The whole question of ethics, to me, concerns much more than the dogs one produces and whether or not one follows the code of a breed club. Ethics, for me, is a value/belief system that guides my actions. I should be judged by my actions and how they affect others, either in a positive or negative way.
My dogs live in my house and are all family members. They are all much loved and I'll do without to provide for their needs first. For me, anything less would be unethical, regardless of their quality. Beyond the care I provide, it is my obligation to find ideal homes for any pups I place. These are just a couple of very basic things that are guided by my ethics.
By my definition, I would think that there are some show breeders that I would consider unethical, even when they abide by the parent club's rules. Though they may produce wonderful dogs, it's the behind the scenes things that would really determine their personal ethics.
As you all know, there are several breeds under review in the U.K. for a change in standard where the standard is believed to adversely affect the breed's health. Would it be considered ethical to breed dogs to a standard that you knew was not in the best interests of a dog's health?
Another case to consider would be the Silky Terrier. They are a breed comprised of the Yorkshire and Australian Terriers. Though certified as pure bred by AKC, they best fit the definition of a designer dog (mixing of 2 breeds). AKC did change their policy regarding recognition of new breeds 1 year after allowing the Silky in. I wonder how purists feel about the ethics of all that? They are now pure bred, are allowed to be shown, and are considered legitimate. No offense intended to Silky owners...just trying to make a point about the relativity of ethics.
I just think the word ethical is overused and sometimes mis-used. I feel the same about the word 'reputable'. I don't consider myself a 'reputable' breeder at this time. Maybe in a few years, if and when I get a reputation, then I would be reputable. For now, I'm content to be 'responsible'.
I do breed only standard Yorkies and have no other aspiration other than to one day produce an ideal Yorkie. In that sense, I am a breed purist. I do see the predicament of Parti breeders, though. While many may be in it just for the novelty and $, there are some within that community that have serious goals for their dogs. They have no venue to showcase their dedication.
I mentioned in an earlier post that they maybe should have gone their own way 150 years ago and started a path as a separate breed. There obviously were Parti fanciers in those days. It seems like it may have been possible at the inception of the Kennel Club; now I"m not sure there is a remedy for them. If there are serious Parti breeders out there, I wouldn't automatically call them unethical but would judge them by their individual actions.
O.K., I'll shut up now
.