pedigree vs purebred

[sandgrubber]

A couple years ago I bought an ESS, and, as I don't know a lot about the breed, have joined a couple of Springer FB groups.  I am absolutely amazed by the diversity of the breed.  Seems like it's more of a landrace than a breed...straight long coats, short curly coats, broad chests, narrow chests, big boned, little boned, even some legs that are very long or quite short.  (Everyone, however, seems to have difficulty with pulling on the leash). The question of pedigree is mostly politely avoided. When it does come up it's usually a pedigree advocate scolding.  I suspect that papered dogs are in the minority.  I would love to put up some surveys to see if HD, blindness, etc. are significantly lower among the papered dogs, but I sense that such questions are not permitted. 

Are other breeds the same?  Is this a situation created by increasing numbers of rules, use of Limited Register, and exclusive attributes? 

If so, I think the Kennel Clubs are digging their own Graves. 

[Diva]

Not the same in my breed I don’t think. More consistency, much fewer non registered breeders.
There always has been some variation  because of the way the breed was developed in its country of origin- large hunting estates spread over a large country, variations in topography, mix of prey etc and there still is. Not a cookie cutter breed. But I could pull some of the dogs I see in hundred year old + photos and take them into the ring or field today by and large (setting temperament & grooming  aside). Of course we are numerically less popular than ESS, that makes a difference who gets involved in breeding. 

[Selkie]

I still come across the occasional landrace Australian Cattle Dog. The loss of genetic diversity is a pity - pedigree ACDs have been refined to be larger, heavier dogs which aren't suitable for all purposes.