I think we need to look at the definition of responsible breeder. Someone who prances dogs around a show ring and buys some blue ribbons, while sacrificing health aspects of the dogs (including culling pups and pretending they never existed, instead of culling the parents that produced the pups), isn't what I would consider to be responsible.
A lot of people took offense to an article I listed many years ago in regard to Catahoulas and culling by working dog owners/breeders. People gasped and hemmed and hawed, but the truth is that those guys weren't responsible for all the deaf/blind/crappy temperament ones out there today. Instead, they were demonized for their harsh standards of which they held their dogs. So now pet breeders produce all sorts of dogs, and excuses and cute little sob stories accompany all the poor quality dogs.
But....somehow I feel there's a disconnect between what some, including myself, are trying to say and what is being heard. So if I'm not being clear, I apologize.
I'm still on my phone so can't quote your reply to my reply, but I agree with you. Most of your replies in red had me saying, "Yes, exactly." I think it is our conclusion that is different.
For example, Am. Bullies vs APBT. That is a loaded topic in and of itself due public perception, but let's pretend it's not. (Let's also pretend that Am Bullies are actually being health tested and bred structurally sound, yes?) I honestly have no issue with the APBT breed being changed. And I have no issues with that drastic change being called a new breed name, or even a "type" name. And honestly, I wish it wasn't such a big deal *too* give a different name to something. Does that make sense?
I don't think anyone is saying people should breed their good ol' boy pet dog to their neighbor's adorable bitch. And if that is how my posts are being interpretated, I apologize for not being more clear. When I say healthy, I mean not just clinically, I mean health tested and tried. Diseases screened for and selected against. Dogs actively working and not breaking down during work. Lines researched and watched for signs of potential genetic issues that cannot be screened for. When I say structurally sound, I mean a dog that is built correctly. One that isn't going to be unable to perform normal dog behaviors (or tasks that the dog is used for) without breaking down not due to bad health, but purely because the way the dog is made. When I say sound temperament, I mean a dog with solid nerves. Regardless of whether they are reserved, or guardy, or polite, or social, or stoic, or sensitive, or prey aggressive or intolerant of stupidity...the dog should be stable.
And as much as I strongly dislike the current show trend in Labradors...who am I to say they shouldn't be bred *as long as they are being bred responsibly*? (See above explanation.) Now, whether or not they are...that is a different debate.
And yes, I do realize that from my above guide I view breeding quite a few different breeds as irresponsible...and there is a reason I wish a standard wasn't so clung to and that out crossing was more acceptable in order to make these breeds healthier. But again, that is a different debate...
ETA: And I don't view someone whose dogs has a lot of ribbons as a responsible breeder. You're dog can have titles and still be a mess. It's the whole package that counts.