This discussion came up during training at my local ASR club:
Say you wanted to purchase a working prospect (puppy). You have two options.
Breeder A: Shows his/her dogs, does some compeditive obedience and health checks. Breeder A does not work his/her dog in bitesports, but the current dogs have good temperament and the breeder does everything "ethical." Drive varies and is not pivotal in the breeding program.
Breeder B: Doesn't show his/her dogs, doesn't health test. Breeder B does take good care of his/her dogs, works them hard and focuses on breeding for drive and temperament yet has less than ethical practices (may breed more often than Breeder A, doesn't health test, doesn't screen applicants heavily, etc).
So what is the lesser of the two "evils"? Do you take a risk with Breeder A's dog to support more ethical breeding, but possibly not get a sport prospect? Or do to get a dog from Breeder B, have a much higher chance of obtain a sport prospect and yet you support less than ethical breeding? What is your reasoning beind your choice?
I thought it made for a really interesting discussion. We probably would have never stopped talking if the group didn't have to "shut up and train."