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 (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=11369) 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" :angry:

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" :idea:

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 :lol:

[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 :idea:

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. :idea:

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" :rolleyes:

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. :idea:

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 :lol:

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. :idea:




Thanks for the imputed guys,
S_B

No prob :mrgreen:

Jack

[S_B]

:D:-bd

[Officially Retired]

:D

[EWO]

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



"What if the guy on the top is only holding the bulb and the other two are turning the ladder?"...... Who becomes the breeder then? Just wondering. EWO

[Officially Retired]

"What if the guy on the top is only holding the bulb and the other two are turning the ladder?"...... Who becomes the breeder then? Just wondering. EWO

The one who rounded-up the other 2 as "helpers" to get the job done.

However, all 3 should be shot as morons.

[Officially Retired]

I am still having trouble comprehending what is so hard for people to understand about all this?

The rules here are simple: list the ONE person who truly applies as breeder (rather than try to list 2, 3, 5 names, etc.).

If you feel so strongly about mentioning "how many idiots" it took to get a breeding done, then just say all of that shit in THE NOTES.

THAT IS WHAT "THE NOTES" ARE FOR: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION :idea:

Again, you can give everybody and their brother credit, if you want, just do so in THE NOTES ... DO NOT try to cram all that shit on the Breeder link :angry:

ONE BREEDER ONLY on the Breeder link.

THE REST OF THE STORY on The Notes.

What is so difficult to comprehend about this requirement?

Jack

[S_B]

The point has been taken, even before the thread was started. I was looking for others opinions on the matter, no need to be disrespectful because one has a different view. :rolleyes:

S_B

[Officially Retired]

All anyone has to do is THINK.

Making a person repeat themselves, over and over and over and over again, is its own form of disrespect.

My reasoning has been stated, as well as WHY: data search purposes.

Yeah, we can all laugh, and try to invent scenarios, but it would make things better (and more efficient) for ALL if everyone JUST COMPLIED :idea:

Jack

[SZ82]

You want the fame, the glory, the spotlight, you can have it. I don't want my name on it anyway. Only people who needs to know would already know, and those who don't... Well...

[S_B]

All anyone has to do is THINK.

You are absolutely right, that is why we discuss things to invoke thought.


Making a person repeat themselves, over and over and over and over again, is its own form of disrespect.

No one is forced to repeat themselves.

My reasoning has been stated, as well as WHY: data search purposes.

Yes it has, and I have no problem with complying with your rules as previously stated. I just chose to repeat that. :lol:


Yeah, we can all laugh, and try to invent scenarios, but it would make things better (and more efficient) for ALL if everyone JUST COMPLIED :idea:

Jack

Again, yes!


Jack,

My intention was to get the thoughts of other dogmen, not discredit your decision. I didn't start the thread with "Who's the breeder? Jack's rules suck ya'll speak out against him" :lol: And what's funny is you asked me to start the thread! :lol:

Maybe it's early and I'm extra irritable, but the idiot and moron comments from EWO and yourself struck a chord. A good dogman was called borderline for many years, he didn't know why. The running joke was he was borderline retarded, which light heartedly is funny because he's reckless and crazy in some ways. But the nickname was more geared toward the fact he wasn't the best at spelling and it was rumored he couldn't read, which is false.

His conditioning is second to none, none of those same folks were lining up to catch his weights. He built his own jenny, and all of his dog equipment and his yard was always tip top.

He can work heavy equipment, build a house pad, lay the foundation and build it to completion from the ground up. All of this was self taught through the years by watching others. None of those snickering dogmen can do what borderline does.

I'm not being overly sensitive, I don't care what folks think or say about me at this point in my life. But it does get old when it happens here especially when you yourself claim to have created a respectable place for dogmen to congregate. It squashes a thread and more than likely prevents a lot of folks from posting all together.

Now I think I'll have a cup of coffee! ;)

S_B

[S_B]

You want the fame, the glory, the spotlight, you can have it. I don't want my name on it anyway. Only people who needs to know would already know, and those who don't... Well...

Couldn't agree more, I would much rather leave it all blank but that defeats the whole purpose of coming here does it not?

As an example, you can't say you don't want to know all there is to know about the man behind DBL GR CH TORNADO. All the details to be found out drives us dogmen like it does teenage girls catching a glimpse of their heartthrob! We all get giddy when we hear about the greats. We can easily say we don't want to know, but we do!

S_B

[Officially Retired]

You want the fame, the glory, the spotlight, you can have it. I don't want my name on it anyway. Only people who needs to know would already know, and those who don't... Well...

This is asinine. If you feel this way, then don't create any pedigrees here.

If you do create pedigrees here, then please be complete, thorough, and FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS.

This is not 'your' world, it is my world.

It is not all about "you" or even "me"; it is about THE COMMUNITY *AND* FUNCTIONALITY OF THE DATABASE.

If you want to "be in private" then go sit by yourself.

If you want to add pedigrees here, then please follow my rules.

We are making major changes here, we will be condensing a lot, thereby improving absolutely everything, and those people who do not comply will be dropped as the useless appendages they are.

Following the procedures here makes things better for all.

Failing to follow the procedures here makes botches things up for all.

Culling those who botch things up is a NECESSITY ... as it keeps the integrity of the data intact.

I can't "make you" follow my rules, that is up to you.

But I *can* dump your ass out of here if you don't.

The choice is yours. It's that simple.

Jack

[Officially Retired]

My intention was to get the thoughts of other dogmen, not discredit your decision. I didn't start the thread with "Who's the breeder? Jack's rules suck ya'll speak out against him" :lol: And what's funny is you asked me to start the thread! :lol:

I understand that. In case you didn't notice, the original thread was fine.

I answered all questions and made my points.

There was nothing further to discuss.




Maybe it's early and I'm extra irritable, but the idiot and moron comments from EWO and yourself struck a chord. A good dogman was called borderline for many years, he didn't know why. The running joke was he was borderline retarded, which light heartedly is funny because he's reckless and crazy in some ways. But the nickname was more geared toward the fact he wasn't the best at spelling and it was rumored he couldn't read, which is false.

I never called EWO a retard. So you have a reading disability.

Go ahead and provide me with the quote where I called him a retard.

It is helpful in any discussion for a person to actually read and comprehend what was said before they get all riled up.




His conditioning is second to none, none of those same folks were lining up to catch his weights. He built his own jenny, and all of his dog equipment and his yard was always tip top.

He can work heavy equipment, build a house pad, lay the foundation and build it to completion from the ground up. All of this was self taught through the years by watching others. None of those snickering dogmen can do what borderline does.

Thank you for the Testimonial of EWO.

It wasn't needed, as I have always considered EWO to be one of the most valuable contributors here (and have stated this on more than a few occasions).

The "retards" were his mock-3 installers of the lightbulb :lol:

I posted the additional message in green to try to get OTHER people NOT to fogging ask me another mf-ing question about this, and to just comply with my rules.




I'm not being overly sensitive, I don't care what folks think or say about me at this point in my life. But it does get old when it happens here especially when you yourself claim to have created a respectable place for dogmen to congregate. It squashes a thread and more than likely prevents a lot of folks from posting all together.

Yes you are being overly-sensitive.

The only thing you have right is that I did try to squash this thread, because I DON'T want to be asked a million different scenarios, because I have already made my point. Now I want my rules followed.

My green-highlighted post was not designed to insult either you, or EWO, but it was absolutely designed to deter anyone from posting another "ya but, what-if" question again ... and make them simply GET IT and follow the rule.

I answered the general question, happily and freely, in a few different scenarios.

But now, I have better things to do with MY time then answer the same fogging thing, a hundred different times, in a hundred different ways.

Thanks for understanding, and go drink some cranberry juice, lol

Jack

[S_B]

Jack,

I think you might need to re-read my reply and those before it. You are the one not comprehending.

I mentioned the comments stated by yourself and EWO, not that you called EWO anything at all.

I wasn't giving a testimonial about EWO, but a dogman I know who's name I did not mention.

S_B

[Officially Retired]

Jack,
I think you might need to re-read my reply and those before it. You are the one not comprehending.


Okay, guilty as charged :embarrassed:




I mentioned the comments stated by yourself and EWO, not that you called EWO anything at all.


I can see that now :lol:




I wasn't giving a testimonial about EWO, but a dogman I know who's name I did not mention.
S_B

Thanks for clarifying, as well as for emoting and digressing.

But it doesn't have the first flippin' thing to do with THE POINT :-w

Jack

[S_B]

:lol:

[AlbinoRhino]

I just wanted to leave you with a possible solution as far as the Database here goes , if your going to collaborate with someone on a breeding , why not take a page out of Fat Bill's book and create a new Collaboration name/account , whatever !? Any breedings Bill did himself , he owned it...Fat Bil's A x Fat Bill's B .... Any partnership or Collaboration was always DLC or The Dixie Line Connection ....This is just a suggestion for keeping this Database runng in a smooth and efficient manner ....in reality , whoever plans and executed the breeding regardless of who owns what is unarguably the Breeder , he/she takes the credit good or bad , its only fair to both parties involved .....period. Hope this helps.

[S_B]

Great idea AlbinoThino! :D

Thank you!
S_B