I was making a point just not the one you twisted it into.

I understand the working ethics bit perfectly and even the breed standards I can understand why it's important to others, it's just not something that concerns me, but I can understand why it does others, however I still think it should be the last consideration; after health, after temperament, and after working ability if applicable. How a dog looks should not come above health or temperament imo and there are breeders out there breeding that way and getting the backing of other breeders, why?

It was recently revealed on another forum a breeder that had preached about responsible breeding for god knows how long yet she doesn't even bother to health screen her breeding stock, far from her being outed she got backed by other breeders on that forum that do actually breed responsibly!?!

Imo it's about time people started standing up for what they believe in and stopped backing people just because they're show buddies, there are problems and it's about time they came out in the open and the bad breeders were shown for what they really are.

There are people that I would class as Byb's showing their dogs at shows regularly, why is that not frowned upon?

Anyway, all I was saying was that I don't think breeds are going to become unrecognisable or "generic" if there were no formal breed standards in place. I even said in my first post that I don't think getting rid of shows and breed standards is an answer to anything.

Round and round like a merry-go-round...

I think people are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Some thought the documentary was great, others hated it. Everyone interprets things differently which is pretty evident by this thread.

Why won't you answer my questions though...out of interest?

Which questions?

The questions I keep asking if you are going to answer...not just you but other people who are anti the programme...

Yes, it is like a merry-go-round. I agree.

There is a bit of a pattern though, like I said before. Those that show/involved in the showing world seemed to hate it and those that don't seem to see it as a good programme for highlighting the issues and forcing the KC into some measures that should have been taken long ago. Of course there are one or two Dogsey people that don't fit in with that pattern (there's always one-kidding ).

I just wish the show people could see that it was a good programme and that, although they think it has tarred all show/KC reg breeders with the same brush, it really didn't. Those members of the GP who do think that the programme = KC bred dogs are unhealthy, have to be pretty thick anyway, so who cares what they think????? The majority of people I have spoken to are just now aware that KC doesn't = healthy dog and that they have to do their homework and look for a respected breeder (I always tell anybody that asks for advice from me regarding breeders, to go to a recommended breeder, i.e. someone that has bought a pup from that breeder before and happy with the pup/aftercare and so on - you can do this via Forums of the specific breed, so not difficult). Any reputable/responsible/ethical breeder should not have been affected adversely by that programme, imo

Ok, my answer to those questions is YES for every one of them. BUT, I do believe that I said in one of my first posts in this thread that if it does make people stop and think and go about buying a puppy in the correct way, then I cannot fault that. I never said I hated everything about the documentary. I won't go over everything again, but I thought it could have represented the overall situation in a far more balanced light.

Perhaps I should make a documentary: 'Dodgy Pedigree Breeders Exposed: How to go about finding a reputable breeder and purchasing a dog the right way'. If Pedigree Dogs Exposed had dedicated 2 minutes at the end dedicated to finding a reputable breeder, I bet half the ruckus over it wouldn't have happened...some 6 months down the line!

Excellent point Rubylover. My hubby has been a shepherd for 20 years and has had working collies (as well as the odd beardie and huntaway) for all that time. They have never been bred to a breed standard, however they have all been (and still are) border collies.

So some pedigree breeds aren't mutants then?

I personally think too much has been read that comment tbh:

Definition: Mutant

1. An individual, organism, or new genetic character arising or resulting from mutation.
2. Slang One that is suggestive of a genetic mutant, as in bizarre appearance or inaptitude.

I could have this wrong but didn' the show say the peke who won (or a least won its group at) crufts a few years ago had had corrective surgery for an elongated soft palate(my memory is a little hazy of all the details now)? If thats not a show bred dog then I don't know what is. Are bybs to blame for that?