Hi Wysiwig.
Working folk think as much of their dogs as any other. I will grant you there are some that dont, but I could say that about anyone, even people on here saying their dog is ill, but will "wait and see" how they go, me? I'd be at the Vets in a flash!

Dawn.

I do agree about the breeding of Lurcher bit:smt001 Far too many beutiful lurchers in rescue-i have been sorely tempted numerous times, but the ones i have liked have never been cat suitable-sadly.
HOWEVER, I do disagree with the last statement about working dog folk-Myself and Dawn, amongst a fair few others on board, work our dogs and they are first and foremost our pets. I come from a very 'working dog' (lurchers, gundogs, terriers, once upona time hounds too!) family, friend base etc-and can safely say they treat their dogs a lot better than most other dog owners, and their dogs are treated a lot better with a lot more respect than most.

I see where you are coming from Azz, i do, but as I said he didnt see like that, and I havent judged him for it, its his choice. you and others may think he took an easy way out, but I dont and neither does he. His bitch is an excellent working dog, has been his working companion for 4yrs almost, she lives as a pet with him and his family. Because of her breeding he had liver shunt tests done and hip-xrays dont know why he did that but he thought it was the best thing to do before he mated her. He wanted the same breeding to continue his work with, again its up to him.

When people get attacked like Patch has done (to him) it does nothing but alienate them, how dare they judge those they dont know. I am finding this more and more on forums, as I said this one used to be different.
Dawn.

I said they *could* have rescued. Personally I`d rather such a person never have a dog at all. I don`t need to know him to know that what he did was abhorrent.

He bred mutts, crossbreeds, mongrels - albeit with a `type` name of longdog. These are not dogs which `need` to be bred, they are ten a penny in rescues. Yes I`m pro-rescue through and through but I also wholeheartedly support *responsible* breeders who have waiting lists before breeding, do all the necessary health checks before breeding, breed only from healthy lines, are prepared to take back any pups they have bred however many years down the line etc etc.
No right thinking person can possibly think it was about `bettering` the breed because they are not a breed, and no right thinking person can believe its ok to deliberately breed for such selfish reasons then kill those which had not been catered for responsibly with a waiting list of decent potential homes in advance.

Medical reason seems to be the last thing on the minds of those culling because of coat colour or for being `excess to requirements`despite having been deliberately bred. [ by deliberate I include `accidental` litters which would have been prevented by responsibly neutering in the first place ].

I`m sure no one would dispute that a dog of any age, whether newborn or of senior years, which had a condition meaning unrelenting painful suffering and no quality of life would welcome death, but thats not what so many pups are killed for by so many irresponible people with dark age mindsets

Luke - I don't think anyone here is trying to make people feel guilty for not rescuing, it's up to people whether they do or not. They are probably more concerned with unethical breeders than anything else.

Delibrate cross-breeding isn't always wrong, as many 'working' dog people prefer certain crosses for certain types of work - so long as it is done ethically (ie homes lined up beforehand etc etc) then there's not a problem. (Just a quick note to people not aware of why working dog crosses are not the same as cross breed dogs found in rescues - working dogs have inherent instincts that result from parents that are also working dogs - in other words a 'normal' dog from a rescue couldn't do the work required of it as it's not in it's 'breeding' to react/work as required).

Dawn - with regards to Patch, I think she is venting as she is based on the fact that guy is not a member, so, reacting like we would to any news story we might hear. If the guy was a member I'm sure she would do her best to try and make him see the error of his ways (as opposed to flattening him ), as she's probably aware of the fact that alienting people just results in them putting the blockers up - which means we are powerless to perpetuate our perception of responsible ownership.

What errors? thats her opinion not his!

I do understand that subjects such as these will raise tempers, but there is no doubting that some people make others feel guilty about breeding, racing, working, showing etc.. yet jumping over poles, and spinning round on their back legs to music is perfectly acceptable, different strokes I guess.
Dawn.

Indeed, I myself own one of the purpose 'working' bred cross terriers

Exactly, she'd do her best to make him see the error of his ways, based on her standpoint.

With regards to your other point, thats way too general for me to address. What do you mean exactly? What aspects of each are you reffering to? Perhaps it's those individual aspects that people are not fussed about - not the act as a whole.

At the end of the day most dog lovers will look at it from the dogs point of view - happy versus unhappy, life versus death. etc etc.

Why do you think the RCVS would regard this as unethical? Have they ever made a statement that they would regard culling as unethical? Do they regard PTS surplus dogs in rescue centres as unethical? I think you should perhaps contact them for their view in principle rather than try and report someone on the basis that you do not regard it as ethical.

I can't help thinking how impractical it could be to wait for 12 good homes for working breeds to be patiently established on a waiting list. I'm not sure I would be able to do it either but I do think putting puppies to sleep immediately after birth may appear unpleasant but it does not lead to suffering, placing in a rashly chosen home potentially could.