Who's The Breeder?

[S_B]

Many of our members have bred dogs, I think that is safe to say. Some of you are breeding solely on your own practices as individuals, some as a single Kennel or a Kennel that umbrellas several members. Maybe you act as a partnership with a fellow Dogman or mentor.

Jack has come to me recently pointing out that I made a mistake on my data entry on the breeder of a couple of my own pedigrees. Here is the situation, I make most of my breeding decisions without any ones influence. On occasion, since I do not generally make any of my dogs available, I make a breeding with a fellow Dogman. It is a collaborative effort on our parts to breed and raise the entire litter.

I use the ADBA to register my dogs and they recognize when I collaborate with another Dogman and register it as such. I know the Pit Bull Bible database is not the ADBA, but I'm just using what I consider a premier registry as an example.

Now generally (referencing the ADBA) the owner of the bitch is the breeder, but I have borrowed bitches to make breedings with so I have claimed that breeding with them without issue. There are always exceptions to the rule.

So my question is, who do you think should be the breeder?

#1. The bitch owner only?
#2. In a partnership, the one who thinks of the breeding first?
#3. The person who whelped the litter?
#4. The person who submits the data to the PPB?
#5. Other?

I believe in order to keep the best records, all the information should be recorded, imagine if our very own PBB DOY 2014 GR CH TITERE 8XW didn't display all of those involved to make his legacy possible.

Opinions please, Thank You!
S_B

[loot]

Both owners if the male and female are owned by to different people or kennels. It takes both dogs to produce the litter.

[Officially Retired]

Traditionally, it is the owner of the bitch who is always the breeder.

I do not like the habit of using two people's names on one dog. It is an eyesore to look at, and it is factually-inaccurate at some point.

In theory, if 5 people chipped-in to buy a bitch, you would see the breeder as "Manny, Moe, Jack, Smith, and Jones," which is fogging ridiculous.

However, if a person were to pull out the ol' microscope, and examine things closely, at the end of the day ... even when you have two (or more) owners of any bitch ... ultimately only ONE person is feeding that bitch, and ultimately only ONE person first decided to get that breeding done with the bitch.

Maybe the original breeder got financial backing, or maybe they got someone else to "agree" with the idea, and assist in getting the breeding done, but at the end of the day only that ONE person should officially be listed as The Breeder.

Fine, if you want to give "honorable mention" to all the others who chipped in, then feel free to do so in THE NOTES of my database, but I do not want to see a bunch of human names jammed in there as multiple "Breeders"

There is always and only ONE person who first generated the thought to get that breeding done, and s/he alone is the breeder.

Again, any other "help" or "agreeing parties" can be added in THE NOTES, not as "Co-Breeders"

Jack

PS: It's like putting in a lightbulb, lol. I mean, how many idiots does it take to put in a lightbulb?

Maybe one guy is holding the ladder, maybe one guy is getting the lightbulb, but ultimately only ONE person is actually screwing the lightbulb in

[Officially Retired]

Here is the situation, I make most of my breeding decisions without any ones influence. On occasion, since I do not generally make any of my dogs available, I make a breeding with a fellow Dogman. It is a collaborative effort on our parts to breed and raise the entire litter.

Again, very simple: whoever first generated the thought to get that breeding done is the one who should be listed as the Breeder.

You would mention the person with whom you collaborated, or who assisted in some way, in The Notes.

Now generally (referencing the ADBA) the owner of the bitch is the breeder, but I have borrowed bitches to make breedings with so I have claimed that breeding with them without issue. There are always exceptions to the rule.

You can keep doing what you're doing at the ADBA, but here you need to do things differently.

First of all, the ADBA isn't a digital, cross-referencing database.

Secondly, again, because of this, they don't have to be as tight in their criteria.

In the example of what you gave above, the solution is clear as day: YOU are the breeder. YOU had the original thought of "using someone else's bitch" to get a particular breeding done, and so YOU should be listed as the breeder. If the actual owner of the bitch had the original thought, and wanted to get the breeding done, using his own bitch, then obviously HE would be the breeder.

But, in what you described, YOU wanted to get a particular breeding done, the thought first originated in YOUR head, and "he" just let you use his bitch to get that breeding done.

YOU should be listed as Breeder ... and you can say whatever, "I wish to thank so-and-so for letting me borrow his bitch," that you want to in The Notes

That is the way things need to be done here, thanks.

Jack

[Black Hand]

In a situation like that in a collaborative effort to breed dogs... I'm going to list my own dogs as my dogs that I bred. If the other guy has some pups off it I really don't care what he does with his own.

This argument comes up often. I did a breeding with a friend. I wanted to breed to his CH not knowing that he actually had a half brother to my bitch at the time. He suggested I breed to the half brother he owned. I thought about it for a few days then decided to do it. He likes to think it was of his own genius that the breeding happened because I was reluctant at first and he is right. I agree it was a good idea of his and his 3 dogs are listed under his name and if he wants to be the breeder of those or list himself as those I am fine with that. It truly was a collaborative effort as it was his idea to switch studs, I agreed to do it with my bitch, his wife actually made the stick, and I had her pregnant and welped the pups which ultimately needed an emergency C section that I paid for. His dogs are his, my dogs are mine.

[Officially Retired]

In a situation like that in a collaborative effort to breed dogs... I'm going to list my own dogs as my dogs that I bred. If the other guy has some pups off it I really don't care what he does with his own.

This argument comes up often. I did a breeding with a friend. I wanted to breed to his CH not knowing that he actually had a half brother to my bitch at the time. He suggested I breed to the half brother he owned. I thought about it for a few days then decided to do it. He likes to think it was of his own genius that the breeding happened because I was reluctant at first and he is right. I agree it was a good idea of his and his 3 dogs are listed under his name and if he wants to be the breeder of those or list himself as those I am fine with that. It truly was a collaborative effort as it was his idea to switch studs, I agreed to do it with my bitch, his wife actually made the stick, and I had her pregnant and welped the pups which ultimately needed an emergency C section that I paid for. His dogs are his, my dogs are mine.

In that case, I would say you are still the breeder.

You had the desire to breed your own bitch. ["He" did not ask you to borrow your bitch for a breeding, you wanted to breed your own bitch to his Champion (not knowing about the other dog).]

When you became aware of the other male, you made the decision as to what to do with your bitch.

You decided on which dog, you made the breeding, you raised the pups, it was your bitch.

You merely paid him "half the litter" for his stud fee.

In no way was "he" the breeder at all.

Jack

[S_B]

If you are requiring 1 pup, or half of the litter to breed to your stud then no you are not the breeder, you offered your stud's service for the amount of pups agreed upon or a stud fee.

But if you partner up on a breeding and you both see to those individuals throughout their lives into maturity I think you both should be recognized as the breeder.

Here are the exact details as to the breeding that I listed with two breeders.

My buddy has a bitch, he wanted to breed to something on our yard. We've had a few sour deals in the past with him, he's grown we've grown from the experiences. Anyhow the only way we let him do the breeding was under the condition his bitch came here to be evaluated. We fed her till she came in, bred her, whelped the litter, weaned them and picked our first pup then in turn until they were all spoken for. It was a agreed none of those dogs would leave each of our hands.

So his idea, we both came to the agreement which stud under our recommendation, we cared for the bitch and whelped the litter.

His idea, he's the breeder or we are the breeder because we did the dirty work?

Just FYI I registered the litter with ADBA and credited both as the breeder, as I believe that is the only right way to do so, we both deserve the credit. No reason to cut one or the other out because of uniformity of digital data. If we collaborate on other future breedings they would all be batched accordingly.

Jack your place your rules I'll make the necessary note to credit the additional party.

Thanks for the imputed guys,
S_B

[Officially Retired]

If you are requiring 1 pup, or half of the litter to breed to your stud then no you are not the breeder, you offered your stud's service for the amount of pups agreed upon or a stud fee.

Agreed.

But if you partner up on a breeding and you both see to those individuals throughout their lives into maturity I think you both should be recognized as the breeder.

One is the breeder, one is the helper (associate or backer).

Here are the exact details as to the breeding that I listed with two breeders.

My buddy has a bitch, he wanted to breed to something on our yard. We've had a few sour deals in the past with him, he's grown we've grown from the experiences. Anyhow the only way we let him do the breeding was under the condition his bitch came here to be evaluated. We fed her till she came in, bred her, whelped the litter, weaned them and picked our first pup then in turn until they were all spoken for. It was a agreed none of those dogs would leave each of our hands.

So his idea, we both came to the agreement which stud under our recommendation, we cared for the bitch and whelped the litter.

He is the breeder. Period.

You didn't "come to an agreement" as "co-breeders"

He wanted to breed to your stud, and you simply imposed upon him the strictest of all possible stud terms to be able to use your stud. You forced him to let you see his bitch (to gain your approval), you forced him to turn his bitch over to you to whelp the litter over there (to ensure your own stud payment, pups), and then after all YOUR STUD DEMANDS were met, you turned his bitch back over to him after you got every part of YOUR TERMS met.

His idea, he's the breeder or we are the breeder because we did the dirty work?

He is the breeder. You forced the dirty work on yourself to make sure you got paid.

Just FYI I registered the litter with ADBA and credited both as the breeder, as I believe that is the only right way to do so, we both deserve the credit. No reason to cut one or the other out because of uniformity of digital data. If we collaborate on other future breedings they would all be batched accordingly.

Totally disagree. He is the breeder (his bitch, his desire) and "you" held him to the strictest possible stud demands you could. Nothing more.

The way the ADBA handled it isn't the "only" right way to do it, hell it isn't even right

You gave the man your terms and conditions FOR PROVIDING A STUD ... for his stated desire to breed his bitch to your stud.

Jack your place your rules I'll make the necessary note to credit the additional party.

I appreciate that.

As I said earlier, on all of these "multiple breeder" scenarios, if you pull out the ol' microscope and really look at it ... there will always be only ONE breeder ... with the rest being "associates," "backers," people "enforcing their stud fees," etc.

Thanks for the imputed guys,
S_B

No prob

Jack

[S_B]

[Officially Retired]