# Breeding taboo



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I'm not a breeder but I'm interested in hearing from those that are about subjects that appear to be, or to have become, taboo. I mean things like close line-breeding/inbreeding, culling, etc. Is breeding really matching pedigrees and everything comes out all rainbows and unicorns because it looked right on paper? More than once I've had people tell me that certain successful kennels can attribute part of that success to practices such as strict culling and things that make most armchair breeders start calling people "unethical" and labels like that. Is there still a time and place for these types of practices?


----------



## ShenzisMom (Apr 27, 2010)

I think so. Culling is important to keep the gene pool strong. Mind you, I see juvie speutering as a cull as well. For a puppy that had no place in the world (physical deformities affecting quality of life) I would humanely cull. If I noticed a pups temperament was way, way off I would get a second opinion and cull.

Of coarse its so easy to say, harder to do these things. I am not a breeder and have no interest in it because of the heartbreaking decisions that must be made


----------



## Wolfgeist (Dec 4, 2010)

I strongly disagree with culling, I'd prefer to see the animals inappropriate for breeding spayed/neutered and placed in pet homes. The puppies that breeders produce are their responsibility and they need to man up to the decisions they make, rather than murdering innocent animals that have no control of their lives. I really think fantastic breeding can be successful without the horrid practice of culling.

I also believe that inbreeding is very unnecessary. There is a wide variety of dogs available for breeding, I'm sure breeders can find the traits and characteristics they need without inbreeding.

In my opinion, the world of "strict culling" is a world of greed, cruelty, and insensitivity to sentient beings.


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

Wild Wolf said:


> I strongly disagree with culling, I'd prefer to see the animals inappropriate for breeding spayed/neutered and placed in pet homes. The puppies that breeders produce are their responsibility and they need to man up to the decisions they make, rather than murdering innocent animals that have no control of their lives. I really think fantastic breeding can be successful without the horrid practice of culling.
> 
> I also believe that inbreeding is very unnecessary. There is a wide variety of dogs available for breeding, I'm sure breeders can find the traits and characteristics they need without inbreeding.
> 
> In my opinion, the world of "strict culling" is a world of greed, cruelty, and insensitivity to sentient beings.


:thumbup:


----------



## qbchottu (Jul 10, 2011)

I too agree with culling defective or genetically unstable young. Breeders have and still do cull pups they feel are not fit to live. Genetic abnormalities, severe birth defects, significant temperament/nerve/health issues that cannot be rehabilitated...these animals should be culled imo. 

Inbreeding/linebreeding has produced the breeds we see today and some great dogs. The unfortunate side of close genetics is to produce genetic abnormalities...these should be culled. 

It's easy for us to say we never would do these things when sitting back. But when actually faced with these genetically unsuitable animals with painful and debilitating issues, I think many of us would change our minds towards practices that we would rather not think about...


----------



## Nikitta (Nov 10, 2011)

Totally agree with WildWolf


----------



## m1953 (May 7, 2012)

Wild Wolf said:


> I strongly disagree with culling, I'd prefer to see the animals inappropriate for breeding spayed/neutered and placed in pet homes. The puppies that breeders produce are their responsibility and they need to man up to the decisions they make, rather than murdering innocent animals that have no control of their lives. I really think fantastic breeding can be successful without the horrid practice of culling.
> 
> I also believe that inbreeding is very unnecessary. There is a wide variety of dogs available for breeding, I'm sure breeders can find the traits and characteristics they need without inbreeding.
> 
> In my opinion, the world of "strict culling" is a world of greed, cruelty, and insensitivity to sentient beings.


Well said. Thanks


----------



## marbury (Apr 3, 2012)

Well, one one hand you can't argue with the effectiveness of culling. On the other hand, I personally have too big a heart to do that.

I think linebreeding is a tool to be wielded expertly or to disastrous end; more often than not we seem to see the latter. But it has its place, as do most genetic experiments.


----------



## m1953 (May 7, 2012)

I have no proof but I have heard that this culling happens a lot with these new designer breeder where for example a labadoodle is culled because his coat isn't right.


----------



## NewbieShepherdGirl (Jan 7, 2011)

qbchottu said:


> Inbreeding/linebreeding has produced the breeds we see today and some great dogs. The unfortunate side of close genetics is to produce genetic abnormalities...these should be culled.


I don't breed dogs, but my family breeds show lambs, and this is what I have found to be the case with this topic: 

I agree with what you say except that the unfortunate side of close genetics is to produce genetic abnormalities. This _can_ sometimes be the case, but really the likelyhood of it happening are very very slim, only slightly higher than breedings between "random" dogs (or people for that matter). What one does have to be careful of is certain ailments present in the breed, and making sure that they do not exist in both the sire and the dam before breeding them. In this case, yes something carried by the father is likely carried by the daughter, and consequently they should not be bred, but the same could be true of any two dogs. 

Where most people get hung up with inbreeding/line breeding is the ick factor. We(not talking about you specifically just people in general) humanize is, but dogs aren't people. They don't have a familial bond, which is what makes inbreeding so abhorrent in humans. 

Breeding should be done carefully, regardless of which two animals you are breeding, and that's really the long and short of it.

As far as culling goes, the only lambs we ever killed (before a time when it would be normal to send them off to a meat locker) were lambs that had severe birth defects, that would have made quality of life impossible. Fortunately that didn't happen often. It is my opinion that dogs only be culled when this is the case, due to physical or mental issues that are unfixable, or too risky to attempt to fix.


----------



## Wolfgeist (Dec 4, 2010)

I don't mind experienced breeders linebreeding on certain legendary dogs. 5-5 is probably the minimum I would want to see, personally. That certainly is how all dogs originated, but I definitely do not think inbreeding is necessary anymore. Continuing the bottleneck the breed genetically will no longer improve it. Genetic diversity is healthy. There are so many dogs to choose from, there will always be good dogs to use that aren't related to your breeding dog.


----------



## qbchottu (Jul 10, 2011)

Lies specifically asked about linebreeding/inbreeding and culling, which do tend to produce genetic defects at a higher rate. Every breeding is a probability and "can" potentially produce a defect, close breeding or not. It's a genetic roll of the dice each time and you can stack the decks in your favor, but that doesn't mean something abnormal won't happen. That wasn't my point with my statement. My point is that even within individual breeds within a species, you have narrowed down the gene pool. The dog is the species, we have interbred to produce breeds that tend to have the same types of traits. These breeds are bred over and over with other purebreds of the same breed so you are mixing the same types of genes over and over, in a way breeding closely. No one breeds closely hoping for genetic abnormalities, these problems arise out of the close genetics. People breed closely hoping to produce the next "big thing". Sometimes it's positive, sometimes not. 

And for many polygenic traits and diseases (say for example HD), multiple factors can contribute to a disease trait. So even if one KNEW that the parents didn't exhibit the traits, you can still produce genetic duds. Parents can be a stamped and excellent health-wise, but that doesn't mean you can't have a severely immobilized pup coming out of that cross. My statement was regarding what we do with these duds. You can either home them to someone understanding of the situation if said situation can be managed, or the breeder should keep or cull the animal. For most breeders, even the kindest/sweetest ones, they cannot keep every wash out or defective animal. Otherwise, you would be out of business very quickly. If I were a breeder, I would never knowingly home a genetically defective animal to someone. I would do what is best for the animal first. If euthanasia is the best course of action, it should be done. Not for the breeder's well-being or to preserve anyone's feelings, but because it is in the best interest of the animal. 

Yes, breeding should be done by people that understand the nuances and intricacies of the subject. But even knowledgeable and experienced breeders produce duds. It's unavoidable when you are concentrating a particular gene pool and carrying out artificial selection. I do believe a breeder is responsible for what happens to all the puppies they produce. If there are reasons to cull, spay/neuter or not sell to the general public, the breeder should do it because it is their responsibility. They brought this creature into the world, they owe it to see that the animal's best interests are carried out.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

Wild Wolf select any show line pedigree --- what do you see.

Culling does not mean destruction it means removal from breeding , no new or next generation , end of the line.


----------



## marbury (Apr 3, 2012)

carmspack said:


> Culling does not mean destruction it means removal from breeding , no new or next generation , end of the line.


Thanks for the clarification, I was under the assumption that SNAP wasn't considered culling. That changes my opinion on the topic; if there's no unnecessary euthanization than I am 100% for culling. In my opinion most dogs should not be bred. That does not make them less valuable to their loving families or less awesome, it just keeps the breed going in a controlled direction in responsible hands.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

My curiosity is also stemmed from constantly hearing two different things. On one hand I've heard a lot of breeders talking about upcoming planned breedings and how they are "Excited to see what they get" because they have other future plans for the dog or bitch that are determinant upon the result of prior breedings (am I making any sense?). Then on the other hand all I hear is people saying you can only breed dogs that are X-age and have Y-titles and have XYZ combination in their pedigree but not this or that linebreeding, yadda yadda. So how much of breeding is done on paper and how much is being willing to take that risk that might involve great success based on the interpretation of the pedigree or disaster that should be culled? How do you KNOW which combinations work and which don't if no one is taking the risk and gathering that information by actually doing the breedings and trying to make an objective assessment of the results? Like I hear people say "well so-and-so is a great stud but only when combined with bitches from this line" so I can only assume that some breeders along the way got the successful litters and some didn't but we're all better for it.

You can use the word "cull" as you wish. To me it means putting down the dog because I don't see breeders who are spaying/neutering dogs at 7-8 weeks before they go home and I'm not interested in debating "contracts" (already threads on that).


----------



## Wolfgeist (Dec 4, 2010)

carmspack said:


> Wild Wolf select any show line pedigree --- what do you see.
> 
> Culling does not mean destruction it means removal from breeding , no new or next generation , end of the line.


I know what I see, thank you. I don't support heavy linebreeding or inbreeding. End of story. This is a thread about opinions and I am sharing mine.

I was under the impression culling means killing, or at least for this thread it does.


----------



## qbchottu (Jul 10, 2011)

Lies, I understand what you mean. On one hand, on this forum for example, a lot of (as you called them ) armchair breeders will swear by certain hard and fast rules: must be 2+, must have a working title, must be HOT, must be breed worthy, must be exceptional with great hips, can't be linebred, and so on. 
In the "real" world, these rules are hardly ever followed exactly. I liken it to people obsessed with fantasy football that know all of the stats, the players, who would do best where and how it should all be done. But in the real world, it's the players and coaches that make the decisions and there are a lot of things that go on behind the scenes that the general public isn't aware of like drug use, insider trading, gambling, hit bonuses, comfort girls etc. Similarly, if every breeder followed these very high standards set by armchair breeders, there would be very few good dogs produced. 

I know several good breeders and none of them follow these rules exactly. They produce good dogs, I trust them and their dogs and believe in their breeding programs. I know breeders cull/euthanize to a certain extent. They don't cull like they did in the old days when they might cull for a certain size litter. And even then, the extras might go to surrogates. The reasoning was that you are using up a dam's precious resources on a pup that is pet quality at best. 
Why would anyone cull for litter size these days? There are great supplements to compensate for the mother if the litter size is big. Each pup goes for a minimum of 1-1.5k so that's getting rid of profit if you culled indiscriminately. Breeders PTS when there is a reason to do so, otherwise they do their best to save each and every pup. Breeders will euthanize in the best interest of the dog involved. 

Also speaking about titles/ratings/etc, many breeders (considered reputable by board members and the general public) breed untitled dogs, send dogs to Germany to be titled, produce litters for profit and do things that would be frowned on by armchair breeders. There is a difference between actually being in the midst of it versus sitting back and theorizing about what should be....

Culling is necessary when you are carrying out artificial selection. When natural selection is not at work, the breeder has to grade the litter and decide who is breed worthy and who is not. I bet most breeders with severely deformed pups just PTS right then and there. We won't ever even hear about any deformed ones. It's kept quiet.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Maybe people are getting too caught up with culling, that's not really what I mean to discuss.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Think of it this way....you buy a nice female because down the road, you intend to breed her to a dog called Bob. Now, Bob is a really tough dog and he himself embodies what you want in a GSD, but you've also found out that in certain combinations (females), Bob sometimes produces some undesireable traits. You believe based on what you know from previous breedings that your female's pedigree *should* compliment Bob and hopefully bring out what you want, but you just aren't entirely sure and don't really want to produce a litter of maniacal handler-aggressive dogs, so you are thinking of *first* breeding your female to another dog that is similar to Bob and has been producing similarly but maybe isn't known to have quite the same level of the traits that you like in Bob. I'm just totally making this up....but while it seems no one ever talks about it, stuff like this happens all the time and I'm wondering why it's considered so bad?


----------



## PatchonGSD (Jun 27, 2012)

What exactly is culling? It sounds terrible.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

PatchonGSD said:


> What exactly is culling? It sounds terrible.


Culling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> *Culling* is the process of removing breeding animals from a group based on specific criteria. This is done either to reinforce certain desirable characteristics or to remove certain undesirable characteristics from the group. For livestock and wildlife alike, culling usually implies the killing of the removed animals.


----------



## qbchottu (Jul 10, 2011)

Liesje said:


> Think of it this way....you buy a nice female because down the road, you intend to breed her to a dog called Bob. Now, Bob is a really tough dog and he himself embodies what you want in a GSD, but you've also found out that in certain combinations (females), Bob sometimes produces some undesireable traits. You believe based on what you know from previous breedings that your female's pedigree *should* compliment Bob and hopefully bring out what you want, but you just aren't entirely sure and don't really want to produce a litter of maniacal handler-aggressive dogs, so you are thinking of *first* breeding your female to another dog that is similar to Bob and has been producing similarly but maybe isn't known to have quite the same level of the traits that you like in Bob. I'm just totally making this up....but while it seems no one ever talks about it, stuff like this happens all the time and I'm wondering why it's considered so bad?


Happens all the time and I certainly don't think it is negative. Breeders do test litters on an untitled bitch's first litter with a proven stud. Most breeders won't want to waste the time on a bitch that doesn't produce well. It's one thing to be a great dog, but an entirely different thing to be a good producer. Some of the most unremarkable dogs I've seen are the ones that produce well. They might breed an unproven stud to their own kennel bitch so you can get some pups out there to prove what he can produce. We do a lot of theorizing here, but practically it works out differently in the real world where breeders do have to take these gambles to figure out what works and what doesn't


----------



## 4TheDawgies (Apr 2, 2011)

I see a lot of breeders taking the risks, they just lay low about it so as people don't jump down their throat for doing it.

"You will never please everyone" would apply in this case. 

When I first started learning about everything in dogs, I was hellbent on dogs being titled. But this is the real world. There are dogs that many breeders breed with titles and the whole package, but _produce complete duds_.
_- (I personally attribute this to the parent being trained like a monkey to perform fancy tricks. The dog didn't have ALL of the abilities, so it was trained to appear it had the abilities. I have seen it with my own eyes... 

Its the trainer that made the dog, not the other way around. )_

Then we have breeders who breed dogs without all of the bells and whistles. Who manage to produce dogs who go on to great things. Is this the case with great trainers making great dogs? Or is it the dogs themselves? 

Did the breeder take a risk breeding a dog without bells and whistles because they have an in depth understanding of the pedigree and the inner workings of the dogs to know what that dog is bringing to the table? It requires a great deal of trust, to put into a breeder who breeds a dog without titles. But the right person has the potential to do it. The titles are to prove the dog to other people, and to help the owner/breeder learn (potentially learn more) through the work and time what the dog is and brings. There are other ways to do this with a dog, that don't require a title. 
I am by no means justifying people not titling their dogs. I think its a rare thing to find someone who can read a dog so thoroughly that they don't need titles, and even then I still believe they should title the dog to learn even more than they thought. 

Back to breeders and taking risks. Sometimes to find out whats going on with your lines, you do have to take a risk. To find out if a bitch produces crap. If one of your dogs carries a dangerous recessive etc.

IMO every litter is a gamble no matter what. 
The saying: "Puppies are all a crap shoot" comes to mind. 

No matter what the pedigree says, no matter what the parents are like, at the end of the day it comes down to: *when sperm hits egg, what does it create? *
There are so many variations of what people THINK are good. Then within the average of what people consider is "good" there are variations that go into making that dog (threshold levels, drive levels, structure variations etc.) that if you do your homework and breed (and I am simplifying this to an extreme level) "_good to good_" or "_excellent to good_" or even "_excellent to excellent_", you raise your chances for a better dog.

The whole idea of "Regression toward the mean" comes to mind here.
Regression toward the mean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The farther away from the average (the more extreme), the harder it is to reproduce. Look at VA dogs for example. Setting aside the fact that politics have played a massive role in how a dog makes it to VA. 

Lets play pretend that ALL of the VA dogs earned every VA they got because of structure. How many VA dogs are actually produced from that VA dog's parents. 
If you think about the regression toward the mean, statistics say that most of the dogs produced will always go towards the average. 

So if you breed two VA dogs, you are more likely to see those dogs produce "less than themselves" because they are higher than the average, where as lower end dogs would produce "better than themselves" making them look like better producers.
Just some food for thought



back onto the original subject, 
I think breeders are hard on other breeders, (especially in this breed) because they are a competition first and foremost. Everyone thinks what they are doing with their breeding program is the best. No matter what, there is always a confirmation bias at play. 

The other part is, nobody has the same idea. Everyone has different ideas of what the German Shepherd should look like, let alone how the inner workings should be. 
What one person considers "saving the breed" or preventing further dilution of the gene pool, another person would consider immoral and asinine. 

My opinion, for what little it may be worth is this: Meet the parents of the dogs you plan to buy. If the dog has titles fantastic, what are the scores, watch the dog work, learn about their lives, upbringing, and training. Are they trained by a top notch trainer? Does this make the dog appear better than it really is? Test the dog for things YOU care about. If you care about getting a dog like "Bob", instead of breeding TOO Bob, why not find out WHAT CREATED BOB himself? How can you recreate that without the issues Bob presents, and minimizing the potential for different issues?

Find out where that strength is coming from, Find out what the rest of his litter mates turned out like. Is he a fluke from this breeding? How do you continue to have more consistent litters of dogs LIKE Bob? Are you the only one who likes Bob? If so, why? Or is he known around the world for being a good breed specimen. If so, why?

Then also, when you try to create dogs LIKE Bob, you DO have to test things out with different pairings to find out what specifically made Bob. If you don't try, you will never know. 

Are the people that like him, people who have actually met him? Or have they played armchair professionals for a while. 

Everyone has opinions, But it comes down to what the individual breeder is striving for in their breeding program. Do you agree with it? Do you like what they are consistently producing? If so, go for it. 

I would much rather go with a breeder who consistently breeds dogs of a type that I can not only appreciate but greatly support and love, even if it means they do take risks for the greater good, to accomplish their goals. Than a big name kennel who inconsistently produces dogs of extreme types, and the rest are a massive crap shoot of nerve bags, fear biters, and health problems galore, who never take risks.


----------



## PatchonGSD (Jun 27, 2012)

wildo said:


> Culling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



oh, I guess I could have googled it, lol thanks.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think of culling as putting down an otherwise healthy dog because of a conformation or perhaps temperament fault that, had the pup not been culled, would have affected his quality of life very little. And I see that as wrong. If a breeder produces a fault, then they need to find a pet home for the dog and sell it without papers or with a limited registration, or they should keep the dog. 

I think that putting an animal down that has a severe disability, physical or temperament is the responsibility of the breeder and if a breeder cannot or will not put an animal down that ought to be put down, they should never breed again. Where that line is drawn though, is really debatable. I think that something where surgery or pain management might allow the dog a decent quality of life, it is really up to the breeder to make hard choices. I would hope that a breeder would give temperament some time and training, but, the longer you keep a pup, the harder it is to give them up. Still, I have not seen a pup with such a poor temperament that euthanasia would be the first choice. So again, this is really up to the breeder. 

A breeder who culls to prevent others from seeing that he produced a white or blue or timid dog, as the book The German Shepherd Today by Winifred Strickland and Jimmy Moses suggests, well, I guess I am just not old school enough to like that kind of thinking. 

Inbreeding, well, I am kind of on the fence about that. If someone has loads of knowledge about the entire line, all the way back, what they produce, what their strengths and weaknesses were, longevity and health, and they have a good reason for doing it, I don't have a problem. 2-3 is a little close, you gotta know what you are doing. 3-3, if the dog or dogs are exceptional and the breeder is looking to produce what it is those dogs have, I am not against it. 

If a breeder produces a mixed litter by accident and chooses to euthanize them, I think that is pretty disgusting. If they let their bitch get pregnant by an unknown dog, and they spay her rather than allow her to give birth to a mixed litter, I am ok with that. If a breeder lets their bitch get pregnant by a dog of a different breed and sells the pups as some sort of oodle or other crazy name for a cross breed, that is just foul.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

qbchottu said:


> I too agree with culling defective or genetically unstable young. Breeders have and still do cull pups they feel are not fit to live. Genetic abnormalities, severe birth defects, significant temperament/nerve/health issues that cannot be rehabilitated...these animals should be culled imo.


I agree. And if a breeder doesn't have the stones to euthanize a pup that's suffering, they shouldn't be breeding at all. Sometimes tough decisions need to be made and things need to be done, no matter how unsavory or upsetting they may be. Breeding carries with it a heavy responsibility, and good breeders take responsibility for the lives they bring into the world. 

Culling doesn't necessarily mean killing--it simply means taking an animal out of the gene pool. If such an animal still has reasonably solid health and temperament, it can be spayed/neutered and placed in a pet home. Things like low drive, poor pigmentation, overbite, etc. are things you don't want to pass along, but they do not lessen the quality of life for the animal and often make no difference to someone looking for a companion dog. Even things like mild hip dysplasia or pannus can be managed in a conscientious pet home. 

But if the dog has crippling dysplasia, megaesophagus, neurological issues, severe fear/neurosis/aggression, etc., you cannot in good conscience pass this poor mess on to someone else to deal with. If the dog is going to have a dismal quality of life and/or is a danger to itself and others, a good breeder will step up to the plate and euthanize. It really sucks, and it's really hard, no doubt about it--but bottom line, it's in the best interest of the animal (and sometimes public safety).

Some breeders have harsher criteria for culling, and it is more widely practiced in some breeds than others. I don't agree with the old-school practice of drowning newborn puppies that are born the wrong color, or things like that, in order to pull a cover-up.


----------



## Doc (Jan 13, 2009)

Breeding is an art AND science. It requires full submersion in the science of genetics and an appreciation of tactile qualities and the smarts to figure out what came from where. Unfortunately, many "breeders" do not understand the science nor the art. They breed for personnel preference and various reasons. All the titles in the world can not compensate for in depth study and understanding of this breed and the dogs that can be bred to produce for future generations. JMO


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think the term cull has changed in meaning over the years to something more acceptable. When Max or Strckland/Moses discussed culling, they were specifically talking about selecting which pups to put down. In the Strickland book it states, it is one thing when you have a liver, blue, white or weak pup, but when all the pups seem to be of equal quality... she was discussing the practice of culling the litter to get it down to a manageable size for the dam.

I have a bitch with nine puppies, and it is true that for her that is a lot of puppies to feed. But her dam took on ten and gained weight in the process. When Max put in his book his average weights, his litter sizes were 4 pups to 7 pups. No more than 7. And for years if a bitch had more than seven you would need to find a surrogate -- not exactly easy, or cull. And cull meant kill. Let's not go into the particulars on how it was suggested to kill as that is off topic. 

But now in the days when the princess kisses the frog instead of dashing him against the wall; the woodcutter opens the wolf's gullet and out pops granny all alive and such; and The Rescuers are a bunch of clothed mice -- my nieces were horrified when I told them I was trapping mice and killing them, I suppose the term cull has to now mean to remove from the gene pool, drop from your breeding program. I guess I have a number of culls at my place. They have names, titles, and eat an awful lot though.


----------



## Lakl (Jul 23, 2011)

This thread seems to be in correlation to an earlier thread I posted, but has attracted more people, so I will ask again. In regards to temperament, in an extremely young litter of pups, how does a breeder go about determining a pup that warrants culling? Like unstable aggression or extremely weak nerves? Can this be determined before a pup is ready to go at 8wks of age?


----------



## bunchoberrys (Apr 23, 2010)

I've known 3 breeders, 3 different breeds. One bred Danes, another Dobes, and the last one was Aussies. And these breeders were not your back yard breeder, very well known and respected in their breed clubs. These breeders chose the vet that I worked for because he is well known for doing awesome work on ear crops and tails. I cannot tell you, and this sickens me, how many new born pups we had to euthanize for the fact that they were born a blue (Danes, and Dobes) or all white ( Dobs, Aussies). Especially, the Dane breeder. One instance she brought her pregnant bitch in for a scheduled c-section. She was so excited about this breeding for the fact she bred her Champion Mantle bitch to the top Harlequin male who was U.S and Canadian champion. X-rays showed 10 pups. We delivered 10 pups. All born alive. The staff was of course ecstatic, that there was no deaths nor complications. 
Well, until the breeder came back to check on the bitch and her pups. You see, six out of the 10 pups were blues, 1 mantle, 3 harlequin. On the spot she demanded the blues to be euthanized. We pleaded with her to change her mind, but she was dead set. My vet said, it was her choice. He didn't want to lose a good client, and she was a "good, responcible breeder". So he euthanized them. And the sad thing was she demanded to be present during the euthansia "just to make sure". She never cried, shown no grief, her attitude was her name and Kennel was more important and that she will never have a "blue" in her lines. I cannot tell you the disgust she had for those puppies. She just kept ranting how blues screw up the breed with "all their faults". Needless to say I was so sickend emotionally and physically after that. I upped and left for the day.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

I just had a club member tell me he planned to cull ( kill) extra puppies over 5 in an upcoming litter. He would make his decision based on size at 3 days old.


----------



## 4TheDawgies (Apr 2, 2011)

gagsd said:


> I just had a club member tell me he planned to cull ( kill) extra puppies over 5 in an upcoming litter. He would make his decision based on size at 3 days old.


OMG there are no words


----------



## qbchottu (Jul 10, 2011)

Lakl said:


> This thread seems to be in correlation to an earlier thread I posted, but has attracted more people, so I will ask again. In regards to temperament, in an extremely young litter of pups, how does a breeder go about determining a pup that warrants culling? Like unstable aggression or extremely weak nerves? Can this be determined before a pup is ready to go at 8wks of age?


From what I know, culling newborns is reserved for obvious genetic defects like missing limbs, blindness/deafness, severe bite issues, genetic diseases that render the pup unable to live a normal life.

Here are some examples and pictures of birth defects. *Don't look if this type of thing bothers you.*
http://www.ans.iastate.edu/faculty/george/acc/ans224/exam2material/growth_dev.pdf
Fetal Development & Congenital Defects in Dogs
birth and developmental anonymalies
Merck Veterinary Manual this is just for teeth, but you can punch in "developmental abnormalities" or "congenital defects" for examples of what can go wrong with the other organ systems
Whelping Puppies Congenital Defects missing toe
http://www.myinterestingfiles.com/images/2008/04/littlefaith_1.jpg no front legs
http://cdn.backyardchickens.com/d/da/500x375px-LL-dad774e8_6756924643_6a4596164d.jpeg defective anus
Whelping - A Puppy Born with Intestines on the Outside of the Body intestines formed outside the body. gastroschisis and neural tube defects also occur commonly in humans

Dam can also accidentally do some damage that you might need to cull for. Say for example, she bites off a leg or gets too aggressive with biting the umbilical cord...it can result in injuries that require the pup to be PTS

Temperament and nerve will take time to judge. I don't think anyone would cull right off the bat for that. I recently saw a very nice female euthanized for severe nerve and temperament issues. She was a gorgeous dog...but a liability


----------



## Elektra2167 (Jun 18, 2012)

Wow, I can't imagine culling a pup at 3 days old because it was smaller than the others. How sad  Genetic defects, yes, but size?!
I have seen pups at 8 weeks old I wouldn't touch with a 30' pole. Just complete basket cases at that age, but I have no idea how they turned out. I suspect they were just as unstable as adults. Not sure when that first came out, or when you could tell. The litter owner said they would make great protection dogs, so I am guessing the litter owner didn't have a clue.


----------



## cindy_s (Jun 14, 2009)

Is breeding really matching pedigrees and everything comes out all rainbows and unicorns because it looked right on paper?

I'll speak to this question. I'm not a dog breeder, but I've spent a lifetime with racehorses. It's recently all about nicks and fashionable pedigrees. What has that gotten? Horses that can't stay sound through a 3 yr old campain. Everything that every thoroughbred does is documented from sales results to workouts to races. You can get a very good indication of what each horse (mare or stud) produces. Not so with dogs. "Experienced" breeders and handlers will only get to see a handful of dogs from any given male or female. IMO there is no way to make a blanket statement on progeny. Worst yet is making an opinion on a dog based on the 3rd or 4th generation from which it came. It would be hard to find a horse that does not have Northern Dancer or Mr Prospector in it's pedigree. Are they all world beaters. NO. I PERSONALLY think that the first generation (stud and bitch) should be evaluated and matched accordingly. Not based on if they have Tom or Troll or Mink in their bloodlines. There is simply not enough hard statics to accurately rate crosses especially in remote generations. There are too many variables and not enough documentation.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

cindy_s said:


> I PERSONALLY think that the first generation (stud and bitch) should be evaluated and matched accordingly. Not based on if they have Tom or Troll or Mink in their bloodlines. There is simply not enough hard statics to accurately rate crosses especially in remote generations. There are too many variables and not enough documentation.


Gosh it would be great if we had the documentation on every GSD that they do in the racehorse world.

I see what you're saying, and I agree that the lack of documentation and other variables make breeding difficult. But think your ideas must be where dog breeding and racehorse breeding differ. I know nothing of breeding racehorses, but with dogs, the pedigree DOES matter, as certain combinations of bloodlines do not mesh well, and a breeder needs to know what they are. Information is hard to come by in this breed, which is why a good GSD breeder spends a lifetime watching, studying, and learning the breed. Actually participating in shows, trials, work, etc. and personally knowing the dogs that show up in pedigrees for generations to come.

While the phenotype of the parents is important, I believe the genotype is just as important, and the only way you can know that is by understanding pedigrees, bloodlines, and what they produce. Otherwise, you have the typical backyard-bred, neurotic, fear-aggressive GSD, and that is why you see so many of them--there are so many BYBs that have no idea what pedigrees mean, they take any "nice" female and any "nice" male--maybe even jump through the hoops of OFA and everything--only to produce a bunch of neurotic, fear-aggressive pups. What happened? A master breeder will be able to look at the pedigree and know.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Freestep said:


> While the phenotype of the parents is important, I believe the genotype is just as important, and the only way you can know that is by understanding pedigrees, bloodlines, and what they produce. Otherwise, you have the typical backyard-bred, neurotic, fear-aggressive GSD, and that is why you see so many of them--there are so many BYBs that have no idea what pedigrees mean, they take any "nice" female and any "nice" male--maybe even jump through the hoops of OFA and everything--only to produce a bunch of neurotic, fear-aggressive pups. What happened? A master breeder will be able to look at the pedigree and know.


Sadly I'm starting to actually see a lot more of this. My club has an influx of working line sables coming in (two years ago my pup was the only sable working line in the club) and many of those dogs have temperament issues. Some with aggression but many with fear. Sable is the new in color, people read about SchH titles and go to those breeders, but some of them are just popping out puppies to gain on the craze. Many dogs have titled parents (don't know if they are breeder titles or if they just purchase the dog) but some don't have any titles and are clearly just producing these dogs.

I've noticed that regional breeding practices are a little different than what's discussed here, I've also only really discussed it with ASL breeders that are into conformation and not working. The one's I've spoken with that are working line breeders are much more like what is discussed on this forum as being acceptable and responsible. I have never heard of any breeder culling anymore (unless its for a genetic deformation), some have said they would put down an aggressive puppy before giving it to a family, but no one has really ran into that. I don't know what kind of aggression it would take at 8 months old to PTS a pup. I mean...maybe if its legitimately trying to kill it's littermates or something, but I find it hard to believe that happens a lot.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

decisions on culling do not happen in the whelping box unless the pup fails to thrive - then once upon a time that pup would be allowed to fail or helped along . I have several vintage collectible books describing methods of removal. The longer you are in dogs it is amazing , if you are receptive, how much the dogs themselves continue to teach YOU. The mother dog with her superior senses will outright reject a pup that may have something wrong with it . No matter how many times you interfere and place that pup at a teat she will nudge it away . 

Once upon a time dogs were USEFUL . The breeds were a deliberate attempt to predictably reproduce specific usefulness, whether it was the wandering shepherds dog or the English man's Jack Russells who needed to hunt vermin . The correctness and usefulness of the dog could only be determined later , past the juvenile stage. It could work or it could not. There was no room for useless dogs and depending on the situation , were either culled , in this case life taken , or given to an urbanite who had the luxury to keep such dogs. Look at the bigger picture of our human history. Life was, as the poet said, nasty , brutish and short . The person using the dog in the day to day employment in his livelihood made stern decisions in a continual search for a better helpmate . This critical decision making before "breed" and public record . I really do recommend a book BRED for PERFECTION by U of T prof Margaret Derry Bred for Perfection: Shorthorn Cattle, Collies and Arabian Horses since 1800 (2003) | Poplar Lane Press to get a perspective of the past with private breeding records and the results of breed and public breeding records , which is what "kennel clubs" are . 
My sister , over decades, was the owner of border collies that were culled because they could not inhibit prey behaviour and were sheep killers . Sans sheep the dogs were fine , well not entirely - they were far too locked into prey for me , would zone out . 

Horses and dogs can't be compared because dogs share a more complex life with us , more integrated , and are not selected for a single function such as run fast .


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

breeding decisions , once an anathema , now not even a consideration --- the "pit" bull .
ANY pit bull pup that showed aggression to humans was culled, destroyed . This was an anathema to the breed , rendering the ability of the handler to get in their to remove their dog when injured (or not) from the butcher's bull baiting pit or later the sport and betting ring of dog to dog combat .
The breed gets into the hands of those not using the dog for work, essentially pet breeders, and dogs with human aggression live and thrive and are bred from and to and here we are , with pit bulls with aberant behaviour contrary to their breed specific characteristics . And the rest is history.


----------



## Elektra2167 (Jun 18, 2012)

Freestep said:


> ......but with dogs, the pedigree DOES matter, as certain combinations of bloodlines do not mesh well, and a breeder needs to know what they are. Information is hard to come by in this breed, which is why a good GSD breeder spends a lifetime watching, studying, and learning the breed.


This is exactly why I will likely never breed GSDs. After spending 25+ years studying and breeding Mals, I can't even begin to imagine starting over with another breed and trying to sift through the pedigrees. That is what you pay a good GSD breeder for, because they have done all that.  The ones that can't or won't put in the time to learn and study to improve the breed, IMO have no business breeding.
There are some lines I won't touch because of stability or other issues. I just can't take the risk and have that in my breeding program. I know looking at the pedigrees that there are some combinations that are not going to do well. I also know that a breeder can do everything right, and some dogs just don't produce what one had hoped. However I do tell people if they are looking for a single purpose dog and all they want to do is *whatever* then they need to examine the dog as an individual and go from there. 

Sadly there are certain highly advertised kennels that about 4 or 5 months after one of their 5 - 10 litters for the year, I start getting calls from puppy people for "tech support".


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

I think Doc wrote a good post and Electra also ....among many good posts. 
To the OP I think at the end of the day you have to evaluate what breeders produce on a consistent basis....if a person doesnt do something my way and i consistently see that what they produce is equal or superior to me....than i want to know what they see or are doing that is consistently producing that result. I'm not much for opinions unless they are informed opinions. Informed opinions usually translate into results.
I must say that I have been incredibly lucky over the years in breeding and acquiring dogs based on analyzing the third, fourth and fith generation. I hope this luck never runs out....lol. I'm not even going to weigh in on breeding practices, but as i said you look at the end results....if you consistently have things going wrong, you probably shouldnt be breeding anyway(stuff happens in breeding that is not good, but not consistently), if you are too dogmatic with your thinking, then there's a lot of learning you are missing because you can learn something everyday about this breed. 
There is no right or wrong in breeding, there is results that benefit the breed and results that diminish it.


----------



## Jo_in_TX (Feb 14, 2012)

Culling protects the breeder's reputation more than the breed. You can protect the breed simply by spaying or neutering the pups; you don't have to kill them.

Unless quality of life is very much impaired, I see no valid reason to cull.


----------



## Gharrissc (May 19, 2012)

It seems like this breeder was more concerned about her reputation than anything else.I guess she doesn't realize how many blue Danes out there live great lives with no problems at all.Very sad.




bunchoberrys said:


> Well, until the breeder came back to check on the bitch and her pups. You see, six out of the 10 pups were blues, 1 mantle, 3 harlequin. On the spot she demanded the blues to be euthanized. We pleaded with her to change her mind, but she was dead set. My vet said, it was her choice. He didn't want to lose a good client, and she was a "good, responcible breeder". So he euthanized them. And the sad thing was she demanded to be present during the euthansia "just to make sure". She never cried, shown no grief, her attitude was her name and Kennel was more important and that she will never have a "blue" in her lines. I cannot tell you the disgust she had for those puppies. She just kept ranting how blues screw up the breed with "all their faults". Needless to say I was so sickend emotionally and physically after that. I upped and left for the day.


----------



## Moxy (Aug 3, 2012)

First of all, I am not a breeder. 

However, after reading some of these posts, I would have to say I am ok with euthanizing pups who would have no quality of life due to severe abnormalities. That would be the most humane thing to do. 

I also think that even the ones with temperment issues can be trained if someone takes the additional time and effort to train them. If you don't want that trait passed down, Woah or neuter the dog. My mother-in-law did. She has a shy male GSD. He has papers, but I would never want a pup from him. Never have seen a GSD who was afraid of people or other dogs from birth, but he is. So, she had him neutered. When we got Mox, she was spayed but had been bred previously. Not sure why as she was a shelter dog. I can only think that while her temperment and body structure were great, the fact that she has a ridiculously low immune system might have played a part.

There are certain traits that should not be allowed to continue in a breed, and the only way to ensure that responsibly is to either spay/neuter and adopt out or cull. In the wild, natural selection would play a big part. However, in the domestic world, the breeders have to be aware of all possibilities and breed responsibly.


----------

