) choose to put those emotions aside to make the decision from a different perspective.
No point discussing this farther, at least for me.
What if these breeders have a child and god forbid there is something wrong and the child is less then perfect will that child be culled?
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot]