Absolutely Labradork, at last we agree on this subject I am at this time about £800 or so down in my account that I use for my breeding. However, I have two beautiful QUALITY pups that are worth every single penny. Guess what though, they are from parents that haven't been shown, so which breeder category do I fall in? The show breeder - NO. Don't show my dogs. The byb - no because my dogs mean everything to me and I have no intention, want or need to make money from them. The pet breeder, yes and have I made money - no certainly not. Have I got unregistered pups? No. KC registered, well they will be, still haven't thought of names for them but online account with the KC activated and ready to register. So are they healthy - Yes, very. Are they bred from breed standard parents - Yes. Are the pups looking to be to breed standard - so far they are pretty damn perfect. Have they got a good temperament - WONDERFUL just like their parents.

So the question - should only show dogs breed - No not in my opinion, so long as all the other boxes have nice big ticks in them.

I have no doubt, however, that the above will make no difference to how you and others feel about only show dogs being bred but, if you think about it, really you should take each breeder on their own merit because otherwise the "argument" is a bit lame, in my opinion

Most show bred litters are sold to pet homes. You are lucky if you get one or two show quality pups in a litter.

For working dogs, in depends on the breeder. Any responsible breeder of 'hardcore' working dogs won't breed unless they have pups spoken for, and that is potentially 10 or more pups for some breeds. Your average working dog breeder (using gundogs as an example) that dabbles in working tests/trials and picks up throughout the season will generally sell to knowledgeable pet homes.

One could argue that the whole concept of breeding dogs to win shows or working trials is destined to end in tears.

Existing breeds were developed to do a specific job. If a dog did it's job particularly well it's owners would breed from it in the hope of gaining more good workers. Over time, this would result in a gradual improvement of the breed - in other words, dogs would become more and more specialised for their work. Chances are those that weren't good workers would be drowned or clubbed to death. People couldn't afford to feed dogs that didn't serve a purpose. In the days when dogs had an important role to fill this was a very good thing as the ability of the dogs to do their job could determine whether a man's children had food on the table.

Nowadays, few dogs are *needed* for work. Most of those that do work do so to amuse their owners - to assist them in their hobbies and passtimes. To my mind this changes things. Euthanising poor workers is no longer justified. Which leads to the dilemma of what to do with pups that aren't suited to working. If sending them to pet homes is not in their best interest then you have to question the morality of producing whole litters of puppies when there's only a role in this world for one or two.

Now consider the show world. Some people claim that breeding dogs to win shows (i.e breeding to not only conform to the breed standard but to be the best example of the breed) improves the breed. But how on earth can you hope to improve a breed who's purpose is to perform a particular job if the conformance tests don't involve seeing how well that dog does it's work? By what yardstick do you measure 'improvement'? Also, when every dog that is entered in a show conforms to the breed standard what do you have to do to win? Be the best example of the breed? Isn't that risky? Isn't that what leads to the health problems and exaggeration that we're seeing in many breeds today? Surely it's better for the breed to have the genes of all dogs that conform to a breed standard in a gene pool - not just a handful that someone imagines is somehow the key to 'improving' the breed.

I wouldn't like to tell anyone who acts responsibly that they shouldn't breed - actually I think the more different types of responsible breeder the better. If one group screw up the whole breed isn't ruined. But to my mind the breeder most likely to get good results is the one who's primary goal is to produce puppies that merely **conform** to a breed standard (assuming the breed standard does in fact describe the breed and not an exaggerated idea of what the breed should be) and are EXCEPTIONALLY healthy (not just healthy enough to avoid criticism of the breeder), well balanced and well suited to living the life of a 21st century pet.

So, by your own admission, show breeders are supplying the pet market? More pups in a litter go for pets than show dogs... so are they pet breeders or show breeders? Is breeding from show dogs for the pet market okay, but breeding good quality pets for the pet market a no no? Why? (If both are done responsibly as I have said in previous posts).

Regarding the comments on working dogs, I still think you are living in an ideal world bubble! What do you mean by "hardcore" working dogs? I have experience of working gundogs (as I live on a shooting estate with 7 employed gamekeepers) and working sheepdogs (as my husband is a full time head shepherd and I also work my two collies) as well as working police dogs (as my ex is a police dog handler and instructor). There are plenty of all kinds of gundogs for sale in the shooting press, just as there are plenty of litters of collies/kelpies/beardies for sale in the farming press. I must say that most breeders of working line German Shepherds are very choosy about when to breed a litter and to where their pups go, so that is very commendable.

So, yes SOME show breeders and SOME working breeders breed responsibly. I am also happy to say that SOME pet breeders also breed responsibly.

I have said before, and will say once again, there is good and bad in all dog spheres ... the breeding world included.