proposed draft of BMP's + LGD oops LPD certification

[lovetree]

cont.....

LGDs are livestock and until the sheep industry accepts that fact this issue will never be solved. Whoever wrote the proposal has either NO experience with LGDs or has very limited experience.
Anyone in the sheep industry that doubts whether or not LGDs are actually livestock needs to visit Europe and see how they have been run for thousands of years.
Does the federal government worry about bikers/recreationists being damaged by cattle or bison? The LGD is no different. If bulls and rams are allowed to freely graze BLM land then there should not even be a question regarding LGDs. I do believe that there are a few certain breeds such as the Russian Caucasian Mt Dog that should never be allowed to set foot on public land, but those breeds are in the tiny minority...they are not an actual LGD but actually are attack dogs, which LGDs are not.

You will also notice I will not use the lame term LPD, which I agree with Bill, comes off as nothing more than a cheap PR gimmick.
To say Livestock "Protection Dog" sounds like I have a gang from the mafia running amongst my sheep.
The term Guardian is the most appropriate term as in "Guardian Angel" ....we do not have "Protection Angels" (with the exception of in Sicily perhaps?)

As far as feeding the dogs, much has already been said, but I just want to add that the dog's digestive system is set up to be most efficient and healthfully run by eating at the most once a day...anything more is to satisfy our nature,not the dog's. In the EU the dogs live almost twice as long as they do here with half as much feed.

[lovetree]

cont.....
I have 8 LGDs, we also have a wild life refuge that runs through the middle of our property, we have every critter imaginable that would like to dine on our sheep..
We also have 8 lakes within two miles of our farm which brings with it loads of tourist trafiic on foot and bikes etc. so we are very much in tune to running an operation that is sustainable with our neighbors along with the environment. I run intact dogs with no problems with people,
I suggest that bike clubs,atv clubs etc that want to use BLM land at the same time as the livestock need to educate their group member as to the proper behavior around the livestock, this could be done in cooperation with the ranchers...everyone would benefit.

The DNR out here in northern Wi puts out pamplets and literature on the proper way to behave when you encounter a bear along with a lot of cool info as to why bears do what they do, people actually learn something about the bears habits..the same kind of thing could happen with info on LGDs and the livestock.
It is very important that LGDs be properly portrayed as working livestock, not as the cute pooch you can call and have it run over to be petted.
No one in their right mind would attempt to pet a bull or a ram.
I believe that people that choose to share the land at the same time as the livestock need to sign a waiver that they have read the literature regarding what livestock and wildlife they may possibly encounter and that they understand the risks involved.
I also believe that the ranchers need to be responsible to place LGDs with the most tolerant temperaments in the pubic environment.

[Laura L.]

Thank you for inspiring me to also send my comments to Mary Jensen. I hope that there are enough sheep producers who do the same.

Laura

[Laura L.]

<<The message or an attachment did not reach the intended recipient(s).

Subject: Comments on Livestock Guard Dog proposal
From: lauralwentz@aol.com
To: mary@sheepusa.org
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:48:12 -0700

Reason: content policy violation
Action: quarantine>>

That's the response I got to my email. I sent another shorter message and am hoping that one gets thru.
Laura

[Bill Fosher]

Maybe her inbox is flooded. As far as I know, mine went through. Thanks for trying anyway.

[Laura L.]

Well we can certainly hope that's what happened. I'm sending it again today and slightly changing the subject line. The draft they have is filled with nonsense. It makes me wonder if the ones who drew it up had any practical experience with guard dogs actually guarding sheep.

eta: I just got an email from her saying that they have a very strict spam program and try changing the subject line. Who would have thought "Comments on Livestock Guard Dog Proposal" would be construed as spam to the ASI?

So now that I'm really a PITA, I got the fax number and just faxed it off to her.

Laura

[Bill Fosher]

Would you give us the fax number?

[Laura L.]

(303) 771-8200

Go for it. I was pretty frustrated by not getting the email to go thru.

Laura

[Janet McNally]

Don't forget to send ASI your thoughts on the proposed LGD certification program. Here is my response:

To The Livestock Protection Dog Working Group,
Regarding the proposed LPD certification program:

I have reviewed the proposed LPD certification program listed on the ASI website as per the link provided in the February 12th ASI newsletter. I have a comment about the general concept of certification, and some specific points to make about the proposed certification program.

First a little background on myself. I live in East Central Minnesota just 5 miles from the Chengwatana State Forest and the St Croix State Park, both of which have been home to wolves since the late 80s. We also have an abundance of coyote, red and grey fox, and black bears, as well as the occasional cougar and bob cat. My 200-500 sheep are grazed extensively throughout the neighborhood making use of pastures that are up to 2 miles from the homestead and adjoining extensive wild areas. I could not do this without our livestock guarding dogs. Over the years I have lost a total of 125 head of sheep, mostly to wolves. I have been using Livestock Guard Dogs (from here on, LGD will be my preferred label), since 1982, and have carried out a breeding program for LGDs since the mid 90’s. I have produced and provided support for well over 200 LGD pups as well as raising at least a pair each year to adult hood before sale. I have used the Maremma, Kuvasz, Great Pyrenees, Anatolian, Polish Tatra, and Spanish Mastiff as purebreds, and also as hybrids. I presently make use of 10 adult LGDs to protect my flock.

It is my opinion that the idea of a LGD certification program is ill advised and will only increase the risk of liability to producers by providing litigants more material to base a complaint on. The certification program does not address the real issues behind conflicts between LGD’s and recreational users and fails to recognize livestock guard dog behavior and how these dogs differ from many other ‘pet’ breeds of dogs. The LGD certification also fails to properly shoulder responsibility for conflicts between livestock, wildlife, and recreational users of public land.

Sheep producers have been forced to rely on using LGDs as a socially acceptable way to deal with predators. That same society now needs to accept the reality that this method of predator deterrence brings forth, and needs to consider carefully the influence that wildlife management policies have on predator behavior and risks to people. It has been well documented that the lack of hunting does change the behavior of wildlife, making them bolder, and thus becoming more dangerous. (please read the Beast in the Garden by David Baron). The no hunting policy on wolves, cougars, and bears has forced some sheep producers to use breeds of dogs that are more hazardous to people.
(cont)

[Janet McNally]

(cont)
At the same time sheep producers have to recognize that it is not necessary to have dogs that are dangerous to people in order to protect their flocks from predators. Most breeds are very bite inhibited and avoid contact with people if at all possible. There are LGD breeds that are very effective on large predators that are quite friendly towards people, such as the Spanish Mastiff, which barely exists in this country. Unfortunately the Caucasian Ovcharka has been promoted to some producers in the Rockies as the solution to their tough bear and cougar problems. This breed has been bred by the Russian army to attack people, and is more likely to bite people than other LGD breeds. I suspect that the use of this breed may be behind some of the conflicts and is something the sheep industry needs to investigate and document.

I see this whole issue as a combination of bad wildlife management policy, poor breed choices by sheep producers, and a lack of ownership by state and federal government for the conflict that they have created.

For these reasons I emplore the American Sheep Industry to not procede with a Livestock Protection Dog Certification program. Instead the industry should consider addressing the conflict by the following means:

1) work with state and federal wildlife management agencies to address the impact various wildlife management policies (such as no hunting) have on wildlife behavior, and the indirect ramifications of these policies on sheep producers and recreational users.
2) require that public land managers notify sheep producers with leases, of special events, so that at the very least, the producer can move the flock away from the area of the activity.
3) provide flyers and signs at trail heads where recreational use might encounter sheep, to educate the public on how to behave when they encounter sheep on the trail. There really is no reason anyone should ever be bitten by a LGD if they know how to behave when in the presents of one.
4) Provide liability insurance for owners of LGDs as most farm and ranch policies provide poor or no protection.
5) Conduct research into the growing issue of emboldened predators and effectiveness of LGDs that will help direct wildlife management policy and LGD management policy that is in the best interest of all involved.

The responsibility for this form of depredation management needs to be shared by not just the sheep producers using the dogs, but by the state and federal wildlife management agencies, and the public who requested non lethal measures be used.

[Janet McNally]

(cont)
Below are concerns I have with specific points of the proposed LGD certification program:


1) Sexually intact male LPDs will not be used on federal grazing allotments.

Intact male and females are key to effectiveness against wolves and coyotes which respect the territory of a mated pair more than a collection of neutered dogs. 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 on the job. The spay and neuter concept is straight out of suburban dog ownership and is not appropriate to LGD ownership.

2) Adequate food and water for LPDs will be available at all times.

This implies a self feeder for food and that free flowing water be present at all times in northern climates. Many LGD owners find that self feeders can become the object of resource guarding, the dog becomes anchored to the feeding station and fails to patrol as he should. Free flowing water is not practical in northern climates in the winter. Instead LGD owners provide water by soaking the food in hot water and from snow, just as many dog mushers in the sled dog racing world do. Do we really want to provide litigants more fodder to sink their teeth in?

3) Sheep producers should not breed LPDs unless they have the time and ability to train the puppies, and a known market to place excess puppies.

When posted on a discussion board most people interpreted this to suggest that sheep producers should not breed LGDs. If not sheep producers, then who is best suited to produce replacement LGDs? I realize this was meant to bring attention to the need for time and resources to train puppies, but that is not how most people read it.

4) LPDs that show aggressive behavior towards people or other restrained (leashed) dogs will not be allowed to work on federal lands or private property if the possibility exists for the dogs to stray from the private property.

The problem is ‘aggressive behavior’ is open to interpretation. What one person who is fearful of dogs, considers aggression would not cause fear in another. Additionally, aggression is partially controlled by how the person reacts to the dog. Dogs pick up on people who are fearful and act even more aggressively. Also aggressive behavior does not necessarily mean that the dog will bite. Some LGD breeds can be very intimidating to people, yet when pushed will simply not bite.

How does one define ‘stray from private property’? Has a dog strayed if it stands on a public road (our legal property line is in the center of the road here in rural MN)? between pastures containing sheep? Has the dog strayed if it returns to look for sheep in a recently vacated pasture? In these scenarios the dog is only doing its job, but to the uninformed it may appear that the dog has wandered away.

5) LPDs that continually stray away from the sheep will not be allowed to work on federal lands.

Again, what is considered ‘straying’? how far must a dog go before it is considered to have strayed? To be effective a LGD has to intervene with the predator before the predator has began the eye/stalk/chase/bite routine. Once these instinctive routines begin they are more difficult to interrupt. Educated LGDs know that they have to stand guard where they have a good vantage point. Therefore it may be necessary for the dog to venture ¼ mile to ½ mile from the sheep to intercept the predator. To the bicyclist who just crested a hill and found herself within ¼ mile of some sheep, the dog has strayed if it ventures beyond the nearest sheep. But from the dog’s perspective the bicyclist has just penetrated into his territory.

6) LPDs must be trained to respond to basic voice commands. Dogs that cannot be controlled by voice commands will not be allowed to work on federal lands.
7) LPDs that cannot be easily caught and leashed will not be allowed to work on federal lands.
8) LPDs must be socialized to people. They need to be trained so that vehicles, ATVs, hikers (with or without a dog) and bikers do not appear in the dog’s mind to pose a threat to the sheep.

These three statements show a lack of understanding how the LGD works and how it is different from most other breeds of dogs. LGD breeds need to work independent of human direction. They need to instinctually respond to predators without being told what to do, and it is natural that things like bicycles, ATVs, strange dogs, and hikers are going to be treated as intruders if within proximity of the flock. Even the well trained LGD who normally comes when called, or who is easily leashed, will be non compliant when an intruder is present. These statements also demonstrate a lack of understanding that aloof dogs, which are very difficult to catch, are also less likely to bite a hiker or bicyclist. Aloof dogs generally want to avoid all human contact. Aloof dogs are also often better at bonding to sheep, and easier to keep where they belong. To breed dogs that behave differently than the LGD behaves, will in essence take away other important traits essential to being effective LGDs. If we breed LGDs to behave like Labrador Retrievers, we will have a dog that is as helpful at deterring predators as a Labrador Retriever.

9) LPD owners will contact adjacent neighbors and explain that LPD’s are being used to protect livestock, how LPD’s behave when they are performing this function and, that if a predator is approaching or threatening the sheep, the LPD may chase the predator off of the property.

A pamphlet explaining what the LGD is and how it is used, that is promoted by a third party would be very helpful in giving sheep producers credibility when they contact their neighbors to explain what the job of the LGD is. Many LGDs are illegally shot by deer hunters every year due to a simple lack of understanding that these dogs cannot perform their job tied up, and that they are not likely to chase game.

10) Livestock Protection Dog Training & Management (BMPs)
LPDs that show aggressive behavior towards people or other restrained (leashed) dogs should not be retained for breeding purposes.


As stated above, change the behavior of the dog, and you will change the job the dog can do. It is natural that a LGD will show aggression toward people and especially toward another dog. If we breed away from this we will change the effectiveness of the dog, especially if we breed for dogs that are not aggressive toward a strange canine. I would like to point out that a show of aggression, and the likeliness that a dog will bite are two separate things. Inhibition of bite is common to many of our LGD breeds and should be encouraged.

10b) LPDs that <snip> cannot be easily caught and leashed should not be used.


This was addressed above, but appears again under breeding. When a dog is difficult to catch he is said to be aloof. Aloof dogs seem to make better LGDs and in my experience are less likely to make contact with people that would result in injury. Therefore I think breeding away from aloof dogs could be a mistake.

11) LPD owners should strive to identify LPDs that exhibit targeted aggressiveness toward predators combined with compatibility with people. Sheep producers should consider the various breed of dogs (each with breed specific traits—can we provide a summary sheet of the different breeds, traits, suitability for different working conditions?)

I do agree we need to work toward a dog suitable for public lands use. However, the research we have on LGD breeds is old and based on a relatively small sample size. New breeds have been introduced and new blood lines for some popular breeds has changed the behavior traits of some breeds. There are also breeds, such as the Spanish Mastiff (the working dog, NOT the show dog), that has a great deal to offer in terms of a people friendly dog that is effective on large predators while presenting a lower risk to recreational users, but has been relatively untried in the US. I think there is a need to re evaluate the LGD gene pool. Previous research was also rather subjective. A more objective method of quantifying behavioral traits needs to be developed.


I hope that the LPD committee will see that a certification program only increases our liability as producers, providing more material for litigants to use in a court case to prove a sheep producer was negligent. The certification program as proposed is fraught with many problems as outlined above. More research is required to evaluate the current relationships between sheep producers, LGDs, wildlife policy, and recreational users. Producers need support in educating the public about LGDs, which is perhaps may be the single most effective way to reduce the incidence of conflict next to curtailing the use of the Caucasian Ovcharka and other breeds that demonstate a likelihood to bite people.

(end)

[Sylvia Murray]

[quote="Janet McNally"](cont)

3) provide flyers and signs at trail heads where recreational use might encounter sheep, to educate the public on how to behave when they encounter sheep on the trail. There really is no reason anyone should ever be bitten by a LGD if they know how to behave when in the presents of one.

in the presence of one

[Janet McNally]

spelling is not my strong suit and spell check does not help much when there is more than one spelling for words that sound alike!

janet

[Sylvia Murray]

[quote="Janet McNally"](cont)

5) LPDs that continually stray away from the sheep will not be allowed to work on federal lands.

Again, what is considered ‘straying’? how far must a dog go before it is considered to have strayed? To be effective a LGD has to intervene with the predator before the predator has began the eye/stalk/chase/bite routine. Once these instinctive routines begin they are more difficult to interrupt. Educated LGDs know that they have to stand guard where they have a good vantage point. Therefore it may be necessary for the dog to venture ¼ mile to ½ mile from the sheep to intercept the predator. To the bicyclist who just crested a hill and found herself within ¼ mile of some sheep, the dog has strayed if it ventures beyond the nearest sheep. But from the dog’s perspective the bicyclist has just penetrated into his territory.

2nd line.... before the predator has BEGUN the eye/....

[dog]

> LPDs that continually stray away from the sheep will not be allowed to work on federal lands.
without definition of stray this would mean that Kangals or any patrolling type LGD would be banned.
I also think that changing the LGD to LPD is a bit strupid - the assumpsion is that all LGD's are dangerous and all LPD's are not - the term LGD is an internationally known term - it denotes a particular use and a very small number of breeds within its definition - may be rather then change the term one needs to look more closely to the type of dog that comes under the term.

To say also that they must respond to voice commands and come when called shows a complete lack of understanding of the true LGD breeds - I can teach a kangal to come by voice control but if it comes or not depends totally on what the kangal thinks at the time - if it considers that it is needed by the flock then nothing I could say except shooting it will change its mind and the fastest way (and possibly the only way) to catch a working kangal would be to shoot it. Better to call it when its not busy doing its job.

The draft is concentrating on 'dogs' - the LGD especially the patrolling type is by no means a 'dog' as most people known them. The draft should concentrate on the training and breeding of LGD's - you really need a 'working dog ' body that sets these standards rather then the ASI.

The working dog kennel control or society or what ever you want to call it would set the certification standards on the dog - takes in blood lines, training etc etc and then only certified LGD's would qualify to work on Federal lands.

A quick search of google shows that you do not have a working dog kennel control or society - by working dog I mean an actual working dog not just breeds within the dog kennel control working dog classification - this includes a great array of breeds that where at some stage working dogs but are now simply pets and have lost their working ability.