ASI Revised LPD posted

[Sylvia Murray]

I just got this in my ASI Newsletter. Thought those of you who were interested in it when it was a previous discussion might want to know.

LPD Comments Requested

The American Sheep Industry Association's (ASI) Livestock Protection Dog (LPD) Working Group is again asking for input or alternative options from producer members on the most current version of the proposed LPD program. Based upon the comments received on the original draft, the "Recommended Best Management Practices for LPD" has been revised to incorporate the proposed guidance and suggestions.

Heavy recreational use on federal lands that have historically been used for sheep grazing and continually expanding rural/urban interface on private lands have combined to create occasional conflicts between recreationalists and LPD. Without some guidance, there was concern that producers would not be allowed to use LPD on grazing allotments. The guidelines were developed to address this issue.

Some of the changes that are evident between the two drafts include:
the "Self-Certification Program" was changed to "Recommended Best Management Practices of LPD;"
a fundamental program principles section was added;
alterations were made in the health management section; and
discussions of rationale used have been incorporated into the document.
The revised best management practices are available for review on the ASI Web site at http://www.sheepusa.org/Livestock%20Protection%20Dogs. Comments from members can be submitted by e-mailing info@sheepusa.org.

[Bill Fosher]

I see that many of the issues that were raised here on the forum have been addressed. I still believe that the whole thing is a mistake and I have a few minor issues -- particularly the part about having food and water available at all times -- but I think this second draft is a major improvement.

[Darroll Grant]

'food and water available at all times' How do they define available? The bands may be watered once or twice a day and the LGDs would have water then. Dogs would be fed once a day. It is easy to see how a 'townie' could complain that food and water were not available at all times if the band and LGDs were a mile from the herder's wagon and a stream. But yet the dogs are not confined so they could make the trip to the nearest water or food source.

[Bill Fosher]

That definition is the part that worries me. I suggested changing the language to say that livestock guard dogs should be adequately fed and watered. Having to provide free choice access to dog food in a way that also maintains compliance with the ban on feeding ruminant protein to sheep would be a show stopper for me.

[lovetree]

It is not natural for LGDs to have free access to food, their digestive system was not set up to consume food in such a manner.
Besides the possible negative health consequences for the dogs, constant available food also sets up the dog for a territorial "showdown' with whatever, or whomever may be perceived as challenging the dog for it's food.
The food will also act as bait for predators (including vermin) and can easily become a safety issue for recreationists that may happen upon the food and a hungry bear while the dog is off on patrol,

[Kensmuir]

Improved, I agree, but also feel much as Bill and Mary do, especially about the "always available" food and water.

The biggest problem is trying to quantify and regulate - whenever any "body" decides to "sanction" something, the risk is ALWAYS in the definition. No regulations are preferable, but somehow I don't think the world is running that way anymore...

[Janet McNally]

today is the last day to post comments on the new LPD certification guidle lines.

for what ever it is worth, here is what I just submitted (yep...procrastinator am I)

Dear ASI,

I would like to comment on three aspects of the revised LPD certification program. Thanks to your further explanation, I more fully understand the pressure shepherds on public lands are experiencing.

I felt the slide show here: http://www.sheepusa.org/user_files/file_650.pdf was a fairly acceptable program although how the program would be administered was rather fuzzy to me.

The three areas I think need to change are as follows:

1) "food and water available at all times" If food were to be made available at all times, the sheep would surely pillage the food supply and be consuming animal by products and the dog would be driven to sit on the food all day to protect it from the sheep. This is not a practical concept. Most of us provide a meal to the dog once a day, just enough for the dog to clean up. what ever the dog does not eat, gets consumed by the sheep which is not desirable due to the animal by product issue. Although there are a few ways to provide a dog creep, these devices are not portable, and can lead to obesity, or dogs that sit by the feeder all day and do not do their job. So hand feeding once a day seems to be the most practical way to feed the dog. It also provides a way for the dog to interact with the shepherd, and often is the best way to catch a dog if necessary. So I do not recommend food be available at all times.

Instead of saying food and water should be provided at all times I think we need to say the dog should be properly fed and maintained in proper body condition. Indeed water should be available to a dog at all times. Although again, in the winter in the snow belt, water is often provided by soaking the dog food in hot water to assure adequate water intake.

2) "Sexually intact dogs cannot be used on public lands." In one document I read a broad statement that would eliminate sexually intact male and female dogs and another document that specifically labeled sexually intact male dogs. I do understand that in the scope of dog bites, intact males do most of the biting, and most often the bite occurs near a female in heat that the male is guarding. Thus it would seem to me that any female in heat should be removed from the range until she is done with the heat cycle. There would occur those moments where a female is found in heat and it will be a day or two before she can be picked up. Under those circumstances she should be tied up in the camp along with any intact males.

However, my concern about eliminating the use of sexually intact pairs of dogs altogether, is that they very well might be significantly more effective against wolves as wolves will recognize just by scent alone, that a mated pair is occupying that territory. Therefore banishing intact dogs from public lands is a detriment, when really they only need to be controlled during the female's heat cycle. Banishing intact dogs also means ranchers will not be able to test the working ability of potential breeding stock in the public lands setting. Lastly these decisions (about neutering) really should not be made until the dog is over 24 months of age, and therefore the requirement that no intact dogs shall be used means ranchers will not be able to bring young dogs out into the environment they will be expected to work in, making it rather difficult to determine which future breeding animals should be used to produce the next generation of working dogs that are compatible with public lands use.

Another option that should be considered, although rather costly to administer, is to have a way of certifying intact male dogs as suitable for public lands use. This would entail having a trained individual or team to 'inspect' the dog in his working environment testing his temperament. There is a WIDE variety of temperaments among our LGDs and identifying those intact males who are the most tolerant of people in a working environment might be quite useful to the sheep industry so two purposes would be served. First we would be screening intact males and eliminating those with a bad temperament from the gene pool, and also screening intact males to make sure they are safe to use in the public lands environment.

3) I really think before implementing any certification program we really need to go back and investigate the problems that have occurred in the past and any new ones that crop up. In particular I think we need to look at the breed composition of the dog, or the specific lines. We very well might find that our problems increased with the use of the Caucasian Ovcharka that was introduced in the Rockies to produce dogs that are tougher around grizzly bears. The Caucasian Ovcharka is unique in that it is the only LPD breed which was bred and trained to attack people (by the Russian Army). If that is so, then the problems are limited to a very narrow gene pool and that eliminating the use of those dogs will solve most of the problems. DNA testing might be necessary as in many cases, puppies are sold without a full disclosure as the ancestry of the pup. The investigation should also include any other aspects of management that might underlie public lands conflicts. Only after such an investigation can we properly identify what aspects of dog management need to be addressed to reduce future conflicts.

Sincerely

Janet W McNally

[Janet McNally]

I wish I had used the word 'aggressive' to describe temperament rather than the word 'bad'. there is a place for dogs that do present an intimidating image to strangers, just that these dogs probably should not be used on public lands. I did not mean to suggest these dogs were 'bad'.

Janet

[lovetree]

Janet , if yu feel you need to revise your input, I believe that yio should then send in exatly what you just said in your last post as a "p.s."...nothing wrong with that.
By the way, in reagrds to your input to ASI all I can say is "DITTO!"
Good Job1