Shadomoon: Maybe if you said we were both blinded by our own opinions, I might see it as less of an insult, and though I'm really not insulted, I do think your comment is unfair.
I'm surprised my view on a responsible breeder isn't clear by now. But it also seems rather telling that you have yet to define what you think of as responsible breeding, and yet now ask me to define it. I do believe in responsible breeding, but I think part of being a responsible breeder is being aware of the shelter problem, and doing whatever it takes to be part of the solution. I do not believe that education is the only solution, but it is definitely one of them. I think a responsible breeder should not have tunnel vision that would lead her to only be concerned about what she (or he) is breeding, but should also be concerned with the general state of dogs in this country (which includes shelter dogs. I've met many breeders, who are now doing rescue, and have stopped breeding until the state of dogs has improved, meaning dogs in general and their own breed in specific, is no longer dying in shelters for lack of homes. I respect that.
However, as to the breeding itself, I believe that responsible breeding starts out by the novice breeder being mentored by a responsible breeder. I believe that to be responsible, one's goal is to preserve and improve their chosen breed. I believe that it is irresponsible to breed without lifelong homes committed to caring for the pending puppies, and those buyers should be thoroughly screened, along with homechecks. I also believe that the parent dogs should have lifelong homes, and that they should be part of the breeders family, or at least the mother should be, and the father should be treated equally within his own home. I believe that in order to breed responsibly, one has to have gotten their foundation dogs from a responsible breeder. I believe that before the dogs are bred, they both need to have had all available health screenings and should have been proven to be worthy of reproducing by earning championships in the show ring, and by earning titles in obedience. For dogs not accepted yet by the AKC, they should earn whatever titles are available to them, and should be independently judged on conformation to their breed standard.
Once the breeding has taken place, I believe that it's essential for responsible breeding to include socialization of the puppies inside with the breeder's family. I believe that if there are any problems with the birthing process, that the breeder will do all necessary to make decisions based on what's good for the dogs, not just what's good for the breeders bank account. And if any of the puppies become unsellable due to birth defects, or improper coloring - or whatever, the breeder will commit to keeping that dog as their own pet. I believe that responsible breeding includes not releasing puppies to their new homes until they are 8-12 weeks of age, and preferably the latter. I believe that the responsible breeder has a written contract with the new owners that includes the care the puppy will recieve, a health guarantee that covers long enough time to ascertain whether the dog has congenital diseases like CHD, and also offers a lifetime return policy - preferably with a stiff penalty if the owner gives/sells the dog to any other party. I also believe that part of responsible breeding is to do everything possible (including early/spay neuter) to make sure that the puppy is not bred irresponsibly. I believe that part of responsible breeding is to keep close contact with the puppy after sale to make sure it's being properly cared for and to monitor it for diseases that might indicate that an adjustment in the breeding program needs to be done.
I don't think (though will admit to not knowing enough about this to be sure) that a single dog should have more than 2 litters and they shouldn't be back-to-back. If the breeder is trying to improve the breed, then continually breeding the same dog isn't really doing that. The breeder should move on and breed the best of the litter she's already produced - thereby actually improving. Having more than 2 litters, IMO, is simply a risk to the mother's health, including a higher risk for reproductive cancers and pyometra.
And finally, a responsible breeder adheres to, and surpasses, her breed club's code of ethics. She NEVER sells her dogs through a third party, like a pet shop. And because she cares about dogs, and specifically her breed, she becomes an animal activist and tries to improve the world of dogs and tries to bring other breeders up to her level of breeding ethics, even if that means supporting laws that would mandate others be as responsible as she. And because she is dedicated to her breed, she does what's necessary to support the breed rescue for her breed.
What a responsible breeder does NOT do is fight against those that are trying to make things better for dogs. And a resposible breeder certainly doesn't fight proposed laws and then sit back and fail to propose alternative laws. A responsible breeder recognizes that it's not only important to improve the breed, but also to improve the living conditions of the dogs within that breed.
Now because I don't breed, and never have/never will, those are the things that I've learned from those breeders educating on responsible breeding. I'm sure there's lots more that can be added, but I think if I found a breeder that adheres to all that, I'd consider recommending them to those who insist on buying a puppy. Unfortunately what I have run into is a lot of breeders that talk a good game, but when push comes to shove, there are always excuses why they couldn't adhere to that criteria -- like the ones that refused to take their dog back because of one reason or another.
You say I've shown that I don't want to learn anything, but I think I've learned a lot from breeders, both good and bad. When most of the breeders out there are not responsible, how can you expect me to not have my view of breeders colored by that fact? You are just as closed-minded about animal activists, to the point where you apparently refuse to even accept a more logical definition of the term. And then to define them as even lacking hobbies is just plain prejudice.
An activist is someone who is active in a cause. An animal activist is someone active in improving life for the animals. Rescue workers are animal activists. What you abhor is "animal rights activists" and want to paint all animal activism with AR brush. And even that has blurry lines, because there are rescue workers who are only interested in saving lives and humane treatment of dogs, and there are rescue workers who believe that dogs should have the legal right to proper care and humane treatment. And just because someone rescues dogs, don't mean they can't have compassion for all animals, including the human animal. I know a lot of animal activists who are also involved in activism regarding abused children, homeless people, etc.
You say you never see animal activists at dog shows (assumably not counting the Peta members you believe to be rampantly overrunning dog shows) -- maybe the reason you aren't seeing them is that they aren't allowed to be there. As previously described, the one time I tried to set up an educational booth that included information about adoption, I was ostracized, and it was clear that rescue wasn't wanted in that venue. You say you don't see animal activists at shows - why aren't the breed rescues setting up booths at dog shows, showcasing their available dogs? I've certainly never seen that at any dog show I've been to.
You say that people know the names of Pat Hastings and George Alston and other show people -- but doesn't it make sense that you know them because you are in that insular world? Those people don't pertain to anything I'm interested in. They aren't going to help me be a better rescuer. On the other hand, are you familiar with animal activists like Robin Presnall and Michelle Rivera? Robin has one of the largest and most active rescues in the country, and her activism includes extensive education on puppymills and closing down puppymills. Michelle is an animal writer that has written at least 3 books on therapy dogs and dogs in the classroom. She runs a program whereby incarcerated women train shelter dogs. She also is active in a program that offers protection to pets whose owners are involved in domestic violence. She has helped to educate police officers on "first strike" programs to not only stop animal abuse, but also to identify those people who would move their violence towards animals on to abusing people. She proposed a law in her state that would require people to stop and lend assistance to animals they had hit with their cars instead of just driving away, and that law passed. She does therapy work with her own dog. She is an animal activist, and is even a vegan, and a member of the Dog Writers Association of America. Her compassion stretches to all animals, including humans. She even has time for hobbies
. And she is involved with cat rescue.
They are both wonderful ladies, and dedicated animal activists.
Now you ask that I find you an animal activist that is knowlegeable in breeding, competition, performance, training, etc. etc. I think that the burden is on you to show that people knowledgeable about all that (because they are breeders) are also animal activists. If you can't think of anyone, then maybe the question is, why aren't breeders also animal activists? Why aren't they working for the animals? I'm not saying they aren't, but apparently you are claiming that since you need me to show you one.