Well thats true enough Hewey, i didnt think of that, all the Vets that PTS thousands of unwanted dogs each year.
Dawn.

In that case they shouldn't breed.

Dogs are not disposable objects. They are living creatures that deserve respect.

You know me so well Azz - almost too well

We are obviously going to disagree on this . I do not see his actions as either treating the dogs as objects or with lack of respect as obviously it does matter to him where they end up.

Gosh...
Thought I'd throw in my twopenneths worth!!!!
You all knew i would.
Okay, I'm not sure where I stand on culling. If a pup is ill and is going to be in pain a lot of it's life and suffer...I can't say it wouldn't be right.
To cull because of the dog being the wrong colour...nope, don't agree with that.
I also don't approve of the scenario outlined by Dawn, infact i think it's awful that someone would do that, really sad. Having said that though, I can see Dawn's point about rescues. I think my answer would be the man should have gone to a rescue to get a pup or a recue dog...but that's my answer not his. I do think from what has been said what he has done is unethical...i think this sort of thing probably happens more than we care to think about though and in fairness to the man, at least he took the pups to a vet and they were PTS humanely rather than being dumped or drowned as many unfortunate pups are. So that is a plus for him, sadly though, he should, IMO never have bred the litter in the first place.
I think culling probably happens quite a lot. Really sad.

Thats exactly what ethical breeders do - many have waiting lists a few years in advance of potential matings, and the right potential owners are willing to wait as long as they have to for the right pup from the lines they want.
One belgian Shepherd breeder I knew would not mate any of her girls until there was a waiting list of 20 names with deposits paid first. Any not getting a pup at that time [ obviously there were many each time ], went to the top of the next list. She also interviewed and home checked prospective owners and put legally binding clauses of ownership on every pup, including compulsory neutering of any which turned out to be less than good enough to perpetuate the breed to the breeds benefit. The contract was as long as your arm and she was ready and willing to go to court if any aspect was broken. She was also prepared to take back any and every pup she ever bred should it be necessary. First time or inexperienced owners had to have a mentor she approved of to assist the new owner in bringing up a pup well. I know this to be true as I was asked to be a mentor by a friend and I had to have the intervies in that respect when he had his, [ yes she approved me and my friend got his pup after being on the waiting list for 18 months ].
If anyone finds that harsh on her part, potential owners had the choice whether or not to buy a pup from her which included agreeing to her contractual terms of sale.
The fact is, people travelled for miles and were more than willing to wait a long time for one of her pups.

So yes it can and is done by *responsible* and *ethical* breeders. Those who truly care about their breed and the pups they are responsible for producing are not put off by what you feel may be impractal - they put the dogs first which is how it should be, whether a working breed or not :smt001

Lurchers, longdogs and other `working` breeds or crosses being another issue as far as `working` goes, bearing in mind that much of the hunting done with them is done illegally....

Could be wrong, but i was not aware using lurchers on rabbits when ferreting or on the lamp, or using a terrier on rats was illegal As far as i knew it was only hunting fox with hounds that had been banned.

The showing world is different, working dogs are required for practical reasons and waiting a long time to breed is not always going to be practical. A rescue dog that has been bred and reared in an unknown way is not always practical either.

------------------------------
From DEFRA http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/huntin...ing_qa_a.htm#6

The Hunting Act

What exactly does the Act do?

The Hunting Act makes it an offence to hunt a wild mammal with dogs, apart from the tightly-drawn exemptions set out in the Schedule to the Act. The ban covers the hunting with dogs of all wild mammals, including fox, deer, hare and mink. The Act also completely bans hare coursing.


What are the main provisions of the Act?

The Act makes it an offence for anyone to hunt a wild mammal with a dog, subject to the exemptions in Schedule 1 of the Act. It also makes it an offence for a person to knowingly permit their land or dogs to be used for such hunting. It outlaws hare coursing, and makes it an offence to participate in, attend, facilitate or allow dogs to be used in such events.

The Act gives the police powers to arrest anybody they reasonably suspect to have committed, be committing or be about to commit certain offences. It provides that a person found guilty of an offence is liable on conviction in a magistrates’ court to a fine of up to £5,000. It also entitles the police to stop and search persons, vehicles, animals or possessions; and to seize vehicles, dogs or possessions for use as evidence in prosecutions.

The Act also gives the Courts powers to order persons convicted to forfeit relevant dogs, vehicles or hunting articles; and provides for these items to be destroyed, disposed of or returned.


What are the exemptions?

The exemptions from the offence of illegal hunting permit the following types of hunting:

* Stalking and flushing out
* Use of a dog below ground, in the course of stalking and flushing out, to protect birds being kept or preserved for shooting
* Hunting rats and rabbits
* Retrieval of hares which have been shot
* Falconry
* Recapture of wild mammals
* Rescue of wild mammals
* Research and observation

Some commentators have suggested that there is some confusion about these exemptions, but they are set out very clearly in Schedule 1 to the Act. The intention has always been to make it very simple for people who want to obey the law to know what they can and can’t do. These exemptions are subject to strict conditions (eg on the number of dogs which can be used in stalking and flushing out (two) and on obtaining permission to carry out the activity on the land on which it is to take place). The Schedule also requires that anyone intending to rely on the stalking and flushing out exemption must ensure that animals flushed out are shot as soon as possible afterwards by a competent person. These stringent conditions are intended to prevent abuse of the exemptions.


What is Hunting under the Act?

While it is ultimately for the courts to define what constitutes hunting in the light of cases brought before them, hunting should be understood in its ordinary English meaning, which includes searching for wild mammals, chasing them, or pursuing them with the intention of catching or killing them. The Act specifically relates to hunting with dogs. If no dogs are used, the Act does not apply. Hunting is an intentional activity, and there can be no such thing as accidental hunting. The Act makes clear that hunting with dogs includes engaging alone or participating with others in the pursuit of a wild mammal where a dog is used in that pursuit.


Is hunting different from chasing away?

The Act deliberately does not define hunting with dogs because the term should be understood in its ordinary English meaning, which includes using dogs to search for wild mammals, chase them, or pursue them with the intention of catching or killing them. The deliberate use of dogs to chase a wild mammal, even if there is no intention of catching it, is hunting and as such is prohibited by the Act. This may include the wilful failure to prevent dogs from chasing wild mammals.

------------------------------------
From the Badger Trust
http://www.badger.org.uk/action/hunting-with-dogs.html

Fox hunting

Over the years a number of hunt terriermen and other people with strong connections to their local fox hunts have been convicted of badger offences.

In addition, prior to February 18th 2005, 'earth stoppers' would go out before a hunt took place, visit all the badger setts in the vicinity of the hunt and 'stop' them (block up the sett entrances). In theory, this work was done in accordance with the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The Act laid down strict conditions for the blocking of sett entrances in connection with fox hunts, and stoppers were only permitted to use materials which were easy for the badgers to remove. However, we received many reports of setts being blocked with materials such as rocks, tree trunks and heavy soil. Often, badgers could not dig their way out and died underground.

Now that fox hunting is illegal, there is no longer any need for the provisions in the Protection of Badgers Act which allowed badger setts to be blocked up before hunts took place, and the Hunting Act has repealed those provisions.

Terrier work

Terriers have been bred specifically for hunting animals - particularly foxes but also badgers - underground in their burrows. The use of terriers to hunt and kill foxes in this way was entirely legal before the Hunting Act became law. Unfortunately, this provided a cover for those who also engaged in illegal badger digging. Many of those who have been caught digging into badger setts have used the excuse that they were after foxes - and many have escaped prosecution by so doing.

Although it is no longer legal to use terriers (or any other dogs) to hunt and kill foxes, there is a provision in the Hunting Act which allows the use of dogs to stalk or flush wild mammals below ground, for the purpose of preventing serious damage to game birds or wild birds kept or preserved for the purpose of shooting. Only one dog may be used underground at any one time, and the wild mammal must be shot by a competent person as soon as possible after being flushed from below ground. Various other conditions must also be complied with, including the principles set out in a Code of Practice. Provided that all of these conditions are met, the use of terriers or other dogs in this manner will be regarded as 'exempt hunting' and will be legal.

The Badger Trust is extremely disappointed that the use of dogs below ground was not banned under the Hunting Act. We believe that even with the new restrictions, the use of dogs below ground will be used as a cover for illegal badger digging.

Lamping

Lamping involves hunting at night with powerful spotlights. Some lampers shoot their quarry with high-powered rifles, while others use 'long dogs' or lurchers to chase down their victims. The usual targets for lampers have been foxes and rabbits. Lamping for these species, with guns or dogs, has always been legal so long as it was carried out with the landowner's permission. Unfortunately, much illegal lamping has also taken place (and probably still does), with lampers using guns or dogs to take not only foxes or rabbits, but also badgers.

Under the Hunting Act, the practice of lamping foxes with dogs is now illegal. Hunting for rabbits with dogs however is regarded as 'exempt hunting' under the Hunting Act and is therefore legal provided that it is carried out with the permission of the landowner or occupier. The Badger Trust believes that while the hunting of rabbits with dogs at night remains legal, this will provide a cover for illegal lamping of badgers with dogs.

-----------------------------------

What are you talking about illegal? Do you mean I have been braking the law since the hunting act came into force? What actions are you implying? and when you were made aware of them did you report them and what was the outcome? Im rather interested by that statement Patch.
Dawn.