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

[*blackrose]

For me, if a breeder competes in conformation, it just shows that they are breeding dogs close enough to show standard to title. That's it. This can be a good thing (if the show standard is appealing to me) or a bad thing (if the show standard is unappealing to me, say, like in Pekingese).

However, whether or not they compete in conformation or not, I'm always looking for three main things in a breeder: 1.) They care about the structure of the dog, 2.) They care about the health of the dog, and 3.) They care about the temperament of the dog. If they fill those requirements (to my specs), then they're good enough for me!

[sassafras]

A show breeder is not necessarily more or less reputable than any other breeder IMO. It wouldn't be a deal breaker for me either way.

[Keechak]

The titles do not make the dog for me, "proving" the dog does. And when I say proving I mean in a breed specific activity, whether or not that activity gives the dog titles or not doesn't entirely matter to me. A working ranch dog on a beef farm is just as good to me if not better than a dog with a WTCH, if the dog is BOTH those things well that's fantastic!

I will only get a dog from a breeder who also health tests their dog and breeds for good conformation and temperament.

[Dogdragoness]

I much prefer a working breeder to a strictly shoe breeder, if they do both then cool, but if they breed strictly to the breed standard & nothing else, of their brag page is filled with conformation show pics & nothing about working their dogs (past instinct testing) then I am a little disappointed ESP in ACDs who are known for their ability to work & not just stock.

[Grab]

I don't particularly care about showing, although I lean towards show breeders for my Chows since I don't care for how the majority (not all) of BYB type dogs look. I also don't see a ton of health testing in non showline Chows, and health testing was our first priority, right up there with temperament. (my first chow had hip troubles, though his temperament was unflappable)

When we look for a Standard Poodle, I'll be less concerned with the show aspect, as I'm sure I'll be able to find what I'm looking for (health test, temperament as well as appearance) with a breeder who does show and/or working/sports.

I do want a breeder to do something with their dogs besides breed them. Be it conformation, sports, hunting, etc. I also won't go to a breeder who just has a dog or two that they breed to each other repeatedly. What is the goal in that besides more puppies?

But to answer the question, showing does not automatically equal reputable. When looking for the puppy-who-would-be-Aesop, I came across a few Chow breeders who do show who I couldn't have been paid to take a puppy from.

[Southpaw]

As far as conformation goes, it means nothing to me. Especially in breeds where I don't like the looks of what's winning in the ring. Boxers and BCs for example.... don't really care for the way the "show" dogs look.

Does that mean I think its bad when a breeder shows? No. I just don't seek it out and generally those dogs aren't appealing to me, anyway, regardless of their other practices.

I'm quite happy with Juno. Juno's breeder does not show. I would not hesitate to get another boxer from her.

[ruffiangirl]

For me its a part of the puzzle, I want a breeder who breeds for health, temperament, conformation and working. I dont want a breeder who only breeds for working because thats too much dog for my life, but I also dont want a dog that was breed just for the show ring, because, frankly I did it once, and he was sweet, but dumb. I also want a dog that looks like it should, meaning if I buy a Bouvier I want it too look like a Bouvier, not a Schnauzer.

That said there are exceptions to that rule, I would not buy a GSD from North American show lines, there is nothing sound for the most part. Other breeds I just think they should stop, step back and look at the damage they have done and start over, or quit breeding them all together.

[frostfell]

The longer Im around, and the more dog people I get to know, the more I realize that the so called Golden Rules of breeders are completely bunk. Every single last one of them. Yes even health testing.

Every breeder must be taken as they are, what they are, what they have. Not every rule applies to every situation. A breeder can do all the right things and be bad. A breeder can do none of the right things and be the best breeder youve ever met.

I do not consider the presence or lack of titling or showing to affect my choice in a breeder. The presence or lack doesnt signify bad or reputable.

[Keechak]

Originally Posted by frostfell

The longer Im around, and the more dog people I get to know, the more I realize that the so called Golden Rules of breeders are completely bunk. Every single last one of them. Yes even health testing.

Every breeder must be taken as they are, what they are, what they have. Not every rule applies to every situation. A breeder can do all the right things and be bad. A breeder can do none of the right things and be the best breeder youve ever met.

I do not consider the presence or lack of titling or showing to affect my choice in a breeder. The presence or lack doesnt signify bad or reputable.

I am curious does this mean that you believe there may be a situation in which, lets say, a Collie breeder who doesn't test for Collie Eye Anomaly (which is a simple to test for recessive trait that causes blindness), could be responsible (assuming the dogs are not cleared by parentage)?

I am in no way criticizing your remark just trying to clarify what you mean.

[Beanie]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed.