a review: the use of livestock protection dogs in ...cdlcruz/gpcc/library/protectiondogs.pdfdogs,...

8
©2010, Sheep & Goat Research Journal Sheep & Goat Research Journal, Volume 25, 2010 1 Summary Livestock protection dogs (LPDs) in the United States have helped to protect livestock herds from certain predators, but expanding large-carnivore populations pose new chal- lenges, and the number of LPDs killed by large predators is increasing. We conducted a literature review to identify LPD breeds that may be more suited for use around large carnivores, such as gray wolves. The use of spiked collars to increase the survivability for LPDs in areas of coexistence with large carni- vore populations is also discussed. This paper advances the adoption of techniques and LPD breeds used outside of the United States in areas where large carnivores exist with live- stock production. Key Words: Bears, Carnivores, Livestock, LPD, Protection Dogs, Wolves Introduction The traditional use of livestock protection dogs (LPDs) has been pivotal to the historical coexistence of gray wolves (Canis lupus) and domestic sheep (Rigg 2001) in Europe and Asia, but the use of LPDs in the Rocky Mountains of the United States is a relatively new venture. Most modern LPD use in the Rocky Mountains originated after the 1970s passage of the Endan- gered Species Act and the concurrent ban on the use of most poisons on public lands (Feldman 2007). Livestock producers searched for alternate methods of predator control at the same time efforts were initiated to protect large carnivores, such as grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and gray wolves. LPDs of several breeds were imported into the United States under an organ- ized program in the 1970s, and use of these dogs as a non-lethal tool has since expanded (Dohner 2007). LPDs have proven to be effective in reducing predation to livestock herds, including cattle, sheep, and goats, from various species of predators (Andelt 2004), but expanding populations of large carnivores provide new challenges. Livestock producers in areas with large carnivores are experiencing similar problems, whether in the United States or in other countries, including Finland, where there are no LPD traditions (Otstavel et al. 2009). Agricultural producers in the western United States have the highest reported economic losses due to wildlife damage, and those losses occur on the patchwork land ownership of public and pri- vate lands (Messmer 2009). Effective management of predator damage at the edges – defined as the intersections of carnivores, people and livestock – are where efforts now need to be focused, using methods that allow the coexistence of livestock and large predators (Shivik 2006). While some advocate the adoption of new strategies and approaches to address wildlife damage concerns (Messmer 2009), we advocate the adoption of ancient approaches for use in this new world of large-carnivore recovery. Western Wyoming provides a natural laboratory for the study of conflict with large carnivores, since it contains reintro- A Review: The Use of Livestock Protection Dogs in Association with Large Carnivores in the Rocky Mountains 1 C. Urbigkit 1,2 & J. Urbigkit 2 1 Corresponding Author: [email protected] P.O. Box 1663, Pinedale WY 82941, 307-276-5393 1 Acknowledgement: The Wyoming Wool Growers Association supported this literature review. M. Jimenez provided assistance with reviewing an earlier draft, as did B. Reece. 2 The authors are western Wyoming sheep producers. Volume 25, 2010

Upload: others

Post on 06-May-2020

5 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: A Review: The Use of Livestock Protection Dogs in ...cdlcruz/GPCC/library/protectiondogs.pdfDogs, Wolves Introduction The traditional use of livestock protection dogs (LPDs) has been

©2010, Sheep & Goat Research Journal Sheep & Goat Research Journal, Volume 25, 2010 1

Summary Livestock protection dogs (LPDs) in the United States

have helped to protect livestock herds from certain predators,but expanding large-carnivore populations pose new chal-lenges, and the number of LPDs killed by large predators isincreasing. We conducted a literature review to identify LPDbreeds that may be more suited for use around large carnivores,such as gray wolves. The use of spiked collars to increase thesurvivability for LPDs in areas of coexistence with large carni-vore populations is also discussed. This paper advances theadoption of techniques and LPD breeds used outside of theUnited States in areas where large carnivores exist with live-stock production.

Key Words: Bears, Carnivores, Livestock, LPD, ProtectionDogs, Wolves

IntroductionThe traditional use of livestock protection dogs (LPDs) has

been pivotal to the historical coexistence of gray wolves (Canislupus) and domestic sheep (Rigg 2001) in Europe and Asia, butthe use of LPDs in the Rocky Mountains of the United Statesis a relatively new venture. Most modern LPD use in the RockyMountains originated after the 1970s passage of the Endan-gered Species Act and the concurrent ban on the use of mostpoisons on public lands (Feldman 2007). Livestock producers

searched for alternate methods of predator control at the sametime efforts were initiated to protect large carnivores, such asgrizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and gray wolves. LPDs of severalbreeds were imported into the United States under an organ-ized program in the 1970s, and use of these dogs as a non-lethaltool has since expanded (Dohner 2007). LPDs have proven tobe effective in reducing predation to livestock herds, includingcattle, sheep, and goats, from various species of predators(Andelt 2004), but expanding populations of large carnivoresprovide new challenges. Livestock producers in areas with largecarnivores are experiencing similar problems, whether in theUnited States or in other countries, including Finland, wherethere are no LPD traditions (Otstavel et al. 2009). Agriculturalproducers in the western United States have the highestreported economic losses due to wildlife damage, and thoselosses occur on the patchwork land ownership of public and pri-vate lands (Messmer 2009).

Effective management of predator damage at the edges –defined as the intersections of carnivores, people and livestock– are where efforts now need to be focused, using methods thatallow the coexistence of livestock and large predators (Shivik2006). While some advocate the adoption of new strategies andapproaches to address wildlife damage concerns (Messmer2009), we advocate the adoption of ancient approaches for usein this new world of large-carnivore recovery.

Western Wyoming provides a natural laboratory for thestudy of conflict with large carnivores, since it contains reintro-

A Review: The Use of Livestock Protection Dogs in Association with Large Carnivores

in the Rocky Mountains1

C. Urbigkit1,2 & J. Urbigkit2

1 Corresponding Author: [email protected] P.O. Box 1663, Pinedale WY 82941, 307-276-5393

1 Acknowledgement: The Wyoming Wool Growers Association supported this literature review. M. Jimenez provided assistance with reviewing an earlier draft, as did B. Reece.

2 The authors are western Wyoming sheep producers.

Volume 25, 2010

Page 2: A Review: The Use of Livestock Protection Dogs in ...cdlcruz/GPCC/library/protectiondogs.pdfDogs, Wolves Introduction The traditional use of livestock protection dogs (LPDs) has been

2 Sheep & Goat Research Journal, Volume 25, 2010 ©2010, Sheep & Goat Research Journal

duced gray wolf and recovering grizzlybear populations amid livestock produc-tion. As these species have reached bio-logical recovery goals and expanded theirranges, conflicts with livestock have esca-lated (Sommers, et. al. 2010). Variousmethods to reduce conflict, both lethaland non-lethal, have been used. Whilesmaller predator species, including themost common and most serious predatorof livestock in the western United States,the coyote (Canis latrans), are subjectedto numerous control methods, recoveringpopulations of large carnivores aregranted special protections that limit themethods of control.

In general, as these rare, threatenedor endangered species populationsrecover, managers seek more sustainablemanagement options rather than auto-matic lethal control when conflicts arise.Effective conflict management seeks toprevent or reduce the frequency or sever-ity of conflicts; deal with the individualsthat cause the conflict (most oftenthrough removal); and increase toler-ance for carnivores (through education,compensation, harvest, etc.) (Sillero-Zubiri et al. 2007).

All control methods, lethal or non-lethal, will fail at some time, in some sit-uations. Control methods are simplytools in a toolbox, that when used helpto reduce the amount or severity of con-flict. One of the most important tools forresolving conflict is lethal control.Shivek (2006) noted that to ensure thesuccessful reintroduction of some preda-tors, it may be necessary to lethally con-trol them.

Shivik (2006) called the use ofLPDs “old technology of special note dueto its recent popularity,” while addingthat guardian animals may be useful in atheoretic way as “continued understand-ing of their training and use may resultin what amounts to the ultimate disrup-tive stimulus device.”

Western Wyoming’s pattern of landownership includes the majority ofacreage administered by federal agencies,with most of the remainder held in pri-vate ownership as ranches. The lowestelevation of this arid region is about5,500 feet, and large acreages are neededto provide enough forage for cattle andsheep operations. Thus, most of theranches graze their herds at least a por-tion of the year on federally administeredland. Nearly 70 percent of the nation’s

sheep inventory is found in the westernstates, and an estimated 25 to 30 percentof all sheep in the United States graze onpublic land allotments (NationalResearch Council 2008). Some rangesheep herds spend nearly all year on pub-lic land, grazing in lower-elevationdeserts free of deep snows in the winter,moving to higher-elevation mountainpastures as the snow melts in the summer.Sheepherders live in wagons alongsidethe herds, with camptenders checking onthem every few days and bringing sup-plies to the herders. Similar to nomadiccultures in other areas of the world, rangesheepherders in the western UnitedStates also practice transhumance, mov-ing herds with the seasons and usingLPDs to protect them (Gehring et al.2010). Herds graze over hundreds ofmiles of range and often go unnoticed bythe public although their grazing prac-tices are regulated by federal agencies(Urbigkit 2008, National ResearchCouncil 2008). Most range- sheep opera-tions utilize land that is primarilyunfenced and unimproved, that involveslong-distance movements from season toseason and requires on-site herders(National Research Council 2008).

The LPDs live with the herds fulltime. Most herd’s sheep are highly gre-garious western, white-faced sheep, pri-marily of the Rambouillet breed. They

have a strong flocking instinct, whichhelps in guarding against predation.Each herd, usually consisting of about1,000 ewes and their lambs, will havetwo to five protection dogs (Andelt2004). The sheep herd spreads out up toabout one-square mile to graze duringthe day, but bed together in a tightergroup at night (P. Arambel personalcommunication 2-21-2010).

Range-sheep producers in westernWyoming have individual ranch opera-tions, with changing LPD populations.For example, one sheepman might placefive dogs with each band of sheep, andthree bands are trailed to separate moun-tain pastures. Some bands may retain alltheir dogs, while other bands may gain orlose dogs, so that one band may have twodogs and another may have seven. Inother cases, the dogs associated with eachband may not see other LPDs until late inthe fall, when the sheep come off themountain and the dogs converge at sort-ing pens. The dogs belonging to oneranch will travel with their sheep herdsto a shared winter range, where herds anddogs from other ranches are encountered(some from Utah, Colorado, Idaho, andWyoming). The LPD population con-stantly changes as the dogs mature, arehurt or killed. Some dogs may leave theirherd to go with an adjacent herd, andowners will switch ownership of dogs,

Two Akbash females (yearling female on left, her five-year old mother on right) atplay. Akbash have proven to be effective at guarding herds in large carnivorecountry, but the use of spiked collars on these dogs may improve their ability tosurvive aggressive encounters with wolves and are used in their country of originfor this purpose. Photo by Cat Urbigkit.

Page 3: A Review: The Use of Livestock Protection Dogs in ...cdlcruz/GPCC/library/protectiondogs.pdfDogs, Wolves Introduction The traditional use of livestock protection dogs (LPDs) has been

©2010, Sheep & Goat Research Journal Sheep & Goat Research Journal, Volume 25, 2010 3

“borrowing” studs for breeding. No spe-cific breed is maintained in this natural-breeding program, but the most fit dogsbreed (males fight for breeding rights)and only the strong pups survive.

It has been reported that the mostcommon LPDs used in the United Statesare Great Pyrenees, Akbash and Komon-dor, with Anatolian Shepherd,Maremma, Shar Planinetz used to a lesserextent (Andelt 2004). These dogs usuallyweigh from 75 to 100 pounds, and havebeen very successful at reducing preda-tion from coyotes (Andelt 2004).

The need to achieve a balance ofhuman contact with LPDs, so the dogsare bonded to their sheep while capableof being handled by their owners, wasdiscussed in early bulletins for agricultur-alists in the United States (Green andWoodruff 1983, Green and Woodruff1990). Other early LPD researchers inthe United States advised that LPDsshould be left to bond with their animals,with little human contact (Lorenz andCoppinger 1988). Our observations inthe Rocky Mountains indicate that themethod limiting human contact hasresulted in dogs well bonded to theirsheep, but with little or no bond to theirhuman owners. As a result, owners haveLPDs that are shy of humans, and cannoteven be caught by their owners for vet-erinary treatment. Similar results havebeen reported from other countries thatused similar techniques, includingSwitzerland (Landry 2005).

In the United States, LPDs are usedto protect against coyotes, but the origi-nal LPD breeds were developed in Asiaand Europe to combat predation by largecarnivores—brown bears and wolves(Smith et al. 2000). Smith summarizedrecorded accounts of LPDs and bears inthe United States and several othercountries, where LPDs successfullyrepelled bears, and losses were reducedwhen flocks were protected from beardepredation by LPDs.

While LPDs are successful atrepelling black bears (Ursus americanus)and grizzly bears during most encounters(Andelt 2004), their effectivenessagainst wolves has met with mixedresults. The number of conflicts betweenLPDs and wolves is increasing in theRocky Mountains of the United States,with 83 LPDs killed by wolves in thisregion from 1985 to December 2005(Bangs et al. 2006). Confirmed fatal wolf

attacks on LPDs are only a fraction of allwolf-caused deaths, since many LPDswill simply disappear, with their fateunknown (Bangs et al. 2005).

Most (11 of 18 = 61 percent) of thedocumented fatal wolf attacks on LPDsfrom 1995 through 2004 in the Yellow-stone region of the Northern Rockiesinvolved the killing of Great PyreneesLPDs (Bangs et al. 2005). Researcherssuggest that these conflicts involvedLPDs that were outnumbered and out-weighed by their wild counterparts(Bangs et al. 2005).

There are similar reports of wolveskilling LPDs in France, and both hunt-ing dogs and LPDs in Italy (Rigg 2001).Wolves in the United States have beentaking their toll on hunting dogs, as well.There were 49 hunting dogs confirmedas killed by wolves in Wisconsin 2004through 2006, with an additional 10injured (Ruid et al. 2009). The 35 dogsconfirmed to have been killed by wolvesin Montana, Idaho and Wyoming during2006 to 2008 included LPDs, huntingdogs, and pets (U.S. Fish and WildlifeService 2009).

In one stunning case in Romania,wolves killed 157 adult LPDs from Janu-ary 2001 to October 2002, with wolvesconsuming the majority of the carcassesin most cases, and leaving the nearbylivestock unscathed. This situationappeared to be the result of one wolfpack that had specialized in preying ondogs (Mertens and Schneider 2005).

Materials and MethodsWe conducted a literature review of

references from around the world to gaininsight to increasing the effectiveness ofLPDs in wolf range in two ways: a) By identifying survival tools that mayprovide existing LPDs more protectionfrom wolves to better their chances ofstaying alive to guard their herds; and b.) By identifying different LPD breedsmore suited to facing wolves, that couldbe utilized in the Northern Rockies ofthe United States. In selecting LPDbreeds, the following criteria were used:• Must be canine-aggressive, so that thedogs are inclined to actively challengewolves; • Must not be human aggressive, sincemany herds graze on public lands forpart of the year; • Should originate in areas with largecarnivores to take advantage of workingcharacteristics similar to that to befaced in the Northern Rockies; and • Must not be of small body size, sothat the animals stand a better chanceagainst large carnivores.

Some breeds that may work well inthe United States were left off the list ofpotential breeds because of their rarityand/or prohibition of export out of coun-tries of origin.

Results and DiscussionJust as wolves have been persecuted

throughout the world, with wolf popula-

This adult male Great Pyrenees livestock protection dog shows the battle scars ofprevious predator encounters. Great Pyrenees dogs often do not survive theirencounters with wolves. Photo by Cat Urbigkit.

Page 4: A Review: The Use of Livestock Protection Dogs in ...cdlcruz/GPCC/library/protectiondogs.pdfDogs, Wolves Introduction The traditional use of livestock protection dogs (LPDs) has been

4 Sheep & Goat Research Journal, Volume 25, 2010 ©2010, Sheep & Goat Research Journal

tions falling to near extinction in somecountries, the LPDs that protected theirflocks from wolf predation have fallen tothe same fate (Rigg 2001). Without pres-sure from large carnivores and with live-stock herds decreasing worldwide, use ofLPDs decreased to the extent that thereare now recovery programs in place(Rigg 2001) to get these dogs back ontotheir historic landscapes to addressexpanding large-carnivore populations.

The spread of communism inEurope and Asia brought with it anactive campaign of collectivized agricul-tural policy, which worked to rid entireregions of its free people—the nomadiclivestock cultures. Livestock and theirguard dogs were killed or collectivized,and their nomadic herders and familieswere taken from the land (Gehring et al.2010). When the herders became vil-lagers, the cultures lost their old tradi-tions (Ivanova 2009).

In the 1930s, demand for dog skinsresulted in the destruction of the largestdogs available, rabies campaigns calledfor wholesale extermination of all dogsin certain regions, including LPDs(Ivanova 2009), as well as later inter-mixing of dog breeds and dog diseasestaking tolls on native dog populations.The loss of interest in livestock hus-bandry, as well a decline in predator pop-ulations as a result of persecution byhumans, also played a role in the reduc-tion of working LPDs (Cruz 2009).Recent interest in dogs declared as mem-bers of “national” dog breeds has resultedin a greater demand for dogs in the pettrade than as working animals. Addi-tionally, some LPDs are now being usedand bred for dog fighting rather thanguarding herds (Cruz 2009, Plakhovaand Plakhova 2008).

Ovcharkas (both Central Asian andCaucasian) are used in the dog-fightingring in current times, including in Cen-tral Asia and Russia. While there ismuch criticism of dog fighting, tradi-tional dog fights in Asia are not like pitbull dog fights in America, whichinvolve severe injury or the death of thedog. Dog fights involving LPDs in theirhistoric context of nomadic people playan entirely different role—that of testingthe best dogs as wolf fighters, and pro-moting the best dogs for breeding. Dogswith the proper drive, tenacity andstrength needed to confront and kill a

wolf are selected to pass their genes on tothe next generation. Serious injuries arereported to occur rarely since thesematches are conducted to observe traits,such as dominance display, agility andphysical strength (http://www.centralasianshepherd.us/cao_or_alabai.html,accessed Nov. 1, 2009).

Dogfights, which are called“wrestling” in Central Asia, serve to testa dog’s level of canine aggression andhave a set of stringent rules developedover centuries (Gasymzade and Azizov2007). Any dog that is inactive or cries isdetermined to have lost, and human han-dlers end the match. Signs of submissionend the fight as well. Traditional LPDdogfights or wrestling matches involvethe dogs’ controlled aggression, not blindfury as seen in pitbull-type fighting. InLPD matches, the fights begin and endquickly, and the result is a determinationof the best dogs to fight wolves. Onechampion fighting dog, a CaucasianOvcharka dog that lived in Russia in the1930s, was believed to have killed 100wolves in his lifetime, an enviable record(Gasymzade and Azizov 2007).

The willingness to aggressively chal-lenge a wolf can be an important factorin a LPD’s effectiveness. Sedefchev(2005) told the story of seeing a GreatPyrenees LPD chase a wolf a short dis-tance before the dog left the wolf, butcontinued to bark. The researcher noted“the dogs show him with their behaviorthat they are not a real obstacle, and thewolf’s success is just a question of time”(Sedefchev 2005). The story continued,“When the dogs chase the wolf with theintention to kill it, this means muchmore for the wolf” (Sedefchev 2005).

In contrast to the Great Pyrenees,the Karakachan dog of Bulgaria has beenknown to chase a wolf away from theflock for nearly a mile and a half. It hasbeen reported that after such encoun-ters, wolves leave that flock alone andturn their attention to other flocks(Dohner 2007). Dohner (2007) wrote,“The shepherds believe that their dogsmust show this level of dedication toharassing and even attacking wolves inorder to combat the strong predator pres-sure in the area; therefore they valuephysically strong, confident dogs.”

a. Survival tools/spiked collars

Some breeds of LPDs already in use

in the Northern Rockies, such as theAkbash, demonstrate proper canineaggression and have proven to be aneffective LPD breed, but individuals ofthis breed have been killed by wolves.Our review found that in other regionsof the world, where LPDs and wolvescoexist, the use of spiked, anti-wolf LPDcollars is common, and herders use sev-eral LPDs with each herd, the numbervarying from two to five.

The use of spiked, anti-wolf collarson LPDs has been reported from variousregions of the world, including Italy,Poland, Romania, Spain, Turkey, andPortugal (Rigg 2001, Cruz 2009). Unfor-tunately, there is little detailed informa-tion in written literature about this LPDsurvival tool. Use of spiked collars hasbeen very limited in the Rocky Moun-tains, based on a variety of factorsincluding questions of how to properlyuse them; concern about the safety of thecollars where there are barbed or wovenwire fences and heavy brush, and frigidtemperatures and snow; as well as thelack of access to the collars.

Iron, leather and webbing collars onsale in the Ankara market in Turkey.Photo courtesy Sir Terence Clark.

Page 5: A Review: The Use of Livestock Protection Dogs in ...cdlcruz/GPCC/library/protectiondogs.pdfDogs, Wolves Introduction The traditional use of livestock protection dogs (LPDs) has been

©2010, Sheep & Goat Research Journal Sheep & Goat Research Journal, Volume 25, 2010 5

There are two general types ofspiked collars—leather or fabric, andiron. Leather or fabric collars may be asafe alternative during the wintermonths when herders are concernedabout harm to the dogs from having ironcollars on their dog’s necks with snowand cold temperatures. The heavy ironcollars, if manufactured of a largeenough size to drape over the lower por-tion of a LPD’s neck, may provideenough room for the dog to slide the col-lar over its head should it become hungup in a fence or brush. Although herderslive with the dogs in range-sheep outfits,the dogs are not always in sight and onlymay be seen once or twice a day. In thissituation, ensuring the safety of the col-lars is an important consideration.

The use of spiked collars is worthexploring for existing LPDs in wolfcountry of the Northern Rockies. Spikedcollars may reduce the amount of inter-pack aggression and dog fights in moreaggressive breeds of LPDs guarding aherd. Spiked collars may also find a usein protecting hunting dogs in the UnitedStates as well.

b.) Potential wolf-fighting breeds

Using the criteria described earlier,our review determined the list of breedswith high potential to protect livestock

herds in the Northern Rockies fromlarge carnivore predation include Cen-tral Asian Ovcharka, TransmontanoMastiff, Karakachan, Kangal, and SharPlaninetz.

Central Asian Ovcharkas arebelieved to be one of the oldest breeds ofdogs on Earth (Plakhova et al. 2008) andare raised in their countries of originfrom birth with sheep. Central AsianOvcharkas (also known as Central AsianShepherds) have various names in theircountries of origin, including Aziat inRussia, Alabai or Kopek or Volkodav(“wolf killer”) in Turkmenistan, Tobet inKazakhstan, Sage Koochee inAfghanistan, and Dakhtarma in Tajik-istan, but they all fall into the Ovcharkagroup which was developed by peopleswith a nomadic pastoral lifestyle overlarge territories (Plakhova and Plakhova2008, Ivanova 2009). Herdsmen, calledchobans, rejected dogs that were aggres-sive to humans (Ivanova 2009). Ivanovawrote: “The Central Asian Ovcharkawas developed by the native peoples ofCentral Asia to fit their nomadic way oflife. The specific nature of their way oflife has determined the need for a reli-able protection dog. This is an ancientlivestock protection breed with innateinstincts for guarding animals and prop-erty. In different countries with nomadic

life and sheep breeding, there was a needfor a reliable guard dog that did notmake demands on the conditions of life”such as the limited resources involved ina subsistence lifestyle (Ivanova 2009).This breed is known for loyalty to peo-ple, and it has been reported that forcenturies in their countries of origin,individual dogs of this breed that wereaggressive to humans were killed (Bagiev2006).

The Transmontano Mastiff of Por-tugal is a breed that originated in a pas-toral livestock system where stock aregrazed in uncultivated areas away fromvillages, with the continuous presence ofwolves leading to its functional bodystructure of massiveness with long headand limbs, which enable it to travel withthe herds (Cruz 2009). Ninety-five per-cent of the northern Transmontano LPDpopulation is still used to protect exten-sive sheep flocks from wolf predation(Dohner 2007). An aggressive programto reduce wolf predation on sheep andcattle herds in Portugal’s MontesinhoNatural Park was begun in 1994, placingTransmontano Mastiff LPD pups withherdsmen. The result has been a reduc-tion in the amount of damage caused bywolves (www.caodegadotransmontano.org.pt, accessed 10/30/09). The breed isdescribed as quite reserved and docile,while not being highly aggressive.

The Karakachan Dog is an aborigi-nal LPD breed of Bulgaria, developed bynomadic people who practiced transhu-mance with their herds. After WorldWar II, nationalization of land in Bul-garia began, with nomads forced into vil-lages and livestock placed on state coop-erative farms. Many dogs were killed,and when the state farms were discon-tinued in 1991, much of the livestockand LPDs were killed as well (Sedefchevand Sedefchev 2009). Official recogni-tion of the Karakachan as a breed underBulgarian law did not occur until 2005.A program was begun in Bulgaria in1996 to conserve the Karakachan LPDand its original type and working abili-ties, and this program has focused on“conservation of predators, livestock,pastures and pastoral traditions: conser-vation of the unique symbiosis betweenall these elements” (Sedefchev andSedefchev 2009). According to Sede-fchev and Sedefchev: “We unite theconservation of a guardian and a preda-tor, because evolutionarily they devel-

This is a yearling female Central Asian Ovcharka at work guarding sheep. Thesheer size and canine aggression of this breed makes it an appropriate breed forconsideration in areas of large carnivore populations. Photo by Cat Urbigkit.

Page 6: A Review: The Use of Livestock Protection Dogs in ...cdlcruz/GPCC/library/protectiondogs.pdfDogs, Wolves Introduction The traditional use of livestock protection dogs (LPDs) has been

6 Sheep & Goat Research Journal, Volume 25, 2010 ©2010, Sheep & Goat Research Journal

oped together. Survival of the guardiandepends on the survival of the predatorand vice versa.” The program, whichplaces LPDs with shepherds, has resultedin a reduction of harm from predation ofabout 80 percent in areas inhabited bylarge carnivores (Sedefchev and Sede-fchev 2009). Karakachan dogs of Bul-garia live amid one of the highest densi-ties of bears and wolves in Europe(Dohner 2007), and react accordingly.The dogs work in teams and activelychase and harass wolves (Dohner 2007).

The Turkish Kangal is a LPD that isable to fight wolves, and rather than justtry to deter the predators, Kangals report-edly prefer to kill wolves (Tepeli andTepeli 2008). Kangals are famous fortheir fierce battles with predators, andmany adult dogs in their country of origincarry battle scars (Dohner 2007). Kangalpairs are known to work as a team toattack a wolf, with the smaller femalechasing and blocking, while the largermale rushes in and hits the wolf with hischest, knocking it to the ground. Theanimals are raised in villages with chil-dren and small animals, and are knownfor their steady temperament and gentlemanner (Dohner 2007).

Macedonia’s Shar Planinetz or Sar-planinac (Shar) is a slightly smallerLPD, but its heavy-boned structure andits canine aggression make this a viablebreed for protecting flocks from wolves(Dohner 2007).

ConclusionsIt is recommended that range sheep

producers in the Northern Rockies tryusing groups of two to five of these LPDsto protect each of their herds, with theobjective of outnumbering and out-weighing wolves or other large carni-vores encountered. Individual dogs willhave different behavioral and guardingtendencies, so developing the propermix of traits into a group of LPDs maytake time and readjustment of the ani-mals involved.

The proper use of spiked collarsshould be explored as well. Producersconsidering using spike collars in theUnited States need to have an under-standing about proper collar use. Unan-swered questions at this time include: arecollars used on younger dogs to stop lit-termate fighting and does this have animpact on the dog’s willingness to fightlater on; are the collars worn by dogsyear-round, or only when entering wolfareas/times; are they placed on dogs onlywhen wolf presence is detected or preda-tion begins; what’s the differencebetween iron and leather; how/why iscloth held to iron collar. If the collars canbe designed in such a manner as to notpose a safety risk to LPDs in the UnitedStates, then a program for their design,manufacture and distribution is needed.

Those seeking to acquire LPDs fromtheir countries of origin should note thatalthough “herding” dogs in the United

States are defined as breeds such as theborder collie, some LPDs are called“herding” dogs also, but in a differentcontext. Some strains or lineages of cer-tain breeds are called property protec-tion dogs (Bagiev 2006). These dogs staywithin defined property boundaries, andsome are to protect the property fromthieves. Other strains of the same breedare called herding dogs because they staywith livestock herds to protect themfrom wolves and no aggression towardshumans is acceptable. The CauscasianOvcharka is an example of a breed withthese two different types of protectiondogs, which is also reflected in the phys-ical confirmation of the two (Bagiev2006). The wolf-fighting or herding typeis found in the North Caucasus wherethere are migratory sheep herds. Bagiev2006 reports that “a pack of dogs resem-bling a pride of lions is present with eachanimal herd” and the dogs not only pro-tect the herd, but control its movementsas well.

Kazakhstan has the highest density ofwolves in the world, and LPDs are theonly reliable form of protection againstpredation there (Plakhova et al. 2008).The importance of LPDs is reflected in theKazakh proverb, “The dog is more impor-tant than sheep” (Plakhova et al. 2008).

It should be noted that even if live-stock producers use the most effectiveLPDs, there will inevitably be conflictbetween wolves and livestock, and theirhuman and canine guardians. Instead ofeliminating this conflict, managementprograms should aim to reduce theamount and severity of that conflict.

LPDs can reduce sheep depredationby 11% to 100%, and most livestock pro-ducers surveyed viewed LPDs as an eco-nomic asset, with high economic effi-ciency for a relatively low cost (Gehringet al. 2010). Livestock producers alsonote that the use of LPDs does notrequire assistance from governmentagencies or rely on advanced technology(Gehring et al. 2010).

We concur with the Gehring et al.(2010) recommendation that additionalresearch on LPD behavior in terms ofeffectiveness for protecting livestockfrom large carnivores is needed, as is aninformation exchange between produc-ers who use LPDs in the presence of largecarnivores in their countries of originand those who are new to the interac-tion of LPDs and large carnivores.

Turkish Kangal LPD with iron collar in Turkey. Photo courtesy Sir Terence Clark.

Page 7: A Review: The Use of Livestock Protection Dogs in ...cdlcruz/GPCC/library/protectiondogs.pdfDogs, Wolves Introduction The traditional use of livestock protection dogs (LPDs) has been

©2010, Sheep & Goat Research Journal Sheep & Goat Research Journal, Volume 25, 2010 7

In writing about the use of livestockguard dogs in Asia, Ivanova 2009explained the relationship of thenomadic culture, their herds, herd pro-tectors, and the landscape upon whichthey all depend: “Experience accumu-lated during hundreds of years is passedon for generations and it has achieved ahigh degree of perfection that cannot beimproved any further but only pre-served”. While livestock producers inthe Northern Rockies have been able touse some of the same tools used by thesenomadic cultures, what has been lackingis the full range of techniques, andknowledge of how to use them. Tappinginto the knowledge and tradition ofancient LPD cultures will help to fillthat void.

Literature CitedAndelt, W. F. 2004. Use of livestock

guardian animals to reduce preda-tion on sheep and livestock. Sheepand Goat Research Journal 19:72–75.

Bagiev, Z. 2006. Faithful and fearless.Russian Primitive and AboriginalDog Society Newsletter 7: 4–10.

Bangs, E., M. Jimenez, C. Niemeyer, J.Fontaine, M. Collinge, R. Krishcke,L. Handegard, J. Shivik, C. Sime, S.Nadeau, C. Mack, D. Smith, V.Asher and S. Stone. 2006. Non-lethal and lethal tools to managewolf-livestock conflict in the north-western United States. Pages 7–16in R. M. Timmand and J.M.O’Brien, editors. Proceedings of the22nd Vertebrate Pest Conference,University of California. Davis. Cal-ifornia, USA.

Bangs, E., M. Jimenez, C. Niemeyer, T.Meier, V. Asher, J. Fontaine, M.Collinge, L. Handegard, R.Krischke. D. Smith and C. Mack.2005. Livestock guarding dogs and wolves in the northern RockyMountains of the United States.Carnivore Damage PreventionNews, 8:32–39.

Cruz, C., 2009. Livestock guarding dogsfrom Portugal: a review of current knowledge. Primitive and Aborigi-nal Dog Society Newsletter 20:11–34.

Dohner, J. 2007. Livestock Guardians:Using Dogs, Donkeys and Llamas toProtect Your Herd (Storey’s Working

Animal Series). Storey Publishing,North Adams, Massachusetts, USA.

Feldman, J.W. 2007. Public opinion, theLeopold Report, and the reform offederal predator control policy.Human–Wildlife Conflicts 1(1):112–124.

Gasymzade, I. and N. Azizov. 2007. Dowe need dogfights? Russia Primitiveand Aboriginal Dog SocietyNewsletter 11: 8–10.

Gehring, T.M., K.C. VerCauteren andJ.L. Landry. 2010. Livestock protec-tion dogs in the 21st Century: Is anancient tool relevant to modernconservation challenges? In Press,BioScience 2010.

Green, J.S. and R.A. Woodruff. 1983.Guarding work effectively, and afuller appreciation of some dogs pro-tect sheep from predators. Agricul-tural Information Bulletin No. 455,Agricultural Research Service andExtension Service, U.S. Dept. ofAgriculture, Washington, D.C.

Green, J. S. and R. A. Woodruff. 1990.Livestock guarding dogs: protectingsheep from predators. AgricultureInformation Bulletin No 588, Agri-cultural Research Service andExtension Service, U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Ivanova, T. M. 2009. The Central AsianOvcharka: On some problems ofpreserving the breed. Primitive andAboriginal Dog Society Newsletter20: 3–11.

Landry, J-M., A. Burri, D. Torriani andC. Angst. 2005. Livestock guardingdogs: new experience for Switzer-land. Carnivore Damage PreventionNews 8: 40–48.

Lorenz, J.R. and L. Coppinger. 1988.Raising and Training a Livestock-guarding dog. ER1238, OregonState University Extension Service,Oregon State University,Corvallis,Oregon.

Mertens, A. and H. Schneider. 2005.What is wrong with Romanian live-stock guarding dogs? A discussion.Carnivore Damage PreventionNews 9: 9–14.

Messmer, T. A. 2009. Human–wildlifeconflicts: emerging challenges andopportunities. Human–WildlifeConflicts 3(1):10–17.

National Research Council. 2008.Changes in the sheep industry inthe United States: Making the tran-

sition from tradition. Committee onthe Economic Development andCurrent Status of the Sheep Indus-try in the United States. TheNational Academies Press, Wash-ington, D.C.

Otstavel, T., K. A. Vuori, D. E. Sims, A.Valros, O. Vainio, and H.Saloniemi. 2009. The first experi-ence of livestock guarding dogs pre-venting large carnivore damages inFinland. Estonian Journal of Ecol-ogy, 58, 3, 216-224.

Plakhova, K.N. and A.S. Plakhova.2008. The Kazakh Tobet – myth,reality and neccessity. Primitive andAboriginal Dog Society Newsletter12: 25–27.

Plakhova, K.N., A.S. Plakhov, and M.Kh. Eleusizov. 2008. Aboriginaldogs breeds as full value elements ofbiodiversity and the cultural her-itage of the peoples of southwesternAsia. Primitive and Aboriginal DogSociety Newsletter 16: 3–7.

Rigg, R. 2001. Livestock guarding dogs:their current use world wide. Occa-sional Paper 1, Species SurvivalCommission, International Union forthe Conservation of Nature and Nat-ural Resources, Gland, Switzerland.

Rigg, R. 2004. The extent of predationon livestock by large carnivores inSlovakia and mitigating carnivore-human conflict using livestockguarding dogs. Thesis, University ofAberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland.

Ruid, D. B., W. J. Paul, B. J. Roell, A. P.Wydeven, R. C. Willging, R. L.Jurewiez, and D. H. Lonsway. 2009.Wolf–human conflicts and manage-ment in Minnesota, Wisconsin, andMichigan. Pages 279-296 in A. P.Wydeven, T. R. Van Deelen, and E. J. Heske, editors. 2009. Recoveryof gray wolves in the Great LakesRegion of the United States: anendangered species success story.Springer Science. Berlin, Germany.

Sedefchev, S. 2005. The Karakachandog – continuation of an old Bulgar-ian tradition. Carnivore DamagePrevention News 9: 14–19.

Sedefchev, A. and S. Sedefchev. 2009.The Karakachan dog: preservationof the aboriginal livestock guardingdog of Bulgaria. Primitive and Abo-riginal Dog Society Newsletter 18:17 24.

Page 8: A Review: The Use of Livestock Protection Dogs in ...cdlcruz/GPCC/library/protectiondogs.pdfDogs, Wolves Introduction The traditional use of livestock protection dogs (LPDs) has been

Shivik, J. A. 2006. Tools for the edge:what’s new for conserving carni-vores. Bioscience 56: 3, 253-259.

Sillero-Zubiri, C., R. Sukumar and A.Treves. 2007. Living with wildlife:the roots of conflict and the solu-tions. Pages 253–270 in D.W. Mac-Donald, and K. Service, editors. Keytopics in conservation biology. Black-well Publishing, Oxford, England.

Smith, M. E., J. D. C. Linnell, J. Oddenand J. E. Swenson. 2000. Review ofmethods to reduce livestock depreda-tion: I. guardian animals. Acta Agri-

culturae Scandinavica, Section A-Animal Science Volume 50:279–290.

Sommers, A.P., C.C. Price, C. D.Urbigkit, and E.M. Peterson. 2010.Quantifying economic impacts oflarge carnivore depredation oncalves. In Press, Journal of WildlifeManagement.

Tepeli, C. and T. Taylor. 2008. Utiliza-tion of Turkish Shepherd dogs inTurkey. Primitive and AboriginalDog Society Newsletter 14: 13–23.

Urbigkit, C. 2008. Livestock guardiandogs in the northern Rocky Moun-

tains. Primitive and Aboriginal DogSociety Newsletter 13: 2–6.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NezPerce Tribe, National Park Service,Montana Fish,Wildlife & Parks,Blackfeet Nation, ConfederatedSalish and Kootenai Tribes, IdahoFish and Game, and USDA WildlifeServices. 2009. Rocky MountainWolf Recovery 2008 InteragencyAnnual Report. C.A. Sime and E.E. Bangs, editors. USFWS, Ecologi-cal Services, Helena, Montana.

8 Sheep & Goat Research Journal, Volume 25, 2010 ©2010, Sheep & Goat Research Journal