But if the ring or field isn't of value to you then the dog that performs well in these arena's has proven nothing of interest.

Take my breed. The beagle.

We have the show variety and the working hounds. Beagles differ from most breeds in that there is absolutely no connection between the two types of hound. Consequently we end up with two very different types of Beagle. Both are clearly recognisable as Beagles though.

The show people might argue that the pack hounds are untested as they have never set foot in a KC show ring (the pack hounds do have their own show at Peterborough with very different criteria).

The huntsmen might argue that the show hounds are untested as they've never run with a pack and done a days hard hunting.

Someone that does agility or flyball or trains guidedogs might look for something else altogether when determining whether a dog has been 'tested'.

A pet owner might argue that neither ability to hunt or prance around a show ring is relevant if the dog will never do either of these activities in it's life. A pet owner might argue that they'd prefer breeders concentrate on the characteristics that make good pets instead of crowding the gene pool with genes necessary to make a good hunting dog or show dog.

Yes, dogs should only be bred if they are proven. But it's narrow minded to think that the only thing a dog can be proven in are the things that you value.

But ANYONE can say that their dogs are quality. Until dogs are proven to be quality they are 'quality' by word only, which means nothing on paper.

I will have to take your word for that CC as you do not show your dogs and therefore I don't have anything to measure their quality by.
If you were to show, I would have an idea you see.....

Anyway I'm off to bed I'm exhausted.
I'm sure your dogs are lovely, as I say I have no idea about chis.

To be honest, this thread is just mirroring another thread last weekend. I like to put my point across that show dogs aren't the be all and end all. I've made my point. My dogs and the pups are of excellent quality and, not being rude, I can't be bothered to justify myself, or next I'll be accused of "defending" myself, as I have been before. You have a right to your opinion but I suggest you find out about Chis before you start classing the girls that I have bred as "not worthy."

I can assure you that any pup I produce from my girls, will never end up in a Rescue! That, you can take as gospel.

End of

My dogs past and present have all had wonderful temperaments. Most dogs that get dumped in shelters have wonderful temperaments. Good temperament alone is no justification for breeding.

No, you seem to be missing the point.
I only value the showring and working field as measures of how 'good' a dog of my breed is because the show ring will tell me if it looks like a Flat Coat...it will also tell me if it looks like a Flat Coat and can work like one too. Working info tells me if it is fit for function.
Temperament, in my breed, is vital for that.

It isn't what is important to me...it's what is important to the breed.

Guide Dogs fbreed for health and temperament , they mainly use first crosses. They don't give 2 hoots how the dog looks. The general public though would want a lab that looks like a lab and acts like a lab...a Beagle that looks and acts like a Beagle and so on.

Yes...breeding for temperament is important but a good breeder will do that anyway as part of the package. At the end of the day a dog needs to be what it says on the box...no point having pups then saying 'sorry...i know it doesn't look like a Beagle but it's really nice...' is there?

But who are we needing to prove anything to! You obviously hold an awful lot of respect for the show ring and the Judges decisions. I don't. That's my right. If I had a piece of paper that said my dog was bob or whatever, it wouldn't make a fart of a difference to me. It would to you, obviously, but not to me

Perhaps not, but that is because they are Chihuahuas. You can't compare them to dogs that are bred by their thousands by back yard breeders each year. For example, if someone posted about breeding their Staffie that was just a pet, would people be encouraging them to breed and tell them that they were being responsible? no.

No one has said your chis are not worthy. It is just hard for outsiders to judge how good dogs are if they have nothing to measure it against. Thats the point i think.
As I say I am sure your dogs are lovely. I didn't read the htread you are talking about.

No, not just good temperament but that as well as all the other boxes being ticked, except the 'bred from parents that are successful in the show ring'

Do you think that there are no dogs in rescues that have been produced from show parents?