# Saving weak/ill puppies



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

I didn't want to derail the other thread (more so than it has been already), but something Don said got me curious.

How many breeders save weak and/or sickly pups? Does this apply when your bitch has a litter larger than she can support?

I'm going to make a closed poll of this so I get an semi-honest feedback without anyone stressing over repercussion of their "breeding ethics" etc.

Now I'll give my personal opinion. I don't want to buy a pup from a dog that had problems whelping and that shows in their line that c-sections are the rule, not the exception. Nor would I want to buy a pup from a breeder who is saving gravely ill puppies or with genetic issues (cleft palate, etc). 

However, I feel that if a bitch has a litter larger than she cannot reasonably support, I don't have issue with a breeder that will supplement and rotate the pups on the bitch so they have a larger survival rate. IMHO, sickly pups even being supplemented with extra feedings are going to die if they're going to, and it's cruel to let them starve to death. Same goes for a bitch that gets sick after having puppies (say mastitis or uterine infection) - I don't feel it's wrong to supplement/bottle feed those puppies because it's not something that is genetically inherited, just a fact of life.

That's my take on it, what's yours?


----------



## Carmen van de Kamp (Apr 2, 2006)

I don't save weak pups, also I do not bottle feed with a nog litter, I just feed the female more than enough to take care of the pups. 
And I also wouldn't want a pup from a breeder that does that. 
As for C-sections, if needed at a time I will not breed that female again or use offspring for breeding as I believe labour weakness is heritable.


----------



## jack van strien (Apr 9, 2009)

I believe saving weak pups happens a lot,for a lot of breeders it is all about the money.Of course i do not think it is the right thing to do but there is not much you can do about it imo.As for extra feeding in a very large litter,i have no problem with that.There will also be cases in wich the bitch dies after giving birth i believe this has nothing to do with the quality of the pups and would bottle feed those pups.
In the show world those weaker pups would be called pet quality?
On the other hand if all breeders would cull inferior pups there would be very few dogs to go around,but keep in mind only a very small percentage of all dogs is being used as working dog.The pet related industry makes a gigantic amount of money.I have seen suggestions from dog food producers saying that it would be a very educational process for the kids if the family dog would have a litter of pups.
It is also very possible the strongest pup in the litter will develop hereditary problems later in life,as can the weakest pup.
All depends how you want to look at it i guess,


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Carmen van de Kamp said:


> I don't save weak pups, also I do not bottle feed with a nog litter, I just feed the female more than enough to take care of the pups.
> And I also wouldn't want a pup from a breeder that does that.
> As for C-sections, if needed at a time I will not breed that female again or use offspring for breeding as I believe labour weakness is heritable.


But do you rotate pups on the bitch if she has more than she has room for? I.e. my bitch has 10 nipples, if she had 15 pups, then obviously 5 pups every time are going to miss out (may not be the same pups over and over again) on a feeding. When my mom's dog had an exceptionally large litter we didn't supplement but we did rotate the pups out for feeding to make sure they all got fed - no puppies died. 

I have heard that some breeders "thin" the litter down to a reasonable number for the bitch to support instead though. To each their own but it's not something I feel I could do unless there were unhealthy littermates.


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

I don't believe in bottle feeding and or splitting up a too large litter. would go old school and cull down to a more reasonable number 6-8 puppies. There is such a thing of too much of a good thing! 
with regard to sickly or ill puppies would either let them fade away or depending the issue may assist mother nature to quicken the process. in the case of losing the mother for whatever (death, mastitis, eclampsia, tainted milk etc ) would then hand raise the litter.


----------



## andreas broqvist (Jun 2, 2009)

We cull week ore realy smal pupps ore pupps with defects taht you can se.
The other is up to the moter to take care of. I wuld not try to save a week pup, I have egnuff trubbet in geting the good ones in good home with a breed like this


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

I have very limited experience of breeding having only had two litters, one each of gsd and jack russell. The jrt litter had a weakly pup and subsequently was the pup I kept for myself, he had such a great temperament and personality and was full on, non stop busy. He started to develop allergies at around a year and then something else would crop up, I didn't want a sickly dog so I put him down at three years old, it broke my heart. 

I'm for swift culling of weakly puppies, I also would hope breeders would intervene with a bitch having trouble giving birth.....gotta be an effing painful and protracted way to die.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

same as Carmen..


----------



## Carmen van de Kamp (Apr 2, 2006)

I had a litter with 11, a first time mother, 8 nippels, no rotating and all grew up fine...during nursing time the pups are for the female to take care of.....I try to leave them alone as much as possible


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

The problem is that todays mindset is that dogs need our help to have pups. Rotating pups is a good example. I have seen pups so small that I couldn't believe they would make it. I let natural selection take over and you would be surprised how smart some of those little pups are. They don't feed with the others. They sleep and feed when the others are sleeping and usually makes some of the smartest of the bunch. People just have to try and fix something that is not broke until it is. Interesting answers and you folks looking for a dog.....think about it....who in their right mind would intentionally seek out breeders who go to great lengths to save all the offspring when they ar going to sell them to you.


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> The problem is that todays mindset is that dogs need our help to have pups. Rotating pups is a good example.


Eh, my mom's border collie was a shitty mother and didn't hang around long enough to let the ones that missed out the first time eat. She would have let the whole batch starve to death and they were healthy pups, and contrary to popular belief, it wasn't because we made more money with more pups - they were all given away.


----------



## Elisabeth Whetstone (Aug 9, 2009)

Ashley Campbell said:


> I didn't want to derail the other thread (more so than it has been already), but something Don said got me curious.
> 
> How many breeders save weak and/or sickly pups? Does this apply when your bitch has a litter larger than she can support?
> 
> ...


I concur. 

With my B litter, I had one pup that was about 1/2 the size of the others at whelping. He didn't have a suckling reflex at birth. I literally had him hovering over the water bucket, but could not bring myself to do the deed. 

The pups were born on a Sunday, and I spent until Wednesday trying to get food into him. Wednesday he started suckling. He aspirated milk, and consequently took fluid into his lungs. By Friday he was gravely ill. I took him to the vet for fluids/antibiotics. By Saturday morning, he was dead under a pile of vigorous puppies. 

That first week, I got no sleep, and the dam and the rest of the litter did not receive the attention they should have gotten because I was busy with the sickly pup. I would never do this again. 

I learned a very important lesson with that litter. If a pup is sickly, it's sickly, and I won't waste my precious time (not to mention money!) on it. 

My litters have been fairly large, averaging nine pups. I have been known to supplement once the pups are really hitting the saloon hard to make it a bit easier on mom, or if mom's milk doesn't let down right away. I've only done so sparingly.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Lynda Myers said:


> I don't believe in bottle feeding and or splitting up a too large litter. would go old school and cull down to a more reasonable number 6-8 puppies. There is such a thing of too much of a good thing!
> with regard to sickly or ill puppies would either let them fade away or depending the issue may assist mother nature to quicken the process. in the case of losing the mother for whatever (death, mastitis, eclampsia, tainted milk etc ) would then hand raise the litter.


Some insight on splittng large litters. The bitches will splitt the litter themselves. If given the opportunity, they will move some of the pups to another spot close by.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Some insight on splittng large litters. The bitches will splitt the litter themselves. If given the opportunity, they will move some of the pups to another spot close by.


do they then go back and forth? or some get left out? interesting observation...


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> do they then go back and forth? or some get left out? interesting observation...


The mothers rotate feeding themselves. I didn't realize what I was seeing the first time I saw it. Struts had 13/14 pups and I caught her trying to move them to a hople she had dug. I put the ones she had moved back twice but she persisted so I sat back to see what she was trying to do. Seeing what they do without my help is one reason I decided years back that they knew more about having pups than we do.

As a side note. Wild Bill was barking at his gate last this morning to get me out there. I went out on the deck and he barks some more and ran down to one of the dog houses. I knew that Cassidy had her Wild Bill pups last night and he wanted to show them to me so I threw on a coat and went to peek. I saw 6 very active pups and one expired. I don't think she is finished so I am going to leave her alone. It was 34 degrees when I went put there and I don't want to wast time looking until it warms up some.


----------



## Anna Kasho (Jan 16, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> I have seen pups so small that I couldn't believe they would make it. I let natural selection take over and you would be surprised how smart some of those little pups are. They don't feed with the others. They sleep and feed when the others are sleeping and usually makes some of the smartest of the bunch.


I had the exact same thing happen. The smallest rat-puppy survived though I did nothing to help... Too bad, she turned out to be the runt anyway. Far from working ability physically, mentaly "not all there" either, but her temperament is right on and she is a cute pet. Next time if I see the same signs I would probably cull it at birth...:?

I don't agree with culling early on just to make a litter more manageable sized - how do you know you didn't just bucket your best working prospect? :lol:


----------



## Debbie Skinner (Sep 11, 2008)

I've never helped the bitches whelp nor do I feed their young puppies or rotate them or clean them, etc. The mothers have no problem whelping and raising up to 11 puppies (largest litters that I remember). If there's a weak puppy then it dies during the first day(s). If there is a malformed pup then we cull it right away. 

I provide very good nutrition for bitch and very calm, clean, private area for her and the pups and she does the rest. I start offering food (raw) to the puppies sometime before 3 weeks of age a couple times per day. 

Right now we have a Beauceron raising 6 pups of her own and 1 gsd pup (last of a litter where the mother squished the rest). GSD is a friend of a friends. GSD pup is about 1+ week younger, but Beauce bitch took it like it was one of her own, which is normal for a good female imo. This was done as a "favor".


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Anna Kasho said:


> I don't agree with culling early on just to make a litter more manageable sized - how do you know you didn't just bucket your best working prospect? :lol:


That's what I was wondering too. Now I've heard of breeders that culled mismarks and what not at birth - but I never understood how you pick out puppies to cull that are as healthy as the litter-mates, just excess. Not when you might have just bucketed your best prospect like you said.

That's interesting to know Don, I've never seen a bitch do that. Pretty cool!

How many pups did you end up with this morning? Or still no official count?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Ashley Campbell said:


> That's what I was wondering too. Now I've heard of breeders that culled mismarks and what not at birth - but I never understood how you pick out puppies to cull that are as healthy as the litter-mates, just excess. Not when you might have just bucketed your best prospect like you said.
> 
> That's interesting to know Don, I've never seen a bitch do that. Pretty cool!
> 
> How many pups did you end up with this morning? Or still no official count?


SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.. TOO BIG..BITCH CAN'T HANDLE EM...KEEP WEIGHTS...PAY ATTENTION...REMOVE LOSERS....OR let the bitch or nature decide...

Don in my estimation if there is a question will a week or two and then tell us..hopefully...LOVE YOU DON... (not gay i swear....even with all the phone love we have had


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

*the real question*

what to do with breedings that defy nature?

Say you have strong breeding and bitch is terrible mother...kills pups etc...
do you intervene, knowing the breeding will produce good working dogs? do you only save males? what? 

Since mothering seems to be somewhat genetically influenced?

I had a great litter of pups from some over the top presas (old spanish early 90's) and the bitch killed ALL of them except for one that I saved ( a MALE)...they were also out of crazy lines on the sire's side, for handler hardness and extreme social aggression..

for that matter what about breedings that would not take place naturally without muzzles..AI's..etc..??? Is THAT WRONG?


----------



## Harry Keely (Aug 26, 2009)

I will not save weak pups, I let nature and the doggy god sort it out. If they make it great if not oh well they weren't meant to be on this earth. Most the time momma will fix the problem for ya though.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I don't know anything about breeding, I've said that before. That aside, I do find the comments and the discussion very interesting. I didn't vote, but seeing as I'm more of a trainer than a "pet" guy, in spite of Roger, I personally feel allowing mother nature to trim her herd is the best way to go. I'll shut up though and follow the discussion, it is interesting.

DFrost


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

*Re: the real question*



Joby Becker said:


> what to do with breedings that defy nature?
> 
> Say you have strong breeding and bitch is terrible mother...kills pups etc...
> do you intervene, knowing the breeding will produce good working dogs? do you only save males? what?
> ...


I don't know if it's "wrong" or not. I think if they won't breed there is a reason for it. We had a stud that just wouldn't touch a certain mare, no matter what - he'd get all excited and then just this "Oh it's you" and ignore her. She was his half sister though. We gave up on trying that breeding because obviously there was some reason he didn't want that mare and it was just him that wasn't interested. I'm sure the same applies for dogs that don't want any part of the stud dog, etc.

But for bad mothers, it's a hard call if she's killing them because they are defective (that we can't see) or she's just got something wrong in her head to kill her puppies. I would probably save what was left of them and if they failed to thrive I wouldn't put it out as the mother was mental, and might try breeding her again - but if the pups don't show any other health problems, I'd probably spay the bitch.


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Ashley Campbell said:


> Eh, my mom's border collie was a shitty mother and didn't hang around long enough to let the ones that missed out the first time eat. She would have let the whole batch starve to death and they were healthy pups, and contrary to popular belief, it wasn't because we made more money with more pups - they were all given away.


 I'm guessing this was probably a one time occurance. But a bitch like that should be spayed or otherwise removed from anyones breeding program.


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Lynda Myers said:


> I'm guessing this was probably a one time occurance. But a bitch like that should be spayed or otherwise removed from anyones breeding program.


She was run over by Border Patrol about a month after she was spayed - all her pups were spayed too so no, she's not going to be producing anymore, lol.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Ashley Campbell said:


> She was run over by Border Patrol about a month after she was spayed - all her pups were spayed too so no, she's not going to be producing anymore, lol.


And by Border Patrol I assume you're speaking of yourself :razz:


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Anna Kasho said:


> I had the exact same thing happen. The smallest rat-puppy survived though I did nothing to help... Too bad, she turned out to be the runt anyway. Far from working ability physically, mentaly "not all there" either, but her temperament is right on and she is a cute pet. Next time if I see the same signs I would probably cull it at birth...:?
> 
> I don't agree with culling early on just to make a litter more manageable sized - how do you know you didn't just bucket your best working prospect? :lol:


Anna to my understanding that is a very old school a practice many Germans used. Never mind how many were born only 6 would emerge frm the whelping box at three - four weeks old. I'm should there a chance of that. But seriously if a person's breeding program is only producing one maybe two nice working prospects in a litter 9 or 10 they may want to rethink the dogs their using as well as criteria one is using in the selecting of those dogs. jmo


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> And by Border Patrol I assume you're speaking of yourself :razz:


No, I mean my mom lives by the Mexican border in Arizona, the dog got out in the road, and was hit by a Department of Homeland Security border patrol truck...I was being quite literal. Those trucks are huge, the dog didn't stand a chance to survive it. 

I live 800 miles away, that's a hell of a road trip to run a dog over, and it would probably damage my car.


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

*Re: the real question*



Joby Becker said:


> what to do with breedings that defy nature?
> 
> for that matter what about breedings that would not take place naturally without muzzles..AI's..etc..??? Is THAT WRONG?


This would for me depend on the breed - in some lines of pits you have to muzzle in order for nature to have her way! As to the other terrier breeds Bob or Don would more about if muzzling or some other intervention would be necessary.. Otherwise for me if it can't take place the old fashion way then maybe it shouldn't. Case an point...English Bulldogs. The breeder has to do damn near everything in order to get a litter here. This just too damn much work if you asked me.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Why are the trucks so big ?


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> Why are the trucks so big ?


Because our government needs to spend more money on useless things, it's not like they catch anyone in those trucks!


----------



## Ron Davidson (Mar 5, 2009)

This is a great post. Peaked my interest immediately as I have ten pups(mom has ten nipples) on the ground two days old. I want to know, especially what I'm keeping but also what is going to other people, is robust. I just feed her as much as she'll eat give her all she can drink and let her out every couple hours. Let nature take its course. To much modern medicine weakens stock. That is all.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I am still raking and bleaching yards but the last count was six, one DOA and five that are doing fine. When I picked them up to check them they were all warm as toast. The first bad sign is when you pick them up and one, or some, are noticeably cooler. Those are the ones your going to lose. You will usually lose males first. There are two males and 3 females. The majority of losses will happen in the first three days. Just an observation but healthy pups are almost always on the move when they hit the ground. If they just lay there for long they are real questionable. I used to cull by that yardstick. They had to act like they were strong healthy pups when they were first born. Now I just leave them be and let mother nature do it for me. 

On a side note, these discussions tend to make things too black and white, all or nothing. I have no problem intervening on the behalf of nice pups if mom is having a problem. I don't object to the third category as long as the intervening is done with some "common sense. My bitches, because of the breeding, have to work to pass DOA pups. They bitches have to be strong and healthy. I noticed a bitch with four nice pups having a real problem delivering one of these pups and she wasn't feeding the four newborns she had. Not knowing how long it would take, I took the four and place them with another bitch with pups. The bitch with the problem cleared the DOA pup and was fine the next morning and I put her pups back with her. I really don't have a problem with the third category either as long as the pups are healthy.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Lynda Myers said:


> Anna to my understanding that is a very old school a practice many Germans used. Never mind how many were born only 6 would emerge frm the whelping box at three - four weeks old. I'm should there a chance of that. But seriously if a person's breeding program is only producing one maybe two nice working prospects in a litter 9 or 10 they may want to rethink the dogs their using as well as criteria one is using in the selecting of those dogs. jmo


Hunters still cull pups down to a certain number. The pups that remain are fat and heathy.


----------



## Debbie Skinner (Sep 11, 2008)

*Re: the real question*



Joby Becker said:


> what to do with breedings that defy nature?
> 
> Say you have strong breeding and bitch is terrible mother...kills pups etc...
> do you intervene, knowing the breeding will produce good working dogs? do you only save males? what?
> ...


The only surviving GSD pup that is with our litter of Beauces is from one of those non-maternal "making pancakes out of the newborns" type of bitches. I understand that she won't be ever bred again. It was her first litter. She's a great working dog. My best pups have come from very good mothers that have been easy breeders as well. Meaning they had their heads screwed on straight and physically were fertile and strong and could whelp with ease and produce ample milk. "Stable, Fertile and Maternal".O


----------



## Ron Davidson (Mar 5, 2009)

I have noticed every time I look in half the liter is asleep and half nursing. They sort it or on their own.

Case and point


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I tube fed one pup because one of my daughters wanted that "cute, tiny little one that's all by itself". ](*,)
Had she not seen it I would have no problem bringing it to a fast ending. I'd prefer doing that to letting them slowly waste away. 
First and last but breeding isn't in the cards for me anyway.


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

I think the best way to "help" a weak puppy is to cull it early on. I have had some pretty large litters, the largest one being 14 puppies and all of them lived without being rotated until one was killed in a fight with his littermates at about 5 weeks old. I dont usually cull a puppy just because he is small, but if he is small and weak then I do cull them. I had a litter a few months ago from Carlos and Demi that was born very premature. She had 6 puppies about the size of mice. 3 of them died within the first few minutes and I assumed the other 3 would die very soon. I did nothing different with them than with any other litter and those 3 lived, but one of them is still very small.


----------



## andreas broqvist (Jun 2, 2009)

I se peopel culling dogs befor 8 veeks becaus of smal temprament "flaws".
Do pupy tests and then know whos the Pick of the liter at 5 weeks old.
I just wounder if they ever seen pups grow up. The dynamics of the pups change, ther temprament, and ther size in referens to ther siblings. 
I wuld prefer to atleast keep my pups at home untill 8 month to realy se what I have. I cant but that wuld be the way to go.
Exept piking week sick dogs I think its almost inposible to judge a pup att that age.

One pup from my friends liter "mali" was a real od ball, Kind of shy, not mutsh drive and not realy sosial with his friends. I thaugt that they shuld cull him but they wanted to se how he turnd out. Now at 8month hes one of the dog I like the most in that liter. Friendly, Hig driven but with a nice control. Crazy bite, explosive


----------



## Adam Rawlings (Feb 27, 2009)

I have only had one litter, but I had to help one pup when he was born (liquid in his lungs). The pups will be 8 weeks old at the end of the week and at this time he is one of the top dogs in the litter. I understand we are talking weak or ill, but if I didn't help him mom couldn't have done anything for him (she tried).

Interesting comment Andreas, I have two females that I'm wondering about. A little shy with people, but solid in every other aspect. I'm not holding my breath that they will turn out to be monsters, but they both will make nice pets.


----------



## Steve Groen (Aug 22, 2010)

This is a very informative thread on the ethics of breeding dogs, whether or not you value them as livestock or as something more. After reading all of the posts, I'm not quite persuaded that culling the meak (as opposed to the malformed) is appropriate, however. I've also heard of breeders' desire to kill all of the female pups just because they're females and regardless of health. 

Question: For those of you who let nature take its course, what do you do with the scenario in which the dam basically refuses to feed the pups any longer? Do you force her back into the box of pups or let nature take its course?


----------



## Harry Keely (Aug 26, 2009)

Steve Groen said:


> This is a very informative thread on the ethics of breeding dogs, whether or not you value them as livestock or as something more. After reading all of the posts, I'm not quite persuaded that culling the meak (as opposed to the malformed) is appropriate, however. I've also heard of breeders' desire to kill all of the female pups just because they're females and regardless of health.
> 
> Question: For those of you who let nature take its course, what do you do with the scenario in which the dam basically refuses to feed the pups any longer? Do you force her back into the box of pups or let nature take its course?


Depends on the age of the pups and if there close to or ready to start to be weaned from the mother anyways. Usually the mother of the pups has a 6 sense and knows whos no good and whos worth living. Mothers have been known to eat there young.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Adam Rawlings said:


> I have only had one litter, but I had to help one pup when he was born (liquid in his lungs). The pups will be 8 weeks old at the end of the week and at this time he is one of the top dogs in the litter. I understand we are talking weak or ill, but if I didn't help him mom couldn't have done anything for him (she tried).
> 
> Interesting comment Andreas, I have two females that I'm wondering about. A little shy with people, but solid in every other aspect. I'm not holding my breath that they will turn out to be monsters, but they both will make nice pets.


Adam, this is the type of thing I was referring to when I mentioned that these discussions tend to be black and white according to who is trying to prove what. Much like Koehler training being referred to as crank and yank by the possies.....and why I call motivational with food trick training. As I said, one would expect a certain amount of common sense to be incorporated in the decision to cull. I may give them a spin around the world to clear the fluid....if I am there when they are born. Otherwise, it is survival of the fittest and things happen.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Steve Groen said:


> This is a very informative thread on the ethics of breeding dogs, whether or not you value them as livestock or as something more. After reading all of the posts, I'm not quite persuaded that culling the meak (as opposed to the malformed) is appropriate, however. I've also heard of breeders' desire to kill all of the female pups just because they're females and regardless of health.
> 
> Question: For those of you who let nature take its course, what do you do with the scenario in which the dam basically refuses to feed the pups any longer? Do you force her back into the box of pups or let nature take its course?


Steve, I may put a first time mom down once or twice to see if she gets the idea, if not, she is culled. Only happened once. Pups went with her. I started off hand feeding because of the general BS and public opinion. Now I pay no attemtion to it. I never liked how the handfed pups acted compared to normal dogs. There always seemed to be something missing something missing that makes them a dog.


----------



## Adam Rawlings (Feb 27, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Adam, this is the type of thing I was referring to when I mentioned that these discussions tend to be black and white according to who is trying to prove what. Much like Koehler training being referred to as crank and yank by the possies.....and why I call motivational with food trick training. As I said, one would expect a certain amount of common sense to be incorporated in the decision to cull. I may give them a spin around the world to clear the fluid....if I am there when they are born. Otherwise, it is survival of the fittest and things happen.


I was just adding what I experienced. It doesn't really matter to me what other people do, just thought it would be food for thought.


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Adam, this is the type of thing I was referring to when I mentioned that these discussions tend to be black and white according to who is trying to prove what. Much like Koehler training being referred to as crank and yank by the possies.....and why I call motivational with food trick training. As I said, one would expect a certain amount of common sense to be incorporated in the decision to cull. I may give them a spin around the world to clear the fluid....if I am there when they are born. Otherwise, it is survival of the fittest and things happen.


That's kind of what we did with horses. Most of the time they had them in the middle of the night and when you went to feed in the morning, there was a dry foal staring back at you with his/her mom. We did have a couple that just by chance were saved because someone happened to be around when they were born and was able to pull the sack off their face, we also had a few that we'd find still in the sack in the morning and cold. 
We only ever had 1 colt we hand raised and it's because his mother's stomach lining ruptured and she had to be put down. He was 3 days old, it was a huge pain in the ass (because they don't wean until 6 months and have to be fed every 2 hours for months) and he was a demon. I would dread ever having to do that again.
And like Don said, he wasn't a "horse" other than he looked like one. He got along poorly with the rest and was just a pain, they definitely need a mother to kick their ass for stupid stunts.


----------



## Steve Groen (Aug 22, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Steve, I may put a first time mom down once or twice to see if she gets the idea, if not, she is culled. Only happened once. Pups went with her. I started off hand feeding because of the general BS and public opinion. Now I pay no attemtion to it. I never liked how the handfed pups acted compared to normal dogs. There always seemed to be something missing something missing that makes them a dog.


Don, I appreciate your and the other responses to my question. The ideas that it's really a matter of commen sense and the individual owner's choice of how to proceed when problems occur become are good ones. A couple of thoughts though: 

1) By your response, I assume that you will not permit a C-section? If so, it's a bit counterintuitive to me based on the fact that, as much as we want these dogs to llive according to their own limitations, these are not feral canines. They're domesticated dogs no matter how we look at them. They eat what we give them, not what a grey wolf eats. They exercise when we tell them to exercise. They breed to the dog with which we force them to breed, not a member of their pack or a competing pack in their range. (In fact, none of these breeds would be around if it weren't for us.) The females whelp and nurse in a box no less, not a den, and wherever we place it. The pups have little colored ribbons around their necks. They're susceptible to disease they'd never see in the wild. The unnatural environment may influence hormonal differences at breeding time we don't even know about. Etcetera. Etcetera. The point is that this isn't a natural environment or lifestyle for other than domesticated dogs no matter how much we try to duplicate nature. I think we forget that.

2) I know we all love our dogs, but it seems to me that they're something more than just property to be discarded when they don't meeting our needs. Selective breeding is our doing under the unnatural environment we've given them. As a result, I think we have a duty to find homes for all of the viable pups we've induced into the world. They're bright animals or we would select the breeding pair, and someone would love to have a pup that doesn't make the grade.

My two cents. Then again, I voted for Governor Moonbeam.  

Best regards,

Steve


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Steve,
Quick question. What diseases does the domestic canine have that the wild dog does not? Parvo kills litters of wolf puppies as does distemper. Those are the most dangerous diseases i can think of for either population. However, the domestic canine has the benefit of being vaccinated against these (and rabies, let's not forget that either) vs. wild dogs that just die from it, or the strongest survive the pandemic. Either way, in a dog that has parvo already there is no miracle cure and either they'll live or die, just like their wild counter parts.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Steve Groen said:


> Don, I appreciate your and the other responses to my question. The ideas that it's really a matter of commen sense and the individual owner's choice of how to proceed when problems occur become are good ones. A couple of thoughts though:
> 
> 1) By your response, I assume that you will not permit a C-section? If so, it's a bit counterintuitive to me based on the fact that, as much as we want these dogs to llive according to their own limitations, these are not feral canines. They're domesticated dogs no matter how we look at them. They eat what we give them, not what a grey wolf eats. They exercise when we tell them to exercise. They breed to the dog with which we force them to breed, not a member of their pack or a competing pack in their range. (In fact, none of these breeds would be around if it weren't for us.) The females whelp and nurse in a box no less, not a den, and wherever we place it. The pups have little colored ribbons around their necks. They're susceptible to disease they'd never see in the wild. The unnatural environment may influence hormonal differences at breeding time we don't even know about. Etcetera. Etcetera. The point is that this isn't a natural environment or lifestyle for other than domesticated dogs no matter how much we try to duplicate nature. I think we forget that.
> 
> ...


Good post Steve and I appreciate the logical thought that went into it.



> 1) By your response, I assume that you will not permit a C-section? If so, it's a bit counterintuitive to me based on the fact that, as much as we want these dogs to llive according to their own limitations, these are not feral canines. They're domesticated dogs no matter how we look at them. They eat what we give them, not what a grey wolf eats. They exercise when we tell them to exercise. They breed to the dog with which we force them to breed, not a member of their pack or a competing pack in their range. (In fact, none of these breeds would be around if it weren't for us.) The females whelp and nurse in a box no less, not a den, and wherever we place it. The pups have little colored ribbons around their necks. They're susceptible to disease they'd never see in the wild. The unnatural environment may influence hormonal differences at breeding time we don't even know about. Etcetera. Etcetera. The point is that this isn't a natural environment or lifestyle for other than domesticated dogs no matter how much we try to duplicate nature. I think we forget that.


Steve, first off, my situation and thought are more unique than most. My dogs are raised in family units in large yards. They have room to exercise and run. Most have never been in a house. Most of the points you brought up have nothing to do with producing healthy, strong dogs. The one point that may have to do with health is what we feed them. The colored ribbons has nothing to do with anything. I have never had to put a ribbon on any pups to tell which one it is. I am not sure what diseases they are suseptible to that are not in the wild. Wild canids are suseptible to distemper, parvo etc. The strong survive. The foxes in this area die off about every three years from distemper. It is a balance. When their food supply is scarce from too much depredation, they fall ill. This give ther food supply a chance to build up and the cycle continues. I only give the first 2 shots to my dogs, as pups for a life time. All of my breedstock has had parvo and never had to go to a vet. Anybody can produce dogs with the same immunities. You are right in as much as most dogs today are raised in a totally unnatural environment but, the simple fact is, a c section will produce progeny that are going to need c sections. Weak begets weak. Most of the problems seen in dogs today is our own doing because of our own feelings....not what is good for the breed. One of the things about my breeding is they are extremly tight. If I lowered my standards, I probably would have ended my breeding at about 4 generations. Blackjack is 11 gen only because I quit listening to what people "in the know" had to say.



> 2) I know we all love our dogs, but it seems to me that they're something more than just property to be discarded when they don't meeting our needs. Selective breeding is our doing under the unnatural environment we've given them. As a result, I think we have a duty to find homes for all of the viable pups we've induced into the world. They're bright animals or we would select the breeding pair, and someone would love to have a pup that doesn't make the grade.


Would you personally want to pay $1500 to $2500 for a pup a breeder had to hand feed to save it??? Would you go to a breeder that saved pups like you are talking, knowing you may be paying good money for one that nature would have culled as too weak to live??? All people I have talked to don't want them, they think I could find someone else that wants them. I have actually told them to send me a deposit and I will save the next cull for them.....no matter how they feel about saving them, they don't want them. You see that very short red line on this poll. Seven people think they should all be saved. Would you be comfortable using any of those seven, if they were breeders, knowing they are going to possibly sell you a saved cull??? Of course your not and that is why they will never tell you. I have said this before, my dogs are outside and left with the parents for the first several weeks because I cannot have them in the house without intervening on a pups behalf. It is a human frailty I guess, but, I moved them outside where they belonged because it is impossible to watch the weak get weaker. After seeing the strength of the dogs once they were outside for a few years, even as tightly as they are bred, I know I made the right decision. 

Bottom line...Most people end up with the dogs they truly deserve. I believe that


----------



## Adi Ibrahimbegovic (Nov 21, 2008)

I voted for "cull".


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

One thing I would like to address. The reference to dogs being viewed as livestock. I know it is used as a negative but, all captive animals are livestock and they are captive to serve a purpose, sheep give us food and wool, cattle give us leather, food and many things. Dogs give us their companionship and trust. Dogs are livestock unless you really think they are people. All livestock industries have certain needs. The priority is health. A fortune is spent keeping livestock healthy because one mistake could mean destroying a whole herd. Dogs, if bred for the purpose they serve, need our companionship and care. Most livestock breeders destroy the very weak but lucky for them, they can still turn a buck on them even if it tallow, or fertilizer or any of a number of things. Since those options are not open to dog breeders, the only way to recupe the cost of producing those culls is to save them and sell them to someone and hope it doesn't come back to bite them. In my mind, that is the red line(good color) of this poll. Ethical breeders have a responsibility to the breed and their customers to produce the best, healthiest stock possible for their customers and to maintain the overall health of the breed. I want to point out I used the term stock in that last statement and no one would ever take offence, or even notice it. Yes, dogs are stock, livestock. They are not people.


----------



## Steve Groen (Aug 22, 2010)

Ashley Campbell said:


> Steve,
> Quick question. What diseases does the domestic canine have that the wild dog does not? Parvo kills litters of wolf puppies as does distemper. Those are the most dangerous diseases i can think of for either population. However, the domestic canine has the benefit of being vaccinated against these (and rabies, let's not forget that either) vs. wild dogs that just die from it, or the strongest survive the pandemic. Either way, in a dog that has parvo already there is no miracle cure and either they'll live or die, just like their wild counter parts.


Ashley, good question. First, I'm not a vet; I was your back-of-the-class spitwad (as Jon Stewart puts it) biology/conservation major. I do tend to agree with the theory that isolated groups of animals, including humans, are not susceptible to diseases communicated through other groups. The more isolated, the less susceptible the group is. Further, I also believe that "survival of the fittest" in the wild is as much random as it is selective, and that disease is heritable, too, through simple random mutation: the luck of the draw.

An example might be several variations of progressive retinal degeneration specific to several canids. Although red wolves and Siberian Huskies are susceptible to the same general disease, apparently the genetic factors indicating PRA which are passed on by the parents may be different in each breed, and mutation plays a big role in disease. (http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/5/526.full) The only conclusion I draw from this is that isolation of the breeding stock prevents this. It follows that gray wolves in the northern woods probably have diseases that domesticated dogs don't, and vice versa. A human example might be Cristopher Columbus bringing European-born disease across the pond.

I'm still not persuaded that a meek pup in the box, or a pup received by C-section, is necessarily of poorer quality than one born healthy and naturally. I certainly could be wrong, but that may be Darwinism on a superficial level. The meek may not turn out to be street or ring dogs, but if we look at humans, what percentage of children are born prematurely, underweight, etc., or by C-section? Does that reduce their physical attributes or ambition as adults? Do we really know? 

My two cents.:smile:

Best regards,

Steve


----------



## Steve Groen (Aug 22, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> One thing I would like to address. The reference to dogs being viewed as livestock. I know it is used as a negative but, all captive animals are livestock and they are captive to serve a purpose, sheep give us food and wool, cattle give us leather, food and many things. Dogs give us their companionship and trust. Dogs are livestock unless you really think they are people. All livestock industries have certain needs. The priority is health. A fortune is spent keeping livestock healthy because one mistake could mean destroying a whole herd. Dogs, if bred for the purpose they serve, need our companionship and care. Most livestock breeders destroy the very weak but lucky for them, they can still turn a buck on them even if it tallow, or fertilizer or any of a number of things. Since those options are not open to dog breeders, the only way to recupe the cost of producing those culls is to save them and sell them to someone and hope it doesn't come back to bite them. In my mind, that is the red line(good color) of this poll. Ethical breeders have a responsibility to the breed and their customers to produce the best, healthiest stock possible for their customers and to maintain the overall health of the breed. I want to point out I used the term stock in that last statement and no one would ever take offence, or even notice it. Yes, dogs are stock, livestock. They are not people.


Good points, all, and dogs certainly are not people, either (although my dog is at least as smart as some people I know). I just think they're more than property to be discarded at will.

I've got to go back to work.

Regards,

Steve


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

> I'm still not persuaded that a meek pup in the box, or a pup received by C-section, is necessarily of poorer quality than one born healthy and naturally. I certainly could be wrong, but that may be Darwinism on a superficial level. The meek may not turn out to be street or ring dogs, but if we look at humans, what percentage of children are born prematurely, underweight, etc., or by C-section? Does that reduce their physical attributes or ambition as adults? Do we really know?


First off Steve, the poll, and all discussion is about the "weak" that cannot survuve without intervention. No one has said anything about culling the "meek". The next problem is comparing what we do with dogs to what we do with people. Humans with bad birth defects are saved knowing they will only live a very limited life. We save those with 49 chromasomes rather then the normal 48(I may have that reversed). We save the badly retarded that end up requireing special homes for care. I take it you are suggesting we save all pups that may fall into all categories? In the end, how many of these animals that are saved are you willing to take? Being idealistic is the easy part, when reality sets in, how many of these pups would you knowingly buy. Deformed pups? Let's be realistic, you wouldn't buy them either nor would anyone else. I have offered to save pups for too many people that felt this way and not one has wanted one for themselves......just save them for someone else.....but no one wants them when they find out what it took to keep them alive. 

I want you to understand, I am not trying to change your mind because you are not alone. I am just trying to add a real perspective to this because this has never been brought up when people ask what they should be aware of when looking at breeders. Hopefully people will read this and start asking breeders this very question because they are the ones looking for a good dog. Nobody wants the culls. No one said breeding was easy. There are a lot of tough choices to be made. Some people just can't do it and have no business breeding.


----------



## jamie lind (Feb 19, 2009)

Steve Groen said:


> Good points, all, and dogs certainly are not people, either (although my dog is at least as smart as some people I know). I just think they're more than property to be discarded at will.
> 
> I've got to go back to work.
> 
> ...


what are they if you dont view them as property? you dont own your dog?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

An update. There were six pups born total. One DOA and lost one female. Two males and two girls. All look good and active. All appear at just a glance to be putting on weight. Still getting close to freezing at night which doesn't bother them at all.

You remember this pup. He was a singleton and born when it was a lot colder than it is now. It is natural selection.


----------



## lynn oliver (May 30, 2010)

I have bred one litter of 11 Dobermenn, one had to be resuscitated at birth,was small but incredibly determined, mother kept pushing away, I kept pushing her back, I supplemented all pups and they all thrived. The small pup was picked by young girl whose mum kept saying 'why dont you pick a bigger one' But the little bitch won them over,she lived on a farm,grew into a lovely big dog and lived until a ripe old age. I never bred again as I would have been devastated to have lost any of them and I realised how lucky I was to have them all survive and it would not always be that way! However ,when I fell in love with the smallest pup in the litter from a freind,I used my experience and gave her a go, she is 18mnths old perfect in every way, normal size and a fantastic dog,game and high drive.
I felt a moral obligation to my pups as I choose to breed them and I hope the talk is metaphorical about buckets! 
I also agree that every stone should be overturned to home every viable pup and they may not fetch top dollar but that is not their fault! I was given my pup but I insisted on paying for her as I knew she would be good.
I worry that, in general ,we treat animals as disposable and that is not right.
Best wishes Lynn


----------

