Posted on 01/30/2012 9:35:38 AM PST by Daffynition
SILVERTON — Turkish sheepdogs prized for their fierceness are raising concerns they may be a little too tough for the southwest Colorado communities where ranchers are using them.
The Akbash dogs weigh up to 120 pounds and are especially aggressive toward animals near the sheep they guard. But that can include hikers and other backcountry tourists, prompting debate about whether the breed should be regulated.
The Durango Herald reports that Silverton town trustees met last week to discuss Akbash conflictsU.S. Forest Service officials, sheepherders and outdoors enthusiasts have also entered the debate over regulations surrounding the use of the breed.
(Excerpt) Read more at gazette.com ...
Or a really big Field Lab.
A hundred yards? In open timber you could walk right into a herd of sheep and probably not know it - it just depends on how spread out they are.
The Muslims also have Afghan hounds.
Perhaps the fear of dogs is a fairly “recent” thing. They sure don’t like the US Military K-9 Corps.
These are not “trained” dogs, per se, like a herding dog. These are bred to protect, and are imprinted to the sheep herd at a young age. They are protecting their family from all threats...
The open-range grazing laws on public lands are a hodgepodge; generally, grazing stock, if the land is lease by the owner, can be protected. The “day hikers” need to be respectful of the sheep herder’s stock, and mindful of how he insures that his stock are kept safe. The hikers just need to stay away. Threats to the stock are not limited to “wild” predators. Stock theft is not limited to cows.
It’s not Central Park out there, for heaven’s sake...
I stand corrected....
Well, when I go out on Forest Service land I tend to take my own dog to walk point. She likes it. Me too.
Which, were I preparing to intrude on this dog's territory, would be warning enough for me...
Its a national forest and BLM land in that area. I have a right to walk, hike, hunt, etc. If he grazes sheep with a permit,,,fine. But if he puts an aggressive dog out there that sees a passing hiker as a threat,,, that dog will wind up shot.
I don’t doubt his reason for guarding his sheep from lions, etc. But if his dog attacks a person, he has to expect it will be shot.
Then he can put another dog out there. Too bad for the dog too. It isn’t the dogs fault, but that doesn’t mean we have to allow it.
Got me on that.. Don’t know.
However, I think it would vary, depending on the individual dog, the size of the herd, the terrain, the extent of the scattering of the herd at the time, the actions/behavior of the threat approaching, etc. There is no cut/dried formula here. Dogs are very contextual in their behavior, and generally will not react to the same threat (i.e. coyotes) similarly in different circumstances, much less a different threat in similar circumstances.
In most cases, I suspect the proper behavior is to stay a reasonable distance away (i.e. where you don’t provoke a response from the dog) from the herd, ignore the herd (i.e. don’t stop, approach, take photos, try to pet the sheep, etc.) and just move on. I would treat them as someone else’s property, and just stay away.
So you’re saying your are armed while hiking? Do you have a permit? Is that allowed on BLM land? You’re saying you’ll shoot his dog?
Think of it this way. Lets say he hired a Mexican with a gun to watch the sheep. And lets say this Mexican got it in his head that any hiker passing by was a threat to be shot at. It’s not the dogs fault that it’s judgement is wrong,, but why is it my job to either get bitten, or to never get out in the public forest?
It’s like that.
This sheepherder has no right to force everyone out of the forest because of the method he uses to protect his sheep.
Wrong.
People can be and are just as much a threat to the herd as “wild” predators. Think stock rustling... You cannot expect a dog to discern the difference between a hiker approaching his herd, versus a rustler approaching his herd. I doubt even a person could reliably discern this...
Your right to tramp about in the woods is no greater than a grazing lease holder’s right to protect his stock.
Now, whether or not public lands should have permits for stock grazing is a valid question, but is not the subject of this article...
As i learned after getting my first dog (since being a kid) after retiring, most non-dog people are deathly afraid of dogs, not knowing how to behave. Even my loveable Black (field) Lab was enough to get folks downtown waiting for the bus to clear the sidewalk (she has really big white teeth).
Not acting like Prey and giving a "foreign" dog a large berth while trying to command it seems to be effective. Having another dog along is definitely a plus.
WAIT! this makes a big difference
“the land is leased by the sheepmen”
then doesn’t that make it private land for the term of the lease?
I guess they aren’t allowed to put up barriers so what choice do they hae to protect their animals they are grazing on their leased land.
Screw the tourists then
I am with the dogs on this one now that I know the ownders lease.
besides those are some great looking dogs
Still wrong, as this is an invalid straw-man argument.
People are expected to be able to exhibit judgement, and in this case, the “Mexican” does not exercise judgement. Dogs are not expected to exhibit this level of judgement. (Also, the rifle and shooting anyone passing by is not in the same league as the level of protection and distance involved with a dog.)
Also in the case of the dogs, they are not “forcing everyone out of the forest.” They are just enforcing distance from the herd. Your straw-man Mexican might be forcing everyone out of the forest by blasting away at everyone within rifle range, but the dogs are not.
Also,, there is no wolf introduction in the San Juans or anywhere in that vicinity. And coyotes are not federally protected. In most of the west they can be shot on sight as a varmint.
Mountain lions and feral dogs are the biggest threat to any sheep out there.
And also, your use of quotes around the word “tourists” indicates you know little about that area. Tourism is THE industry there. Nothing else comes close.
In winter every snow sport you’ve ever heard of happens there. In the summer the area is filled with jeeps and 4x4s, and serious hikers and climbers from all around the country.
In the fall, the deer and elk hunters arrive. There are huge numbers of legitimate tourists all in those forests who can easily encounter those sheep. When they fill the road in front of you, you shouldnt have to deal with a menacing cur. This is a new addition to the scene.
2 things I wonder, how close they have to get to the sheep before the dogs show anything that looks like aggression, and if it’s an area where it’s likely to come upon the sheep without knowing ahead of time you’re going to walk up on them.
My impression of these sheep tending breeds is that they are not particularly friendly to people, so this problem doesn’t surprise me. Of course, I don’t think the Federal government should own so much land, they own something like 35% of the land in Colorado. But that’s another thread.
And I don’t think that would be a problem here, particularly if you and your dog kept a respectful distance from the herd. These dogs don’t like to leave the herd (can’t protect if you are not with the herd), so they won’t go out of their way to “attack” or pursue you or your dog.
LOL you made me laugh!
In the Northern Rockies where Canadian wolves were introduced into National Forest land the feds and environmental groups have tried to force a ‘compensatory loss fund’ down the throats of the ranchers.
As I understand it the funds are donated by members of an enviro group called “Defenders of the Wolves,” and perhaps others. Claims to the fund are administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The problem, beyond the ranchers just being too independent and p.o.’d to use it, is that like anything from the government it is a bureaucratic mess.
Trying to get money out of them is like dealing with the IRS.
They will say the kill site has been disturbed by weather or cattle or something else, or they will say the track evidence isn’t sufficient, or the tracks are there but the bite marks aren’t right, whatever. On and on it goes.
Of course in this case we are almost always talking about wolf kills on PRIVATE land, which makes it all that much worse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.