I thought this would be quite obvious.

Dogs that are the top and most prized are the ones that influence the most, as their progeny, and their progeny's progeny are the ones most bred on and are the ones that continue while the puppyfarm and byb lines fizzle out.

A puppyfarmers male might put out many, many more pups, but they mostly go to pet homes and aren't bred forward on. The few that are don't (or extremely rarely) produce progeny that make it back into the show world gene pool and eventually the influence of the overbred puppyfarm male is gone.

It works the opposite with the often bred show bred male (or female). Their progeny are titled, and have the opportunity to produce more pups that are prized for their pedigree and titles, and therefore continue on.

One line fizzles out (the puppyfarm line) while the other snowballs (the show line).

If you study pedigrees in many breeds it is very easy to see this pattern . . . not a hard observation to make. Reverse pedigrees on pedigree databases show which ones proliferate and which ones do not.

In Cavaliers, if you study the manner in which Syringomyelia came into the breed and became so widespread, it is down to two key bitches. One had a single litter with only two offspring in the late 50s. One of those offspring was a champion. The first few generations didn't produce a lot of pups down from her or her offspring, but when, four or five gens down, there were many nice dogs/bitches going back to her, and they were consistently producing prize winners, then her progeny could be counted, from those into the hundreds, and then thousands. They then went behind the major lines in the main kennels in the breed.

Bit of luck there (bad) too, as the lines down from her might have fizzled out as well . . . but in this case they did not. They snowballed.

Ruby

Think you missed the point.

I want to know why it is acceptable to some, to hold one person responsible for the actions of another, based on nothing more than their choice of hobby.

If someone breeds defective dogs knowingly, whose falt is that? and who should be held accountable?

The logical and correct answer, theirs,and they should.

The illogical answer, if the dog is a purebreed, then it is the falt of the kc and anyone who shows their dogs, and they should all be held responsible for the actions of a person they most likely didn't know existed.

yes but if someone breeds 'defective' dogs and they go on to win titles and everyone wants to breed from them?

I totaly agree the actions of a few are not the fault of the many, but from many places, including on here, views I find totaly wrong are considered totaly normal and even strived for in the show breeding world, like line breeding, breeding for looks over ability, breeding for bendy backs, overly small dogs, domed heads, shorter and shorter muzzles, removing dogs from the gene pool and considering them only 'pet quality' because their coats dont have quite the right amount of white on them, rehoming dogs who dont grow up as good as hoped/have got too old to be useful

these things are so much the norm they are not even seen as anything wrong

I agree fully with your views here.

....and the judges who place the dogs wth beathing difficulties, dogs for whom it is acceptable to have overshot jaws? and the KC who allow the places to stand so the dogs are more likely to be bred from?

I do not agree with everything that happened in the PDE show, but I do think certain things needed to be highlighted, and it has had a positive effect that I have seen, many more people are asking about health testing on the dogs they are getting, they are more interested generally.
Yes there are still some who are getting 'designer' dogs - but no more than there were before.

Did the same people put bums on seats at Crufts, or just watched on TV.

Crufts has NOT suffered at all, go next yr and you will see for yourself!

You said it better

Yes, and I agree.

The documentary was making out that all issues are the falt of the showing community, and some who watched it believe it. It made no mention of bybs/pf's who most definately have their part to play.

Some within the dog showing community will truely deserve blame being apportioned to them, but not all of them and not all of it. Others are to blame, and they don't seem to be being held accountable in the same way by the gp.

He was "pushed"

I have to say the RSPCA haven't done a lot to promote their society either!

Not all pedigree dogs are mutants---but some are.

Crufts survived but the pedigree dog breeders had huge backlash which was deserved in some cases and undeserved in others. It is one of the reasons the crossbreed market has taken off.

The KC are dragging themselves into the 21st century but have lost a lot of credibility.

rune