Thought I'd re-post this in response to the numerous people who come on this forum and "only want a pet dog - not for show/breeding" or "Am only breeding for the Pet market so don't need to show or keep a pup".

I feel it's about time it was realised that 'ONLY A PET' is possibly the most demanding job a dog can do!!

'Only a pet' needs a good, sound temperament to cope with living in a family with the various personalities, foibles and attitudes of the different members and their friends (not to mention their children and their friends) and the different animals they will live with and meet.  In addition they need to be able to cope with all the different situations they will experience.

'Only a Pet' needs good health to cope with the stresses of living with their family and all that this entails.  A sick/ill dog is a drain on family finances which, sadly, may not be able to cope and a strain on the family's emotions too.

'Only a Pet' requires good, sound construction in order to live a fit and active pain-free life with their family. 

'Only a Pet' doesn't get a day or even an afternoon off, they are on duty 24/7 diligently doing what a dog does best.

The majority of show dogs, regardless of successes or failures, are first and last family pets.  Even if shown every week (in UK) this still leaves 312 days of being 'Only a Pet'  The breeders of these dogs usually charge no more (and often a good deal less) than puppies from a pet supermarket, puppy farm or BackYard breeder.  

And what about those puppies? - don't they deserve the best start in life possible? with health-tested parents of good temperament and sound construction to pass on to them?  Surely they deserve to be fed an appropriate diet and brought up in a way which enables them to move on to their permanent new homes with confidence and trust?

And what about the owner of 'only a pet'??  Do they honestly believe that a dog doesn't need to be fit for the job of being a pet?  Don't they realise that pups cannot be produced to order unless large numbers of dogs are being bred and that to raise a litter properly is time consuming, costly and not possible in large numbers?   Doesn't the owner of 'Only a Pet' deserve a healthy, confident well socialised pup who goes on to to be the right size and have the looks, coat and temperament of the breed they wanted, bred responsibly by a breeder who will give a lifetime of support and advice and doesn't just have money as a motive??

Excellent post Dill :)

>Excellent post Dill

I couldn't agree more.  :-)  :-)

As others have said ....EXCELLENT POST....

Exactly, would not imagine that there is a litter born that contains only 'show dogs'. Show breeders breed puppies, it is their owners who decide the future life of the well bred pup, they are only interested in producing the very best they can the rest, dear general public, is up to you.

There has been a good deal of talk of late of people only being interested in 'Show dogs' and not in other pursuits undertaken with dogs anything from 'only a pet' to mountain rescue, now where do you think many of these 'other' (that is other than show dogs) come from - well in most cases from the litter of 6, 8, 10 or even 12 pups from which one or two pups will be shown, one or two will become agility or obedience dogs and the rest? Well they will be 'only pets'.

As Dill has said it takes time, effort and money to produce these dogs that aren't 'show dogs' and members of the public should learn to be patient and wait for the very best 'only a pet' that they can get and yes that is likely to be from the dreaded Show breeder or a working source.

Dill, fantasic post!
but to throw the cat among the pigeons - what about the people that would love to buy a pup from a reputable source but can't justify paying £1000 for a pet when joe bloggs on freeads has some for £500?  I mean, there's the kids christmas or the spring break to the caravan park.  I know that you need to be able to pay insurance, etc and afford the cost of keeping your dog.  But are the good breeders becoming elitist?

Well done Dill, (I'm going to have to use the same words too :-D) Excellent post! :-)

LOVE IT!!

what about the people that would love to buy a pup from a reputable source but can't justify paying £1000 for a pet when joe bloggs on freeads has some for £500?

This may happen in some breeds cracar but not in my own in fact I have seen puppy farmed pups costing far more than well bred ones.

In cases where this does apply then I suppose the old adage "you get what you pay for" is apt and what would you have the breeders of quality puppies do, mate their bitch to any old stud, let her whelp on her own and take her chance, let the litter bring its self up and sell on as quick as you can after they are weaned, if they did then they too could cut the costs.

Another thought, if the rise in designer dogs continues do you think the availability of cheap pure breed pups will continue, why breed two dogs of breed A and produce pups that will sell for £500 when you could breed together breed A to breed B and produce a pup to which you could give a fancy name to say nothing of claiming it to be supper healthy and charge £1500 for it.

I can see it will not be many years before the breeding of pure breeds will be in the hands of breed enthusiasts only, then they in turn will, if they wish, be able to charge what they like and then the BYBs and puppy farms will be jumping right back on the gravy train.

Well, take my old breed for example.  I know a very good, reputable kennel which import dogs/semen, shows and wins at champ level all over the world, sends pups abroad.  I know they sell pups for anything FROM £1400 upwards.  I bought a dog from Joe bloggs who happened to be breeding good stock which was this breeders lines.  I paid £250 for a 12 week old pup.  I won at champ level and had a healthy (HS 7/3 ES0/0 eyes clear) , stable dog.  I'm just wondering where the justification was for the £1150 difference? Do you see what I mean?  At the time, I was naive and didn't know about the ins and outs of breeding/buying a pet but now, I wish I was so naive. 
I think their is a difference from buying from a puppy farm than Mrs Petowner who just wants nice homes and I think it's a bit naive to think we have the monopoly because we go to shows.  I know plenty of pet dogs with show potential.  So, if they get the health checks and see the prices locally are £500, that's what Mrs Petowner will sell her litter for.  Who's to say that's a bad thing?  Yet, Mr Bigbreeder is selling his pups for £1000 just because he has shown his dog?  That's the bit I don't get.
PS My breed still varies from the hundreds to the thousands.  If you pay thousands, does that guarantee you a good dog?

The difference is in the breeder.  Always has been, always will.  How much a breeder cares cannot be valued in monetary terms.  I know I have given away dogs/pups to the right homes before and have never been wrong. Whereas I have sold pups to people standing with a wad of cash and made mistakes.

That post is the best I've ever read!!!

Cracar - don't think your experience or ideas are typical at all and it would be wrong to suggest that they are.

That post is the best I've ever read!!!

Which one, Dill or cracar?

Why is it not typical? About the showring or about getting a decent pup from a non-show person?  (I'm not being smart, I just don't understand)
Oh, do you mean the difference in prices? That I can prove!

Why is it not typical?

Because what you say is possible but not typical.

Excellent post, totally agree!!

An excellent post Dill.

Another factor to add: Some people will spend several weekends trawling furniture shops, measuring, comparing and then place an order for a sofa they will happily wait 8-12 weeks for.  There are those that spend hours comparing features on a washing machine before finding the right one that fits with their needs.  And yet these same people decide they want a puppy and within 12 hours they are carrying one through the door.  Why no careful research into the breed that best fits their needs? Why no weekends spent meeting breeders or attending trials/shows? Why are they not prepared to wait for that good quality litter to reach 8 weeks of age?

Why are they happy to spend many hundreds of pounds on a piece of furniture or an appliance that they will have for 5 or so years but the puppy that will be a family member for 15 years, that can bring so much heartache, distress and pain with a bad purchase, must be as cheap as possible and they cannot possibly save for it.  A badly purchased sofa might not go with the walls as well as you would like, might not be as comfortable as you like, might need to be repaired under warranty for poor workmanship but a badly purchased dog could cost you thousands in vet bills, dominate parts of your life trying to account for their behaviour, cause stress, worry and resentment or even see someone, like the families children, getting bitten.

Yes an excellent post.
II believe that some of the only a pet comments come from expecting to pay lots more for a potential show pup and not realising tha from good respectable breeders prices are usually ime the same.  You give the same care to all pups regardless of some becoming show potential as they grow

I hope that makes sense

where is the LOVE button on this forum?

Our dogues are both "only pets" but brought from show kennels in order o gain two dogs that look the breed their meant too, have the correct temperment and the endless lifetime advice and support over the past two years.

not all pet owners buy the first they see so many people do spend months looking just because they dont show there dog at show rings doesnt mean there welfare is  anyless !!!!!  some people need to realise how they sound (snobby) and infact a pet owners could say they love there dog more  by not putting stress on them to perform to the show rings every need. BREEDING  is stress for any female not just the show rings so why think its just TOP breeder who care for there dog !!!!!! im not saying all breeders are good but i really do think you tarnish everyone with the typical byb brush if they do not show there dogs. MY POINT IS YOU DONT HAVE TO SHOW YOUR DOG TO SHOW YOU CARE !!!

> but can't justify paying £1000 for a pet when Joe bloggs on freeads has some for £500? 

The general cost of a well bred puppy in most breeds has not changed as a percentage of peoples incomes, in the 20 years I have been in dogs and judging historically from old journals has always been about the same.

Joe bloggs seems to be able to justify spending a similar amount on a holiday, computer, music system etc.

I assume that if you want something you save up for it.

My first dog cost me roughly 2/3rds my monthly salary, and currently at around £650 my breed, (they are an average price for most breeds) is less than that based on current earnings.

To me there are two options when getting a dog, a well bred and reared puppy from a dedicated specialist breeder, or Rescue, putting money in Joe bloggs carelessly bred litter just encourages more bad breeding.

> I'm just wondering where the justification was for the £1150 difference?

Fortunately in numerically small breeds like my own the going rate for a puppy is within a few pounds the same across the board (this enables breeders to co-operate when homing puppies/helping locate a puppy for someone) be it a well bred litter from a mentored Novice or someone with a world wide reputation in their breed.

My foundation bitch came from one of the best established kennels.

We as breeders are in co-operation, not competition for sales.

My breed can vary from roughly £100 to around £650. It annoys me to see bybs charging pretty much what I sold my litter for (£450) when mine were KC registered and both parents/litter had a lovely pedigree/good workers, all the health tests done plus lavishly (lol) home reared.

> but to throw the cat among the pigeons - what about the people that would love to buy a pup from a reputable source but can't justify paying £1000 for a pet when joe bloggs on freeads has some for £500?  I mean, there's the kids christmas or the spring break to the caravan park.  I know that you need to be able to pay insurance, etc and afford the cost of keeping your dog.  But are the good breeders becoming elitist?

I don't earn a lot but I earn enough to pay insurance, maintenance etc. £1000 is a hell of a lot. But, I want the best pup possible when I next buy one and I expect to get what I pay for- the best possible puppy, from the best possible background, with the best available support from the breeder for the dogs entire life. Well worth £1000 and would last far longer than a holiday :)

Also, if you are buying a puppy properly you will be waiting on a waiting list and can put a bit away a month in prep.

Just replying to last post. Genuine question, I don't breed and never will. My dogs come from breeders who show.

I've seen some people come on here who have had all the health tests for their bitch (by which I don't mean a health check-up from the vet), carefully chosen a stud dog, are rightly being picky about puppy owners and prepared to provide the support. Which is, from what I understand by the original post, what a puppy 'pet' buyer should be looking for. Why is the addition of showing required here?

I can't help but think that these breeders are so considerably better than the puppy farming alternative, that I don't fully understand why they get picked on to a certain extent.

Why drive away those people who are breeding relatively responsibly? Pet dogs from rejected show litters are never going to meet demand. So why not support those who are breeding a darn sight more responsibly than others?

As I said it's just a question...but at this point I don't really understand the logic.

>Why is the addition of showing required here?

To try to ensure that these healthy animals also are also good examples of their breed; surely if a person wants to buy a dog of Breed X ithey should be certain it's going to lok like one (not be way bigger or smaller than they expect, for example)? Remember that everyone thinks their dog is wonderful - owners are always biased; judges' aren't. If a dog is consistently unplaced then it's probably not a good enough example to pass on its genes, whatever health screening it's passed.

Ok, that makes sense, to an extent - but would you promote a dog being a good example of it's breed over the breeding of healthy dogs? As I said, show kennels are not going to meet demand with their puppies not suitable for showing. People are not going to stop wanting dogs - so is it not better to meet this demand via breeders who are breeding in a responsible way but not showing, rather than turning to puppy farmers?

jeangenie i agree too but you dont have to keep showing to still get this as long has the dog/s have been looked over by some1 within this breed and is of good standed then all is well?? :)

>but would you promote a dog being a good example of it's breed over the breeding of healthy dogs?

Why should it be one or the other? Why not both - healthy and a good example? Both are equally important IMO.

>as long has the dog/s have been looked over by some1 within this breed

Just one other person's opinion isn't really enough; if the dog's been judged by (say) half a dozen people, and compared against others of its breed, including when fully adult, you wouldn't need to keep showing it year after year.

Jeangenie - as I have already said, if good example means show dog, how are show breeders going to meet the demand for pet dogs by the general public? Where else are people going to go to get their dogs if show breeders cannot fulfil the demand?

At the moment they largely go to puppy farmers. Would it not be better to promote responsible breeding from dogs that are not necessarily shown?

>how are show breeders going to meet the demand for pet dogs by the general public?

It's only the "I want it NOW!" people who would find waiting for a puppy of a particular breed to be a problem; in the meantime there's always breed rescue or any of the delightful crossbred and mongrel litters that are always around.

>Would it not be better to promote responsible breeding from dogs that are not necessarily shown?

They're certainly better than pups from unhealth-tested and unshown/assessed parents, but not to be particularly recommended.

how are show breeders going to meet the demand for pet dogs by the general public? Where else are people going to go to get their dogs if show breeders cannot fulfil the demand?

It's not the breeders not breeding enough that is the problem, it's the buyers not caring enough to wait and research. Show breeders will often have pups left unsold because the impatient pet buyers have gone to a pet breeder asking them no questions and offering to meet them at a motorway services and hand over the puppy in exchange for the money -often the same amount or even more than a show breeder will charge. Not to mention that thanks to Jemima Harrison the general public now thinks that all show breeders are cruel people who deliberately breed sick dogs, so a lot of people will pick breeders who do NOT show. Never mind the fact their dogs aren't health tested and could be ticking time bombs, and that they are twice as big as they should be, or look totally different in any other way, they are still seen as better.........

not all pet owners buy the first they see so many people do spend months looking just because they dont show there dog at show rings doesnt mean there welfare is  anyless !!!!!  some people need to realise how they sound (snobby) and infact a pet owners could say they love there dog more  by not putting stress on them to perform to the show rings every need.

Think you have totally misunderstood things. NOBODY is saying people who don't show are not good pet owners. People who BREED without showing (OR working) however are not in it for the good of their breed. And a stressed show dog will not do well at shows, unless they love it they will never shine and do well. I have one 12 year old dog still winning well in the ring and there is no way I can even think of retiring her as she knows when we are off to a show, and if left behind she will stand in the window and howl in distress. (If we go shopping, or anywhere else, she doesn't do it -she knows full well when it's a show we're off to.) She loves her shows, and when the day comes that she is too old to cope with them, we will either have to take her NFC or not go at all.

Ok...I wasn't being deliberately argumentative, I really want you to be able to justify the argument that if you don't show then you shouldn't breed, partly because by dogs come from exactly that background - from show litters, not quite up to the mark so went to a pet home - ie: me.
However, I am prepared to be provocative about this because I STRONGLY believe that health and soundness is of the upmost importance. More so than breeding for type/standard. I think responsible breeder such as those on this forum are missing a trick by defending their superiority of stock rather than looking for viable alternatives.

So...
It's not just the 'I want it now' attitude that causes this - how may people are on waiting lists for a pup only to be disappointed at the end of it because there weren't enough puppies to meet demand?

You suggest people should by crossbreeds. Cross-breeds go against the thoughts expressed in so many threads on here I can't even begin to count. Also unlikely to be from health tested parents. And you are advocating that people buy them? Or was your suggestion sarcastic?

And how many of the responsible breeders on this board end up with dogs they have bred in breed rescue? If very few, then where to they come from? Less responsible breeders?

What about those people who want puppies? Not likely to be in rescue. Or are they wrong to want a puppy?

So I don't understand the arguments you've made at all.

I am just trying to ascertain why people are so against the thought of non-showing dog owners breeding, if they are prepared to health test and commit to the puppies they are producing? Surely you can see the benefits of promoting this as a source of dogs rather than leaving it to untested, poorly treated puppy farmed animals?

i love your post katien!! :)

i dont breed anymore .. but have shown and worked our dogs in the past!

> Show breeders will often have pups left unsold because the impatient pet buyers have gone to a pet breeder asking them no questions

Has definitely happened to me.  Even when I have been happy with the vetting I've done.  I've had people who just couldn't wait any longer, and when I contact them, the embarrassed, oh we saw one in the paper, and just phoned up, and they let us collect right away.

Goldmali, just to pick up on one of your points:

People who BREED without showing (OR working) however are not in it for the good of their breed.

To a point I agree here BUT... were I to breed from my bitch who has a minimal fault (I can't, she's spayed) and she had been health tested and has a good pedigree, carefully selected stud, offer lifelong support to puppy owners...is this not better for the breed than the guy down the road who is breeding multiple breeds, keeping them in caravans and unable to provide information on health tests? Is it not also better for the dogs?
My 7 puppies of my breed vs his 7 puppies of his breed - which is better? This is at the crux of my argument here. You are never going to control the desires of the general public - you have a much better chance of controlling the source.

Again, I'm playing devils advocate to a degree here. But somewhere between the poles of puppy farming vs show-dog breeding only, there must lie a middle ground...?? Shouldn't we support the finding of this?

yes the same has happend to me jean...i bet its happend to many here! some ppl just cant wait and i think no matter what ppl will always be this way :(

>partly because by dogs come from exactly that background - from show litters, not quite up to the mark so went to a pet home - ie: me.

And that should be the norm. :-) That doesn't mean that your pet should be bred from though.

>how may people are on waiting lists for a pup only to be disappointed at the end of it because there weren't enough puppies to meet demand?

I waited over a year for one puppy, having been on several waiting lists and either missing out (not enough bitches, for example) or not being happy with the litter when it arrived. I wasn't an "I want it NOW" person so I carried on waiting. If I'd been desperate for 'a puppy' then I'd either have gone for another breed or had a look at rescue centres.

>You suggest people should by crossbreeds. Cross-breeds go against the thoughts expressed in so many threads on here I can't even begin to count. Also unlikely to be from health tested parents. And you are advocating that people buy them? Or was your suggestion sarcastic?

There will always be genuine accidental litters, and those puppies need good homes. That's totally different to deliberately breeding crossbreeds/mongrels.

>I am just trying to ascertain why people are so against the thought of non-showing dog owners breeding, if they are prepared to health test and commit to the puppies they are producing? Surely you can see the benefits of promoting this as a source of dogs rather than leaving it to untested, poorly treated puppy farmed animals?

I can't see why the idea of showing is such anathema. It's quicker, cheaper and easier than many of the health tests, after all! If someone's prepared to go to the trouble of health screening for breeding surely it makes sense to find out first whether the tests are justified? If you think of the judge's assessment as being another pre-breeding test then it makes perfect sense.

>But somewhere between the poles of puppy farming vs show-dog breeding only, there must lie a middle ground...??

Playing devil's advocate, why must there?

I've no intention of breeding from my pet.

Well done you for waiting. So did I. But I still wanted a puppy at the time in my life that suited me. I know where I wanted one from but I would have gone elsewhere after a certain period of waiting and I wouldn't have changed breeds. That's not abnormal, that's just the way many, many people are.

There will always be accidental matings for sure. But the parents aren't likely to be health tested and I can guarantee that most of the cross breeds around are NOT from accidental matings. But you would still prefer people to have puppies from untested accidental crossbreeding than from fully health tested and sound pedigree parents that don't happen to get shown. I do not understand that at all.

Showing isn't for everyone, it's that simple. I wouldn't go in a ring for love nor money. Doesn't make me a bad person, dog owner or necessarily a bad breeder for that matter.

Why must there be a middle ground? Because at the moment people are buying too many poorly bred dogs from dubious breeders. The pups aren't sound and the adults are living in terrible conditions. I would have thought that this was a very very good reason to look for a middle ground but some people are so busy fighting their corner that they don't WANT to look for it.
I apologise for my slightly aggressive tone here but I am honestly shocked by the complete lack of willingness to bend and look at solutions for the benefit of dog welfare in general.

were I to breed from my bitch who has a minimal fault (I can't, she's spayed) and she had been health tested and has a good pedigree, carefully selected stud, offer lifelong support to puppy owners...is this not better for the breed than the guy down the road who is breeding multiple breeds, keeping them in caravans and unable to provide information on health tests? Is it not also better for the dogs?

Let's put it like this then: Your bitch ends up having pups with the same minor fault as she has, and some of them go on to have pups, all with the same fault. Nobody worries about it because it is just minor, they are healthy, and they are just pets.  A minor fault can then suddenly become something very common in a breed, and change the look of a breed. A very simple and very common example is yellow eyes in Chocolate Labradors. Look around you when you are out -how many chocolate Labradors with yellow eyes do you see? I'd bet the great majority. It is just a minor fault, but it is a fault all the same, which so many pet breeders have ignored it that it's changed the look of all those pet bred chocolate Labradors.

Now what if the fault was instead that the coat wasn't of the correct quality, and perhaps harder to groom than it should be? Or the bitch was bigger than she should be, and her pups ended up the same? Again the small fault will be carried on and on until they become the NORM in the pet bred dogs. Look around at all the Chihuahuas twice the size of what you see in the show ring. The Cavaliers much bigger, not to mention the Staffies that you often cannot even tell if they are purebred or not. The minor faults become so common people don't even see them as faults (as they do not show), and so a bitch with both the common and a rarer fault is bred from, and the circle continues, until the pet bred dogs look like a different breed altogether. (We KNOW this happens, and it's not just in pet bred dogs of course but very much in working dogs as well -but there at least there is a real reason for putting working ability above looks, and I don't have a big problem with that, working dogs are needed, even though I'd PREFER all dogs to be dual purpose and both have the right looks AND the right abilities.) Then what is the point of having breeds at all when they stop looking (and often also acting) like their breed? It's a story I have told many, many a time here before, but about 13 years ago I had 4 Cavaliers (now only have one) and lived in a town and walked my dogs where lots of people walked. All my Cavaliers came from show breeders and were nice looking -but pets only. I would often meet other Cavalier owners out when walking, and invariably their dogs were much bigger, had longer faces, an entirely different look. It happened several times that people sighed and said that they wished their Cavalier looked like mine -that's what they had expected to be getting, but they had gone to somebody local whose pet dogs had a litter and they weren't showing.  So much as they loved their dogs, they were disappointed that they had not got what they expected when they chose a particular breed.

So to go back to your question, it depends entirely on what your hypothetical litter was bred for. Was the stud dog chosen to hopefully end up with pups WITHOUT the bitch's minor fault? Would any that had the same fault be endorsed not to be bred from? But above all, would they be of any use to the breed as a whole? Is it a popular breed with thousands of dogs available, or a rare one where there may only be a handfull of dogs in the country? It's never black and white, but it's always best to err on the side of caution as we are playing with lives.

in a perfect world only shown/work dogs that have been health tested CLEAR of what ever needs to be done would breed and people would wait for a pup from them and all the dogs in the world would be clear of everything!!

but sadly this isnt to be so i have to agree with the lady that is playing devil's advocate (sorry forgot your name)

white lilly, thanks for your earlier support. Your comment:

i think no matter what ppl will always be this way

is exactly why I am asking these questions. It gives me some comfort that some one understand the futility of trying to change the general public. Another angle is needed on this. I hoped that here on this forum, because of the common love for dogs, I might find some willingness to discuss alternatives, even if it means compromise.

>Showing isn't for everyone, it's that simple. I wouldn't go in a ring for love nor money. Doesn't make me a bad person, dog owner or necessarily a bad breeder for that matter.

Not at all. But your bitch's breeder wouldn't have felt that way, so surely he/she would have been happy (if she also thought breeding from your bitch was a good idea ;-)) to have shown her for you? I know several people who do this.

It's never black and white, but it's always best to err on the side of caution as we are playing with lives.

goldmali i understand what your saying BUT you yourself has put this *looking up*.....nothing is ever black and white and thats why with the way ppl are that breeding dogs from helth tested wonderful pets (which we know all our dogs are anyway!) and a good example of the breed!!

SO i think if people where to read up and find out if there dog is of breed standed...you dont have to show to find this out ,and all the health tests are in place i dont see theres any problems :)

It gives me some comfort that some one understand the futility of trying to change the general public. Another angle is needed on this. I hoped that here on this forum, because of the common love for dogs, I might find some willingness to discuss alternatives, even if it means compromise.

Isn't that a bit like saying "There will always be people who will drive a car without insurance so we should give up trying to stop it?" Or "there will always be 15 year olds getting pregnant, so we need to compromise and tell teenagers it's okay to get pregnant when they are 16, but not at 15?" Why should we compromise just because there are irresponsible people around?

Goldmali, I absolutely appreciate where you're coming from. But you are taking the example I posed to it's negative extremes. Indiscriminate breeding is not the way to go and never ever has been. And it isn't at all what I am proposing here and I haven't in any of my posts.

So to continue my example in my case - yes, I would have asked the breeder of my girl to help me select a stud which might have helped to counter the fault, the puppies would have gone to homes where people would have got an absolute grilling and they would have been registered and endorsed. But at no point would I have shown her.  Now according to general feeling, this would have been a very bad idea. My point is that on the scale of responsible dog breeding, I think that scenario is far nearer the top of the curve than the bottom.
So again as I mentioned, there is (and there really is, I have been there), a breeder round the corner from me who has the same breed, plus others, in sad conditions, pups kept away from their mother etc etc. I have met people with dogs from there of my breed and some have been ill, others have temperament issues. People have tried to complain and failed.

My litter, from sound dogs with full support has to be a better prospect and that would be 7 (to take the previous example) people looking for dogs of my breed in a much better position than if they'd gone to the guy around the corner.

Can you see my point? That with support from the likes of the breeders on here, people could be breeding good (not great) quality puppies for PET homes which are much, much better of than the alternative.

i do get where your coming from i think as long as a breeder has done their home work re the breed then all way and good :)....at the other end ...what about show kennels that dont health test OR still breed knowing their lines carry somthing!! and are still breeding to this day!! now i feel sorry for these poor familys thinking thayve done everything they should but think because this is a show kennel/breeder everything is in order and their takeing home a happy healthy pup well maybe they are lucky or maybe that 1 will start to show signs soon and die at a young age :( .....we have 2 sides of the coin and it carnt be swept under the carpet, thats why pedigree dogs get a bad name!

>So to continue my example in my case - yes, I would have asked the breeder of my girl to help me select a stud which might have helped to counter the fault, the puppies would have gone to homes where people would have got an absolute grilling and they would have been registered and endorsed. But at no point would I have shown her.

Would you have allowed her breeder to show her for you? If so, problem solved. If not, why not?