I agree that titles in conformation are not the only judge of a "good" breeder. I'm not overly familiar with conformation since I don't show, but I agree that titles can be misleading if that is the only measure of what makes a sound breeder.
I don't know if anyone else has read this book or not, but in The Truth About Dogs by Stephen Budiansky, he mentions that the ideal stance a dog can have when showing is head high, with ears and tail erect, which is also a rather dominant posture. He suggested that breeding dogs that are good show dogs and readily adopt this posture (they may be more dominant by nature) people may be inadverently breeding more aggressive dogs. Now, I don't know if I buy this or not, but my point is, good conformation doesn't always say much about temperament. I know that part of conformation is personality, but I think it focuses much more on the physical part of a dog.
Anyway, what I'm getting at is I think that there are lots of factors to consider. Obviously, since people want to keep purebred dogs at a certain standard, some degree of conformation is necessary, but I think personality and whether or not the dog can "do" (like herd) what it was made to do is important too.
Bookmarks