Breed Club Recommends Healthy Puppies Be Killed
Posted By Ryan O'Meara Date: 15/03 Posted Under: Canine ColumnsDog lovers,
A quick bit of canine trivia for you:
If a Rhodesian Ridgeback who is ‘ridgeless’ is mated to a dog or bitch who is also without the ridge, how do you think the puppies will turn out?
A) Half will have ridges and half won’t
B) Some will have ridges but most won’t
C) The males will have ridges but the females won’t
D) None will have ridges and so all the puppies should be killed
Admit it. You are hoping that D) is a sick joke, aren’t you?
Sorry to disappoint.
As breeds go, the Rhodesian Ridgeback is one of the healthiest. A life expectancy of some 14 years and a breed which is still a functional, physically impressive dog.
The breed is so synonymous by the ridge of hairs which run up in the opposite direction of the middle of the dog’s back, the dog even earned its name in recognition of this unusual physical trait.
In many ways it would be like naming a Basenji an ‘African Bark-less’ or a Chow Chow a ‘Chinese Purple Tongue’ such is the importance given to the ridge in this incredible breed, a breed which is famous for its ability to hunt lions.
This unique ridge is not ‘required’ for the dog to be healthy. It is purely aesthetic. It almost goes without saying though that a ridgeless Rhodesian Ridgeback is undesirable in terms of adherence to the breed standard, but that’s fine. Lots of dogs, thousands in fact, live happy, healthy fulfilling lives as companions who aren’t even CLOSE to meeting a breed standard.
So the question is, why should a healthy dog be killed because it is aesthetically not compatible with a description and set of figures and numbers on a breed standard? And moreover, who is suggesting this arbitrary execution of perfectly healthy dogs?
The Rhodesian Ridgeback Club of Great Britain is a Kennel Club affiliated breed organisation. As can be seen here.
The club has a code of ethics on its website which was amended as recently as 2006 (not 1306, in case you were wondering) which states:
Any mismarked puppies shall be described as such and sold as “not to be shown or bred from.” This shall be reflected in the price. Ridgeless puppies shall be culled at birth ;
The code of ethics go on to advise that any breeder who finds the idea of terminating the lives of perfectly healthy puppies ‘morally impossible’ that they may homed without a pedigree at a reduced price.
OK, so the question I wish to ask is pretty simple:
What breeder on this earth DOES find it morally POSSIBLE to take a healthy puppy, that they chose to bring into the world, only to kill it because it doesn’t have a small line of hairs running in an unusual fashion along their backs?
In a world where dog breeds are suffering a myriad of genetic health problems, why is this kind of medieval advice, given out by a Kennel Club affiliated organisation, not confined to a bygone era when it *might* have been deemed acceptable to a society that baited bears, drowned suspected witches and used hot pokers to interrogate criminals?
In 2008, the advice to kill a healthy puppy because it lacks a small ridge of hair on its back seems pretty sick from where I’m looking.
What do you think?
Is this type of culling advice happening in other breeds?
Let us know your thoughts using the comment box.
Author DetailsRyan O'Meara is editor-in-chief of K9 Magazine, the lifestyle magazine for dog lovers. He lives in the East Midlands with his own two dogs, Mia and Chloe. - See this author's webpage
Popularity: 17% [?]
Saturday, March 15th, 2008 at 9:56 am and is filed under Canine Columns. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a “code of ehtics” so misnamed - it’s utterly unethical, and from people who purport to be dog lovers, shocking. I daresay this practice would not prevent anyone being “approved” under the kennel club’s approved breeder scheme?
This is how dangerous and final eugenics and selective breeding really is. On a historical note, is this not what the Nazis did? They started killing people who did not fit their idea of a master race, this including not only other nationalities and religions, but their own people too, especially handicapped children and people with mental health problems because they did not meet their criteria. It was called the T4 programme, what is this one called ‘the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club of Great Britain’ programme? Really awful, this is for cosmetic and financial reasons, you should be ashamed of yourself as a breed society. Well done to K9 Magazine for yet again bringing such foulness to the attention of ordinary dog owners.
Well, it’s a shining example of what the kennel club stands for ‘looks before life’ a society so hell bent on aesthetics the health and welfare of the beast is no longer a priority. For generations humans have encouraged breeds on their abilities to aid mankind, for a purpose, unaware of the health implications to the animals, now we are older, wiser and have the scientific ability to change it and prevent unnecessary suffering, but do we - no we are guided by ‘clubs’ such as the kennel club and their Neanderthal ‘guidelines’ We put murderers in prison and recognise the links between those that can harm animals and the possibility of them then going on to harm people, a disrespect for any form of life, yet clubs like this are allowed to go on un-confronted, a shambolic example of the society we live in and the very reason I would not encourage following any of their ‘rules’
Nazis developed with puppies and they´d got totally killer machines… regards
[...] response to the story we featured at the weekend, Breed Club Recommends Healthy Puppies Be Killed we asked the Kennel Club to give their opinion on the advice given by the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club [...]
My wife is pregnant. If her baby does not have aesthetically pleasing blue eyes, I will kill it.
Everything wrong with the above statement is what’s wrong with someone who actually kills a puppy because it doesn’t sport a ridgeback
This story reminds me of something a friend of mine once said;
“That’s the reason the world is the way it is; because life isn’t sacred. No one seems to care that animals live in our world with us, they are forced away because it suits us. That is the main problem with the way we are brought up. We are raised to think that anything we don’t like should disappear, and until that train of thought is ended, and we start appreciating the lives of others, the world will be in a state of irreversible tragedy.”
[...] couple of weeks ago we reported that the Rhodesian Ridgeback club of Great Britain was encouraging its members to ‘cull’ puppies born without a [...]
[...] to our friends at K9 Magazine for championing the cause of these poor puppies. Dog [...]
This is a sickening practice and to be endorsed by The Rhodesian Ridgeback Club of Great Britain is incredible to say the least.
Breed standards has a lot to answer for in regards to the state of many breeds today and practices like this will only result in a smaller gene pool hence more in breeding and more problems.
If I had read this a few days earlier I’d have thought it was an April Fools.
[...] Breed Club Recommends Healthy Puppies Be Killed [...]
this is just wrong, i mean its bad enough that because of the kennel club, a white boxer is not deemed a true boxer, which quite frankly is ******** but to now do this as well.
in my appinion the kennel club should be stopped, and rules changed, all they do is course problems, how many white boxers and other pups that just arent quite right have died unnessaryily because of there rules now ridgebacks are to suffer, its discusting.
and senseless.
well done k9 mag for bringing this issue to light.
now where do i go to sign a petition, is it even possible to start one?
I myself have an absolutely beautiful, amazing male ridgeback boy. If he was born without a ridge I wouldn’t love him any less. The advice given by the club is absolutely riduculous amd damned immoral. The club should be fined and made to altar the code of ethics by the kennel club.
The ridge for the ridgeback was originally (200 years ago) a necessary distinction as the breed was constructed by crossing the native ridged dog of Africa to European breeds. After arriving to wild south Africa Dutch Europeans discovered their own dogs were poorly prepared to survive in Africa and bred their dogs to the native ridged dog to capture the dogs adaptaions for survival against disease and parasites. Not to mention heat endurance and hunting instinct. European breeds brought other good characteristics to the breed like herding instinct. Later the ridge was required in order to determine the dog had a sufficient percentage of native dog parentage to have the desired traits for survival as there were no written pedigrees. Then the South African’s bred ridged dog crosses to ridged dog crosses to standardize the breed as it is known today, the Rhodesian Ridgeback. It is not uncommon for a ’slickback’ puppy to be born from ridgeback parents. There are also alot of variations in the ridge which is an individual finger print for each animal, no two exactly the same. The finest overall example of a Ridgeback I ever saw was a slickback. We have an older girl with an extra mini ridge on her head…the Africans call this God’s Thumb Print. Some lines are better at throwing the ridges than others. Smart planning and a little research will help breeders pick matches with strong ridge genetics. Cullling actually makes it impossible to know how strong the genetics of a dog are for throwing a good ridge. If breeders keep track and are honest they can help others avoid breeding dogs from litters where the percentage of slickback puppies is high. Culling is basically hiding the results of ridge versus ridgeless and makes it impossible to select dogs with good breeding characteristics. In any case the slickback puppies are beautiful dogs just like their siblings and deserve all the same respect. It would be best for the breed if they were not used for breeding as it might eventually cause the breed to loose some of it’s best qualities, those orininating from the ridged dog of Africa. This African dog was probably humans earliest companion and has shared human history for thousands of years. The Britsh club is obviously still in the dark ages and deserves to be neutered and spayed! The only solution to this is to have responsible and humane Rhodesian Ridgeback owners in Britian join their own club and make a change from the inside. Since the world congress for Rhodesian Ridgebacks is in Ireland this year maybe that would be agood place for RR advocates to voice for change.
In professional breeding - culling does not only mean killing, culling also mean spaying/neutering. For a breed club to recommend culling any dog, that doesn’t mean they’re telling people to kill them. They’re saying that dog should NOT reproduce and perpetuate whatever fault they have.
You’ve written an entire article around your misunderstanding of that term. Next time, do your homework.
Nonsense. I would suggest you take some of your own advice and do some research. If a vet told you to cull your puppy is he/she telling you to ’spay or neuter’ it? If the advice was not based around the very definition of what culling means then why was the wording not simply ‘neuter the ridgeless examples’.
And add to that the fact that it is established that the ridgeless examples are actually genetically more robust, why even recommend they be summarily neutered anyway?
No, I’m afraid your suggestion that breeders use culling in a different context to the rest of the world just doesn’t hold water. We all know what is meant by the word and attempts to paint the picture in a different light seem rather desperate.
Nice One Ryan O
This is exactly the sort of misuse of wording that leads to ‘misunderstandings’ such as:
‘when I advised you to ‘cull’ half of the litter, I did not mean kill them just spay or neuter them!’
Yeah right, get a grip, otherwise surely you could then say:
‘The ‘waterboard’ will call back later’
Which, the CIA or the local water company?
Gnasher
Now thats the type of cynicism I like! Waterboard indeed!
That’s one of the reasons I did not renew my memebership many years ago because I broke their code of ethics before they added the slight get out clause - then the only option by their code was to cull) - I reared a ridgless ridgeback & sold him for rearing costs to a family who could not afford a ridged RR. He was a fine speciman & made a lovely family pet for 13 happy healthy years.
I have a 9mth old ridgeless RR, he is one of the best things that has happened to our family, we adore him & i cant imagine being without him, Ridge or Not. we love him not the ridge he hasnt got.
Bruce, my 20 month old ridgeless ridgeback, is without doubt the best dog I have ever owned. If I was intending to breed from him (which I am not), I would have thought that the fact that he has such a wonderful temperament should be seen as a great reason to breed from him and should certainly override any cosmetic reasons not to !