A breeder I know took two of her bitches to another breeder’s kennel to be bred. The owner of the stud dog wanted her pick from any successful breeding in lieu of a stud fee. The owner of the bitches was responsible for any veterinary fees encountered during pregnancy.
Both bitches became pregnant, both required Caesarians due to huge puppy size. Each litter consisted of a single (huge) offspring. The owner of the stud dog showed up at weaning to take her two picks. The owner of the bitches was out four grand and lots of work, with nothing to show for it.
I left the AKC show ring after 2 years of insanity. I swithched to American Field bred English Setters. They did not resemble AkC dogs and for all intents and purposes were a seperate and distinct breed. The field bred setters still look like the setters often shown in 18th and 19th century art.
Those are nice dogs. As are most of the breeds still bred for a purpose other than appearance. And there are a surprising number of them, but because they are not AKC-controlled, and don’t travel in suburban circles, you don’t see them or hear about them. Many are local landraces, like Blue Laceys, and McNabs. I think they are cool.
The vast majority of the clauses in a puppy sale contract are unenforceable. They are there because the breeder hopes you will be frightened by the legal language. They are almost always thrown out in court.
Partial ownership is an exception to the above. It is known as co-ownership in the dog world. It is only valuable to the breeder, never, ever the buyer. It is generally makes a hideous legal mess. Even the AKC advises against it in their literature. The only happy co-ownerships tend to be between two like-minded breeders who are close friends, often relatives, who pass dogs back and forth; it makes the paperwork easier.
You need to understand that this type of breeder really does wish they could hang on to every puppy to the end of its life. They don’t make money on their litters, believe it or not – they spend every cent of profit and then some, on their other dogs.
As has been mentioned, first-gen crosses can have health and behavior advantages and can result in “best of both world” dogs.
The trick is to realize the aims of designer crossbreds are different than purebreds – it’s not about keeping a perfect standard across time with a high-quality bloodline, it’s about producing excellent individual dogs in the current generation.
I think an “ideal” dog-owning world would be one in which purebred dogs were almost exclusively owned by loving enthusiasts (or people with specific working dog needs), and companion animals were almost exclusively low-generation crossbreeds, neutered or spayed before ownership. Obviously not going to happen, but I think it would lead to a happier world for both people and dogs.
I suspect similarly they are trying to keep the breeds “in house”. If a significant number of say golden retrievers or whatever escape and mate in the wild, outside of the closed group of breders, then eventually there will be people selling what look, sound, and walk like a purebred - but are the offspring owned by the general public and probably sell for almost nothing - like mutts or cats do.