But isnt that part of problem?
Everyone assumes they capable of breeding quality when the breeding specimens are not of a quality standard (and that has nothing to do with registration)

If you are working with your dog on a daily basis, then you will know intimitely, the good and bad points of that dog, and if you need another worker, you are not going to breed from a lesser specimen.

And tens of thousands of people who have a 'pet' dog ,whatever the quality,think they have the divine right to produce puppies.....KC reg has nothing to do with it.
I think you generalise far too much about the KC...I own KC reg dogs as do many of my 'doggy' friends...however very very few of us breed .Then again the village where I live is littered with poor speciman unreg dogs whos owners regularly turn out pups to the nearest stud without thought.

I have to agree with Archer in that excessive breeding practices are not restricted to KC breeders, i know of folk that would breed their bitches at every cycle and sell the pups..and when the bitch stops having regular cycles then they sell the bitch !. There are just as many puppy peddlars with non kc breeds as there are with Kc breeds, however what gives anyone the right to say who should be allowed to breed their dogs and who shouldnt be allowed to breed their dogs ? Just because a dog might or might not have kc paper's or be a ch this does not mean that it is then ethically ok for the owner's to breed their dogs to excess.When u bring money into any equation then u will attract opertunists and breeding dogs is no different from any other money making scheme when it comes to it. What is the difference between a kc dog owner breeding a litter and "auntie jean & uncle jim" breeding their wee charlie to next doors wee molly cause theyr both lovely wee dogs and they'll sit on ur lap all day long !, no one group can claim the moral high groung when it comes to breeding dogs. For my own part i think the right and wrong of it falls squarely on the individuals breeding said litter, as im sure we'r all aware there are as many kc papered dogs in the paper's as non KC dogs which means in effect kc breeder's are no worse or better than non kc breeders...its a sticky one and personally i dont think there an easy right and wrong

Archer, you are misreading my post, my own to dogs are KC reg, and all being well my bitch B in time will have two litters, I have seen countless KC dogs in my time, what I am saying is that if I were looking for a true representitive of a certain breed, I would look to people who's dogs worked with them on a daily basis, and have been kept true to the original breed concept, as opposed to being altered to suit fads or fashions, as many KC breeds have been. Unfortunately to many are attracted to the pedigree with a host of Champions in it, without asking the question Champions of What?

I can see what you are getting at ...however as I said its nothing to do with registration.There are good and bad KC reg dogs and the same can be said of unreg dogs.The registration is only as good as the breeder....otherwise it is just a piece of paper.You breed for working ability,some breed for conformation .....each to their own purpose but those who breed simply because they own a bitch and want to make money regardless of the fact the bitch is as far removed from what the dog should look like are IMO the people who ruin breeds..not the KC.

I agree A

as in type do u mean looks? if so, as long as the dog is healthy then i dont care! we rescued borris and he seemed vvery leggy and skinny, we thught he may be crossed, even thou the staffie home was saying he was pure breed sbt! then after a few weeks he stared to fill out and not get taller but wider!you can tell for sure that hes pure breed! so even if u get a puppy tht is the type u like, it may grow up to be differen to that