i don't really have a problem with any dogs being shown provided that they're not being bred solely for show and to the exclusion of everything else. even working bred dogs. yes, working should be the most important, but if the dog works, i see no harm in putting them in the conformation ring. how they'll do... lol that's a different question. not too many coyote collies at westminster this year, eh?
but i don't see conformation championship as proof of anything beyond the dog fits what the current trend in fashion is and that the owner has the money to chase the title. it's certainly not proof of proper temperament (just look at that westminster malinois thread). a ch doesn't mean the dog is going to be a nice pet or produce nice pet puppies, so for a companion breed, yes, i want to see things like a passing ATTS temperament test, therapy dog certification, rally or obedience titles.
i was soundly chided on facebook when i expressed how uncomfortable it made me that exactly one dog in the working group had anything but a conformation title. these are the "best of the best" in the working group. the st. bernard had a CD, and that's it. but it takes so much time and money and blah blah blah to campaign a dog to that level that there's no time for anything else! and lots of those dogs go on to do other things after they finish their Ch. yeah, see, that's just kind of the epitome of what is wrong with the whole thing to me. westminster is held up as the ideal, but none of these dogs are proven to be the whole package.
i wish that you couldn't get a Ch on a dog unless they were proven to be what they're supposed to be outside of the showring and health tested to show that they're sound. it sure would make that Ch a lot better signifier of excellence.
but i don't see conformation championship as proof of anything beyond the dog fits what the current trend in fashion is and that the owner has the money to chase the title. it's certainly not proof of proper temperament (just look at that westminster malinois thread). a ch doesn't mean the dog is going to be a nice pet or produce nice pet puppies, so for a companion breed, yes, i want to see things like a passing ATTS temperament test, therapy dog certification, rally or obedience titles.
i was soundly chided on facebook when i expressed how uncomfortable it made me that exactly one dog in the working group had anything but a conformation title. these are the "best of the best" in the working group. the st. bernard had a CD, and that's it. but it takes so much time and money and blah blah blah to campaign a dog to that level that there's no time for anything else! and lots of those dogs go on to do other things after they finish their Ch. yeah, see, that's just kind of the epitome of what is wrong with the whole thing to me. westminster is held up as the ideal, but none of these dogs are proven to be the whole package.
i wish that you couldn't get a Ch on a dog unless they were proven to be what they're supposed to be outside of the showring and health tested to show that they're sound. it sure would make that Ch a lot better signifier of excellence.