"Barbie Colles Can Herd, Really!"

[kelpiegirl]

Okay Ollie- er Andrea

[blackacre]

Kelpiegirl,

Before we get back to you and what YOUR agenda is, I have now asked for and been sent the minutes which you claim to refer to.

Here is the only reference to full recognition of the Kelpie by the CKC:

 

"If we apply for full recognition by the CKC for the Australian Kelpie, then after 5 years we would be able apply for changes to the Kelpie breed standard as recognized by the CKC. Currently the CKC has adopted the FCI standard for the breed in Canada, which is the standard for the Bench Kelpie in Australia (parent country)."

[Emphasis added]

 

Nothing further arose as a result of this statement, except that in my recollection (and another board member's), I did at this point voice my opposition to full recognition (again, of the breed.)

 

And here it the only motion, which passed unanimously:

 

A motion was made “to pursue recognition of our club as the parent club for the Kelpie with the CKC so that we may support the development of the Working Kelpie in Canada”.

 

All in favour.

 

I'm sure I don't need to spell it out to anyone who can read, but as you can see, the only motion on the table was one to pursue recognition of the club by the CKC.

 

Now, back to you.

 

In my earlier post, the one which evidently aroused your intense hostility, I was finally driven to point out exactly what your experience with working dogs has been, since you are a frequent and vehement contributor to discussions involving what makes a good working dog. You're also keen to join in the hunt when the AKC is discussed. Therefore, I thought it was only fair that others be apprised of your level of experience and your competence, as otherwise they might have a quite mistaken impression of your experience and knowledge. You may not like it, but there it is.

 

As far as I am concerned, I am trying to do the right thing by the Working Kelpie, as I have tried my best to do by the border collie. That doesn't mean I'm right, necessarily, but I'm trying my best. For you to suggest otherwise is scurrilous and malicious.

 

How about you? What are YOU doing, other than posting your opinion on what makes a good working dog on every list known to man, and then attacking those who question your opinions? At least I've finally induced you to do it publicly, rather than by vicious and threatening PM's, which I have experienced personally and which I am told you resort to with some frequency.

 

A

[sea4th]

I would say;

 

Working-bred dog = Dog from parents who both can work stock with some degree of competence

 

 

You can't tell through a computer what a poster's intent is in asking or answering in a post, so I'll say up front that I'm asking this question in all seriousness & no sarcasm involved.

 

Who determines the degree of competency? For example, a person who breeds border collies for the bench, yet still wants to claim that their dogs work, might have an acre or two, a few head of sheep where they push the sheep around with their dogs occasionally. Taking sheep from point A to point B might be all the competency this person needs out of their dogs, and so can claim that their dogs work. The level of competency in working dog that we see in open classes or the every day work on a working farm, might be altogether different, but the person above really has no need for that sort of intense work, but their dog(s) might be competent enough for their purposes. And so breedable.

 

A border collie who lives a life of hard work on a working farm, might not be "competent" enough to complete an open course, but is invaluable to the rancher/farmer, who might consider their dog worth breeding.

 

The dog who is breathtaking to watch work and clean up at trials, might not hold up to the day in day out rigors of farm or ranch work, but people are lining up to breed to this dog or get a pup off this dog, because, certainly, he's worth breeding.

 

Yet each of the 3 examples the owner would say that their dog is competent enough for their needs -- and worth reproducing.

 

So who determines competency ?

[kelpiegirl]

Following are the minutes in part:

 

Currently the Australian Kelpie is on the CKC�s Miscellaneous Breeds

List, which means that a Kelpie can apply for a CKC Miscellaneous

Breed certification number then can compete in any and all types of

CKC events, ie. herding trials, conformation shows, obedience trials,

agility trials...

 

For our club to apply for recognition from the CKC as the parent club

for the Kelpie in Canada we would have to show that we have been in

operation for at least 1 year and we would have to write By-Laws up

for our club that reflect certain requirements by the CKC, such as our

Board members having to be CKC members.

 

If we are approved by the CKC as the parent club for the Kelpie in

Canada then we will have some control over the direction the breed

takes in Canada.

 

If we apply for full recognition by the CKC for the Australian Kelpie,

then after 5 years we would be able apply for changes to the Kelpie

breed standard as recognized by the CKC. Currently the CKC has adopted

the FCI standard for the breed in Canada, which is the standard for

the Bench Kelpie in Australia (parent country).ffffff circulated copies of the FCI breed standard for the Australian

Kelpie as well as copies of sample By-Laws that she had done up for

the club.

 

 

Comments from the people present reflected a desire to have a

proactive club, encouraging membership from all fields of Kelpie

ownership and activity with a special emphasis on the working heritage

and abilities of the Kelpie, ensuring the preservation of the working

temperament of the Kelpie. Several people inquired about controlling

conformation Championships by a dog requiring a herding title before

being issued a conformation Championship. hhhhh said she would inquire

with the CKC but felt that currently the CKC would be unable to

control this, it may be up to our club to control titles through our

own recognition.

 

 

<underline>A motion was made �to pursue recognition of our club as the

parent club for the Kelpie with the CKC so that we may support the

development of the Working Kelpie in Canada�.

 

Question: Why are you trying to "develop" the Kelpie in Canada? Frankly, this whole thing smacks of double standards. This is tantamount to joining the BCSA, so that you can prevent conformation breeding of BCs. You are creating a club, so that you can be recognized by the canadian KENNEL CLUB. Why? seriously, I am dying to know.

[Sue R]

You know, I think this is getting quite off-topic and should, perhaps, be another thread entirely.

 

However, what I *think* is happening is that, since in Canada each breed may only have one registry (unlike the US where anybody and their brother can start a "registry"), people who are concerned to maintain the Kelpie as a working breed are trying to make a pre-emptive strike. In other words, if those who value the Kelpie as a working breed don't take charge now, they may well find a conformation-oriented club being recognized as the Kelpie registry and taking the breed in the conformation/sport direction.

 

It seems that a club will be formed and it will be the sole representative of the registration of the breed - if that is going to happen, it had better be started by, run by, and maintained by people who want to keep the Kelpie a true working breed, and not by those who want to make it another show-bred, formerly-purpose-bred, dog.

 

JMO. I've met and talked with Andrea - I can't imagine her wanting to see the Kelpie in Canada go the way of the Kelpie in other countries where it has become or is in the process of becoming just another show/sport breed.

[blackacre]

<shrug> Like I said, I could be wrong, but you're pretty well the last person in the world in a position to tell me so.

And don't think people aren't going to notice that you refuse to answer my questions.

And that's my last reply to you, although I am more than willing to discuss it with anyone else who is prepared to discuss it thoughtfully and not by way of a vendetta. But . . . tomorrow, eh? I've had enough for tonight.

Andrea

[kelpiegirl]

I really don't have much more to say on this, I think we have beaten this to death. But, I think your question is "what am I doing?" well, for one, I am not trying to bring the kelpie to full registration status in Canada

[Flamincomet]

Billy and Carolyn,

I don't think it's necessary to defend the handler or dog in question, and this thread should not be seen as disrespectful of them. I don't think anyone who has posted on this thread has had anything negative to say about either the owner or the dog, unless I've missed something. This thread isn't about them (other than peripherally because of the blogger's claims)--it's about a blogger who claims that a show-bred dog can and does compete at the highest levels in open. The fact is that the dog in question is not strictly show bred, as I and others in this thread pointed out. That has no bearing on the dog-handler team whatsoever (that is, it doesn't matter who owns or trials the dog--the point in question is the dog's breeding). What it has bearing on is the claim that show-bred dogs can be competitive at the highest levels in USBCHA, which isn't true, at least not for the example the blogger used, since the dog mentioned isn't strictly a show-bred dog.

 

Like Andrea said, condoning/promoting such breedings does lead to muddying the waters significantly when it comes time for other new-to-working-dogs people to find a working prospect. Many of us started out with dogs that might not have come from ideal breeders, but at least we can try to educate others as to why this might not be a good idea.

 

J.

 

Thank, this is exactly why I posted this. I had just read this one blog from them, and didn't know what to make of it, so I posted it here, since I knew you all would know more about it. And I certainly do admire this handler for all she has achieved.

 

After reading many more of this persons blogs however, I do have to agree that their head is much too inflated.

 

 

"Okay, for the sake of discussion, what IS a show bred dog- how many dogs in the pedigree make it a show bred dog? What is a sport bred dog or a working dog- same question?"

 

My own personal opinion is that a show bred dog is just that, a dog bred for show purposes only, reguardless of how many working dogs are in the pedigree. If both parents are working bred, but they happen to have excellent conformation and they are bred for that reason only, then the resulting puppies are show bred.

 

Same with sport/working bred.

 

"I think it is reasonable to state that strictly conformation-bred dogs don't work to the same standard quality as strictly working-bred dogs, in general."

 

Agreed. And I think it goes back to what the dogs were bred for. If a dog is bred for working ability alone, then there is a higher chance it will be able to work stock, and a lower chance it will be a conformation champion. It still might be able to become a conformation champion, but the odds aren't really in it's favor.

If a dog is bred for conformation alone, then there is a higher chance it will become a conformation champion, and a lower chance it will be able to work stock. It still might be able to work stock competently, but the odds aren't really in it's favor either.

 

"I won't go back to show lines, because I am just like the lady that Carolyn knows in my evolutionary process, but that doesn't reflect one iota on how I feel about my Lucy."

 

Thank you thank you thank you. This is exactly how I feel.

 

Autumn

[bcnewe2]

Back on the subject of the op.

Does anyone remember a couple years ago a young guy on here with some made up name, but his real name was Christopher? He was a poop stirrer and this blog smacks of his tone and verbage. Can't for the life of me remember what his screen name was but he was a doozy. I think he finally got banned.

 

OMT

What or who can say what a working dog is? I think anyone that has had dogs of breedings that weren't bred with work in mind, and edited to add: then ended up with the right kind of working dogs because the did do their homework or learning would certainly understand what a good working dog is. Or someone who tried to get their mediocre working dog up in the ranks of open would know if they were willing to not beat themselves or their not so good dog up about it.

I guess you can get lucky or really do good homework and start with the right dogs but I sure didn't do enough research and had to wade through some ABCA dogs that weren't exactly stellar. At the time I was just starting and I thought these dogs had the same potential but I hung around long enough and learned the difference.

I still have the biscuit eaters and love them all the same but they will never be my working dogs. My husband a non dog guy will attest to this since I was gone this weekend with all the working dogs I had. He had to go to the back of the property with one of the couch taters and collect the sheep off the neighbors 400 unfenced acres. He tried and tried. Failed miserably. Now he's out of town and called to ask how it went finding the sheep in the neighbors back acres. I quietly smiled but said rather teasingly...fine, I had a dog!

 

I also bought the small hobby farm before I bought a good working pup. We made do but we made messes too. I learned pretty quickly that I needed more in my dogs. So I wonder if someone with a small farm and a not so stellar dog would really make it through lambing time or time to pull a ram with ease. The fun quickly wore off till I got a better working dog.

But I didn’t learn what shepherding was till I moved here and had to go off and find sheep all over the country and the country roads with country traffic waiting on me to get my darn sheep off the road. 5 acres tightly fenced was just not the test of what we have here, and I still don’t know what a real farm dog is made of. I do dream of it though.

 

 

Kristen

[juliepoudrier]

Vicki,

This may seem an odd answer, but I'd say the person who determines the competency is the purchaser, based on the norms that purchaser expects with regard to competency. There's a reason for a trial standard, which in my mind is the highest standard. A dog who trials well and consistently over various venues and types of stock (farm flocks, range ewes, hair, and wool, and perhaps even another species like cattle or goats) is showing a versatility in accomplishment that just can't be replicated on the home farm on a few animals. That said, if I just needed the minimum sort of work out of a dog or had no desire to train and compete, then I might be satisfied with a different sort of competency standard. It's still a matter of educating oneself before buying, and perhaps even recognizing that you don't know enough to know and then finding a mentor to help you. But unfortunately, people will look for justification to buy what they want (and want now) and may not take the time to really find out what a particular breeder means by competent vs. what the majority of working dog owners mean by competent (and the individuals within that majority will still have different standards regarding what they consider competent, but in general they mostly agree that trials are the best thing we have right now for determining competency). Maybe this is one of those "I know it when I see it" things.

 

J.

[Pearse]

You can't tell through a computer what a poster's intent is in asking or answering in a post, so I'll say up front that I'm asking this question in all seriousness & no sarcasm involved.

 

Who determines the degree of competency? For example, a person who breeds border collies for the bench, yet still wants to claim that their dogs work, might have an acre or two, a few head of sheep where they push the sheep around with their dogs occasionally. Taking sheep from point A to point B might be all the competency this person needs out of their dogs, and so can claim that their dogs work. The level of competency in working dog that we see in open classes or the every day work on a working farm, might be altogether different, but the person above really has no need for that sort of intense work, but their dog(s) might be competent enough for their purposes. And so breedable.

 

A border collie who lives a life of hard work on a working farm, might not be "competent" enough to complete an open course, but is invaluable to the rancher/farmer, who might consider their dog worth breeding.

 

The dog who is breathtaking to watch work and clean up at trials, might not hold up to the day in day out rigors of farm or ranch work, but people are lining up to breed to this dog or get a pup off this dog, because, certainly, he's worth breeding.

 

Yet each of the 3 examples the owner would say that their dog is competent enough for their needs -- and worth reproducing.

 

So who determines competency ?

 

In my original reply I said: "And, by 'work stock with some degree of competence,' I mean either capable of getting around a decent Open level course on a regular basis with a respectable score, or capable of working livestock on a farm or ranch outside of fenced enclosures."

 

That's what I would consider to be the minimal standard for breeding.

 

As for who determines competency in real life; the person doing the breeding and the person buying dogs from them. If someone wants to delude themselves that a Ch Miss Fluffybutt of the Miraculous Rake who can manage not to kill sheep in a round pen while "herding" them with the aid of a handler wielding said garden implement is worth breeding, far be it from me to tell them they're wrong. The buyer will stimulate the trainer/clinician/trial host/rake salesman economy for years to come. The breeder will either remain blissfully ignorant, or do serious time in Purgatory for passing his/her pups off as stockdogs.

 

(OK maybe that last bit should have had [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags).

 

Pearse

[sea4th]

Back on the subject of the op.

Does anyone remember a couple years ago a young guy on here with some made up name, but his real name was Christopher? He was a poop stirrer and this blog smacks of his tone and verbage. Can't for the life of me remember what his screen name was but he was a doozy. I think he finally got banned.

Kristen

 

Yep, he came on these boards as Destructo -- probably not so much to hang around and learn, but to give us all a view of the world according to Destructo. He didn't even have a BC at the time, if I remember correctly, so after being banned, he went and got a male from working lines, and a bitch from a show breeder and set out to set us all straight -- both conformation people and working dog people, although more the working folks.

 

Not only does that site smack of his verbage, it IS his verbage. That is Destructo, Christopher, Pompous A$$ Extraordinaire, and now you can add BYB to his many titles.

 

The site advertising his pup, is no longer available to view, within the last couple of days. He might have been lurking here and read all of the rave reviews on this thread. Maybe he opened his mouth up wide enough to insert one big foot in it. Maybe now he can actually begin to learn something.

[C Crocker]

Not much more to say here, except that I'm glad Carolyn spoke up because she is the one best suited to respond. After seeing that this thread had popped back up again, I was hoping that you would, Carolyn! I know this dog-handler team too, and I can tell you that on any given day all the Open handlers would like to beat them and they very often don't. The handler in question has worked very hard at it. The dog is genuine. Nuff said.......

 

--Billy

 

 

Thanks Billy for your post. Let it suffice I don't care for unfairness at any level. This blogger fellow needs to get a life that does not highlight someone and their dog incorrectly and without their consent opening them up to speculation for their "actions" without any truth behind it.

 

Carolyn

[C Crocker]

Kelpiegirl,

 

 

 

 

Now, back to you.

 

In my earlier post, the one which evidently aroused your intense hostility, I was finally driven to point out exactly what your experience with working dogs has been, since you are a frequent and vehement contributor to discussions involving what makes a good working dog. You're also keen to join in the hunt when the AKC is discussed. Therefore, I thought it was only fair that others be apprised of your level of experience and your competence, as otherwise they might have a quite mistaken impression of your experience and knowledge. You may not like it, but there it is.

 

As far as I am concerned, I am trying to do the right thing by the Working Kelpie, as I have tried my best to do by the border collie. That doesn't mean I'm right, necessarily, but I'm trying my best. For you to suggest otherwise is scurrilous and malicious.

 

How about you? What are YOU doing, other than posting your opinion on what makes a good working dog on every list known to man, and then attacking those who question your opinions? At least I've finally induced you to do it publicly, rather than by vicious and threatening PM's, which I have experienced personally and which I am told you resort to with some frequency.

 

A

 

 

Now see, this is what makes me uneasy and why I said these things get personal. It seems clear that you two may have history, maybe not a comfortable one. I suspect you are both very nice people, but this illustrates to me how quickly these "non-personal, general " threads change and turn ugly.

But hey it takes the heat off that poor AKC bred Harley !

 

Carolyn

[C Crocker]

That says it all. Forget percentages and hypothetical and theorizing. Just breed stellar to stellar,

A

 

 

Anna,

 

You bet. I have always tried to breed up in my horses and would try and do no less for my dog.

Carolyn

[C Crocker]

Vicki,

This may seem an odd answer, but I'd say the person who determines the competency is the purchaser, based on the norms that purchaser expects with regard to competency. There's a reason for a trial standard, which in my mind is the highest standard. A dog who trials well and consistently over various venues and types of stock (farm flocks, range ewes, hair, and wool, and perhaps even another species like cattle or goats) is showing a versatility in accomplishment that just can't be replicated on the home farm on a few animals.

 

J.

 

 

I think that pretty much sums it up for me as well.

 

 

Carolyn

[Katelynn & Gang]

The site advertising his pup, is no longer available to view, within the last couple of days. He might have been lurking here and read all of the rave reviews on this thread. Maybe he opened his mouth up wide enough to insert one big foot in it. Maybe now he can actually begin to learn something.

 

That is funny. I wrote him about a week before this thread was even started and told him what my first reply to this thread said.

 

Yup, that was me Christopher. Send me a dirty email or two now that you know. I mean, if you aren't to busy taking care of the hard to sell, jack of all trade puppies that you produced.

[stockdogranch]

I have always tried to breed up in my horses and would try and do no less for my dog.

 

I had a friend once ask me if Riddle's pup (barely a year old at the time) was going to be better than her mother. I thought about it for a minute, and then said (quietly so that Riddle couldn't hear me) that, much as I hated to admit it (only because to me, Riddle has always been more than 100% reliable, and knows what I need her to do before I ask it, and *for me* I couldn't imagine wanting anything more in a working dog), I thought she would indeed be better than her mother. His reply was that I had done my job as a breeder--I had improved on what I started with,

A

[Bo Peep]

I actually think the dog I rescued is a "barbie collie" OMG- well, she sure is darn cute and is big boned and looks like every dog in the book. BUT, when we play frisbee or tennis ball she lacks the "skills" - Usher is doing his thing, even my 82 year old mom is noticing the crouching and stalking and such. Bailey's tail is up in the air as she plays . Well, I guess I have myself my first "Barbie Collie" she is an absolute clone of everyone you see. And I get the questions about Usher- what breed is he- chit, he's the one with papers...... watch him work that frisbee- LOL.

So, here you go with the clone BC. BUT........ I just love her

[mjk05]

Yet each of the 3 examples the owner would say that their dog is competent enough for their needs -- and worth reproducing.

Which of these 3 examples is likely to cause ongoing damage to the breed (kelpie or collie)?

 

I suppose in an unbalanced way all could be damaging, but to me it seems that the breeds were developed by the work of every day farmers, with trialling as a weekend activity for the best of them. Farming is changing and trialling is increasingly for people who keep sheep for dogs, not the other way around (although in the kelpie world and in my country that hasn't really happened yet), but if the breed is still produced for a combination of work and trials, with interchange between those purposes, it should be OK.

For me, what defines "working-bred" vs. "sports bred" vs. "show-bred" is the intent of the breeders- I think Katelynn said something similar. Someone who takes two dogs with mostly ISDS pedigrees and puts them together because they are fast/athletic-looking/cool colours/have successful sports relatives, then advertises them as "working-bred" is doing everyone a disservice, especially the breed.

 

Someone who is into agility gets themselves a working-bred dog, its pretty good at agility and has a bit of extra "cred" because its WKC (or ISDS) registered which enables them to hold their heads up high in discussions like this, and they take it to a few herding lessons, maybe even enter a trial or two, and the dog is pretty good, especially compared to the other pet or sports dogs they associate with. They decide to breed it, find another dog in their agility club that has the right working-breed registration, and bingo, "sports-bred" pups from 100% working-bred pedigrees. They probably will work, and since they'll probably be sold to other sports-type people it won't matter if they have a few serious faults, the pups aren't going to be shot or sold on or anything. But after a few generations of this sort of breeding, what is being produced?

 

Yes, it all comes down to "buyer beware", people should discuss their needs with the breeder and see the pups' parents work etc etc, but if we're talking about breeding that is detrimental or beneficial for the breed, and breeding that is most likely to retain the working ability of the breed, I think a large component is the intent, experience and circumstances of the breeders behind the dogs, as much as percentages in the pedigree.

 

As far as the OP, all applause to the dog and handler/trainer. I wish I were half as good. It must be awful being the subject of the sort of illogical rubbish on that blog.

 

I had done my job as a breeder--I had improved on what I started with

I know what you're saying, stockdogranch, but I think good breeding is probably more than improving- it depends what you start with, doesn't it? There has to be an element of providing something that's needed, or continuing a valuable trait that isn't easily found elsewhere.

 

Bo Peep, I don't reckon you can judge any degree of working breeding by stuff like "tennis ball herding". I know some dogs that have loads of style working other dogs, or tennis balls etc, but nothing on sheep, and vice versa. Some of our better sheepdogs don't work anything except sheep. And bone and fluff and markings don't mean everything either. There are some great working dogs that have very classical markings, big coats, etc- which is how they can be incorporated into show breeding and blur the lines.

 

Re the politics- personally I'm pleased to see things getting discussed out in the open. The last time I participated in this sort of discussion I got some pretty unpleasant stuff via PM and email, despite the "very nice person" front being upheld on the public boards. Its the politics section- people who take every discussion of show/working/sports breeding as a personal attack against their own dog probably ought not to get involved.

[sea4th]

Vicki,

This may seem an odd answer, but I'd say the person who determines the competency is the purchaser, based on the norms that purchaser expects with regard to competency.

 

 

Maybe this is one of those "I know it when I see it" things.

 

J.

 

Thanks Julie.

[stockdogranch]

I know what you're saying, stockdogranch, but I think good breeding is probably more than improving- it depends what you start with, doesn't it?

Apparently you missed my earlier post where I borrowed someone else's words and said that only breeding "stellar" to "stellar" is appropriate.

 

(The inference here is that if you start with stellar and improve on that, then that must indeed be

...providing something that's needed, or continuing a valuable trait that isn't easily found elsewhere.)

 

A

[jdarling]

I don't reckon you can judge any degree of working breeding by stuff like "tennis ball herding".

 

Yes, this is a common misconception by folks who don't work livestock.

 

Jodi

[bcnewe2]

There are some great working dogs that have very classical markings, big coats, etc- which is how they can be incorporated into show breeding and blur the lines.

I remember when I first started in working dogs and thought I knew something, I owned a big all black work dog, slick, roach backed and not very pretty to anyone but his Mom. He was way to much dog for me and my green ways. (He ended up going on to work and live on a huge cattle ranch)

I just knew I wanted to enter him in a conformation show just to show those people what a real dog looked like. Some nice AKC person heard me talking about it and grabbed me by the hair and told me to rethink my plan if I wanted to live. I never did enter him, but it was still years before I totally understood how firm each side was.

Oh to be that innocent again. Maybe not but it was nice to think I could change things with just a conservation.

 

Kristen

[mjk05]

Apparently you missed my earlier post where I borrowed someone else's words and said that only breeding "stellar" to "stellar" is appropriate.

 

(The inference here is that if you start with stellar

No, I didn't miss it, I just didn't associate the 2 statements because they were in different posts and I'm a bit thick

I wasn't trying to contradict you, just expanding on the statement, I guess.

 

While we're discussing it anyway, I'm unsure if I'd agree that only stellar dogs should be bred in any circumstances (for what my thoughts are worth). Maybe if the dogs have valuable traits that aren't commonplace, they are in the hands of experienced breeders who believe that they will produce very good dogs, improve on their faults, and if they will fulfill a need... I'm not saying this very well, at the risk of making this personal, but I wouldn't describe all our dogs as "stellar"- some are pretty handy, and have certain traits I'd describe as "stellar" (cast, or feel for sheep, or yard ability), and we've bred some of them and probably will again. I guess the guides I'd consider important are if very good handlers with very good dogs and lots of experience consider that its a good breeding, and the mating is likely to produce fairly natural dogs that will do a very good job as farm dogs (because if most of the litter goes to purely farm homes, the "high maintenance" type that need a lot of work put into them will most likely get returned or worse, even if they would eventually make a stellar trial dog), then its probably a reasonable idea. And of course we're alsways hoping to produce stellar all round dogs.