Mo, for the most part, I believe, most on this board want everyone out there to be "good breeders".
What the disagreement is on, is about what good breeding practices are.
I know, just reading your last sentence,
"IMO if just one person is pursuaded not to breed because of not health testing/breeding a pet/x breeding for the sake of x breeding then I feel its a good thing." and having read posts of yours before where you don't believe in ANY crossbreeding (am I wrong), you seem to lump those who crossbreed in the same pile as those who don't carefully breed and test.
Sometimes those who crossbreed DO know lines, do research, and carefully health test before they breed, and, I find, that seems to be where most "fallouts" happen in discussions - over the idea of crossbreeding. Sometimes it happens when those who are about to offer advice ask loaded questions like "is the dam/sire exemplary for their breed"?
LOADED questions are a HUGE problem, and from what I've read, cause a bunch of fallout.
But in regards to the general idea that I take from your original post, that we need to actively discourage breeding as much as possible, that I do not agree on. I believe in ENCOURAGING breeding - but of course breeding with knowledge and breeding with care.
Not all of us live where there is a dog overpopulation problem.
In my own province, which is the size of Texas, our two large cities of one million people, do not kill healthy and adoptable . . . in fact we import small dogs in as there is a demand for them.
In the City of Calgary, in 2008, not even 1200 dogs came available for adoption through the Calgary pound, and the Humane Society. 9800 dogs were needed just to replace those that died of old age in the city that year.
In the City of Edmonton, in 2008, 2312 dogs came available for adoption through the Edmonton pound and the Humane Society. As well approx. 9800 dogs were needed just to replace those in the city that died of old age that year.
The difference is 16,088 dogs, that have to come from somewhere.
That is a severe pet "underpopulation". Right now the puppymills are the ones benefitting (and I speak for a "retired" mill momma foster I had with me 5 years ago) and profitting. We need well bred dogs and breeders willing to do that work and I personally do not care if those dogs are crossed or pure. I do want the moms to be cared for and loved, and the pups to be socialized, which is a far cry from what the commercial breeders are doing.
ETA:
Posters usually say they want to be open minded. If so they should be willing to read information contrary to their own beliefs, not necessarily to agree with it, but to at least consider it.
I would suggest these links.
Numbers Test Conventional Wisdom on "Pet Overpopulation" - by Merritt Clifton:
http://www.ncraoa.com/articles/canin...le_Dec2006.pdf
Killing for a Myth:
BorderWars » Blog Archive » Killing for a Myth
Only Five Percent:
BorderWars » Blog Archive » Only Five Percent
Pet Underpopulation: The Pet Shortage in the US - by Loretta Baughan:
Pet Underpopulation: The Pet Shortage in the US by Loretta Baughan
"As dog owners, I think we are deeply disturbed over the plight of animals in shelters and the
high rate of euthanasia. There is a solution. Nathan Winograd has proven his “No Kill
Revolution” method works-in both large and small shelters. As dog breeders and trainers, we
are the experts, so it is up to us to step forward and assist our local shelters in overcoming their
problems. The first step is to stop blaming pet breeders and lay to rest, once and for all, the
myth of “pet overpopulation.”
There are many, many, more similar links at this Florida Pet Law site, if anyone is interested.
Florida Animal Laws - MSN