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

Of course if a person is looking for a show puppy then of course you want to have the parents titled & whatnot ... This applies if a buyer is looking for just a sport/working/companion dog from a breeder:

Izze was from a hobby breeder & she was a sound well adjusted dog, as was bear. Izze's breeder only had one breeding pair, Bear's had two each only had one or two litters a year.

My question, just because a breeder doesn't "show" &/or register their dogs (bear & his parents were registered though Izze's were not) does that make them bad breeders? Should breeders be judged on whether they campaign their dogs on the show circuit or not? Or should they be judged on how they operate?

Personally I would buy from a breeder like Izze's again in a heartbeat. What about you guys?

Did Izze's breeder health test? Compete the dog in anything?

I don't think showing makes someone reputable, and I don't think not showing makes someone disreputable.

What matters to me more are the overall ethics they show in the care, placement, and breeding of their dogs; what they do to retain the breed's original purpose (or reasonable replacement); and the health and longevity of their lines. Additionally, I want someone who's trying to find the best fit for me, not push a particular puppy/breeding/etc. on me and respects my input in the process as well.

Personally, I would take every breeder on an individual basis. I don't think you can generalise as some active breeders can have questionable practices and some hobby breeders can be amazing.

Depends on the breed. Some breeds don't even have shows. And no, it's pretty individual.

I think show breeders have more social pressure to do a good job, because other folks in the breed see their dogs regularly and might see their kennel in person at some point. If it's really crappy then word will get out fast. I have seen some show breeders that treat their dogs like crap, like leaving green slimy water buckets for months, keeping them on concrete constantly and feeding crap food. It's really pretty rare though, and pretty much everyone else that knew them thought it was despicable.

There's not that kind of oversight in BYBers and folks who aren't involved in sports or clubs of some kind. Sport and hunt bred mixes can be done very responsibly and they don't do conformation shows.

It's really up to the individual person whether or not your breeder is "reputable" enough for you.

Personally, I would only buy from a breeder who breeds performance dogs(since I'm into working dogs, not non-working or companion), and trials their dog in some venue that proves temperament, drive, and potential. Show titles are a bonus, but I'm realistic about the working/show split. Same with registering and dual registering. I'll also only buy from breeders who health test, and put a lot of work and research into the few litters they do produce(which rules out farm breeders for me). I'd be wary of someone who does the same breeding over and over, several times a year. I also prefer house dogs over kenneled dogs, and I want the dogs cared for as family members, and not just working animals.

But that's *my* personal opinion of who *I* would buy from, in a nutshell. If you prefer a "reputable" breeder who sells litters from the same parents over and over, doesn't health test, and doesn't do any work or venues...that's your opinion.

Either way, there is ALWAYS going to be someone who will disagree. Always. Some people are happy buying dogs from farm/ranch breeders who don't compete and don't ensure their dogs are genetically healthy. Some believe only show dogs are the best. Some think only working dogs are the best. Some are okay with kenneled dogs, some only want house dogs. Some are okay with treating the dogs as working animals only, some only want dogs who have been family members There's a flavor for everyone, and therefore, there will always be someone who disagrees.

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.

Yes they were tested for deafness, PRCA, hip & elbow displasia but they were just working dogs, they tested their stock because they wanted strong healthy, sound working dogs that would be around for many years to come. She was sold with a written contract, Bear's breeder also did the necessary health testing.

To me, good temperament is more important than conformation titles.

But, that said, my dog's conformation is extremely important. Conformation is a huge contributo to the dog's activity level and general quality of life. It's also important to me that when I get a purebred dog, it looks like a purebred dog. Conformation titles can be a good indicator that the dog is built well and looks like its breed.

Of course this is, sadly, not necessarily true of all breeds or even all individual dogs/breeders.

I am pretty unconcerned with show, I also don't buy off titles. Titles DO help show what a dog can do but that isn't the end all for me.

Izzy may come from a great breeder, it's hard to tell.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Agreed.