Quote:
Originally Posted by kjcmsw  I thought "reputable" breeders didn't advertise their championships? Does it really matter who got the championship?The original owner or the past owner? Either the dog is a champion or has champions in its line or it is not. Not trying to start an argument, just seems like there are different rules for different people, as such hard to tell what's really right. There are all sorts of ways to say: "Champion Bloodlines" and "breeding champions since ..." is just another way of saying it (IMO) |
Not speaking for all, but my opinion is that there is nothing at all wrong with mentioning or advertising your championships when they are specific -- for instance this breeder has pedigrees available, so you can see who in the lines are championed. If you say champion-sired -- again that is specific -- we can see the championship was awarded to the puppies' sire, same with "champion grand-sired." The problem is that some "not-as-ethical" of breeders use terms like "Champion bloodlines" to draw in customers when there may be only sporadic champions far back in the pedigree, not bred by the seller and not really indicative of the puppies' quality.
I don't think there is anything wrong with saying champion bloodlines -- just needs some justification/explanation. When they are vague, there is usually reason for it. So for me, the only time I see anything wrong at all with mentioning champions is when the breeder is using it to make a litter APPEAR more closely related to champions or even make the breeder appear to have something to do with champions when it is not the case. Seeing Champion Bloodlines should just make a buyer look more closely. If there is nothing substantial to back up the claim, then it is just being used as a marketing ploy. But if the breeder has pedigrees available, the championships are close to the litter (sire/grand-sire), or the breeder is responsible for breeding champions -- then it is really telling you something good about the puppies history.