Exactly. So where is the difference? We can't say practices are what separates pedigree breeders, because thats increasingly not the case.
We aren't putting practices up there as the 1st thing that makes a responsible, ethical breeder. We can't because the K.C constitution says other wise. It says the 1st and most important requirement is a pedigree.
I won't argue that registered pedigree breeders often achieve better out comes. But its not because the dogs are papered. Its because they still do attract members who believe that pedigrees are are the pinacle of good breeding practices. Those people still form a big part of the breeders culture in the K.C.s
But now those same people are not permitted to spread their influence outside of the K.Cs. They are locked into a system that draws a line they must not cross.
I don't know how many times I have heard reg. breeders express that publications commonly used by ordinary people aren't suitable places for adds or articles concerning pedigree dogs because they don't think the company is up to their standards.
If you don't share information and knowledge, you can't blame the ones who don't have it for having to learn every thing the hard way. If you say that knowledge doesn't count unless its only applied to one body, you may temporarily increase knowledge within that body. But you increase ignorance outside that body too. And thats where any new members must come from, so over time your own standards drop.
Will people who believe a pedigree stands for the pinnacle of good breeding continue to be the ones that are attracted to pedigree breeding, or will those new members come believing a pedigree will buy them legitimacy?