proposed draft of BMP's + LGD oops LPD certification

[elihufarm]

This came in ASI's weekly news bulletin. Mary

# Draft management plan for livestock protection dogs (LPD). The ASI working group on LPD is seeking comments from sheep producers across the country on a draft management program of dogs. The draft proposal is available for review at www.sheepusa.org/Livestock%20Protection%20Dogs. Your input on this proposal is valuable!

[Janet McNally]

Here is ASI's draft proposal of LPD BMP's and certification. http://www.sheepusa.org/user_files/file_608.pdf

ASI is looking for input.

some specific points:

1) intact males not permitted on public land? intact male and females are key to effectiveness against wolves. WHile intact males are more likely to bite people (around a bitch in heat), by no means is every male LGD any more likely to bite a human intruder while OTJ. The spay and neuter concept is straight out of surburbian dog ownership and is not appropriate to LGD ownership.

2) 99.9% of the responsibility is placed on the sheep producer here, how 'bout putting some responsibility onto the recreational user by including some guidelines as to how to behave if one stumbles upon a sheep flock guarding a flock of sheep? imo this should be at least half of the effort here, is to prevent conflicts by educating the public. IME all LGD aggression can be diffused just by simply following a few rules when confronted by one. I see no problem with asking sheep producers who benefit by these public educational efforts to be asked to help fund them.

2b) Also responsibility needs to be placed upon the public lands management to notify shepherds of special events, like bicycle races. I say this from having a similar experience here on private land...with a bike a thon with over 3000 bikes cycling right between my pastures (and today it was a huge snow mobile ride with the govenor!) Its just one of those things that I would sure like to know before the morning of the event so I can be better prepared. There are some things that are asking too much of the LGD and I think certain circumstances with bicycles is one of them.

3) I have concerns with the 'voice control' requirement. LGDs are famously independent and do not respond to commands like most other breeds do. I also have concerns with the requirement to be able to catch and tie the dog. I can usually catch and tie any of my dogs when alone, but the minute a stranger is here, all bets are off with some of them. This is just part of the LGD nature. I find that the more aloof dogs are often the better LGDs. TO expect the LGD to be recalled like a pet labrador is ascribing to them, properties that are not part of the LGD makeup and is an important part of what makes them useful.

4) What is considered aggression toward people? all LGDs should bark at all intruders. whether or not they become a threat to the intruder is another matter, but that often depends entirely upon how the intruder behaves hence #2 above.


more below

[Janet McNally]

5) Membership in ASI or state affiliate required. If certification is going to be required, I have qualms about requiring membership. Why not just offer certification, with its application fee, and additional insurance as a separate stand alone function?

6) is a certification program the best direction to go in a legal sense? or is it placing even more responsibility onto the industry for a problem that lies mostly from forces outside of the industry?

7) the statement about producers of puppies should sell trained puppies and then something about selling excess pups. Training pups to full fledged working dogs requires considerable resources in that pups need to be separated into totally separate pastures with sheep. Most sheep producers are unwilling to pay the true cost associated with this training. There for selling pups to be trained on the new farm is an important part of LGD ownership.

Some things I see as good about the proposed certification program are:

1) there is a need for additional liability insurance as most farm and home insurance policies are very squeemish about dogs, especially any dog that is considered a guard dog

2) I do support the notion that dogs must be with their sheep, and that loose roaming dogs should not be permitted on public land.

3) I do support the language that says the use of dogs that are specifically aggressive toward predators while demonstrating compatability with people should be the desired goal of most LGD breeding programs.

Personally I would support banning certain breeds from the LGD gene pool, such as the Russian Caucasian Mountain Dog which was bred by the Russian army to attack people.

gotta run, but this is a start.

Janet

[Bill Fosher]

I've merged the two topics that were started on this subject. I think this is really important, and that anyone who uses guard dogs should read and comment on these guidelines. Whether you subscribe to them or take out insurance based on them, they will become an industry standard that plaintiff's attorneys will look to for evidence of negligence. It would be good to have them be right.

[Janet McNally]

the certification guidelines include 'adequate food and water available at all times'. Do we really want to get into humane care standards? and if we do, I have a concern about the interpretation of 'at all times'. This suggests I should have a bucket of food and water in front of my LGDs, something that is impossible here in MN from late Nov to the end of March. During this time I provide one meal a day, of dog food soaked in hot water. 'at all times' would entail self feeders which work for some producers, but it could be argued that self feeders can contribute to resource guarding behavior issues, as well as rodent and bird problems.

I would prefer to drop the food and water requirement. If anything must be said about nutrition and well being of dogs, then let body condition scoring be the guideline as per the purina body condition scoring chart that most veterinarians have on hand.

[Janet McNally]

I mentioned above that addressing what is 'aggressive' can be tricky. What one person, fearful of dogs might consider as aggressive, is to another a non issue. Some dogs can be very intimidating but have a very strong bite inhibition. i.e as ferocious as they might seem, even when pushed, they will not bite a person. I think this is a very useful LGD in some situations and we don't want to discourage the use of such dogs as some producers do have two legged predator problems as well as four legged.

[dog]

>the certification guidelines include 'adequate food and water available at all times'.

the certification guidelines include 'adequate food and water available as required..

In the paddock my Kangals feed about every second day and only take water once a day ( intake is a bit like a camel) - even farm dogs do not need feeding every day - who ever wrote adequate food available at all times is thinking of an over weight pet dog. You cannot regulate such a thing - it depends on the breed of dog, the work it is doing and what you actually feed it etc

You really need to think carefully in making such a draft - you could demonise breeds due to actions that are quite normal to that breed ie Kangals protect by patroling - they are always in sight of the flock but under the current wording would not get certification. Also under your own feellings the kangal would not be considered as the Turkish Army and Police use Kangals however a correctly trained and genetically true Kangal probably has the least chance of harming a human or even going near them when working.

[Island Shepherd]

K-9's are not a type of animal that needs food and water available at all times. They are designed to be able to take on large amounts of food and go without for extended periods. Not that that is how we feed domesticated dogs, but I agree with John 24-7 food = porky pooch. Plus all the issues of trying to keep the sheep out of it.

[Bill Fosher]

My response, in all its long-winded glory:

Hello Ms. Jensen,

Thank you for taking the time to read and review comments on this topic. I am a sheep producer in New England in an area where the primary threats to my sheep are Eastern coyotes (which are much more like red wolves than Western coyotes, and indeed may be hybrids) and stray domestic dogs. We also have some smaller amounts of depredation by eagles and owls.

I've raised my own sheep for 20 years, and have also worked as a hired shepherd on vegetation management projects. I've worked with livestock guardian dogs for 10 of those years, and my experience encompasses about 30 individual dogs between the dogs that I have owned personally and the dogs that I have used and cared for as part of my employment. I currently own three guard dogs.

The first question posed on the website is whether I agree that these guidelines are needed. I would answer that they are not needed, and in fact could do more harm than good. Plaintiffs attorneys will seize on them and will probably nearly always be able to find one or more areas where they could argue that a producer is not in compliance. For instance, is a dog that runs along a fence barking behaving aggressively? Some would say it is, even though there is no danger to those on the other side of the fence. Moreover, if these guidelines are adopted by the industry, all producers will be expected to adhere to them, whether they make sense on a particular operation or not.

All that said, I am not familiar with the challenges being faced by western producers on grazing allotments. If they believe these guidelines will help them, then perhaps they could be crafted and presented as best management practices for livestock guard dogs used on federal grazing allotments, and have a preamble that specifically states that these guidelines do not apply to all situations, that many sheep operations will deviate from them, and that any deviation does not necessarily constitute negligence.

Here are some other global concerns about the document:

You'll notice that I have rejected the term Livestock Protection Dog that the ASI has started to use for these animals. I gather that there is some pejorative connotation associated with the term "guard dog," but that is what I have called them for the last 10 years, and it is what every producer I know of who uses them calls them. Trying to change that smacks of phoney PR and will be seen as such as we all stumble over our tongues trying to appease some suburban sensibility.

I am also concerned that the document refers to "herding dogs" but makes no mention of the distinctive concerns and requirements of that very different type of sheepdog. By including herding dogs in the title of the document, it would appear that ASI is suggesting that a Border collie and a Maremma should be managed according to the same standards and practices. This is certainly not the case. The term "herding dogs" should be removed from the document wherever it is used.

In general, I believe that these guidelines place too many obligations on the sheep producer, and not enough on the others who seek to share federal lands. Event organizers should be required to notify producers if there is going to be a large contingent of mountain bikers, ATV riders, hikers, etc., moving through an allotment, and a system should be created to let the producer know when all is clear.

And here is a listing of point-by point comments:

Guideline: Food and water available at all times
Comment: This can be construed to mean that if a guard dog does not have 24/7 access to food, the owner is negligent, even if the dog is fed daily and is in good body condition. Massachusetts Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Police (who are deputized as State Police Troopers, carry sidearms, and have arrest powers) have claimed that a similar rule meant that Border collies awaiting trial runs had to have a bowl of food in their crates at all times. This is not healthy, good practice, or even sensible. If nutrition is a concern, then the standard should be body condition scoring by a qualified veterinarian.

Guideline: Sexually intact males will not be used on federal land.
Comment: This is a bad guideline for at several reasons. First is effectiveness. Canid predators are much more respectful of the territories of mated pairs than they are of unmated groups or single canines. There are going to be situations where an entire dog is needed to ensure safety of sheep against wolves in particular.

Second, it flows from the assumption that entire dogs are more aggressive than neutered dogs or bitches. While this may be generally true, it does not warrant a blanket exclusion of entire males from the range.

Third, working dogs are proven in the field. If only cut dogs are allowed to prove themselves, the future generations of guard dogs will be denied the genetic material we want and need.

Fouth, research is showing that the early spaying and neutering of dogs -- especially large breed dogs -- can be a contributing factor in the development of musculo-skeletal disorders such as hip dysplasia. Many veterinarians are now recommending that sexual altering of dogs be delayed until they are fully grown, which in the case of most guard dog breeds would mean nearly three years of age. Given that most guard dogs have a useful life of less than 10 years, this guideline would prohibit dogs from working on federal land for about a third of their lives.

Guideline: Owners should spay females unless they are used for breeding purposes.
Comment: The same objections as above. I realize that the word "should" is used, but as soon as you say something "should" be done, the assumption is that failure to do so is negligent.

Guideline: Shearing/clipping should be done to prevent matted coats and to prevent overheating in the summer.
Comment: a healthy coat will actually prevent overheating by keeping the sun off the dog's skin.

Guideline: Sheep producers should not breed guard dogs ...
Comment: Who should then? People who trot them around breed rings? There is no substitute for breeding working dogs from working stock, and if we want sheep dogs to work for sheep producers, then sheep producers must breed them.

Guideline: Dogs that show aggression towards people or other restrained (leashed) dogs will not be allowed to work ...
Comment: This is one that plaintiff's attorneys will have a field day with. "Aggressive behavior" can mean as little as barking or charging with the hackles up, even where no harm is done. All that would be needed is for one incident to be documented and the owner would be considered negligent.

Guideline: Dogs that cannot be controlled by voice commands will not be allowed to work on federal land.
Comment: Again, what constitutes control, and how much control do we really want on these dogs? They are independent thinkers who have been bred for centuries to read, react to, and mitigate threats to grazing livestock. Do we suddenly want to start breeding them away from that and towards obedience to human command? I think not. And make no mistake, we will not breed dogs that obey without losing some or all of the independence that makes them effective.

Guideline: Dogs tied up when herder is not present
Comment: I have grazed federal land for vegetation management. I used guard dogs and portable electrified netting. There were no herders present, nor could the wages of one be justified. The potential always exists for conflict between the public and guard dogs. People cross fences, fences fail, guard dogs scare a pet dog. If I had been required to tie up my guard dogs in these circumstances, I might as well not have had them on the projects.

Guideline: discussion of breed traits
Comment: I have worked with five different breeds and crosses of them. I have seen more variability among individuals than among breeds. There is no need to get into the myths and generalities of the working styles of various breeds, particularly if the breed traits are going to be used as a weapon against particular breeds and crosses. We live in a world where dogs can be put to death for no reason other than that someone thinks they look like a pit bull.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Bill Fosher
Edgefield Farm
Westmoreland, NH

[dog]

down here the system is simple a working dog is expected to be different from a pet - ie the human needs to consider the fact that the dog is working and as such may react totally different and its actions may be considered by some to be aggressive - if that is the case and it is because the dog is doing what it is designed to do - protect for a LGD or work for a working dog(kelpie, blue heeler) then the dog cannot be held at fault. Basically if my pet foxie bites you for coming onto the property then the dog is at fault - if however my Kangal barks or at worse lays you down because you went to the sheep after hearing the bark then the dog is not at fault.

The problem arises in your case that you are using public community land - actually we have LGD's on public community ground - they are used to protect penguin breeding groups and they live with the birds with out human handlers. Members of the public that use theses lands are educated about the dogs by Notice placed around the public land. LGD use in endangered species is increasing

So rather then certify every dog and handler one would assume it would be much better to educate the members of the public who also use this land with notices placed along driving tracks and walking tracks and of course this should be done by the public lands aurthority. Then if a problem arises it is handled according to the facts of that situation not a coverall document. Hopefully if you are running livestock on public land you are also covering yourself with public liability insurance. Currently down here I think the required cover is around $40million for public liability if I run my sheep on public leased or permit land. Public liability cover for the farm runs at around $20million.

Of course education must be both ways - farmers who use public lands should also be educated about the other users and thier obligations towards them - normally down here that would be included in the lease or permit papers

[Janet McNally]

Is there a lawyer among us that can comment on the wisdom of having such a set of guidelines? I'm inclined to agree with Bill, that by having them (just the mere existance of such guidelines) increases our liability, and the more that is said within them, the more chances a producer could be declared negligent.

Why not just simply provide insurance? I bet the insurance company will very quickly sort out which dogs and circumstances present the greatest risk. And I bet it has little to do with whether or not the dog will come when called, or whether food and water is available at all times.

Bill, your point about tying up dogs when the shepherd is absent is good and I completely missed it, but this would eliminate my operation as my sheep are grazing pastures up to 2 miles from my home with no shepherd present.

Janet

[Janet McNally]

I also want to point out, that when faced with something my dogs think they should attack, such as a cat, or domestic dog that we encountered on the way to and from a distant pasture, the most unstoppable dogs, have been what otherwise are my most biddable dogs. i.e. the ones that under any other circumstance were the most likely to come when called. So I really see training as such to be irrelevant to risk. We are further ahead to address the issue of aggression toward people by using dogs that are programmed not to bite people. There are plenty of dogs in the LGD gene pool that are bite inhibited.

I also wonder if all of this hullabaloo is not just because of the use of one, maybe two LGD breeds that have a much higher probability of biting people? Is the whole industry paying a price for just a handful of bad dogs of which the vast majority of us do not own?

Janet

[Island Shepherd]

The really off the charts whacky one for me is: Sheep producers shouldn't breed LGD's. Sorry Janet, Mary and others your out of luck, you have to pick one sheep or dogs what will it be? That really makes me wonder what kind of people are involved in this. That doesn't sound like something a western rancher would come up with.

Bill, you are correct it has been proven by research (at least in ME) that our coyote is a gray wolf hybrid. The % of wolf influence cannot be judged phenotypically as a 20 something pound female showed over well 80% wolf DNA when tested. Some big wolfy looking dogs had much less. I'd just as soon bet that NH and VT can claim the same. We also have the bear and cats to contend with. Good job on that response. You should have been a writer!

[dog]

>Why not just simply provide insurance?
don't you already carry public liability insurance when you take your sheep off farm grazing.

[lovetree]

The really off the charts whacky one for me is: Sheep producers shouldn't breed LGD's. Sorry Janet, Mary and others your out of luck, you have to pick one sheep or dogs what will it be? That really makes me wonder what kind of people are involved in this. That doesn't sound like something a western rancher would come up with.

Bill, you are correct it has been proven by research (at least in ME) that our coyote is a gray wolf hybrid. The % of wolf influence cannot be judged phenotypically as a 20 something pound female showed over well 80% wolf DNA when tested. Some big wolfy looking dogs had much less. I'd just as soon bet that NH and VT can claim the same. We also have the bear and cats to contend with. Good job on that response. You should have been a writer

I will try to not be too redundant, everyone has made very good points so I will simply add:

Spaying or neutering does not make a dog passive, in fact it can actually do the opposite and antagonize the female dog by seriously reducing her seratonin uptake which is needed in many dogs for a mellow temperament. Neutering of the male only helps to keep an intact male from wandering, that is not an issue if he has his 'bitch" with him (sorry I couldnt resist!)

The wordage that is in the proposal I have seen before on LGD "Rescue" Lists which are heavily influenced by PETA type people who dont believe ranchers and farmers are knowledgeable enough to raise working dogs and they see us as nothing more than "back yard " breeders that are running puppy mills.
These people also believe in "clicker"training" of LGDs and housing of LGDS. I believe in LGDS being raised in the proper environment, and I believe in proper food and shelter, but after 16 years of running LGDS ( I have I know for a fact that what a LGD will choose for shelter versus what a"feel good pet mentality person" would choose for shelter for LGDs is totally different. cont.....