I know that it's not all about gaining rosettes!!

I know Max is a good specimen of the breed (note I didn't say excellent etc) as I've been asked by other Boxer owners (who show and judge Boxers) if I plan to show him (which I don't)

Yes, Max looks like a Boxer (except for the full tail!) and has all the breed traits and characteristics of a Boxer, if he didn't look like a Boxer I'd want my money back .

What makes him any different, to a pet owner, than a Boxer bought (for possibly more money) from a championship breeder?

My breeder would never breed from a not true-to-breed standard, not-health-tested dog, and doesn't intend on flooding the market with puppies. How does this make her a bad breeder?

Moobli - I know it's not technically "working", but since Boxer's don't have a true "job" any more, unlike BC's etc, I always class it as work in my mind!

I class it as `work` in the dogs mind, but I am a self-confessed heathen in that regard, eh Moobli :smt058

[ she says ducking from the virtual head swat Moobli is aiming at me ]

Very interesting thread.

I must admit that before I joined Dogsey, I honestly thought that show dogs were purely about looks.

It also seemed to me when I was growing up that it was all the pedigree dogs who were having the health problems (particularly hips) whereas the mongrels I knew went on for years and years.

To me, looks have always been of least importance and therefore based on the above notions, I had no interest in showing & would never have considered getting a dog from a show breeder as I thought I would have been paying for looks only and that because they had been in-bred to get the looks, they would not be healthy either.

Whether this was really the case all those years ago, I really don't know, but thanks to Dogsey I ndo realise that many, many show people actually care about the 'whole' of their breed - health, character, temperment and that appearance is only a part of this.

So, in terms of the original post, yes, to preserve the individual breeds I do think it would be better if a dog was proven before being bred from. However, I think the 'test' should also encompass health and temperement, which I don't think a show win alone would prove.

Finally I also think that with so many unwanted dogs, no-one should breed at all unless they already have good homes for the pups lined up.

(But bare in mind that this post is from someone who thinks that humans should have to pass a basic test before they're allowed to breed too )

Interesting Debate Guys.

I think we already have enough dogs without the average pet owner breeding to supply demand.As far as i'm aware there is not enough demand for pups,it has already been stated, week in week out pups are advertised.(usually untested and look nothing like the breed they are supposed to resemble)

The average pet owner in my opinion does not know enough about breeding to undertake it,or usually about the breed or it's history.

My dogs are going back into the ring in about 6 weeks,but they are Pets and part of our family first and foremost,they didn't ask to shown,i made that choice.

Any litter in the future that i breed,will be sold as pets,if they go into the ring then as far as i'm concerned it's a bonus.

I am totally with Ian on this one.
People are assuming I'm anti show...please show me a post where I have said I am...because I'm NOT.
Nor am I anti people breeding working or show dogs.
All I am saying is that I do not have a problem with people ethically breeding from their pet dog...with health checks etc in place.
No...I have NO problems with mongrels, the Biffters is incredibly healthy, what ever he might be.
For the record I DO have a problem with anyone who breeds without health testing their dogs (including a vet check up/medical), breeds from dogs with a bad temperament, breeds without having good, checked homes lined up for the pups and breeds but would be unwilling or unable to take back any unwanted pups or pups who's owners circumstances have altered.I am against that sort of breeding be it for show, work or pet.

I have no problem with ethical breeders in any of the above markets.

Malady...why would a pet owner, breeding their pet dog to a pet dog with all checks etc in place, destroy the breed?
Do you think you don't see adverts for dogs from such breeders because they are ethical and already have homes lined up????
Isochick...thank you for your post, proving that there are breeders like the ones I've spoken about out there. People generally don't hear about them, because they don't know them personally. Thanks.

Sal...hello!
The average pet owner won't be breeding to have a great example of the breed though (again I'm talking the ethical ones) they would be breeding pets.

Hali...I couldn't agre more with that. Anyone who breeds and doesn't have homes for all the pups lined up before doing so is acting unethically IMO...it goes hand in hand with health checks and having a good temperament.

The discussion is straying a little so I though I'd go back to the original question.
Should dogs have to prove themselves in the ring or working trials before being bred from?
IMO no.

Health and temperament should be the most important factors when breeding a dog IMO....as well as the breeder behaving ethically, they all go hand in hand. For the breeder behaving ethically please read...ALL health checks and a vet check done, homes lined up for all the pups and the willingness and ability to take the pups back if necessary at any point in their lives.

Hi Alisa

Reputable Breeders in any breed will not sell you a show dog/working dog,they are sold as pets.
So why do we need Pet owners breeding from substandard dogs?

But who said they are substandard Sal?