Your opinions: is a "show" breeder more reputable?

[Dogdragoness]

Of course if a person is looking for a show puppy then of course you want to have the parents titled & whatnot ... This applies if a buyer is looking for just a sport/working/companion dog from a breeder:

Izze was from a hobby breeder & she was a sound well adjusted dog, as was bear. Izze's breeder only had one breeding pair, Bear's had two each only had one or two litters a year.

My question, just because a breeder doesn't "show" &/or register their dogs (bear & his parents were registered though Izze's were not) does that make them bad breeders? Should breeders be judged on whether they campaign their dogs on the show circuit or not? Or should they be judged on how they operate?

Personally I would buy from a breeder like Izze's again in a heartbeat. What about you guys?

[Greenmagick]

Did Izze's breeder health test? Compete the dog in anything?

[PawsibleDogs]

I don't think showing makes someone reputable, and I don't think not showing makes someone disreputable.

What matters to me more are the overall ethics they show in the care, placement, and breeding of their dogs; what they do to retain the breed's original purpose (or reasonable replacement); and the health and longevity of their lines. Additionally, I want someone who's trying to find the best fit for me, not push a particular puppy/breeding/etc. on me and respects my input in the process as well.

[Dizzy]

Personally, I would take every breeder on an individual basis. I don't think you can generalise as some active breeders can have questionable practices and some hobby breeders can be amazing.

[Romy]

Depends on the breed. Some breeds don't even have shows. And no, it's pretty individual.

I think show breeders have more social pressure to do a good job, because other folks in the breed see their dogs regularly and might see their kennel in person at some point. If it's really crappy then word will get out fast. I have seen some show breeders that treat their dogs like crap, like leaving green slimy water buckets for months, keeping them on concrete constantly and feeding crap food. It's really pretty rare though, and pretty much everyone else that knew them thought it was despicable.

There's not that kind of oversight in BYBers and folks who aren't involved in sports or clubs of some kind. Sport and hunt bred mixes can be done very responsibly and they don't do conformation shows.

[Lyzelle]

It's really up to the individual person whether or not your breeder is "reputable" enough for you.

Personally, I would only buy from a breeder who breeds performance dogs(since I'm into working dogs, not non-working or companion), and trials their dog in some venue that proves temperament, drive, and potential. Show titles are a bonus, but I'm realistic about the working/show split. Same with registering and dual registering. I'll also only buy from breeders who health test, and put a lot of work and research into the few litters they do produce(which rules out farm breeders for me). I'd be wary of someone who does the same breeding over and over, several times a year. I also prefer house dogs over kenneled dogs, and I want the dogs cared for as family members, and not just working animals.

But that's *my* personal opinion of who *I* would buy from, in a nutshell. If you prefer a "reputable" breeder who sells litters from the same parents over and over, doesn't health test, and doesn't do any work or venues...that's your opinion.

Either way, there is ALWAYS going to be someone who will disagree. Always. Some people are happy buying dogs from farm/ranch breeders who don't compete and don't ensure their dogs are genetically healthy. Some believe only show dogs are the best. Some think only working dogs are the best. Some are okay with kenneled dogs, some only want house dogs. Some are okay with treating the dogs as working animals only, some only want dogs who have been family members There's a flavor for everyone, and therefore, there will always be someone who disagrees.

[Shai]

Your premise is a false dichotomy.

Showing a dog in the breed ring makes a breeder neither reputable nor disreputable.

Not showing a dog in the breed ring makes a breeder neither reputable nor disreputable.

Big picture. Priorities.

[Dogdragoness]

Originally Posted by Greenmagick

Did Izze's breeder health test? Compete the dog in anything?

Yes they were tested for deafness, PRCA, hip & elbow displasia but they were just working dogs, they tested their stock because they wanted strong healthy, sound working dogs that would be around for many years to come. She was sold with a written contract, Bear's breeder also did the necessary health testing.

[lizzybeth727]

To me, good temperament is more important than conformation titles.

But, that said, my dog's conformation is extremely important. Conformation is a huge contributo to the dog's activity level and general quality of life. It's also important to me that when I get a purebred dog, it looks like a purebred dog. Conformation titles can be a good indicator that the dog is built well and looks like its breed.

Of course this is, sadly, not necessarily true of all breeds or even all individual dogs/breeders.

[AdrianneIsabel]

I am pretty unconcerned with show, I also don't buy off titles. Titles DO help show what a dog can do but that isn't the end all for me.

Izzy may come from a great breeder, it's hard to tell.