I start this thread to avoid further derailment of this thread. In it, Loveit24/7 came forward as a breeder of a fairly expensive toy dog line. She made statements about being a "responsible" breeder, among other things, to which I countered that in the end a breeder is still irresponsible because they do nothing to help the out of control shelter pet situation. This resulted in some heated back and forth, of course. I suggest anyone wishing to weigh in on this thread that hasn't read all of the statements in the other thread do so. Before I begin my opening debate, I want it to be clear: This is not an attack on Loveit24/7 as a person. I am attacking the breeder mindset, and the (IMO) silly notion that breeding is responsible. Loveit24/7 has made many well thought out posts here on SF, I respect her as a person, and bear her no ill will at all. I will now open debate here by replying to Loveit24/7's last response to me in the other thread: You didn't provide a single "fact" in any of your arguments. Even when I pressed you for any factual information on the other issue. For all anyone knows, these facts you claim to know may simply be self justifications. My "opinion" is backed by factual statements, and shared by many. I'd say that hardly makes it "poorly formed", not to mention once again that I have made it very clear that I am interested in facts, which you have yet to produce. True, but these aren't just off the cuff opinions I am bringing. These are opinions with facts behind them which you have yet to acknowledge or respond to. I did a little searching on the subject, and I found 2 articles which do make some favorable arguments for breeders, but in the end point out exactly what I've been saying this whole time: this and this. This article first shows how a breeder is much better than a puppy mill. This is something I will not argue. If you must buy a animal, it's much better to go to a breeder. But in the end breeding still fails to stand up to the simple fact that breeding/buying does not help the shelter situation in the least. Every person who decides instead to buy a bred pet helps perpetuate shelter over crowding, and insures that another animal spends one more day in said shelter, or is condemned to euthanization despite likely being perfectly healthy and suitable as a pet. They also make a point of the fact that shelter animals are cheaper, and the price generally includes spay/neuter if needed, and basic shots and worming. I've heard some arguments that breeders pay for a lot of the veterinary research, and that organizations like the AKC have contributed a lot to veterinary advancement, but I see that and can't help but snicker a bit. Now granted, I'm sure they have donated money, but at the same time, how can I look on smiling at the organization who approves of breeds that are defective by nature, such as pugs, for example? Pugs are notorious for their poor respiratory health, and it's no wonder. They're bred with a completely screwed up face on purpose. I can't see expecting to be lauded for veterinary donations when the very organization doing the donating perpetuates the need for some of these issues. That would be like me expecting to be praised for taking my kid to the hospital promptly after I shoved him down a long flight of stairs in the sense of just how asinine that really is. A little simple searching will turn up all kinds of other issues created by the "official" breeding guidelines set forth by these clubs. As my point was all along, I find the notion of "responsible breeding" an oxymoron, because the simple plain fact that breeding does perpetuate the shelter problem. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't matter if there are only a few breeding Papillons in South Africa, or anywhere else. Nobody "needs" an overpriced "pure" breed toy dog, especially not for the ridiculous prices they go for. Purebreds are a frivolous purchase at best. Again I posit: you want to be 100% responsible? Stop breeding a dog which is in no danger of being lost, and start helping local shelters.