'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[Steve]

There is nothing which doesnt allow a breeder to breed companions as their first priority but there is restriction on them breeding pets as their only motive. Its the care and concern we put into each litter which we know will impact on future litters which make us different to a designer dog breeder or one who is only motivated by profit.

[poodlefan]

I agree!! Sorry, I didn't realise that sounded as if I thought the two were incompatible- I purely meant that people should be able to breed a litter without any intention of retaining a puppy for themselves or to go to a show home if they with do so carefully & responsibly.

No you didn't SP... but that's what the Puppy Farmers would have us all believe.

[megan_]

There is nothing which doesnt allow a breeder to breed companions as their first priority but there is restriction on them breeding pets as their only motive. Its the care and concern we put into each litter which we know will impact on future litters which make us different to a designer dog breeder or one who is only motivated by profit.

I think this is where the purebred community loses most people. It sounds like you are saying pets are somewhat inferior. Why does breeding pets = breeding for profit. My dogs aren't "just" pets - they are pets. That is the highest purpose of a dog IMO.

An experienced breeder can still breed to better their breed without stepping in the showring. They can breed companions for people with teh right conformation and temperement.

[SpikesPuppy]

There is nothing which doesnt allow a breeder to breed companions as their first priority but there is restriction on them breeding pets as their only motive. Its the care and concern we put into each litter which we know will impact on future litters which make us different to a designer dog breeder or one who is only motivated by profit.

This is what I don't understand. Why?? If the pups are all well conformed, have typical breed temperaments & good health- what does it matter if they enter a show ring or not?

(no, I don't want to do this myself FTR, and I have seen some dreadful results from 'pet only' matings, but this is because the person breeding them is motivated by greed and nothing else). Say you have one litter, you keep a pup to go on with but then repeat that (breed-standard successful) mating every second season or so (pending bitch health & condition, your time to socialise pups etc) a further 2 or 3 times, with no intention of selling anything other than pets to the many excellent homes out their wanting top notch examples of your breed?

[poodlefan]

There is nothing which doesnt allow a breeder to breed companions as their first priority but there is restriction on them breeding pets as their only motive. Its the care and concern we put into each litter which we know will impact on future litters which make us different to a designer dog breeder or one who is only motivated by profit.

I think this is where the purebred community loses most people. It sounds like you are saying pets are somewhat inferior. Why does breeding pets = breeding for profit. My dogs aren't "just" pets - they are pets. That is the highest purpose of a dog IMO.

An experienced breeder can still breed to better their breed without stepping in the showring. They can breed companions for people with teh right conformation and temperement.

Who said anything about the show ring? It's something many pedigree dog breeders do - but by no means all of them.

Are you suggesting that breeders shouldn't retain the best dogs they breed to produce the next generation? That's what they do. Other pups may be sold as pets. If you want to see what breeding with less than the best can do in a few generations, there are plenty of BYB dogs around to illustrate the point. They don't just look less than typical typical of their breeds, in a lot of cases they act it too.

"Limited Register" doesn't necessarily mean a dog is inferior. Many fine dogs are sold as pets. We all think we own the best dogs in the world.. but the plain fact of the matter is that some are better equipped to produce more of their breed than others.

Edited February 16, 2010 by poodlefan

[Jed]

Breeding to improve the breed was inserted into the COE some years ago. I felt to pacify animal rights. It's up to each individual breeder to decide what "improving the breed" actually means.

Breeding good pets which make their owners proud IS improving the breed in my opinion. It's always been my opinion. I get as much pleasure about hearing about Cody and the kids as about hearing of Jed's Winner getting his title.

Most breeders 40+ breeding to improve the breed means selling dogs to people for pets, or sport, or work. We have always done it, there is nothing in the COE to prevent it.

It is the younger breeders who have been swayed away from that ethos, seeing the change in the COE meaning only to breed for themselves.

Improvving the breed is not just about breeding better dogs. It's about them being seen out and about, being pets, doing something, improving the image of the breed. How nice for someone to see a lovely dog at the park, and admire it, or want one. How much good does that do for the breed? I know my puppy buyers are so chuffed when someone admires their dog, or asks them about it

Why should they not have the very best I can breed? Why should they not have the pleasure of owning the breed? Why should they have to settle for something else?

[SpikesPuppy]

Breeding to improve the breed was inserted into the COE some years ago. I felt to pacify animal rights. It's up to each individual breeder to decide what "improving the breed" actually means.

Breeding good pets which make their owners proud IS improving the breed in my opinion. It's always been my opinion. I get as much pleasure about hearing about Cody and the kids as about hearing of Jed's Winner getting his title.

Most breeders 40+ breeding to improve the breed means selling dogs to people for pets, or sport, or work. We have always done it, there is nothing in the COE to prevent it.

It is the younger breeders who have been swayed away from that ethos, seeing the change in the COE meaning only to breed for themselves.

Improvving the breed is not just about breeding better dogs. It's about them being seen out and about, being pets, doing something, improving the image of the breed. How nice for someone to see a lovely dog at the park, and admire it, or want one. How much good does that do for the breed? I know my puppy buyers are so chuffed when someone admires their dog, or asks them about it

Why should they not have the very best I can breed? Why should they not have the pleasure of owning the breed? Why should they have to settle for something else?

I guess it is how one defines the terminology used...

I also think that to combat puppy farms/compete with them, we need more availability of pedigree animals. Not in pet shops or 'on demand' but sometimes I think waiting lists of 2 or more years is bordering on ridiculous unless you really want a specific colour/markings or have plans for breeding etc. I honestly don't know where I will be in 2 years time, or what I'll be doing and if all I wanted was a sound & healthy predictable animal for the kids to grow up with and keep me company while they are at school (hypothetical me :D ), I sure as heck don't want to wait more than a few months!!

[Sheridan]

Breeding to improve the breed was inserted into the COE some years ago. I felt to pacify animal rights. It's up to each individual breeder to decide what "improving the breed" actually means.

Breeding good pets which make their owners proud IS improving the breed in my opinion. It's always been my opinion. I get as much pleasure about hearing about Cody and the kids as about hearing of Jed's Winner getting his title.

Most breeders 40+ breeding to improve the breed means selling dogs to people for pets, or sport, or work. We have always done it, there is nothing in the COE to prevent it.

It is the younger breeders who have been swayed away from that ethos, seeing the change in the COE meaning only to breed for themselves.

Improvving the breed is not just about breeding better dogs. It's about them being seen out and about, being pets, doing something, improving the image of the breed. How nice for someone to see a lovely dog at the park, and admire it, or want one. How much good does that do for the breed? I know my puppy buyers are so chuffed when someone admires their dog, or asks them about it

Why should they not have the very best I can breed? Why should they not have the pleasure of owning the breed? Why should they have to settle for something else?

I guess it is how one defines the terminology used...

I also think that to combat puppy farms/compete with them, we need more availability of pedigree animals. Not in pet shops or 'on demand' but sometimes I think waiting lists of 2 or more years is bordering on ridiculous unless you really want a specific colour/markings or have plans for breeding etc. I honestly don't know where I will be in 2 years time, or what I'll be doing and if all I wanted was a sound & healthy predictable animal for the kids to grow up with and keep me company while they are at school (hypothetical me :D ), I sure as heck don't want to wait more than a few months!!

But with some breeds you have to wait simply because they're not popular breeds. I had to wait only a few months for my previous wheaten but that was because a mating had just been done and I managed to scoot to the top of the waiting list. Others might have to wait longer than that. But the thing is, I don't want wheatens or kerries to be as popular as labs or staffies and I'd rather wait than have that happen.

[Jed]

The waiting lists ARE ridiculous. Steve took a hiding for posting what Dr Battaglia wrote some years ago. This was published in National Dog years ago, about labelling, and that was one of the downfall of registered dogs. Labelling breeders as "puppy farmers" if they had more than one or two litters a year, or byb if they didn't show. Additionally, we were told there were too many dogs, and it was OUR fault that dogs fetched up in the pound and were euthed.

Numbers of breeders/dogs bred tended in the past to ebb and flow. Numbers continue to fall because of the above, as well as natural attrition. There is a "hard core" of breeders who have been around for decades. They continue, no matter what. There are also breeders who come and go - breed a couple of litters and leave. Problem is that now it is all ebb.

The culture needs to change, Council registration models need to change - so many things need to change. I don't think they will, I just think it will get worse, and more will walk away, because there was one difficult regulation too much, or one charge too many which will spoil what used to be a good hobby for someone.

[SpikesPuppy]

Breeding to improve the breed was inserted into the COE some years ago. I felt to pacify animal rights. It's up to each individual breeder to decide what "improving the breed" actually means.

Breeding good pets which make their owners proud IS improving the breed in my opinion. It's always been my opinion. I get as much pleasure about hearing about Cody and the kids as about hearing of Jed's Winner getting his title.

Most breeders 40+ breeding to improve the breed means selling dogs to people for pets, or sport, or work. We have always done it, there is nothing in the COE to prevent it.

It is the younger breeders who have been swayed away from that ethos, seeing the change in the COE meaning only to breed for themselves.

Improvving the breed is not just about breeding better dogs. It's about them being seen out and about, being pets, doing something, improving the image of the breed. How nice for someone to see a lovely dog at the park, and admire it, or want one. How much good does that do for the breed? I know my puppy buyers are so chuffed when someone admires their dog, or asks them about it

Why should they not have the very best I can breed? Why should they not have the pleasure of owning the breed? Why should they have to settle for something else?

I guess it is how one defines the terminology used...

I also think that to combat puppy farms/compete with them, we need more availability of pedigree animals. Not in pet shops or 'on demand' but sometimes I think waiting lists of 2 or more years is bordering on ridiculous unless you really want a specific colour/markings or have plans for breeding etc. I honestly don't know where I will be in 2 years time, or what I'll be doing and if all I wanted was a sound & healthy predictable animal for the kids to grow up with and keep me company while they are at school (hypothetical me :D ), I sure as heck don't want to wait more than a few months!!

But with some breeds you have to wait simply because they're not popular breeds. I had to wait only a few months for my previous wheaten but that was because a mating had just been done and I managed to scoot to the top of the waiting list. Others might have to wait longer than that. But the thing is, I don't want wheatens or kerries to be as popular as labs or staffies and I'd rather wait than have that happen.

I see what you are saying- but aren't Wheatens popular puppy farm dogs in the USA now? Wouldn't it be better if those who knew what they were doing and were prepared to take lifetime responsibility for the dogs they breed supplied these puppies? I guess though, the good ones will tell unsuitable people exactly that and if someone wants to pup regardless of their suitability they will source one.

But look at, for example, the extremely high number of poor quality popular breeds such as Labs, Staffords & Goldens..... if more quality breeders with quality dogs supplied puppies, the general overall quality would rise. Educating people about where to buy a puppy still has a LONG way to go and people genuinely don't know they are doing the wrong thing.

I would also imagine that being such an unknown breed here in Australia, the people after Wheatens or Kerries who are also suitable owners are well aware of the lack of availability & are prepared to wait.

[espinay2]

There is nothing which doesnt allow a breeder to breed companions as their first priority but there is restriction on them breeding pets as their only motive. Its the care and concern we put into each litter which we know will impact on future litters which make us different to a designer dog breeder or one who is only motivated by profit.

I think this is where the purebred community loses most people. It sounds like you are saying pets are somewhat inferior.

When in actual fact making sure there are other motives for breeding ('improving' the breed/maintaining or improving the health of the breed/ensuring the longevity and viability of the genepool well into the future etc etc) is making sure that the pets being produced are a 'superior product' now and into the future. There is a big difference between churning out pets for the pet market with the dogs you have now with that as the only aim, and working with one eye on the future to produce well put together and heathy companions through considered matings not just now but well into the future (whether it is you breeding them or someone else using the results of your work in 10, 20, 50 years time). A breeder doesnt have to show to do this and the ANKC does not demand that a breeder show at all, even though it and other activities such as obedience/agility etc is encouraged (showing a dog(s) can perhaps be seen to have its place in the education of a breeder - but that is for a totally separate discussion. Note that not everyone is out there every weekend showing their dogs! For some being involved in this aspect is cyclical thoughout their life as a breeder).

When it comes to waiting lists, the issue in my breed is that it is not a 'popular' breed nor one for the 'average' pet owning family (and breeders don't want it to become one - we have seen what happened to the Maremma.). The right homes are there, but not coming out of the woodwork in droves and never will. To have puppies available all the time just so there are puppies available whenever someone decides they want one would mean too many puppies without the right homes being available. Breeders would either have to keep most of the litters themselves (and be quickly overrun with dogs) or be less picky about the homes they go to. Not very responsible really, and all because those few good owners should have pups available exactly when and if they want them? In the case of my breed, waiting lists are a much better option and most of those who we would want to own them are willing to wait. And we have the very low dumpage rate to show for it.

[SpikesPuppy]

There is nothing which doesnt allow a breeder to breed companions as their first priority but there is restriction on them breeding pets as their only motive. Its the care and concern we put into each litter which we know will impact on future litters which make us different to a designer dog breeder or one who is only motivated by profit.

I think this is where the purebred community loses most people. It sounds like you are saying pets are somewhat inferior.

When in actual fact making sure there are other motives for breeding ('improving' the breed/maintaining or improving the health of the breed/ensuring the longevity and viability of the genepool well into the future etc etc) is making sure that the pets being produced are a 'superior product' now and into the future. There is a big difference between churning out pets for the pet market with the dogs you have now with that as the only aim, and working with one eye on the future to produce well put together and heathy companions through considered matings not just now but well into the future (whether it is you breeding them or someone else using the results of your work in 10, 20, 50 years time). A breeder doesnt have to show to do this and the ANKC does not demand that a breeder show at all, even though it and other activities such as obedience/agility etc is encouraged (showing a dog(s) can perhaps be seen to have its place in the education of a breeder - but that is for a totally separate discussion. Note that not everyone is out there every weekend showing their dogs! For some being involved in this aspect is cyclical thoughout their life as a breeder).

But what of those breeders who never allow their dogs to be used at stud or never sell pups to outside sources on main Register? Are they breaking the CoE by not actually doing anything to improve the breed as a whole, only in their own backyard?

When it comes to waiting lists, the issue in my breed is that it is not a 'popular' breed nor one for the 'average' pet owning family (and breeders don't want it to become one - we have seen what happened to the Maremma.). The right homes are there, but not coming out of the woodwork in droves and never will. To have puppies available all the time just so there are puppies available whenever someone decides they want one would mean too many puppies without the right homes being available. Breeders would either have to keep most of the litters themselves (and be quickly overrun with dogs) or be less picky about the homes they go to. Not very responsible really, and all because those few good owners should have pups available exactly when and if they want them? In the case of my breed, waiting lists are a much better option and most of those who we would want to own them are willing to wait. And we have the very low dumpage rate to show for it.

I understand this, and in the case of the less common breeds, waiting lists seem to be more easily accepted by someone wanting a family companion puppy.

BUT as I posted to Sheridan above- what of the breeds where demand outweighs supply?? Is it such a bad thing to produce quality puppies for these people with no intention of any of them ever impacting the future gene pool or show ring?

My breed is gaining popularity and is generally, a fairly easy dog to get along with (although you need to accept it's terrier personality), and I have had to turn down several puppy enquiries because I don't have enough to go around (and some I know are excellent homes because they already own one or I know them personally or through a friend etc). Unfortunately, with them recently becoming the 10th most popular pedigree dog in the UK, the quality has also declined significantly because the quality breeders were/are unable to keep up with the demand. Physical quality and health have both suffered in the breed in recent years in it's country of origin because of those out to make a quick buck & ignorant owners who want one of these fantastic little dogs.

Even here, the number of 'hobby' breeders breeding from lesser quality animals has grown significantly in the short time I have been involved with the breed.

[Guest Tess32]

Breeding to improve the breed was inserted into the COE some years ago. I felt to pacify animal rights. It's up to each individual breeder to decide what "improving the breed" actually means.

Breeding good pets which make their owners proud IS improving the breed in my opinion. It's always been my opinion. I get as much pleasure about hearing about Cody and the kids as about hearing of Jed's Winner getting his title.

Most breeders 40+ breeding to improve the breed means selling dogs to people for pets, or sport, or work. We have always done it, there is nothing in the COE to prevent it.

It is the younger breeders who have been swayed away from that ethos, seeing the change in the COE meaning only to breed for themselves.

Improvving the breed is not just about breeding better dogs. It's about them being seen out and about, being pets, doing something, improving the image of the breed. How nice for someone to see a lovely dog at the park, and admire it, or want one. How much good does that do for the breed? I know my puppy buyers are so chuffed when someone admires their dog, or asks them about it

Why should they not have the very best I can breed? Why should they not have the pleasure of owning the breed? Why should they have to settle for something else?

[poodlefan]

Spikes:

I also think that to combat puppy farms/compete with them, we need more availability of pedigree animals.

More pedigree animals means more responsible homes to place them in. There are plenty of dogs in less than responible homes and plenty of ANKC breeders turn away buyers they consider unsuitable for the breed. Those buyers usually head straight for the Trading Post or a pet shop.

Dog ownership is not a right. It is a responsibility for which self education is important.

I have real issues with the idea of making more pedigree dogs available UNLESS programs are instituted to prepare appropriate homes for them. If you want an area where cooperation would make huge inroads, this is it. Vets, animal welfare organisations and responsible pedigree breeders can work together on this one.

And this is starting to happen in small steps.

Edited February 16, 2010 by poodlefan

[Steve]

There is nothing which doesnt allow a breeder to breed companions as their first priority but there is restriction on them breeding pets as their only motive. Its the care and concern we put into each litter which we know will impact on future litters which make us different to a designer dog breeder or one who is only motivated by profit.

I think this is where the purebred community loses most people. It sounds like you are saying pets are somewhat inferior. Why does breeding pets = breeding for profit. My dogs aren't "just" pets - they are pets. That is the highest purpose of a dog IMO.

An experienced breeder can still breed to better their breed without stepping in the showring. They can breed companions for people with teh right conformation and temperement.

I could have said just show dogs, just working dogs, just agility dogs etc - I meant just any dogs for one litter .

The point is whether they are pets or not we have to consider much more than what we intend for that one pup or that one litter .Thats to ensure that no matter what a pup is used for that its not inferior.

[centitout]

Spikes:

I also think that to combat puppy farms/compete with them, we need more availability of pedigree animals.

More pedigree animals means more responsible homes to place them in. There are plenty of dogs in less than responible homes and plenty of ANKC breeders turn away buyers they consider unsuitable for the breed. Those buyers usually head straight for the Trading Post or a pet shop.

Dog ownership is not a right. It is a responsibility for which self education is important.

I have real issues with the idea of making more pedigree dogs available UNLESS programs are instituted to prepare appropriate homes for them. If you want an area where cooperation would make huge inroads, this is it. Vets, animal welfare organisations and responsible pedigree breeders can work together on this one.

And this is starting to happen in small steps.

Well,it was ,then we have puppy farmer vets lecturing us on animal welfare,so that avenue of education is going

[Sheridan]

But with some breeds you have to wait simply because they're not popular breeds. I had to wait only a few months for my previous wheaten but that was because a mating had just been done and I managed to scoot to the top of the waiting list. Others might have to wait longer than that. But the thing is, I don't want wheatens or kerries to be as popular as labs or staffies and I'd rather wait than have that happen.

I see what you are saying- but aren't Wheatens popular puppy farm dogs in the USA now? Wouldn't it be better if those who knew what they were doing and were prepared to take lifetime responsibility for the dogs they breed supplied these puppies? I guess though, the good ones will tell unsuitable people exactly that and if someone wants to pup regardless of their suitability they will source one.

But look at, for example, the extremely high number of poor quality popular breeds such as Labs, Staffords & Goldens..... if more quality breeders with quality dogs supplied puppies, the general overall quality would rise. Educating people about where to buy a puppy still has a LONG way to go and people genuinely don't know they are doing the wrong thing.

I would also imagine that being such an unknown breed here in Australia, the people after Wheatens or Kerries who are also suitable owners are well aware of the lack of availability & are prepared to wait.

Yes, they are but we're talking here in Oz.

The problem, I suppose with any breed, is quality breeders. Who decides who a quality breeder is? We know but according to Kate Schoeffel, she's a quality breeder.

[SpikesPuppy]

But with some breeds you have to wait simply because they're not popular breeds. I had to wait only a few months for my previous wheaten but that was because a mating had just been done and I managed to scoot to the top of the waiting list. Others might have to wait longer than that. But the thing is, I don't want wheatens or kerries to be as popular as labs or staffies and I'd rather wait than have that happen.

I see what you are saying- but aren't Wheatens popular puppy farm dogs in the USA now? Wouldn't it be better if those who knew what they were doing and were prepared to take lifetime responsibility for the dogs they breed supplied these puppies? I guess though, the good ones will tell unsuitable people exactly that and if someone wants to pup regardless of their suitability they will source one.

But look at, for example, the extremely high number of poor quality popular breeds such as Labs, Staffords & Goldens..... if more quality breeders with quality dogs supplied puppies, the general overall quality would rise. Educating people about where to buy a puppy still has a LONG way to go and people genuinely don't know they are doing the wrong thing.

I would also imagine that being such an unknown breed here in Australia, the people after Wheatens or Kerries who are also suitable owners are well aware of the lack of availability & are prepared to wait.

Yes, they are but we're talking here in Oz.

The problem, I suppose with any breed, is quality breeders. Who decides who a quality breeder is? We know but according to Kate Schoeffel, she's a quality breeder.

Which is why the ANKC and state CCs need to step up to the plate and show the public why someone who deliberately breeds mongrels is NOT a quality breeder. Some organisation with authority & funding NEEDS to have some examples of what makes a great breeder and the value of socialisation etc. I have seen commercials on the TV for certain puppy farms, rolling meadows, happy fluffy puppies etc. WHY has the ANKC not done something similar???

More breeder/exhibitor vets need to step up and promote their chosen dogs!!

IMO there needs to be advertising campaigns giving examples of where to buy a happy, healthy pedigree puppy and maybe a checklist of what to look for when meeting a breeder. There doesn't have to be any comparison to puppy farms, just a simple checklist of things that no dodgy breeder can provide (original copy of health certificates, meeting the parent/s as well as siblings if possible, simple things to be aware of (such as avoiding or making excuses why a dog cannot be viewed, reluctance to discuss the breed/uninterested in the puppy buyer's home etc, neglecting to take the dog back if circumstances change and so on).

[espinay2]

But what of those breeders who never allow their dogs to be used at stud or never sell pups to outside sources on main Register? Are they breaking the CoE by not actually doing anything to improve the breed as a whole, only in their own backyard?

In most cases there is no such thing as 'never'. You may find however that they are very 'selective' about where their bloodlines are used (even if it is only with one or two other breeders)....and they sell the rest of their hard work as quality pets!

BUT as I posted to Sheridan above- what of the breeds where demand outweighs supply?? Is it such a bad thing to produce quality puppies for these people with no intention of any of them ever impacting the future gene pool or show ring?

Yes, if demand is there you could breed more puppies, but breeding quality is in itself self limiting to an extent as you have to pick and choose what you breed and to whom. To increase supply you need to increase the number of dogs you are breeding from. When selecting these dogs, in order to get more breeding stock, is there enough of the quality you need out there to do this, or do you accept less in the way of quality to get the numbers you need? Does increase in breeding mean a decrease in the overall quality of the population (or a widening of the middle of the quality bell curve as more dogs in the curve are bred)?

[SpikesPuppy]

But what of those breeders who never allow their dogs to be used at stud or never sell pups to outside sources on main Register? Are they breaking the CoE by not actually doing anything to improve the breed as a whole, only in their own backyard?

In most cases there is no such thing as 'never'. You may find however that they are very 'selective' about where their bloodlines are used (even if it is only with one or two other breeders)....and they sell the rest of their hard work as quality pets!

A few breeders here have posted that their dogs and bloodlines will die with them because they breed purely for themselves and themselves only.

BUT as I posted to Sheridan above- what of the breeds where demand outweighs supply?? Is it such a bad thing to produce quality puppies for these people with no intention of any of them ever impacting the future gene pool or show ring?

Yes, if demand is there you could breed more puppies, but breeding quality is in itself self limiting to an extent as you have to pick and choose what you breed and to whom. To increase supply you need to increase the number of dogs you are breeding from. When selecting these dogs, in order to get more breeding stock, is there enough of the quality you need out there to do this, or do you accept less in the way of quality to get the numbers you need? Does increase in breeding mean a decrease in the overall quality of the population (or a widening of the middle of the quality bell curve as more dogs in the curve are bred)? :D

I never said it would be easy

I don't mean suddenly increase to a dozen litters a year, I just mean breeders who usually only breed once every 3-4 years to keep a puppy for themselves maybe breeding a quality litter or two purely to go as pets (say, if you have a waiting list or 'return buyers' ) in between their "own" litter

Of course, Mother Nature is not always predictable but if you hit on a 'winning combination' of high quality, typey puppies form a particular pairing, is it so bad to try and replicate that for pet purposes?

Or breeders who breed their bitch once, then retire her and only breed again when that bitch's daughter is old enough for her own litter etc. Why not, if the quality and the demand for pets is there (responsible homes), breed another litter from the original bitch?