Breeding to Winners vs. Breeding on Your Yard

[Officially Retired]

Some good points are being made by both sides of the discussion. I have noticed that there tends to be a difference between a breeder and a competitor/breeder. Most competitor/breeders I know or can think of, did or do breed to their "winning" or "losing game" stock. They bred what they used, and used what they bred.

I agree, and I would breed to my winning or losing game stock too, if I were competing. Because I am not competing, but still want to have a topnotch yard, I have to make sure that I know what I am feeding, that it meets my style/quality preferences and demands, and that it comes from a consistent enough background so that I have a reasonable expectation that what I keep will "produce more of the same." From that point, it's just a matter of a few breeding tweaks/experiments forever trying to steer the course of my bloodline in the direction I want it to go. I am sure it is like that for all dedicated breeders trying to produce quality stock and trying to maintain "what they like" in their program.

I can see a breeder keeping his "best" stock, to continue breedings, and as long as the dogs that are being sold are quality and are satisfying their new owners, then all parties involved are happy.

That is the way it is supposed to be.

People tend to assume the dog that wins is "the best," or that what the breeder keeps is "unproven," but neither of these assumptions is remotely accurate. (Not with a serious and good breeder anyway.) Sometimes the breeder may well sell his best; or sometimes the dog he sold is equally-good as what he kept; and even in cases where what the breeder sold in "x dog" proves to be better than what he kept ... that doesn't mean said winning dog is better than other dogs the breeder has, from other breedings. It just means that a particular customer has a particular good doggie from one of the breeder's breedings

Reminds me of a quote I was told by my mentor, "Never, ever, sell your best dog". Then he followed that up with "None of my dogs are for sale, but EVERY ONE of them has a price"

LOL, that is breeder-speak if I ever heard it

But it's true! If you're breeding dogs for a living, but you really love and value your stock, you aren't really falling all over yourself to "give away" what you got ... but if someone comes up with enough dinero, why then so long to ol' rover, and you'll just clear out his space for a new bulldog you got coming up 8-)

Out of curiosity, who are some of the breeders since the 90's does the board think were topnotch? I have my opinions, just wondering what everyone else thinks, then we can look and see who, what, and how they bred their animals and compare.

I would have to say getting a foundation dog from Hollingsworth in 1990 would have benefitted anyone ... and helped some pretty major breeders get to some pretty good places

Jack