It's impossible to say 'Yes' or 'No' to this statement, in public or otherwise. May is conditional...which means it depends on something.
So 'just because someone isn't breeding to win a championship, they may still be doing something good for the breed'.
That depends on there being some kind of agreed on benchmark (standard) for what is good.
Plus there needs to be an objective means of assessing dogs against that benchmark. (Beyond the breeder herself.)
And having some kind of labelling for the results so breeders can share the information across the breed.
If all are in place, then you'd have evidence to say 'Yes' to your statement. Are all 3 in place, in the case of people who do not show?
They're in place for those who do.
Sorry Mita I dont agree with you. There are many many things which impact in a much greater degree than those you discuss.
No matter whether you attend shows or not there are things other than how the dog looks which need to be addressed and some of the best breeders Ive ever known
have used their own benchmark to address their own problems in their own back yard and then shared that with other breeders who never show.
A show assessment is about how the dog looks and to put so much emphasis on that and speak of the people who show having a better method of assement of an entire dog and the genes they are working with when they breed is not true. You may get to label where the champions are but labelling where one was itchy, or had HD or dropped dead at 4 is every bit as important and no labelling of these things comes automatically with an attendance at a show or two. In fact that aspect of breeding is sadly neglected and these things within the culture are more likely to be kept quiet than labelled or shared.
The reality is that these standards in some breeds cause the entire breed to be at risk of suffering by the fact that the standard's critiques change and extremes come in and out of vogue. To assume that because a breeder uses the current popular look for the dog as being an automatically superior breeder makes little logical sense. You can breed to a standard without ever attending a dog show.
Your theory may hold if dog shows were really objective and if they were really able to be used as a benchmark.
I dont show my dogs but they are judged when they walk around a park and people stop to comment on them and ask for the breeders details. They are judged when they sit on someone's lap or work a mob of sheep. They are judged by their vets as being healthy and strong and live way past average ages for their breeds. They are judged when their owners come back time and time again over decades to take more of what I breed home.
Now and then they are judged by a show judge and so far every one which has had a go at that with the exception of one has easily become a champ.
They are judged when breeders who do show use my dogs at stud or buy one of mine to breed with.
Showing your dogs doesnt make you a good breeder any more than not showing makes you a bad one.
