I think this is one of those 'eternal questions'

I think showing should have a valuable place in the wider picture. At its best, it should act as a forum where examples of a breed can be seen together and presented in a way that enables a fair comparisson to be made by a competant judge and by people ringside (although they won't be able to assess the physical construction as well as the judge can on the day)

Showing and registration with the Kennel Club enables records of breeding to be kept by a neutral party (the KC) and this has proved very useful where there are hereditary health and temperament issues.

Showing can bring together people from different generations and backgrounds who might not normally mix.

Shows should be a place where newcomers to a breed can go to see lots of examples of the breed and talk to people about grooming, feeding, character, training etc.

BUT.........and it's a BIG BUT (or a 'moderatley well developed hindquarters' as they say in breed standard speak ) Does showing actually deliver all this?

Also, to me, showing is only of value if it contributes to the bigger picture i.e. the world of dogs in general. I absolutely, wholeheartedly and vehemently disagree with showing for showing's sake and I totally disagree with breeding dogs with the sole aim of winning at shows.

Why?

Well, firstly, I believe that dog shows ought to be there for the benefit of pedigree dogs: to contribute to the bigger picture by providing a forum for comparisson, discussion and mutual education as well as helping breeders select the best dogs for their breeding programmes. Once the dogs are bred for the benefit of the show scene then, in my opinion, that is when (excuse the pun) the tail starts to wag the dog and that is when breeds begin to become caricatures and freaks!

Showing should have a place in the bigger scheme of things, but in terms of breeding dogs that are able to function effectively as the breed standard describes, shows can do no more than make a contribution the whole.

One problem I see with a lot of show people (not all by any means) is that any attempt to question the ethics of the show world, or its role or significance in the bigger picture and immediately, it is though you have just said, "I'm thinking of making an episode of Panorama and buying a labradoodle".....even if what you actually said was, "how many judges have actually had practical experience of working dogs?"

There is also the "oh, they will ALL do that!" camp, who are convinced that just because their dog once caught a mouse / pricked up his ears when he saw a sheep / flushed a pheasant...that they are producing first rate hunting / herding / retrieving dogs.

I fully appreciate the comments about many working lines of breeds being 'too much' for pet homes and utterly unsuitable choices, but to me, that means there is an onus on would be pet owners to do their research and to people who breed these animals to sell only to working homes. I do not think there is any justifcation for 'toning down' working breeds for the pet market - just accept that they are not pets...or wait until you can give a home to an adult who perhaps just hasn't made the grade as a working dog and actually has more of a suitable disposition for the family home. Breeding dogs is not an exact science and even the most carefully bred working lines produce dogs that would much rather be pets!

I don't agree with the opinion that there is a link between showing and puppy farms......up to a point. I can see a tenuous link in that many breeds came to the UK because they were imported by people who wished to show them and many breeds were 'prettified' if that's the right word, by the show community.

The crux of the matter for me is that once you begin to breed purely for the show ring, no matter how committed the judges are, you lose whole picture. You lose the benchmark for what's 'desirable' and what is exaggeration or misinterpretation of the written standard. In addition, without actually producing dogs with proven ability to work, they will fall out of favour as working dogs. This means to keep a viable gene pool, you need to consider the pet market.....and whether we like it or not, the demand for breeds of dog is driven by fashion as much as anything. It also means that the direction the breed takes is at the whim of judges. In many breeds, winners from even 10 years ago do not resemble today's winners.

If you don't agree with that: how many Bichons were there in the UK 20 or 30 years ago and how many are festering in puppy farms now?

I read an interesting article recently about the Pembroke Welsh Corgi, which said the show community had 'improved' the breed by crossing to the heavier Cardigan corgi. If you look at photos of corgis from the past, they resembled, active, workmanlike dogs and I am sure if they were left that way, they might have retained a steady but loyal following as (gasp) working farm dogs and as sports dogs and companions for active people who wanted a hardy little dog with a bit of drive. If there wasn't an appreciation of these qualities, why have numbers of Valhunds increased?

I've gone on long enough! I am not anti-showing: I just think showing should be a part of the wider picture and not the 'driving force'.

and of course, any breed is only as good as its breed club.