rudemix: Man up, ranchers and deal with the loss without obliterating the indigenous animals there.

I don't have any data to support this, but I'm willing to bet that employing the dogs reduce the number of coyotes, bears and wolves killed by ranchers. The dogs probably kill fewer predators than the SSS method (Shoot, Shovel, Shut-up) employed by some ranchers without LGDs.

FTFA: 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,

How is this not considered a bonus?

amishkarl: I'm ok with this. A sheep farmer I know here in Ontario had 3 collies killed last spring by coyotes.

Also, all you. "durr, invasive species, durr" people are frankly idiots. Coyotes killing sheep isn't like shoplifting, it's more like a burglar backing the truck right up to the door and loading 1/4 of the store on/

Tourists are classified invasive species now? Better get the gun then...

Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: That problem will take care of itself the first time one of those things actually attacks a hiker, and then suddenly the hiker will be part owner of a ranch after the resulting lawsuit. I will never understand the rancher mentality. Their historic aggressiveness and shortsightedness makes them have more in common with a typical MPAA or RIAA thug than anything else.

Did you read the article? These sheep are on public lands. Odds are, their owners don't own ranches but are on federal grazing leases. If a hiker gets attacked, all he is going to own is a lot of sheep.

rudemix: Excellent idea! Introduce another non-native critter to the area to support the other non-native critter you introduced at the expense of the native critter doing exactly what it evolved to do. I don't think ranchers should operate at a loss, or have any issues, but at this point can we look at wolves, coyotes and bears less as 'tremendous, vicious threats endangering our way of life and our children' and view them more as shoplifters?

In real business, where companies can't shoot pilferers(as much as they'd like to), it's called shrinkage. Loss of theft from public and employees is part of doing business. Man up, ranchers and deal with the loss without obliterating the indigenous animals there. If after all these decades these manly, Coors commercial types can't figure out how to deal with the creature, perhaps the fault lies more with the intelligence of the rancher, and less with the cunning, viciousness of this land-savage and it's brazen, stealthy attacks on defenseless, kind hearted animals. These ranchers anthropomorphize all the animals involved so much it's no wonder people think sheep farmers are farking their sheep. "I could tell my prize ewe, Bessie, was smiling when I looked into the coal-dark, and unfriendly eyes of the wolf and gunned it down!"

Ummm, Ranching is a real business. I can tell by your post that you have never worked with livestock.

One bad night with a pack of feral dogs and you may have up to 50 ,mangled sheep and a few dead ones. Are the ranchers just supposed to take that kind of financial loss on a regular basis? Regular businesses have loss prevention types. The ranchers do also but theirs is a bit more aggressive.

Most sheepdog breeds will not fark with a person until he gets into the herd. The sheepdog is not looking for a fight, but will fight if something threatens the herd. Simple solution: If you see a herd of sheep, give them a wide berth.

alechemist: how long till the dogs get loose and start cross breeding with the local wolf/coyote population?

There is a thing called Sexual Selection. Rarely would these dogs and wolves and coyotes find each other attractive mates. That's why you don't see a bunch of coyote x wolf hybrids running around Yellowstone.

HeadLever: Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: That problem will take care of itself the first time one of those things actually attacks a hiker, and then suddenly the hiker will be part owner of a ranch after the resulting lawsuit.

You should look up Open Range Law. It may suprise you a little.

This area may or may not be open range. Federal lease.

redmid17: rudemix: Excellent idea! Introduce another non-native critter to the area to support the other non-native critter you introduced at the expense of the native critter doing exactly what it evolved to do. I don't think ranchers should operate at a loss, or have any issues, but at this point can we look at wolves, coyotes and bears less as 'tremendous, vicious threats endangering our way of life and our children' and view them more as shoplifters?

In real business, where companies can't shoot pilferers(as much as they'd like to), it's called shrinkage. Loss of theft from public and employees is part of doing business. Man up, ranchers and deal with the loss without obliterating the indigenous animals there. If after all these decades these manly, Coors commercial types can't figure out how to deal with the creature, perhaps the fault lies more with the intelligence of the rancher, and less with the cunning, viciousness of this land-savage and it's brazen, stealthy attacks on defenseless, kind hearted animals. These ranchers anthropomorphize all the animals involved so much it's no wonder people think sheep farmers are farking their sheep. "I could tell my prize ewe, Bessie, was smiling when I looked into the coal-dark, and unfriendly eyes of the wolf and gunned it down!"

Humans have been involved in this kind of behavior for the last ten thousand years. There's a reason dogs exist in the first place.

God, non-farmers are so funny when they talk about farming....

Let me explain something to you from my perspective; your "real business" is a bunch of made up crap. It's structured in such a way that ONLY works when all participants agree to play by a certain set of rules, operate within the allowed margins, etc etc. The "structure" of it is so artificial it makes Tang seem organic by comparison. Even the theft is built into the structure of it, as you pointed out.

This is not the case in farming. In the course of one night, you can have a total reversal of fortune. The "real world" is a mean, nasty, brutal place that doesn't give one whit of concern for you, your crops, your live stock or anything else you might depend on for the future. You are required, by the nature of your profession, to be always alert for something that could go wrong, and ways to fix it. You don't seem to understand that the loss of one smaller portion of your overall production can mean the difference between profit and loss. Aggregated costs are what allow farmers of any scale to make profit, and I assume you know what that means, so I won't launch into an Econ 100 rant.

The dog is the cheapest, most effective way to avoid this loss. We, as human beings, absolutely require farming to survive and sustain ourselves. We DON'T require retail chains, Starbucks, Facebook, Wall Street or any of the other fully made up crap you likely consider to be "the real world". Farmers live in the real world, they work in the real world. The real world is the one that can flip your day on it's head due to weather. The real world is the one where if you don't put in enough of the right work, you don't get paid at all; busting ass to grow tomatoes one year can make you a tidy profit, but the next year everyone else might choose to grow them, and then all that work rots on the vine and you get nothing for it but some awesome pasta sauces.

That's the real world. That is the world the farmer lives in.