Guard Dog Blog

on Livestock Guardian Dogs and small farm life…

Leave a comment

Tracing the Livestock Guardian Dog Education Network

Recently, I was doing some research and came across the website of the “Livestock Guardian Dog Education Network“.  At first glance as the listing came up in my Google search, I was excited to see that a new initiative is taking on the task of educating people about the ins and outs of LGDs. Unfortunately, my excitement was short lived, as it often is with these things.

While it’s not immediately clear who is running the LGDEN site, (the description reads “The Livestock Guardian Dog Education Network is a coalition of livestock guardian dog (LGD) owners and breeders, for the purpose of providing LGD education; as well as building relationships with livestock producers and organizations, agricultural departments, LGD breeders, breed clubs, farmers and ranchers, to promote LGD breeds, use and management, on large and small operations.”) the majority of the pictures displayed are from Louise Liebenberg of The Grazerie and the Predator Friend Ranching Blog; Erin Ingham of Ingham Farms and the president of the newly minted Armenian Gampr Club of Canada; Deborah Reid, the president of the Maremma Sheepdog Club of America and owner of Black Alder Ranch, Anna Abney of Learning About LGDs and Thunder Mountain Central Asian Shepherds and Lois Jordan , long-time breeder and exhibitor of Spanish Mastiffs who resides on her Fall Creek Farm in the US.  Apart from Louise Liebenberg, who runs a larger sheep operation in northwestern Alberta and has some longer term experience with LGDs dating back to when she lived in the Netherlands, these women do not have any significant experience with LGDs (Jordan and Abney’s experience is with one type of dog in one area in the US). These breeds: the Maremma Sheepdog, Armenian Gampr, Central Asian Shepherd and Spanish Mastiff, have all been spring boards for these women to attain the status of high volume registered show breeder and/or heads of breed organizations.  Neither Ingham nor Reid were in the breed very long before taking office and both run small boutique operations with a strong focus on “natural” raising practices. Reid’s first Maremma was bred before being successful as a full time LGD and her first litter of registered Maremmas required a lot of problem solving from others (myself included). This could have been anticipated, given the behavior issues in the mother at the time. Reid has also stated openly that it is her goal to have the AKC recognize the Maremma Sheepdog so that the dogs can be evaluated properly in the show ring. Ingham has raised one other Gampr pup to young adulthood, but could not handle the aggression that came up between that dog and her resident LGD matriarch. She consulted people (including myself), regarding what to do – ultimately settling on complete separation and eventual rehoming. She prefers heavy management regimes (6 foot fences, keeping strictly apart) and rehoming as a general rule to deal with any behavior issues that arise with LGDs. It has taken her over 4 years to raise a successful pairing.  Ingham’s first litter hit the ground in 2017, a severely inbred litter sired by a young male less than a year old. Both resulting pups have been difficult to handle and raise and yet Ingham has already repeated the breeding. These pups represent the first officially registered Canadian born Gamprs, ostensibly the foundation of the breed presence here. Ingham’s lack of understanding of what puppies need to be successful was a major catalyst for me to pen the recent Guard Dog Blog post: “LGD Puppy Skills/Manners Exercises“.

Over and over, both Ingham and Reid asked me questions via pm and then took my ideas and passed them off as their own in an attempt to prove themselves as competent for the jobs they aspired to or had appointed for themselves. I imagine they have done this with other people as well. Interestingly, the author of two of the books the LGDEN recommends is well known for doing this as well. I can attest to this first-hand.

This brings me to Anna Abney, Lois Jordan and Louise Liebenberg, who are also staunch breedists. Abney has a micro farm in the southern US where she breeds and keeps her Central Asian Shepherds (CAS). She operates an aggressive form of public LGD education,  primarily through her YouTube videos and Facebook groups. She has very limited experience with personally owning and raising working LGDs and much of her information is acquired from the others in her groups/cults. This does not allow her to “learn on the job” as it were, instead relying on the experiences of others and idealism. This is shows strongly in the content of her advice and videos online. She has also shown herself (see below) with her primary LGD bitch prominently participating in Protection Dog work, something that the LGDEN speaks out against on their site.  Jordan raises goats and breeds high volumes of the show variety of Spanish Mastiff, the larger, heavier boned version with ectropian, excess skin folds and loose, wet flews. Her success with working LGD is debatable, but, if successful, most likely lies with the fact that her dogs are so overtly show mastiff-like and carry a big bark. It is difficult for a dog of that size, burdened with substandard structure and too much loose skin to be athletic enough to get into trouble or even pursue a predator over any length of terrain.  Liebenberg runs her own version of Sharplaninecs, a Yugoslavian breed of LGD also known as Sarplaninacs. She has posted at length regarding her views on the superiority of the Sarplaninac (Sar) in her blog, Predator Friendly Ranching, famous in the community for its long posts full of heartwarming closeups of  fuzzy big-headed pups with sheep and their older counterparts on her ranch. Leveraging her ties overseas from her time living there and as a result of her relentless self promotion, she capitalizes on her travels to produce some history and her thoughts on all things LGD. Since the majority of LGD people online are not running high numbers of livestock and do not have direct ties to European countries, Liebenberg commands a certain presence just by showing up. However, things in the dog world are rarely as they seem and Liebenberg is no exception. She breeds her dogs at high rates and does not show how they are kept when not on duty, nor how many dogs she actually has at any time. She rarely answers for the consequences of her actions, online or otherwise, choosing instead to rewrite the facts of what happened to show herself in the best light possible. Initially warm and friendly, her investment does not stand the test of time or allow for questioning of the rules she has come up with for LGDs. She is also extremely against crossing LGDs as she states in the post I linked to above:

“I personally believe there are enough breeds to select from,/ to find, the right breed for your operation./I am not really a believer in cross breeding,/as I cannot understand the logic behind it,/given you have a choice and opportunity to various breeds.
If a certain breed is not suitable;/ due to its body type, or coat length or working style or aggression level,/then perhaps,/ the breed you are looking at,/ is not the right breed for you.
Cross breeding to tone up or tone down a breed is senseless./Genetics is never 50%,/you never get that perfect blend of characteristics!”

As breeds are a relatively new identifier of historically landrace populations of LGDs, I’d certainly like to know how there has come already to be a “perfect” breed for every western farming operation. Telling people who have been crossing LGDs successfully for decades as well as those who have been practicing assortative mating (described here by Jeffrey Bragg of Seppala Kennels) for generations upon generations that crossing outside of pedigrees populations is illogical or “senseless” smacks of arrogant narrow mindedness. Until the restriction of breeding choices by borders, colors, registrations and club titles became the norm through the 20th century, assortative mating was the way in which most breeding was done. It resulted in the production of the population of functional, capable dogs that was kept strong throughout the centuries, the self same dogs breedists claim their modern dogs to be. It’s only over the course of the last 100 years or so that we have seen an alarming decrease in function and health in our dog populations, due in large part to breedism. The situation has become so dire that we are looking at the inevitable decline and loss of most, if not all, of our specialized dog populations. The exceptions to this (albeit ever subject to western influence) still live as landrace populations in their countries of origin. In order to combat this decline, we must open up the genetic diversity in the working dog population. While the LGDEN claims to acknowledge the worth of crossed LGDs, the identifiable faces of the organization clearly do not. There is not a single breed club in existence that endorses the practice of cross breeding outside of their breed. It’s simply not officially done, and further results in expulsion from membership. In order to show, breed or remain in good standing as a “breed authority”, you must adhere to the practice of pure breeding only.


Anna Abney with her CAS, Astrid, doing Personal Protection work

Even so, the largest problem I have with this organization is not to do with its membership or the faces it’s keeping hidden away. In fact, it could well be argued (and likely will be) that I have a personal vendetta against the aforementioned people, given my history with them and the fact that I, too, at times have considered being a part of the leadership of breed clubs with high pools of genetic diversity. Instead of arguing against this perceived bias, I’ll just let my work speak for itself, including my advocating, writing, rescue/rehab/training, following through on what I say and do in terms of raising/placing successful LGDs of different kinds. No, my primary problem is a lot less personal than it seems through most of this post.  It’s with this page, the core belief statement of the group as to what a working LGD is, which all else stems from. In it, the group claims a varied number of unsubstantiable rules that bear no basis in LGD history. These claims restrict anyone from claiming they have a working dog if they say, allow their dog to sleep on the porch from time to time.


I’ve written before about the history of working LGDs in their countries of origin and how they have been selected over time to appreciate the presence of their shepherd and their families. Some of the types have worked for periods of time on their own, but for the most part they have been selected to live and work as partners in close community with humans. It’s not out of the norm for these dogs to live in a pastoral setting, where animals and humans co exist in the same living areas. Many places don’t even have fencing or physical boundaries for their livestock, although others will have night time or over wintering facilities. The dogs are not expected to live in with the stock in those cases, but to guard the area. This could include sleeping on the “porch” or “coming and going as they please”. The shepherds also provide feedback to the dogs, helping to raise all pups, settle any out of control fighting, manage social and health issues that arise, have the final say on what the dogs do. Certainly, these dogs are meant to have the capability when mature to make sound decisions on their own, but they are not meant to run their own show all their lives. Looking for “human guidance” is not a disqualifying trait in a working LGD, especially not a young one or one undergoing change. Finally, the claims that if a LGD doesn’t “live with and protect livestock night and day” and that there is an arbitrary number of livestock that a producer must own before being able to call their dog a working one fly in the face of the versatility of these dogs. It also sets up inappropriate expectations for anyone living in smaller areas or those with niche businesses/hobbies.

Is this group truly saying that only people who own purebreds who never leave their livestock can call their dogs working LGDs? Surely not. That would disqualify the vast majority of working LGDs from wearing the title of their occupation in both developed and developing countries.

As it stands, it sure seems to me that the Livestock Guardian Dog Education Network needs some education of their own.

 * It is worth noting that if you follow LGDEN’s link to their FB breeder’s group, it’s described as “an extension of [the] Learning About LGDs group”, the group responsible for most of the hive think in modern LGD breeding/keeping/training, and well known for promoting narrow minded thoughts on LGDs (eg. any dog of a certain amount of color or willingness to hunt or look at stock head on is automatically not a working LGD candidate) that they promote, along with the swift punishment of detractors. This group is also notorious for their display of the trait of overclaiming, as outlined in this article.  I have spoken out against their uninformed, irresponsible, cavalier behavior several times before on Guard Dog Blog. High ranking members of the group, many of whom I’ve spoken about today, operate their own websites -private or for their breed clubs – that prominently link to each other’s publications. These include hosting writing articles for each other, promoting each other’s books (see the link on Anna Abney’s name in the beginning of this post) and other work.


Your methods suck.

I’m going to take a moment away from working on the puppy series to address an burgeoning problem in the world of LGDs. I predicted this was coming a while ago, and just like most predictions I’ve made in the dog world, I’m sad to see it come true. Truth be told, I’m not only sad, but I’m also incredibly angry. I’m tired of watching egotistical asshats causing such distress in dogs, causing them to wash out, causing neuroses, fueling the fires of frustration in owners and ultimately causing the dogs to have to break bonds with their families or worse, lose their lives.

Let me attempt to explain.

There is a strong faction of LGD fanciers who are currently on the bandwagon of raising pups utilizing what I call the “contain, hover, avoid and praise” method. I don’t know where this method came from, but I suspect it was from someone who could not trust their dogs for whatever reason. It involves a combination of high levels of containment (typically in a pen), leash work, avoidance and positive reinforcement. These people, most widely popular on Facebook for their firm beliefs in themselves and their abilities, perpetuate the idea that this is the ONLY way to raise a LGD pup to successful working status. They employ this advice when addressing dogs who live alone, but also with pups being introduced to other LGDs. They continue to push this agenda regardless of the feedback that it isn’t working for a lot of dogs. They continue to push, regardless of how much unfeasible work this causes for people and how inappropriate it is to be so unclear with dogs about the nature of their jobs. They continue on, throwing people out of the conversation who dare to say that keeping the social LGD isolated like this causes them harm. They keep saying this, over and over, on some of the largest LGD advice groups out there. They can, because they run them.

I’m so angry about this that it’s hard for me to think straight and say these things in a professional way. All I want to do is swear uncontrollably and yell at the top of my lungs until these people listen.




Guess what happens when you follow this contain, leash, avoid, over-react cycle? Sometimes the dogs do just fine. It’s a trait of dogs the world over that they manage to do well despite our fumbling attempts at guidance and the inappropriate ways in which we keep them. The brilliance of the human/canine coexistence, proven historically over and over, is that the canine is able to forgive our shortcomings and still grow into themselves, becoming what we need. We are far less able or willing to bridge that gap for them, resulting in a species that has been selected to adjust their behavior for us, anticipating what we need and ensuring their basic needs are met. In the case of working LGDs, their inherent needs (apart from food, water and shelter) are to be in partnership, to learn from a leader, to bond socially and to protect.

How much do we care about these dogs? So much so that we stick them away at the first sign of inappropriate behavior? So much so that we refuse to help them learn self control on the job, in with their beloved charges, in the company of other LGDs? So much so that we show them a working routine day in and day out that we do not intend for them to stick to eventually? So much that we tell them they need to behave when we show up but not on their own until they are fully mature?  Not only is that pedantic, it’s incredibly infantilizing – offensive.

In canine behavioral rehabilitation, there are two vital pieces we focus most on. One is the forward and backward motion of the dog, and the other is instilling self control and resilience. The first half of the latter is what is being undermined by the aforementioned LGD “experts”. Self control is THE most important piece that determines whether a dog will behave appropriately and be able to be in partnership with humans. Secondary to that is discrimination, but that is for another day.

Instilling self control starts early in a dog’s life. Pups learn to wait their turn, to not bite hard when playing (or the play stops), to inhibit reactions/actions so they are not disciplined by mom and to wean when they don’t want to. A good mother instills begins the installation of self control in a pup by the judicious use of tough love. A recent study found that the success of guide dog pups revolved around the willingness of the mother dog to discipline and test her pups. This teaches them their innate ability to delay gratification, handle new situations, to problem solve and to withstand adversity. Just as in humans, these lessons are invaluable to the process of developing resiliency and self control into adulthood. All lessons must be tailored to the developmental stage of the youngster, but mothers instinctively understand this. It’s us humans who struggle to keep pace through the various stages. It’s much easier to contain and isolate – but these  dogs are not inanimate objects that will sit unchanged on the shelf until we have time for them.


Sitting behind a fence alone, watching stock, is not going to provide the developing LGD with the teaching and life skills they need. No one does this in their countries of origin – it would be unconscionable. Keeping pups isolated in this way would be tantamount to abuse. Pups need each other, their canine pack and their people. That is not to say that we can’t use containment judiciously here, given that we don’t have the same communal way of living with our dogs that they have historically experienced. Every dog will respond to this in individual ways, however.  They must be watched for signs of discomfort, psychological distress and neuroses. They must be given adequate free time to romp and play and just generally be goofy pups. They need to time to play with us and with others of their kind. Much valuable information is given to them during these times.  They need time to just be, apart from being contained. They need to be able to screw up and learn from their mistakes. Learning on the job and within a social order are both vital pieces of the success of a content LGD.

Quite often, isolation will bring about the very behaviors people claim it will address! A bored, lonely pup will need an outlet for their frustrated energies. They will attempt to engage the stock, their only social group, to meet their needs. Back to confinement they go! They will attempt to escape the confinement to satisfy their need to explore and gather information about their environment. They will work hard to get away from the intense boredom of the pen. LGDs need to freely interact with their environment to learn, and confinement with alternating periods of uber control by a human with a leash will not allow them that learning experience. Frustration and hyperactivity, even aggression will follow as natural consequences of the continued denial of their needs.

How is it appropriate to show a pup a certain routine for their lives that consists of being in a pen, walked on a leash, hovered over, unable to make mistakes and get clear binary (what’s good, what’s bad) direction, and then tell them months or years later that oh, this isn’t actually what we wanted you to do!?! If the pup decides on their own that their job is actually to be with the stock or in the field and not in the pen when unsupervised, then the pen is reinforced and they are treated like they’ve done something wrong. If they do do something inappropriate like chase or mouth stock, or heaven forbid STARE at them, the pups are put in a “time out” after perhaps being tackled to the ground or dragged around on the leash. If there is one thing I absolutely cannot stand outside of an emergency, it’s dragging a dog around on a leash/line. What is a “time out” meant to teach a dog? Are these children we can talk to about their behavior afterwards? Outside of very short periods of time meant to prove that I was highly offended by behavior from a dog, I never use a pen for such a thing. The pen should be a safe place they enjoy being in; the same applies to a tether, which is much more commonly used in their countries of origin. This requires judicious use, not routine use. In fact, I go out of my way to ensure that I don’t do the same thing in this respect day after day. Adult LGDs need to be able to deal with changing circumstances and should never get the idea that their lives consist only of an outdoor version of “crate and rotate”. (Link to a video of Titus in his pen/kennel – look at his lovely self control!; below are pictures of Titus in various situations and learning different things in the past 3.5 months here)

Years ago, I bought my first kennel club registered LGD. She happened to be a Maremma, and she was a fuzzy little teddy bear with a tornado of a personality. She was cute beyond reason and pushy beyond belief and I adored her more than I could have thought possible. I spoke with the breeder several times before I went to pick her up and even though I missed a number of red flags that this woman didn’t know what she was doing, I was still in the mindset that everyone else knew better about these dogs than I could (thank you, LGD mythology). I asked to see the little fluff ball’s mother, upon which I was led to a 4 ft tall small pen in the breeder’s barn. There were heavy things piled on the top of the lid of the pen. Inside there was a young, wiggly, lanky insanely white Maremma bitch. She looked at me with pleading eyes. She could hardly contain herself, moving her body around in frantic ways. The breeder explained that she had serious doubts about the ability of this dog to be a LGD given how busy she was, how she high needs for interaction. She didn’t know what else to do with her, this woman said, other than to put her in the pen and keep her there. She hoped this dog would outgrow her “bad” behavior. God, do I wish I knew then what I know now. I wish I’d been able to help and not had to leave the farm saddened beyond belief for that lost, misunderstood girl. The pup I held in my arms that day went on to have similar challenges, and unfortunately since I followed a similar (the containment routine wasn’t such popular advice then) set of largely ineffective training methods, the process to get her where she needed to be took a long time and was full of heartache for both of us.

I will never be quiet on this front or any other that is setting people and dogs for failure. I never want to have to leave a farm again or raise a pup without having the necessary tools to help or fix what is happening. Further, I don’t want to have to hold the hand of someone who has been led down the garden path by shitty advice only to find that they’ve not been given all of the information they needed – and what’s more, they’ve been pressured not to seek it. I never want to hear from someone that they believe their LGD is part herding dog (yes, this is what people are being told!) because it’s busy and has significant exercise needs. I don’t want to have to cry late at night any more because I’ve had to hold a dog while they are euthanized because they’re out of control and no one can safely reach them any more.

I’m angry. I’m sad. I want it to stop, or at the very least, I want more people to wake up and listen to their guts before things get bad. If all else fails, share this. Maybe it will give someone what they need in time to save just one dog, keep them working, keep them with their families. Thank you.


P.S. The only thing that comes out of the horrible advice these people are giving about raising LGDs is that we continue to select for dogs of only one temperament/character profile. This is becoming a serious issue as the dogs who accept such treatment without rebelling and/or becoming neurotic are very passive, yard-statue types. The rest are washed out as LGDs, killed or otherwise do not go on to work and, perhaps more importantly, contribute to our waning gene pool. These are not the dogs we need to help us with the heightened number of apex predators we are dealing with more and more. LGDs are varied: they range in approach, bonding preferences, need for human interaction, hyperactivity, predilection for independence, ability to deal with different predators. If anyone tells you differently, run, don’t walk away.





1 Comment

Texas AgriLife Extension’s Livestock Guardian Dog release: A Review

One would hope that with the now over 40 years of mainstream use of LGDs on this continent, we would see educational information releases that are becoming much more enlightened.  If the new release from the Texas A&M AgriLife Research & Extension Center out of San Angelo is anything to go by, however,  we are still very far off the mark.

First, the good news.

The explanation of how Livestock Guardian Dogs work is one of the better ones I have seen in agricultural publications.  It is very beneficial for a producer to have a basic understanding of why their dogs do what they do, so as to prevent misunderstandings, eliminate myths and to give them direction when training.  Understanding fosters empathy and connection, two things necessary for increasing welfare of LGDs.

Encouraging producers to inform their neighbors of the presence of LGDs as well as educating them on what to do if they find the LGDs on their property is a nice touch.  Setting out on the right foot with fellow residents is always a good idea and could lead directly to saving lives.  The use of proper signage to indicate the presence of LGDs is just as important.

The article also talks extensively about the proper care and feeding for LGDs,  making special note of the fact that longevity makes the monetary investment in LGDs easier to swallow.  The emphasis on care is one of the bright spots of the publication.  The aquisition costs in the associated chart seem to be somewhat inflated, given that Texas has one of the highest rates of homeless LGDs on the continent; however, the effort to convey the cost/benefit ratio over time is well placed.

A portion of the writing is set aside to talk about the effect of LGDs on surrounding non predatory wildlife.  This is an important topic that is too often not covered in other publications.

For the above reasons, I cannot discard Texas AgriLife’s publication entirely, as I have done with many others previously published.  It is refreshing to see no mention of the Coppingers here, which indicates to me that distance is finally being put between them and the new generation of LGD researchers – if in name only.  There are still a great deal of references to “research”; no citations are given apart from the one under the chart of mortality.  I can only assume that the research of the Coppingers is what is being referred to, although I cannot be certain.  In any case, if the authors of this publication intended themselves to be taken seriously, they should have include citations for any and all research referenced.

On to the not-so-good news.

Where we begin to run into to serious trouble aligns with where the information typically falls apart in North American publications: bonding and training.  Bonding is an especially muddy concept for us westerners, and the advice given reflects the fact that we have only had a few decades of experience at this.  Of special concern for me is the continued inability to glean important information about the care and training of these dogs in their homelands.

“Old world shepherd dogs typically spend their first sixteen weeks with one or two littermates, a few adult dogs including their mother, a few hundred sheep or goats, and a shepherd. After sixteen weeks, the dog has been behaviorally molded in such a way that it prefers to spend the rest of its life with the group. Since most sheep in Texas are not herded, a human is most often absent from the flock social structure. During the bonding phase, modifications must be made to allow the young guardian dogs to bond with small ruminants without constant human supervision.”

It is largely accepted here that LGDs would, despite being selected over centuries to thrive in highly social settings, adjust well to living alone with only stock for company.   Dogs themselves have evolved over time to desire significant human interaction as well as interaction from their own kind, which in itself contradicts the previously mentioned line of thinking.  This is again fodder for a future post where we can look at this subject in more detail, but in the meantime I wish to put a bug in your ear regarding the unfairness of how we most often expect LGDs to live.

Too much emphasis is put on imprinting, as usual, and a mention is made of research that indicates bonding is compromised if not done before 16 weeks.  It may be important to note that ‘exposure at a critical time’ is perhaps a better term than bonding for what happens between the puppy and the stock.  Ray Coppinger is famous for saying ridiculous things like “A LGD will not guard any animal it has not be exposed to when young.” (SPARCS, 2014), so I can only assume that the information in this section leans heavily on his “expertise”.

The portion that talks about reward vs. punishment is especially opaque.  The scientific definition of punishment (in terms of behavior modification or training) states that it is anything that reduces a behavior from occurring.  In other words, it is anything that causes an animal to no longer exhibit that target behavior; in equal measures, it can be the removal of something positive or the addition of something negative.  Unfortunately, this publication chooses to focus on the use of an air horn as a “training aid”, claiming that it is not punishing but does stop the behavior by interrupting it.   None of suggestions are clearly laid out using scientific terms – if they were, it would be well understood that what is punishing or rewarding is only determined by the individual dog.  An air horn can be punishing to one dog and yet be unable to stop the undesired behavior of another.   The reference to using reward vs. punishment is also far too simplistic and in my opinion lacks any kind of useful information for the producer.  LGDs are particularly good at learning from observation, experience and feedback (both negative and positive).  This is very likely due to the fact that historically, their lives depended on the ability to disseminate information quickly, and at a young age.  There are many ways to train them apart from simply giving reward and adding punishment.

I won’t go through the entire portion that addresses behavior and training, as there is far too much information to refute in one post.  The important things to note about this section are what I mentioned already:  the research relied on is most likely from the desk of the Coppingers and therefore quite inapplicable, and the very, very wrong presupposition that LGDs should have minimal influence from people (as well as thrive within a stunted social structure) bleed through all of it.  As such, I feel that this part could be thrown in the fireplace and we would all be better for it.

Two more things ought to be pointed out before I close.  The claim that “Females tend to stay with the flock/herd and males tend to roam more and protect the perimeter.” is patently false.  More than gender, individual temperament as well as breed type/lineage determine whether a dog cares to be a close flock guardian or perimeter guard.  It is fabricated information like this that cause people to care more about the sex of their prospective guardian than about any other relevant information.  Secondly, the idea that you should cull a pup if they try to escape the fence during the “bonding period” is reprehensible.  There can be many reasons that a pup would display such a behavior, and those need to be addressed before deciding to start over.  Culling a pup should be a thoughtful decision and only done after they have been set up for success at every turn.

All in all, this agricultural publication could be gutted thoroughly to make a useful piece focused on some unique points…. but as it stands, it fall far short of anything I could feel good about recommending.  I fear that the longer we continue to pass on the inappropriate information about our beloved guardians, the harder it will be to give them what they need to thrive.


** There is a chart included showing that nearly half of all LGDs here do not see their 6th birthday.  The two main causes of death are “Accident” (including lost, shot, run over, poisoned and other) at 57% and “Cull” at 33%. Granted, the study is nearly 30 years old and the percentages may have changed somewhat, but to me, the death rate of 1 in 2 is entirely unacceptable.  If anything should encourage us to open our eyes and expand how we think about LGDs, it’s this.