AR is a factor in all of this though. In that way, I can understand people's worry because of that. AR is behind a lot of common thinking. First the big push against "puppy mills" and everyone could get behind that (pet owners, pet breeders, show breeders, working breeders, performance people, show people, etc, etc). And everyone did. Then it was "BYBs"...the pet breeders. Everyone but the pet breeders got behind that. But a division was starting with breeders. Then we are told, that show and working breeders could be bad too - you must look for a "responsible breeder". And while everyone was willing to get behind that too, no one can ever agree on what is a responsible breeder. This has successfully pitted breeders against each other and often, in support of controlling what the others are doing. Still we just had the issues of "puppy mills", "BYBs" and now "irresponsible breeders". And most people seemed ok with supporting a push for people not to buy from such breeders. But it was inevitable that it wouldn't stop there. Show breeders have obviously become the newest target and pet owners, working breeders, performance people, working dog people, etc are all ok with getting behind that too. We are not far off from a "Don't buy from puppy mills, BYBs, irresponsible breeders or show breeders" mentality. But at this point, it is pretty obvious that it won't stop there either. There's plenty to find wrong about working/sport breeders too. These articles show pretty well what AR has already been able to accomplish through this use of "labeling" and pushing ideals. And purebred dogs are not better for it: http://breedingbetterdogs.com/pdfFiles/articles/a_gathering_storm_pt_1.pdf http://breedingbetterdogs.com/pdfFiles/articles/a_gathering_storm_pt_2.pdf Am I saying there is not a problem with show breeding in any way? No. But what is being done is using the most extreme examples, breeds which have horrible widespread health issues or very exaggerated structure to portray "this is what happens with show breeding". And in those cases, yep that's what happened. In some breeds, they have managed to maintain moderation and good working ability while still finishing dogs. We never hear much about that. Or that it's mostly show breeders who are helping research move forward on health issues in different breeds. There's good and bad to everything. Most show people I know aren't uncaring people only out for the ribbons. Most are people who love their dogs and show as a hobby. Most are owner-handlers or owner-handler-breeders. I know some people who take it too seriously for sure or who like the latest fad and some who don't have much knowledge about correct temperament for the breed. But then, I know some sport people who I could say the same about. There's concern also that there's some "gray areas" of what one can consider problems associated with breed type. All Corgis and Doxies are deformed. Some are more exaggerated than others but because they are all dwarfs, they are all at higher risk than other dogs for back problems. Blue merle exists in many breeds and there's those who claim that all merle dogs are compromised but for sure, the color can be associated with problems in some cases. Dilute colored dogs are known to be at a greater risk for vaccine reactions. Toy dogs and giant dogs are all exaggerated too and there are issues that can come with those exaggerations. Natural bobtails can be associated with issues as well. Where will those dogs fall in the greater scheme of things? So I don't think everyone's negative reaction to the Crufts situation is unfounded. I do think there is a need for outcrossing to be an option that breeders can pursue within reason. I do think there is an issue that in some breeds, the dogs winning are far removed from what is correct per their standard. I thought the vet's reply to Crufts was really good. I wish that there was more focus on the positive than the negative with Crufts. But then...there's a lot of other things to consider too. I'm really not sure what the answer is.