What does "to better the breed" mean?

"Betterment of the breed" is in the eye of the beholder. At one time it was done to make the breed sounder by testing for and breeding against medical and structurally issues. At one time it meant that the breeding was done to improve working qualities. Nowadays most of that has gone out the window in most breeding programs. Very few breeders can prove that they breed for both "form and function". In English springer spaniels the decline in the breed started in the mid 1940s to early 1950s when the last dual champion was crowned. Salilyn Kennels did a lot good and bad for the breed. Sadly it was during that time that the breed split into two separate types bench and field.

The decline started in my opinion when:

conformation was put in front of working ability;

breed splits;

toy breeds were bred smaller and more extreme;

litters could be saved through c-section;

artificial insemination was perfected;

large breeds were bred to be giant sized;

cookie cutter breeding became vogue;

famous sire syndrome is used;

extremes were rewarded in the show ring instead of moderation;

working dogs IE rottweilers, german shepherds, doberman pinchers temperament's were bred to make them like golden retrievers to be dogs for the masses; and

when spaying and neutering became vogue which has limited the gene pools of many breeds even the popular ones which has made breeding decent dogs a problem because it is hard to find individuals to outcross to.

I think it's just a scam to make money actually. Most show dogs, which meet the conformation of working dogs.....but have no brains whatsoever. I would rather have an okay structured working dog that can work until they drop, than a pretty trot in circles, image of the standard, no brains or working drives, and get a "Best in Show" without doing anything show dog.

"Best in Show" should be just that!! Send those pretty Yorkshire Terriers into earth dog challenges or an actual rat hunt to see if they have the drive and sense to do what they are bred to do. Make those UGLY, FAT Labrador ret. work the fields for retrieving shot birds.

Some show dogs can work and look pretty for the ring, but 99% of the others are just quick money makers for the breeders. See, I am not beating down breeders who breed for WORK, brains and conformation.....but the ones that just stack dogs to look pretty and win ribbons.

There is no bettering of the breed when you take away what made it "better" in the first place. The standard is written and set. The dog should bring all or nothing. Not meet me half way type of thing (99% of show dogs). Getting close to the standard as possible with working drives and brains.

When I do become a dog breeder, probably sometime next year (still searching for a great kennel to get ***** from), they WILL be working dogs. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, I would like a conformation structured dog, but it will have the brains and drive behind it. It will be worth feeding and housing, no house plants. The dog I have now would do excellent on a small or large farm (Teddy Roosevelt Terrier), she gets the job done first, ask questions later: Tried to kill my two rats yesterday, if I didn't have her muzzle on. Lol!

if you only breed the top 10% (or even 50% of the breed) the AVERAGE of the pups will be better than the breed average of previous generation because the bottom did not contribute

Old whippet breed records list times of 12+ sec as meet winning - modern times of under 11 sec have been recorded

PS though not a popular stance, I maintain breed top performance dogs IS bettering the breed

PPS yeah standard written in stone, right- I VOTED on a breed standard change. There have been several in the whippet - a breed not much over a century old

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbvv0vBf7t8

Dogs should be bred to improve the breed and attempt to remove any health issues from that line or breed if possible. Unfortunately many show dog breeders seem to think that to better a breed is to increase certain physical traits e.g. short snouts in a pug or bulldog - which can actually cause health problems. These breeders are basically breeding freak dogs and should not be confused with truly responsible dog breeders who actually try to remove or improve congenital defects from a line. The video I posted above is fascinating and eye opening.

I have no idea.

Do the breeders today know something that the creators of the breeds didn't? Or over time were they the ones to mess it up and in that case, how must trust can really put into them to correct their own mistakes.

Bettering the breed, to me, means to discontinue breeding the genetically sick, the non-typey, the poor temperaments. It means you breed beautiful, well-rounded dogs that are healthy and capable of doing what they're supposed to do. It's very simple and it's weird that breeding dogs is so open to interpretation. There's a breed standard - now get to it.

It is just a matter of keeping the standards clean. Better quality dogs come closer to meeting the standards than any dog bred by a BYBer.

There is no one breed or one dog that is perfect. Every dog has faults & every reputable breeder is breeding to come as close to the standards as possible, making it a 'perfect' specimen or example to represent his/her breed.

BYBers are like destructing these standards & breeding very substandard dogs to each other, just creating a cesspool of faulty genetics

Better in terms of type, temperament, and genetic health. There are no perfect dogs. Good breeders are striving to get there.

When people use the word 'good' in terms of morality, they simply mean a moral code that agrees with what they believe, and they generally believe what it is convenient for them to believe.

Nothing to me. Its completely nonsensical and subjective. The breed standard is what people should breed to - end of.