From day 1 I have been on this board, I have seen a lot of posts that say "good breeders only breed for the betterment of the breed". I have been thinking a lot about this statement after reading a few recent posts. What exactly does this statement mean, for the betterment of the breed? Breeders say that the dogs should be of show quality and conform with AKC standards. Are the AKC standards really what defines an ideal dog? If I am not mistaken, there have been several breeds that have been ruined because breeders have been so intent on breeding dogs up to the exact AKC standards. I think it is the bull terrier or bull something. (no pun intended). A lot of dogs in the show ring today look nothing like what they were supposed to. They may be champions but I think it is a far cry to say they are the best of their breed. For a lot of the working breed, those "champions" can't even do what they were bred for. My point being, I think the excuse "I am doing it for the betterment of the breed" is a farce. It is a blanket excuse to hide whatever underlying reasons the breeder may have. Whether those be wanting a champion in the ring (again, is this really the best thing?), just wanting a puppy, or the obvious $$$, or whatever other reason they have. I think barring a few, and I mean a very few breedings, I do not feel that the majority of good breeders are really doing such "for the betterment of the breed". A lot of posters on this board, breeders to be exact, chastize other posters who want to breed because they feel they know more about breeding. Well, of course if you want to breed you should know everything there is to know, but just because you do, doesn't mean you should still breed. Anyone can read a book and learn the stuff. What is harder to learn is just exactly what would better the breed. Wouldn't it better the breed to stop bringing puppies, albeit purebred puppies, into the world when there are so many who lack homes? I can understand breeding rare dogs. But German Shepherds, Dobermans, pit bulls, etc. Are there not enough of these dogs in the shelters to deter "breeders" from bringing more into the world? So you find "good homes" for the dogs. I'm glad they appear to be "good homes" now but can you really predict the future? A lot of the dogs in shelters came from "good homes" and from "reputable breeders". And this talk of mandatory/early spay/neuter. If the puppies aren't fit to be bred, then do you really think the parent's are? Also, why can't someone buying a puppy breed them? You certainly find nothing wrong with it. What makes it OK for one person to breed a dog but not for another? Why, as a "reputable breeder" would you want to bring puppies into the world who have no other purpose than to just exist? If a family wants a spayed/neutered dog, why not show them to a shelter? Why bring more into the world? I think in this case, many breeders need to heed their own advice and get their own dogs neutered/spayed. Another reason I have heard for breeding a dog is for continuity of the breed. Well, for most breeds, I hardly think they are going extinct. But, fine, I can understand one breeding. However, breeding your dogs every heat cycle or every other heat cycle, well, that's just not done for the continuity of the breed. I don't know what my point is exactly in this post. I just get irritated when the breeder posters on this board get onto other posters about breeding. They say "well I breed for the betterment of the breed". Nice excuse, now tell me why you really do it. I think the only posters who have a right to call out potential breeders/current breeders, are those who have decided not to breed.