I agree, there doesn't have to be 'name calling'. But I am going to stick up for the attitude of 'working advocates'. It's based on concern and fear.....because so many working breeds have gone to the bench and never returned.
To me, it's the attitude. I see absolutely no need for name calling no matter what side of the fence you're on. I've seen it from both sides of the fence depending on the forum/real life situation. Lately I just see it a lot with the border collie debates.
I have NO problem with anyone being advocates for what they think is right as far as their breeds go. I admire people that try to keep working lines intact. I just don't see a need for name calling. I also wish more people would look at the entire situation for what it is. There are a lot of people that like to 'regurgitate' what they hear. This varies as well and both sides are guilty.
All I ask is that people research. One issue that I used to spout verbatim is labradoodles. I used to have the same knee jerk anti doodle reaction that many people have. Since then I've reformed my opinion especially after seeing them work and looking at some reputable breeders. While the majority aren't good breeders, some are trying and i think that's important to acknowledge.
There are so many ideas slung around that are ridiculous...
The idea that showing is everything and if you don't show then you're not a good breeder- ridiculous.
Then the idea that everyone who breeds show bred dogs is only showing and only looking at aesthetics- also ridiculous.
There is the thought that all show dogs are watered down versions of the real thing with no drive- not true.
Terms like 'Barbie collie' and talking about 'ring prancers' is not going to solve anything. You want to talk about issues you find then put it in specifics.
I don't care when people talk specifics- working dogs lacking type or show dogs lacking drive, but when people start calling each other's dogs useless or ugly, then it's just silly and immature.
But it all comes down to taking off the blinders and see the dog for what it is, what abilities that individual dog posesses and what traits might be passed on to its offspring.
There will always be a split, unfortunately, but just looking at its titles (champion versus working) and basically calling all of them crap is only going to make it worse. If you prefer working dogs then thats what you get, but being closed-minded about ALL showdogs will exxagerate the split even more.
This is basically what I'm trying to say.
The truth of the matter involving show dogs is that there ARE people showing (in some breeds a whole lot!) that do way more than just show. They produce well rounded dogs that never get recognized by some people who always balk at show dogs.
Also, to play devil's advocate which I always enjoy doing obviously.... you say many dog breeds go to showing and never return. This is true, but couldn't you say that if the breed was still needed to do it's original job then there would still be some form of working line? If the job is obsolete isn't the breeders' job to make do with what performance/conformation we have and go from there doing the best they can?
Breeding is not and will never be black and white. You're never going to agree with everyone in your breed's idea of the 'perfect specimen'. People emphasize what they feel the most important. In a breed where I can have it all, I want it all. In others then I must, too, decide what I deem the most important. I'll disagree with some people and I really think that's okay...