This is something I still struggle with, even though I love finding breeders for people and am making a breeder directory as we speak. It's sort of a clash between emotion and logic.
I do GET the anti breeder point of view. Not the whole they only breed for money thing or that they are causing the problem, that's false, but I get the "if there were no breeders fewer dogs would be killed" mentality. If there were no breeders then people who want dogs (most, I suppose some would just not own dogs) would go to shelters and rescues, and many, many dogs would escape death and get good homes. Most people would be just as happy with their rescue dogs as they would be with their breeder dogs because most people go to breeders for good pets, and most rescue dogs make good pets. So I definitely get that sentiment.
But that ignores the human component in a lot of ways. A person wants their ideal pet, and for some people it's a lot easier to find that ideal pet when you get to choose a specific breed that has all of those ideal traits and go to a breeder who works to preserve those breed traits (so a good breeder). So while those people could probably find the perfect dog in rescue somewhere, its going to be harder to find it and harder to be sure that you've found it than if you go get a dog whose parents and grandparents and great grandparents all had those traits you're looking for. So it's a gamble, and I understand if people don't want to make that gamble when they have something specific they are looking for. Should people have to risk getting multiple dogs that don't really fulfill them? No. They could go to a good breeder and get exactly what they are looking for the first time and would be thrilled with their ideal dog. But in the back of my head I still seem to feel it's selfish, not saving a life because it might not be perfect for you, even though I KNOW there is nothing wrong with wanting your ideal dog, and KNOW getting a dog isn't supposed to be a charity service, and KNOW the dog and human will be happier if they mesh perfectly. I just can't help feeling that "but you could save a life!" mentality, even if I don't let it come out because I know there is nothing wrong with good breeders and am truly thrilled when someone chooses a good breeder over a BYB.
And then I remember that if these people would just focus their anger on stupid breeders and oops litters there would be no more shelter dogs that need saving. There are people out there CAUSING the problem that need to be taken care of, so why target those that are not putting dogs in shelters. And I remember that if good breeders stop too then all that would be left after shelter dogs all have homes are dogs with unknown family histories (in regards to health and temperament), so not dogs that should be bred. Thus good breeding could never be brought back.
So I know that good breeders are doing important work, and they must keep doing it. I also think dog breeds with specific temperaments should be preserved because I do think it's important to have an idea of what sort of temperament the breed or type (terrier mix, herding breed mix, hound mix, etc.) of dog you are getting generally has so you can make an educated decision on whether they would fit in your family based on that. If no one was preserving different temperaments then buying any dog from anywhere would be a gamble.
But I still struggle not to be disappointed when people go to breeders, even good breeders, "just because" (are not looking for anything terribly specific, could probably find what they want easily in a rescue). I am happy to help them find good breeders because I want them to go the good breeder route, not the BYB breeder route, but I still wish they would get a rescue if they are just looking for a good pet. I know it shouldn't disappoint me, but I can't help it, a homeless dog could have been given a better life.
That said I've entertained the idea of going the breeder route myself. But that voice in the back of my head will likely keep me from doing so. My reservations about going to breeders will only ever affect ME.
I don't dislike good breeders, would never discourage people from going to one, will always try to be objective when making recommendations about where someone should consider getting a dog, and will continue to be thrilled every time someone IRL tells me they went to a breeder who health tests or who does agility or shows their dogs or something. Because if everyone stopped going to BYBs and mills and those people stopped breeding that would make the biggest difference.
I have nothing wrong with pro spay and neuter campaigns though, oops litters might even account for more unwanted dogs than BYBs and mills. Average Joe can't keep their dogs contained properly it seems.
I also wish there was more emphasis placed on finding good breeders because I think most people who go to BYBs and mills would not if they knew how to find "the best". The anti-puppy mill movement has gained a lot of support, the main reason is because of the abuse involved in mills. I do not think you can demonize BYBs. They generally love their dogs, take good care of them, etc. So I think it'd be easier just to get people passionate about what makes a good breeder. It's hard for average dog owners to become passionate about proper conformation or preserving working drive. But I think most people could get behind breeding dogs with stable temperaments and good genetic health because dogs that grow up to be terrified of life or maul children are sad, and dogs who go blind or have to be euthanized because they are crippled by hip dysplasia are sad, and people become passionate about things that make them sad (and angry). I think if there was a campaign that highlighted just those things about good breeders people would get behind it and spread the word.
In talking to people (family and friends) who ask how I choose what breeders to add to my breeder directory, those two points, that they ensure good, stable temperaments and test for genetic disease, seem to make the most sense to them. I have stopped saying "I make sure they title their dogs" because most people don't care if their dog's parents are champions or is awesome at agility. Now I say "I make sure they do something to prove their dogs have really good, proper temperaments" and people seem to get that a lot better, so then I can say how titling or working can prove that. And of course everyone wants to get healthy pets, so no one is confused when I say I look for disease screening. I just don't think people know what sort of screening is available, they think a breeder saying that they take their dogs to the vet yearly ensures that they are disease free. People can learn that that is not the case. I think there could be a pro good breeder movement, it just needs to be simplified.
