Sheep tend to travel greater distances in the presence of a guardian dog, likely because they’re less concerned about predators, according to new research led by Idaho State University (ISU).

Having well-trained guardian dogs (…)  protecting sheep and cattle from predators, may have more beneficial effects on the livestock than initially thought.

The Idaho State University did a study in the spring of 2010 where sheep and the guardian dogs that accompany them on the range lands were outfitted with GPS collars. The movements of the stock, as well as the guardian dogs were tracked and later analyzed.

Another group of sheep, which was not accompanied by livestock guardian dogs, was used as a control group. Their movements were also tracked, analyzed and compared with the group which did have guardian dogs.

“The whole idea of the study was to see if sheep that were accompanied by livestock guardian dogs behaved differently,” said Keith Weber, director of the Idaho State University Geographic Information Science Center, who is working on these studies with ISU graduate student Bryson Webber.

Researchers from ISU are also working in co-operation with Oregon State University and USDA Agricultural Research Service at the at the 28,000-acre U.S. Experimental Sheep Station near Dubois, Idaho.

From these initial results the following could be concluded:

In one study, the researchers found that sheep accompanied by livestock guardian dogs moved more freely (not at a greater speed) and covered a greater distance than sheep that were not accompanied by guardian dogs. During the time frame of the study, the sheep also moved increasingly more, as the study progressed.

” What we found was that sheep accompanied by the dogs moved more freely,” Weber continued. “And we now have the statistical data to back up anecdotal observations. The sheep are probably spending more time feeding and moving, not looking up so often to check for predators.”

The implications from study are huge; as sheep feel more comfortable moving further afield with guardian dogs, allows them to access more grazing.

Sheep that are less stressed (not having to be constantly alert for predators) are healthier animals that may gain more weight, have lower health costs and are of higher value. This group of researchers would like expand the initial research by also testing the stress level of the livestock through simple available tests in the near future.

“The livestock guardian dogs are definitely most active at dusk, the same time predators tend to begin move,” Weber said. “The dogs are out there marking their territory to protect their sheep.”

Weber would like ranchers and herders to begin recognizing the value that these livestock guardian dogs have, not only in reducing predation but also by lowering the stress level for the grazing livestock and allowing for more free movement while out foraging.

Utilizing guardian dogs is definitely a “win- win situation” says Weber, “for livestock producers, the livestock guardian dogs can protect their sheep and cattle, without predators being removed. Having guard dogs can be very cost effective for livestock producers.”

Source: Peace Country Sun- Alberta- 2012- By Louise Liebenberg 

Introduction: What is Dogfighting?

Dog Fighting is an insidious underground organized crime that deserves much legal and political scrutiny. The blood sport, once sanctioned by aristocracy, embraced by medieval gentry and later promoted by colonial and Victorian miscreants, is now completely outlawed in the United States. Notwithstanding the absolute prohibition in America, it has reached epidemic proportions in all urban communities and continues to thrive in many rural areas as well.  The collective American conscience has long been repulsed by the undeniable brutality within the culture of dogfighting, but the law enforcement community has been regrettably lax in appreciating the full scope and gravity of the problem. Historically, the crime was erroneously classified as an isolated animal welfare issue, and as such has been predominately disregarded by law enforcement. The communities that have been morally, socially and culturally scarred by the menacing pestilence of dogfighting have paid dearly for the apathy of the legal community. From a very early age, children are routinely exposed to the unfathomable violence that is inherent within the blood sport. Even seasoned law enforcement agents are consistently appalled by the atrocities that they encounter at dog fights, yet the children that grow up exposed to it are conditioned to believe that the violence is normal; they are systematically desensitized to the suffering, and ultimately become criminalized. Dog fighters are violent criminals that engage in a whole host of peripheral criminal activities. Many are heavily involved in organized crime, racketeering, drug distribution, or gangs, and they arrange and attend the fights as a forum for gambling and drug trafficking. Within the last decade, enlightened law enforcement agencies and government officials have become cognizant of the clandestine culture of dog-fighting and its nexus with other crimes and community violence. Many individuals continue to deny the existence or scope of dogfighting in America, or they maintain that it is merely an isolated animal welfare issue; however, it is increasingly difficult to defend such an archaic notion in the face of overwhelming legal and empirical evidence to the contrary.

This paper will examine the history of dogfighting as well as the cultural and sociological aspects of this crime.  In addition to detailing the laws that directly prohibit dogfighting, an examination of the peripheral criminal activity and laws that can be used to directly curb dogfighting and its secondary effects are discussed.  The paper concludes by analyzing the impediments to enforcement and how multi-jurisdictional task forces can be instrumental in eradicating this urban plague.

A. The Dogs

In the United States, there are several fighting breeds that are generically referred to as “pit bulls.” The American Kennel Club does not recognize pit bulls, but registers breeds such as the American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, bull terrier, and bulldog. The United Kennel Club, American Dog Breeders Association, and National Kennel Club do recognize the American pit bull terrier as a unique breed, quite distinct from the aforementioned breeds. Quite recently, the United Kennel Club has recognized the American bulldog and Presa Canario, both of which are often mistakenly referred to as pit bulls as well. Breeders and professional level dogfighters are very particular about the pedigree of the dogs, but the great majority of the American fighting dogs that are referred to as “pit bulls” tend to be an amalgamation of the various breeds. Regardless of the official title, these dogs are arguably among the most loyal and most abused of all dogs in American culture. They have been selectively bred as fighting dogs due to their unique capacity to fight to the death whereas most other dogs retreat once they have exhausted themselves.[1] The immensely powerful dogs are genetically predisposed to inflict maximum damage on an opponent and once incited do not respond to the natural signals to cease fighting. Generally, pit bulls are remarkably gentle and are fiercely loyal toward humans. This quality has made them particularly attractive to dog-fighters because they will withstand considerable abuse and neglect at the hands of their owners and will remain loyal and non-aggressive toward humans. As with all living creatures, these dogs have a threshold for abuse and neglect, albeit a very high one, and once that threshold is crossed they can become extremely aggressive to humans as well. The rising popularity of “super-breeds” such as Bullmastiffs and Presa Canarios, that are much larger than pit bulls and were traditionally bred to be tenacious guard dogs, should be of great concern when placed in the wrong hands. In some urban areas, these breeds have been crossed with pit bulls to create larger and more ferocious fighting dogs. Unfortunately, they do not share the pit bull’s gentle demeanor toward humans and once trained to be aggressive could inflict grievous damage on both animals and humans.

B. The Training

All fighting dogs are conditioned from a very early age to develop what dog-fighters refer to as “gameness.” The scope and method of training varies dramatically depending on the level and experience of the dog-fighter. The following implements and techniques are commonly used to train the dogs:

Treadmill: Dogs are run on the treadmills to increase cardiovascular fitness and endurance.

Catmill/Jenny: Apparatus that looks like a carnival horse walker with several beams jetting out from a central rotating pole. The dogs are chained to one beam and another small animal like a cat, small dog, or rabbit, is harnessed to or hung from another beam. The dogs run in circles, chasing the bait. Once the exercise sessions are over, the dogs are usually rewarded with the bait they had been pursuing.

Springpole/Jumppole: A large pole with a spring hanging down to which a rope, tire, or animal hide is affixed that the dogs jump to and dangle from for extended periods of time. This strengthens the jaw muscles and back legs. The same effect is achieved with a simpler spring loaded apparatus hanging from tree limbs. A variation of the springpole is a hanging cage, into which bait animals are placed. The dogs repeatedly lunge up toward the cage.

Flirtpole: A handheld pole with a lure attached. The dogs chase the lure along the ground.

Chains: Dogs have very heavy chains wrapped around their necks, generally in lieu of collars; they build neck and upper body strength by constantly bearing the immense weight of the chains.

Weights: Weights are often affixed to chains and dangled from the dogs’ necks. This builds neck and upper body strength. Generally, dogs are permanently chained this way. However, sometimes the trainers run them with their weights attached.

Bait: Animals are tied up while the dogs tear them apart or sometimes they are confined in an area to be chased and mauled by the dogs. [2]

Drugs/Vitamins/Supplements: Dogs are given vitamins, supplements and drugs to condition them for or to incite them to fight. Commonly utilized vitamins, supplements, and drugs include: iron/liver extract; vitamin B-12; Provim; Magnum supplement; hormones (testosterone, Propionate, Repotest, Probolic Oil); weight-gain supplements; creatine monohydrate; speed; steroids (Winstrol V, Dinabol, Equipose); and cocaine.

The dogs are trained against one another and against older, more experienced dogs. In the early stages of training, the dogs are incited to lunge at each other without touching and engage in quick, controlled fights called “rolls” or “bumps.” Once the dogs appear match ready, they are pitted against stronger dogs to test their “gameness”[3] or tenacity in the face of exhaustion and impending defeat. If the dogs pass the test, they are deemed ready to fight.

C. The Fight

The dogs seemed to explode out of their restraints, two projectiles flying into the air toward the center of the pit. They met under the gas jets and, leaving a trail of spittle and hair, collapsed in an entangled, heaving heap onto the dirt…

The dogs tumbled on their sides and Crib broke free. He dove back onto Butts, catching the back of the brindled dog’s head. Butts shook and jiggered, arched his back, tried to loosen Crib, the fine hair of his skull blushing gruesomely. Crib threw his head back, yanking Butts up. He whipped his head down. Butts hit the ground hard, his legs splaying like the splatter of an overturned pie. But Crib had lost his grip. Butts twisted his trunk around, swiveled onto his back, front paws revolving, back legs churning in the air. Crib leapt toward his exposed throat. The crowd bellowed, prepared for, anticipating, the blood…

The dirt was turning to syrup around the dogs’ tethered heads. The bloody skulls thrashed in a terrible unison, Butts’s muzzle gaping helplessly up at the gaslights, Crib grinding downward…

Now the crowd got what it came for. The blood cascaded down Crib’s breast. Butts worked his jaws, deepening and widening the wound, aided by Crib’s jerks and jumps. They lurched together across the pit to the atonal music of the surrounding chorus, Crib’s muzzle propped on Butts’s probing skull…

Stamping, applauding, whistling, yelling, the men demanded their due. Winners or losers, they hungered now for a glorious, fatal finish–a magnificent kill was imminent![4]

Dog fights are stages in a variety of settings. In rural areas, they are often staged in barns or outdoor pits. In urban areas, fights are staged in garages, basements, warehouses and abandoned buildings. Professional fighters have very specific rules for the matches[5], while street fighters are far less organized. Among the professional and mid-level circuit, matches are arranged months in advance. The locations, referees and participants are carefully selected to ensure maximum secrecy, and spectators are closely scrutinized to weed out infiltrators. The pits themselves are generally 14 to 20 feet square and 2 to 3 feet high and are often wood but may be constructed from a variety of materials. Diagonal ‘scratch lines’ are drawn on opposite corners of the pits, behind which the dogs must remain until the referee commands them to be released. Before the match, the dogs are weighed and washed to ensure that they are not covered in poison. During the match, the dogs quietly maul each other until a ‘turn’ is called. A ‘turn’ refers to the act of one dog actually turning away from his opponent without trying to grab a hold of him. When this occurs, the dogs are separated briefly and returned to their handlers. The dogs are repositioned behind the ‘scratch lines’ and the match resumes once the referee orders that the dog that turned be released. The dog must then ‘scratch’ his opponent, or run to the opposite corner and attack the dog that is still being held by the handler. If this happens, the opponent is released and the fight continues, if not the match is over. The process of separating the dogs continues each time there is a turn or if both dogs fail to grab hold of each other for a specified amount of time. Matches end when a dog quits or dies, when a handler pulls a dog from the ring, if a dog jumps out of the pit, or if the fight is raided by the police. The latter scenario does not deter the match permanently however; according to rule 19 of Cajun Rules, “Should the police interfere the referee [is] to name the next meeting place.”[6]

II. The History of Dogfighting

Dogs have been the unwitting victims of exploitation for blood sports since ancient Roman times when they fought against other animals in the Coliseum. The practice of pitting dogs against other animals, such as bulls and bears, continued through medieval times in England until it was outlawed in 1835 by the Parliament in the Humane Act of 1835. Around that time, the Staffordshire Bull terrier was developed and modern dog-fighting was born. The dog was brought to America in 1817 and dogfighting became part of American culture.[7] The “sport” was endorsed by the United Kennel Club, which actually formulated rules and sanctioned referees. Although dogfighting had become illegal in most states by the 1860’s, it continued to flourish as an American pastime through the early twentieth century.[8] It was so popular in fact that in 1881 the Ohio and Mississippi railroads advertised special fares to a dog-fight in Louisville between Lloyd’s Pilot, owned by ‘Cockney Charlie’ Lloyd and Crib, owned by Louis Krieger.[9] Public forums such as Kit Burns’ Tavern, “The Sportsman’s Hall” at 273 Water Street in Manhattan, regularly hosted matches[10] and the sadistic culture became immortalized in the annals of American history[11] and folklore.[12] By the 1930’s and 1940’s, the blood sport had been driven further underground as high profile organizations such as the United Kennel Club withdrew their endorsement. Although dogfighting was outlawed in all the states by 1976, it did not begin to receive serious law enforcement attention until recently. By all accounts, dogfighting continues to surreptitiously thrive in America; its prosperity due in large part to the chronic apathy of and denial by the legal system. Today, it is a felony in 48 states as well as the District of Colombia, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.

III. The Scope of Dogfighting

The Humane Society of the United States estimates that there are at least 40,000 dogfighters in America, though that number seems to underestimate the epidemic of street fighting in urban areas. In 2003, the city of Chicago alone recorded and responded to 1093 animal fighting complaints.  Virtually all children in high crime urban areas are exposed to dogfighting in their own neighborhoods[13] while American hip/hop culture glorifies the blood sport.[14] Rap singers and urban clothing and toy manufacturers promote dogfighting through their products and advertisements.[15] Dog fighting occurs all over the United States and throughout the world. It has become quite popular in Eastern Europe, where the Russian Mafia has discovered the lucrative potential of the blood sport.[16] A 1999 article chronicling the rise of dogfighting in Russia highlights its popularity among “New Russians.” Public fights take place around the country and for many, they are family events. “We mustn’t hide bloodshed from our children,” said one father who regularly brought his five year-old daughter to the fights, “Life is a battle and they must get used to it. The strong survive and the weak are killed.”[17] Evidence of dogfighting has been reported in England,[18] Afghanistan,[19] South Africa,[20] Canada,[21] and Australia.[22] In Italy, dogfighting is a huge industry for the Italian Mafia. The nearly $500 million a year enterprise is extremely abusive, “when dogs are young, they place them in a sack and beat them. The sack is later opened in front of a cat or small dog, which is attacked so the ‘fighter’ gets a taste of blood.”[23] Many blame the loose regulations for the influx of dogfighting in Italy.[24] In Honduras, the blood sport is legal as well as in Japan, where it has been sanctioned for centuries by military leaders and aristocrats.[25] Although several countries have banned dog fighting, its pestilent influence, like many violent crimes and social diseases, continues to fester throughout the United States and worldwide.

IV. The Culture of Dogfighting

The culture of dogfighting is as diverse as America itself. Dogfighters come from virtually all walks of life and engage in the blood sport at vastly different levels. Some fighters operate on a national or even international level within highly clandestine networks. These fighters are professionals that breed generations of skilled “game dogs,” take a great deal of pride in the lineage of their dogs and charge tremendous stud fees to breed their champions. They publish trade journals for distribution to dogfighting enthusiasts around the world.[26] The journals, with names like Your Friend and Mine, Game Dog Times, The American Warrior, and The Pit Bull Chronicle, include information on recent fights including the winners and losers, and advertisements for training equipment and puppies. [27] One of the largest and most widely recognized, The Sporting Dog Journal, circulates over 10,000 copies worldwide.[28] Because the professional fighters are so geographically dispersed, they also utilize the internet to communicate with one another. The “cyber-dogmen” maintain websites that to the untrained eye appear to be networks of breeders or “game dog” fanciers. They often go so far as to publish legal disclaimers on the websites, maintaining that they do not condone dogfighting and the information should be “viewed as fiction” and utilized “for entertainment purposes only.”[29] The websites typically include specific information on the lineage of the dogs, historic accounts of dog-fighting that glorify anonymous, deceased, or ‘retired’ dog-men, and message boards for enthusiasts to discuss everything from buying and training champion fighting dogs to veterinary tips on treating wounded dogs.[30] Professional fighters are wealthy and experienced, often investing thousands of dollars on buying and training their dogs, and on transport to the fight venues. [31] The fights are extremely well organized and difficult for law enforcement to find.[32] Participants and spectators are often not told where the venues are until moments before the fight.  “Gaining access to these circles is extremely hard,” says Eric Sakach, Director of the West Coast Regional Office of the Humane Society of the United States.[33]

The professional fighters are demographically diverse and geographically diffuse, unlike the mid-level dog-fighters who operate primarily within specific regions. The mid-level fighters are considered hobbyists,[34] enthusiasts, or fanciers. They typically remain within a specific geographic network, are acquainted with one another, and tend to return to predetermined fight venues repeatedly.[35] There are both urban and rural networks of dogfighting enthusiasts and the fighting subcultures largely depend on the culture of the larger regional community. The enthusiasts, like the professional dogfighters, typically have extensive criminal backgrounds, but they may appear to be highly respected community figures.[36] Spectators at the fights range from hard core criminals[37] to high profile public figures[38] and from law enforcement agents[39] to families with children.[40] The fights themselves are generally of the depraved carnival variety, set in remote barns or warehouses. Refreshments, entertainment, and gambling provide a backdrop for the bloody main event. Drug dealers distribute their illicit merchandise, wagers are made, weapons are concealed, and the dogs mutilate each other in a bloody frenzy as crowds cheer on. The gambling that is inherent at dog fights amplifies the already violent atmosphere. Violence often erupts among the usually armed gamblers, as debts must be collected and paid.[41]

No type of dog fighters are more violent however than the third group, the street fighters.[42] Dog fighting is an extremely common blood sport in all urban areas. Dog fighters are violent criminals, often gang members, who conduct and attend organized fights as a forum for gambling and drug trafficking. “Drugs, gangs, dope, dogs…they all go together.”[43] Within the gang community, fighting dogs compete with firearms as the weapon of choice; indeed, their versatile utility arguably surpasses that of a loaded firearm in the criminal underground.  To the gang members, the dogs are an extension of each member’s status; the fights are championship matches that aggrandize the gang leader’s supremacy and intimidate younger members. It is extremely easy for urban criminals to acquire fighting dogs. They buy fighting dogs for a few hundred dollars or more commonly, they breed their own or steal them.

Dogfighting is an insidious underground organized crime and all dog fighters, regardless of their level, embrace many peripheral crimes and gang activities including drug dealing and consumption, gambling, theft, and violence against humans.[44] Dogfighting is an incredible source of income for gangs and drug traffickers. In fact, the average dog fight could easily net more money than an armed robbery, or a series of isolated drug transactions. Organized dog fights are staged by leaders of the drug trade as forums to distribute narcotics. Many recent dog fighting raids, include those in Flint, MI (2003), Buffalo, NY (2004),  Port St. Lucie, FL (2004), Jones County, GA (2004), and Oklahoma City, OK (2004), have resulted in the infiltration of major drug distribution networks, and the arrest of the drug kingpins who regularly organized and attended the dog fights.[45]

Fighting dogs are clandestine security devices for drug traffickers. Drugs are often stashed in containers to which the dogs are chained in yards or vacant fields. The dogs also provide excellent security inside drug houses and warehouses. Where once the presence of dogs was utilized as an overt warning to potential invaders, it is now increasingly common for criminals to have the dogs debarked (vocal cords severed), to act as silent alarm and attack systems against unsuspecting invaders. The presence of the silent killers poses a significant threat to law enforcement personnel entering these premises. With the increasing popularity hybrid human-aggressive fighting dogs, such as Presa Canarios, the law enforcement community has had to confront the urgency of cracking down on criminals who harbor fighting dogs. These dogs truly are loaded weapons, when placed in the wrong hands.

Criminals also use dogfighting to yield large profits through illegal gambling. Participants and spectators wager excessive sums on the fights. “It’s so much money. You would not believe the money floating around left and right.”[46] Purses for a single fight range anywhere from several hundred dollars to tens of thousand of dollars, and up. (A recent raid in Georgia in 2004, which resulted in 123 arrests, was an event with a $50,000 pot.) Bets also include cars, property titles, weapons, drugs, jewelry, and other valuables. For many, dogfighting is a lucrative money making enterprise, but the price that the victims of the bloody sport must pay is simply too high to be ignored. [47]

V. The Victims of Dogfighting

A. The Animals

His face is a mass of deep cuts, as are his shoulders and neck. Both of his front legs have been broken, but Billy Bear isn’t ready to quit. At the referee’s signal, his master releases him, and unable to support himself on his front legs, he slides on his chest across the blood and urine stained carpet, propelled by his good hind legs, toward the opponent who rushes to meet him. Driven by instinct, intensive training and love for the owner who has brought him to this moment, Billy Bear drives himself painfully into the other dog’s charge… Less than 20 minutes later, rendered useless by the other dog, Billy Bear lies spent beside his master, his stomach constricted with pain. He turns his head back toward the ring, his eyes glazed (sic) searching for a last look at the other dog as (sic) receives a bullet in his brain.[48]

It is extremely easy to acquire fighting dogs. Street fighters can buy fighting dogs for a few hundred dollars or, more commonly, they breed their own or steal them. The professional fighters often have large sums of disposable cash and easily spend a few thousand dollars for proven champions. The dogs are extremely difficult for law enforcement to trace because they are never licensed and they disappear frequently. The average life span of the fighting dog is very, very short. For most fighters, the dogs are considered disposable,[49] a fact that is painfully obvious when the fights are over and everyone has left the crime scene. Inevitably, the mutilated carcasses of the losers of the evening’s match will be left behind. In the world of urban dogfighting, where an individual’s fighting dog is an extension of his or her own identity, defeat in a fight is unacceptable.^[50] A dog that loses a fight also loses a lot of money and compromises the reputation of his owner. The end result, if the losing dog survives the fight, is immediate death if he is lucky, or torture and mutilation if the owner is embarrassed or irate.^[51] For many, this ritual is a way to regain the respect of their peers. There is no reverence for life or concern for the animals. The abuses that the dogs endure - both in and out of the ring - is so gruesome that even seasoned investigators are consistently shocked by the barbarities they discover at raids. In commenting on a recent raid in South Carolina (2004), First Circuit assistant solicitor, Richard Lackey said, “It’s a gruesome scene…I’ve never seen anything like this before.” Newton County Sheriff, Joe Nichols described a 2004 raid in Georgia as, “one of the most horrible things I have experienced.”

B. The Children

The systematic desensitization of each new generation in high crime inner cities starts early on; there, most children are routinely exposed to dogfighting and are forced to accept the inherent violence as normal. The routine exposure of the children to unfettered animal abuse and neglect is a major contributing factor in their later manifestation of social deviance. “In many neighborhoods where gangs are strong, you now have 8-, 9-, 10-year-olds conducting their own dogfights. Or being spectators at the fights people are holding,” said Sgt. Steve Brownstein of Chicago’s Animal Abuse Control Team.[52] Indeed, for gangs, dog-fighting is a valuable tool to initiate young members into a culture of violence: “You want to find the perfect way to desensitize a kid so he’ll kill that anonymous gangbanger from three blocks over? Give him a puppy and let him raise it. Then let him kill it. I guarantee that will desensitize that kid.”[53] This early exposure to and participation in dog-fighting is of concern to law enforcement, not only as a child endangerment issue, but also because children that become desensitized to violence become criminalized and perpetuate that cycle of violence.

C. The Community

Dogfighting is tremendously widespread and has reached epidemic levels in America’s urban communities. We have over two centuries of well documented research addressing the devastating impact of social, economic and racial injustice in these communities. America’s finest legal minds, political activists and social advocates have painstakingly dissected the culture of poverty in an attempt to understand the disproportionately high rates of crime, drug use, and social deviance in inner-city communities. We have identified several hundred factors that contribute to these social ills, and understand intrinsically that no single contributing factor exists in a vacuum; all are interrelated and all must be addressed. Shockingly, one of the most obvious and avoidable contributing factors has been largely ignored – animal legal injustice. Although dogfighting is outlawed in all fifty stated and is a serious felony in most jurisdictions, it has been largely ignored by law enforcement in the urban communities where it is most pervasive. When we, as a society, fail to hold perpetrators criminally liable for violating dogfighting and other animal cruelty statutes, we not only condone their behavior, but send a message that our legal system is weak and inconsistent. The plight of the animals in inner-city areas is so blatantly obvious; even those who are not themselves immediately involved with dogfighting are routinely exposed to the abuse and neglect of the animals. The legislators clearly understand the extreme violence inherent in the blood sport, and the corresponding drug use, gambling, and violence against humans. They have enacted comprehensive laws and very stiff penalties to deter and punish those engaged in dogfighting, yet in urban communities where those laws are shockingly under-enforced, the legal system has made a mockery of the laws.

VI. The Sociology of Dogfighting

It is extremely difficult for anyone besides dogmen to justify dogfighting. Law enforcement officials that penetrate the clandestine subculture are routinely sickened by the macabre blood sport. American culture has criminalized dogfighting and stigmatizes those deviant enough to engage in it. Our collective American consciousness is repulsed by dog-fighting with much the same disdain that we feel for child molesters. One study, published in Society and Animals, attempted offer a rare glimpse into the psyche of the prototypical dogman and to rationalize the behavior that to the rest of us is incontrovertibly perverse.[54] According to the study, there are five major techniques that dogmen employ to justify dogfighting: (1) denial of the victim; (2) denial of responsibility; (3) denial of injury; (4) appeal to higher loyalties; and (5) condemnation of the condemners.[55]

(1) Denial of the Victim: Most dogmen adamantly deny that the dogs are victimized by the culture of dogfighting. The dogs are glorified as fighting machines with insatiable blood-lust. High profile boxer-turned-convict, Will Grigsby, maintained that the dogs he fought were no more victims than the athletes in his profession. “To me, it’s just like boxing. It’s cruel if you put a pit bull on a poodle, or a pit bull on another pit bull that don’t want to fight. But if you have two dogs that weigh the same amount in an organized dog fight, well, that’s just like boxing.”[56] There is a perception that in the fighting circuit, the dogs get whatever they deserve. If a dog shows ‘gameness’ and wins several matches, he earns titles such as ‘Champion’ or ‘Grand Champion’ and the respect of the ‘fanciers.’ If a dog quits or loses, he is considered a ‘cur.’ There is no place for ‘curs’ in dogfighting, they are a humiliation to the trainers, handlers, and to those that bet on them.

(2) Denial of Responsibility: In an interview, one archetypal ‘dogman’ found moral vindication through denial, “We’re not hurting anybody and the dog’s love to fight, so what’s the harm? If you could see the way the animals love it…you wouldn’t think it was cruel.”[57] Fighting is portrayed as something that comes naturally to the dogs – that they’re born with an undeniable propensity to kill. “This dog GAR, when he was nine months old, I let him kill a female that had no place on this yard…He was a pup born by himself and had to be taken away from his mother at near five weeks. He was a fight crazy dog from just a puppy…He was a wild eyed dog that showed the eye of the Beast to all that he looked at.”[58]

(3) Denial of Injury: Many fighters claim that the dogs are treated well, both before and after the fights,[59] and what happens in the pit – well, “they enjoy fighting.”[60] Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, some dogmen insist that “[i]t’s not the blood and gore that people have been led to believe.”[61] Many proponents of dogfighting claim that the bloodsport is no more violent than boxing.[62]

(4) Appeal to a Higher Authority:The culture of dogfighting perpetuates itself by glorifying its own history and aggrandizing those who are heavily involved. “Old timers” are lauded as warriors,[63] heroes, and role models.[64] “The old timers know all the champions and the great bloodlines. They have produced most of the champion dogs. If they don’t like you, you are not going anywhere in dogfighting. You have got to show them the respect they deserve.”[65] Dogfighting literature, publications, and websites are replete with dogmen fondly recalling their early experiences of becoming indoctrinated into the “fraternity” by men that they idolized. “In dogfighting you start at the bottom and…work your way up to be an old timer. If they accept you, an old timer will take you on like an apprentice. An old timer…got me started….He saw dogfighting was important to me, and brought me into this insider circle. I would not have made it without him.”[66] Many fighters maintain that dogfighting is a rich tradition with cultural and historical significance that is proudly passed from generation to generation. “When I reach the other world and stand in front of my father once again, we will surely discuss my accomplishments of this world. I would consider it the greatest honor if my father would feel that I had became a conditioner capable of competing with Mayfield. My battle quote for this issue goes out to all dog men or competitors of any kind. It is from our late President Theodore Roosevelt and says, ‘Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat’.”[67]

(5) Condemnation of the Condemners: Dogfighters often see themselves as a misunderstood group, victims of cultural genocide. “Dogfighting is a part of this culture. You don’t change culture. It dies but it does not change. Dogfighting, cockfighting, fishing, hunting are all parts of our heritage. We have seen many intruders try to change us, it’s always outsiders…but we are just ordinary folk who are different in some ways.”[68] Dogfighting literature is often replete with juxtapositions of the bloodsport, religion, and patriotism: “God protect us against those enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC who would steal our Constitutional rights and our liberty! FREEDOM!”[69] Some dogmen even go so far as to maintain that they’re “truth seekers,” ordained by God to control all living beings and to preserve the “game” of dogfighting.[70] Dogfighters perceive their behavior as normal and often try to portray humane organizations and other anti-dogfighting groups as extremists and as true animal abusers. One website, Gamedogs.com, has an entire section devoted to news of “abuses” committed by humane workers, or “humaniacs” as the dogmen often refer to them. 

VII. The Criminal Link: Peripheral Criminal Activity Typically Associated with Dogfighting

Dogfighting does not exist in a vacuum, rather it occurs in conjunction with a host of peripheral criminal activities. Law enforcement agents that respond to dogfighting complaints should be prepared to encounter any or all of the following crimes: (California State laws are used as an example only; each jurisdiction has equivalent statutes that should be referenced.)

1. Animal Cruelty – California Penal Code § 597
2. Dog Fighting – California Penal Code § 597.5
3. Animal or Cock Fighting – California Penal Code § 597(b)
4. Owning, Possessing, Keeping or Training Animals for Use in a Fighting Exhibition- California Penal Code § 597(c)
5. Owning, Possessing, Keeping or Training Birds for Use in a Fighting Exhibition- California Penal Code § 597(j)
6. Live Animals: Attaching to a Propelled Device to be Pursued by Dogs- California Penal Code § 597(h)
7. Prevailing Upon Any Person to Visit a Place of Illegal Gambling -California Penal Code § 318
8. Bookmaking or Pool Selling – California Penal Code § 337(a)(1)
9. Keeping or Occupying Any Place with Paraphernalia – California Penal Code § 337(a)(2)
10. Stake Holding in Bookmaking or Pool Selling- California Penal Code § 337(a )(3)
11. Recording Wagers – California Penal Code § 337(a)(4)
12. Permitting Unlawful Use of a Room or Enclosure (Bookmaking or Pool Selling) – California Penal Code § 337a (5)
13. Making or Accepting Wagers – California Penal Code § 337(a)(6)
14. Prior Convictions, Punishment, Application – California Penal Code § 337(a)(6)(a)(b)
15. Criminal Profiteering – California Penal Code § 186.2
16. Unlawful Assembly – California Penal Code §§ 407, 408
17. Participation in a Criminal Street Gang – California Penal Code §§ 182.5, 186.22, 12021.5
18. Conspiracy – California Penal Code § 182
19. Accessory to a Felony – California Penal Code § 32
20. Controlled Substances: Possession or Purchase for Sale – California Penal Code §§ 11351, 11054, 11055
21. Controlled Substances: Transportation, Sale, Giving Away, etc. - California Penal Code §§ 11352, 11054, 11055, 11056
22. Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor – Controlled Substances: Adult Inducing a Minor to Violate Provisions -California Penal Code § 11353, 11550, 11054, 11055, 11056.
23. Soliciting, Inducing, Encouraging, or Intimidating Minor to Commit Certain Felonies – California Penal Code § 653(j) – Child Endangerment
24. Willful Injury or Harm; Endangering Person or Health of Child – California Penal Code § 273a
25. Degrading, Vicious, or Immoral Practices in Presence of Children – California Penal Code § 273g
26. Commission of Felony with Firearm – California Penal Code § 12022
27. Possession of Firearm; General Manufacture, Sale, or Possession of Short-Barreled Shotgun or Short-Barreled Rifle – California Penal Code § 12001.5
28. Manufacture, Import, Sale, Supply or Possession of Certain Weapons and Explosives – California Penal Code § 12020
29. Armed Criminal Action – California Penal Code § 12023
30. Carrying Concealed Weapon: In Vehicle or on Person – California Penal Code § 12025

The notion that dogfighting is simply an animal welfare issue is clearly erroneous. Until the past decade, few law enforcement officials or government agencies understood the scope or gravity of dogfighting. As these departments have become more educated about the epidemic of dogfighting and its nexus with gang activity, drug distribution rings, and gambling networks, many have implemented well designed, sophisticated task forces. The magnitude of criminal activity concurrently taking place at the average dogfight is of such a scope as to warrant the involvement of a wide range of agencies, including local, regional, and federal law enforcement agencies and their specialized divisions such as organized crime units, SWAT teams, and vice squads, as well as animal control agencies and child protective services.

VIII. Legal Status of Dog-Fighting

A. State Laws

Dogfighting is illegal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In 48 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands dogfighting is a felony. In Idaho, it is classified as a misdemeanor and, in Wyoming, it is classified as a “high misdemeanor.” In forty-six states, and the District of Columbia, the dogfighting statutes specifically include a provision making possessing, owning or keeping of fighting dogs illegal. Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia, have provisions within the dogfighting statutes that explicitly prohibit attendance as a spectator at a dogfighting exhibition. Refer to the Chart of Dog-Fighting Laws for specific laws and penalties by jurisdiction. [Ed. note: since the writing of this paper, dogfighting is now a felony in all 50 states.]

Whatever the jurisdiction, it is imperative to be familiar with all the statutes concerning animal cruelty and dogfighting and to charge a defendant with the appropriate crime. Courts have denied convictions where the defendant was charged for animal cruelty rather than the more specific crime of dogfighting.[71] Similarly, a defendant that paid an entrance fee to watch a dog-fight could not be convicted under a statute that did not specifically proscribe being a spectator.[72]

In some cases, individuals may be charged for both violations of the general animal welfare statutes as well as the more specific dog-fighting statutes. In Silver v. United States,[73] the court held that animal cruelty is not a lesser included offense of dog-fighting and so the two charges do not merge. According to the court, “[e]ngaging in animal fighting requires the instigation, promotion, carrying on or attendance at an animal fight and premeditation by the animal’s owner or custodian. No such proof is required under the cruelty to animals statute. A defendant may therefore commit the offense of animal fighting by planning and promoting an animal fight, even if no harm has yet come to an animal. Conversely, the cruelty to animals statute requires the actual infliction of cruelty, and no such completed act is required to prove a violation of the prohibition against animal fighting. [I]n many cases… conduct which constitutes animal fighting also runs afoul of the cruelty to animals statute. Nevertheless, each crime requires proof of an element which the other does not.”[74]

B. National Laws

The Federal Animal Welfare Act prohibits the interstate transportation of dogs for fighting purposes. A pending federal bill, S. 382, would create the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2005. The Act would amend the United States Code, making it a crime for any person to knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal in an animal fighting venture if any animal in the venture was moved in interstate or foreign commerce. Additionally, it would be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, buy, transport, or deliver, or receive for purposes of transportation, in interstate or foreign commerce, any dog or other animal for purposes of having the dog or other animal participate in an animal fighting venture. Finally, it would be a crime for any person to knowingly use the mail service of the United States Postal Service or any instrumentality of interstate commerce for commercial speech promoting an animal fighting venture except as performed outside the limits of the states of the United States. Penalties for violations of the Act would include a fine, up to two years imprisonment, or both. The Act would repeal any conflicting provisions of the Animal Welfare Act. [Ed. note: this act was passed in 2007 and became effective in 2008. See Sec. 2156 for codification.]

IX. Legal Issues

A. Investigation and Prosecution

i. Presence of Dog-Fighting

Law enforcement agents may encounter suspicious activity as a result of a citizen complaint, an unrelated investigation, a deliberate investigation or completely by chance. Field agents must be trained to recognize the indicators of potential dogfighting activity. It is extremely common for agents to come across any or all of the following, often in plain view, when there is a presence of dogfighting:

(1) Dogs: Certainly not all pit bulls are fought, but officers should be watchful of signs that pit bulls on the premises are being trained or bred for fighting or have been fought. Multiple dogs are generally housed in one location. More sophisticated operations may look more like a kennel; in fact many individuals who breed and fight dogs do so under the auspices of a kennel to deflect suspicion. Less sophisticated dog-fighters, especially the urban street fighters generally have several dogs chained in back-yards, often behind privacy fences, or in basements or garages. Dogs that have been fought have fresh wounds or scars, in various stages of healing, on the head, chest and legs.

(2) People: A dogfighting data-base should be maintained to track suspicious and known dog-fighters. They will often lead you to other dog-fighters and to multiple locations where dogs are kept and fought. Dog-fighters move their dogs frequently, so it is important for law enforcement to pay close attention to whether a suspect has multiple residences, including out-of-state. Detailed records should be kept of the individuals that come and go from suspicious locations. Surveillance is especially important on nights and weekends, when large numbers of dog-fighters may come together.

(3) Signs of Training or Matches: The presence of a pit is a sure sign of fighting, but agents should pay close attention to blood spattered on any surface. Dogs may be fought or trained in basements, garages, barns, and vacant buildings, so spatters of blood on any interior walls or floors should be closely documented. Dogs are often trained outside, so agents should watch for blood spattered outside, especially near training equipment. When live animals are used as bait, there are generally remains of the animals on site. Agents should look for patches of fur, bones, or decomposed bodies.

Agents should be able to identify the training devices and implements such as: treadmills, catmills (jennys), springpoles (jumppoles), flirtpoles, chains/weights, and any implements used to hang or harness bait animals. Pry bars, bite sticks, or breaking sticks are used to pry a dog’s jaws open when he has gripped onto another animal. Investigators should be trained to recognize these, as they would be quickly overlooked by the untrained eye.

(4) Signs of Transport: Large numbers of portable dog-kennels on site may indicate that the dogs are frequently transported to and from matches and between multiple locations. Adult pit bulls frequently appearing and disappearing from a certain location with no explanation may be involved in fighting.

(5) Vitamins, Drugs, Food Supplements and Veterinary Implements: Most dog-fighters do not take their animals to a veterinarian for treatment for fear of exposure; as a result, it is extremely common to encounter veterinary supplies and manuals during an investigation.

(6) Physical Evidence of Bookmaking/Contest: Agents should watch for trophies recognizing match winners, or conferring the titles ‘Champion’ or ‘Grand Champion.’ Other physical evidence to look for include: ledger slips, match results, stats of an individual animal’s performance in matches, photos of dogs or matches

(7)  Technology: Matches are often filmed, and the tapes can be an excellent source of intelligence gathering. Dog-fighters are increasingly utilizing digital cameras, so when possible, computers should be checked for digital evidence. Many dog-fighters also utilize the internet to maintain contact with other ‘fanciers,’ post match stats, to order and sell supplies and dogs, solicit veterinary advice, etc. So, a thorough search should probe both computer files and the internet history. The newspaper can also be utilized to identify potential breeding and selling of fighting dogs. Often classified advertisements for fighting dogs include a reference to ‘game bred’ dogs, or some will actually advertise that the bitch or sire is a ‘Champion’ or ‘Grand Champion’.

(8) Publications: Agents may find the following publications:

• The Sporting Dog Journal
• Your Friend and Mine
• American Game Dog Times
• The Scratch Line
• Face Your Dogs
• The Pit Bull Chronicle
• The Pit Bull Reporter
• The American Warrior

ii. Gathering Evidence

SEARCH WARRANT:

Generally, a search warrant is required to seize the animals or to enter private property to gather photographic or physical evidence. The Fourth Amendment prohibits government officials from entering an individual’s property without probable cause and mandates that search warrants specifically describe the location to be searched and items to be seized:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Probable Cause: The “probable cause” requirement may be satisfied through the first-hand knowledge of the investigating officer, or it may be satisfied by reports of other individuals (hearsay), as long as the officer can verify the reliability of the informant’s statements. To obtain a valid warrant, the investigating officer must present specific facts to justify the issuance of a warrant. If the warrant is based upon information provided by witnesses or informants, the investigating officer should be very specific with the details, including:

1. Names, addresses, telephone numbers and birth dates of witnesses and informants and relation to the suspect(s) (if they are willing to be identified)
2. Date of the statements
3. Detailed account of a witness’s observations (if informants, how they obtained the information)

Specifically Describe the Location to be Searched: The description should be specific enough for the officer executing the warrant to identify the location. Otherwise valid prosecutions are often challenged based on the validity of the search warrant, so it is imperative to be very accurate with the description and to include a description of all buildings to be searched if there are multiple buildings on the premises. A thorough description should include the following details:

1. Street address of the property and where it is identified on the property
2. Major crossroads
3. Directional location of the property (i.e. North side of the street, and SE of major crossroad)
4. Type of property/facility (i.e. vacant lot, residential building, industrial building, etc.)
5. If multiple dwelling unit, residential or commercial, that should be specified and the exact unit(s) to be searched must be identified
6. Physical description of house, facility, or unit (i.e. color, construction material, entrance location, fence, identifying characteristics, etc.)

(Note: You must have probable cause for each separate building to be searched.)

Specifically Describe the Persons or Things to be seized: The Humane Society of the United States maintains a list of items that should be included when preparing the search warrant:

All American pit bull terriers, fighting dogs, guard dogs, and dogfighting paraphernalia, to wit: treadmills, catmills, exercise wheels, hides or other material used as hanging devices to strengthen  or condition dogs; collars, leashes, chains, and other devices used to exercise or restrain fighting dogs; wooden sticks or handles used to pry open dogs’ jaws; magazines, photographs, film, videotapes, or writings that depict or promote dogfighting or training or conditioning of dogs for dogfighting; any still cameras or movie or video cameras used to record dogfighting activity; all portable carrying cases and pens; antibiotics, drugs, or vitamins used to treat injured dogs or to enhance their performance; needles and syringes used for the administration of such drugs; suture kits and other veterinary supplies; weapons, handguns, shotguns, or rifles used t protect the premises upon which illegal dogfighting occurs; computers and computer diskettes or other removable media containing information related to dogfighting; registration papers or other materials showing written materials showing ownership of pit bull dogs or other fighting dogs, including bills of sale, pedigrees, breeding records, and veterinary records; any dogfighting records, including name and telephone number lists of persons suspected of being dogfighters; any awards, trophies, plaques, or ribbons promoting or relating to dogfighting; any constructed enclosures or components of any pits or arenas used for the purpose of dogfighting or training dogs for fighting; any carpeting or other materials used on the floor of such pits; weight scales; any washtubs, buckets, pails, and sponges used to wash dogs; any rules, contracts, or other written agreements concerning the fighting of dogs.[75]

Most jurisdictions have specific requirements for the time period within which a search must be executed once a warrant is signed.[76] The warrants should generally be executed as soon as possible because the likelihood of animal suffering is very high and the animals are usually moved very quickly if the suspects anticipate a search. Some jurisdictions require the presence of a veterinarian during the execution of a search warrant,[77] so agents should ensure the presence of a veterinarian where practical or necessary. Ideally, a team of police officers, animal control officers/humane agents, and where necessary, veterinarians would all be present during the execution of a warrant. Under no circumstances should unarmed humane agents execute a warrant alone. The charts of Dogfighting Raids illustrate the standard protocol for dog-fighting raids: The police department is ALWAYS the lead agency in major raids. Animal control officers and humane agents are simply not equipped to deal with the high caliber crimes and criminals involved with dogfighting.[78] Humane agents should always be on site, however, to impound animals and to assist with gathering of evidence.

WARRANTLESS SEARCH:

A search warrant may not always be necessary to investigate suspicious activity and to seize dogfighting implements. In the context of dogfighting, there are three scenarios that occur frequently:

1. Search Pursuant to Valid Consent
2. Search of Open Fields
3. Seizure of Items in Plain View

(1) Search Pursuant to Valid Consent

It is surprisingly common to get valid consent from individuals in urban areas to conduct wellness checks of dogs, even in homes where dogfighting regularly occurs. One reason may be that among urban dogfighters, the dogs are routinely housed by individuals other than the actual owner. The individuals that give consent to check the dogs often believe that they have nothing to lose because the dogs are not their own property; however most states do have dogfighting statutes that forbid the keeping or housing of fighting dogs. In rural areas and among higher level serious and professional dogfighters it is much more difficult to obtain valid consent to search property or to see the dogs. Furthermore, the investigating officer must be careful that the consent actually be valid. In Minter-Smith v. State,[79] the court reversed a dogfighting and drug conviction because the evidence was obtained illegally through an invalid consent to search. In that case, the police told a young woman that resided in the home that “we need to treat the house as a crime scene and we need to look in the house for evidence.”[80] Since the woman merely acquiesced to the authority of the police who told her that they needed to search rather than affirmatively consenting to a request to search, the consent was not voluntarily given and thus invalid.[81] Because of the highly mobile character of the dogs and fighting paraphernalia, it is important that investigating officers not ask consent to search unless they are either likely to receive consent or would able to secure the area long enough to obtain a valid warrant in the event that the resident does not consent to a search. Typically, the dogs and paraphernalia can be moved within a matter of minutes once the suspects have reason to believe that they are under investigation.

(2) Search of Open Fields

The United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Dunn [82] reaffirmed the “open fields” doctrine by holding  that Fourth Amendment protection does not extend to the undeveloped areas outside the curtilage of a private home. “There is no constitutional difference between police observations conducted while in a public place and while standing in an open field.” In Rogers v. State[83], the court relied on the “open field” doctrine in holding that a warrant was not necessary to search a dog pit located in an open section of the woods, nearly 400 yards from the appellant’s mobile home.

(3) Seizure of Items in Plain View

The plain view doctrine allows police to seize contraband in plain view when 1) the seizing officer is in a location he has a legal right to be; 2) the incriminating character of the evidence is immediately apparent; and 3) the seizing officer has a lawful right of access to the object.[84] It is extremely common for officers to encounter evidence of dogfighting in plain view. In urban areas, fighting dogs can often be seen from a public vantage point and dogfighting paraphernalia is often kept in plain view in yards, garages and homes, such that the items are often easily encountered when officers are on the premises for unrelated business, such as drug raids, domestic violence complaints or execution of arrest warrants. It is extremely important that agents are trained to readily identify dogfighting paraphernalia and other signs of dogfighting, so that they can legally seize such items under the plain view doctrine.  In Minter-Smith v. State,[85] the court reversed a dogfighting and drug conviction because the evidence, which was obtained without a warrant, was not legally seized under the plain view doctrine. The State was unable to show that a broomstick with bite marks and an exacto knife with a heavily taped handle were immediately recognizable as dogfighting paraphernalia, in order to satisfy the second prong of the test. In that case, the investigating officers could not readily identify the incriminating nature of the seized items; rather an expert later confirmed that they were in fact implements utilized for dogfighting.[86] The case may have been decided in the alternative had the investigating officers been adequately trained and were able to testify that they immediately recognized the “incriminating nature” of the evidence.

COLLECTING AND DOCUMENTING EVIDENCE

The whole site should be videotaped or photographed prior to removing animals and other evidence.

Dogs: The dogs are both abused animals and extremely valuable evidence of dogfighting; in many cases, they may be stolen property as well.[87] They must be confiscated for their own protection and for use as evidence. Unfortunately, humane officers often lose sight of the fact that the animals are evidence and frequently leave the animals on site if they do not feel that they are in immediate danger. This is extremely common, generally destroys a case, and is fatal for the dogs. Dogs that are left behind are moved or destroyed, as would be any other evidence (like drugs or weapons) left behind at a crime scene. Dogs should always be confiscated pursuant to a valid warrant or without a warrant under the exigent circumstances exception.[88] The dogs should be photographed individually and identified in the photograph with an assigned evidence number. General impound photos should be shot from the front and each side of every dog. Careful attention should be paid to identifying all injuries that are consistent with dogfighting, such as bite wounds, lacerations and scars. Injuries and markings should be individually documented and photographed. It is useful for agents to utilize standardized checklists and diagrams. The following information should be recorded for each animal:

1. Breed
2. Sex
3. Color
4. Identifying Features/Marks
5. Injuries
6. Owner Information (name, address, etc.)
7. Location of Confiscation (address and specific location of the property)
8. Date
9. Dog’s Evidence Number
10. Case Number
11. Confiscating Agent

The dogs should be thoroughly examined by a veterinarian that is familiar with diagnosing injuries that are consistent with animal fighting. The veterinarian will likely need to testify in court and should be prepared to qualify a diagnosis that the animals were victims of animal fighting. Detailed daily medical records should be kept of the animals from the time of confiscation through the duration of the impoundments. Fighting dogs must not be housed together and should be kept under extremely tight security. It is not uncommon for fighting dogs to be stolen from shelters once they have been confiscated. Dead animals must be documented and confiscated in the same manner as the live ones. The examining veterinarian must perform a necropsy on all deceased animals and the bodies should be preserved for trial.

Other Dogfighting Evidence: All other evidence must be carefully documented with detailed descriptions. See the Humane Society’s List of Items to Include in a Search Warrant for items that would typically be seized in a dogfighting raid.  The following drugs, supplements and veterinary supplies are used by dog-fighters (although they have legitimate uses as well) and may be encountered during a search:

Drugs:

1. Solu-Delta-Cortef + Dexamethazone (Azium) (Prednisolone or Flumethasone) (anti-inflammatory/anti-shock injectables)
2. Epinephrine (injectable adrenaline for heart failure)
3. Lactated Ringers (IV solution)
4. Speed (pills or injectables)
5. Pain Killers (Lidocaine, Talivin, Dilaudid, codeine)
6. Antibiotics (injectables, tablets or capsules, including: Ampicillin, Amoxicillin, Penicillin Procain, Albacillian, Baytril)
7. Lassix
8. Hormones (including: androstenedione, testosterone, Propionate, Repotest, Probolic Oil)
9. Androgenic steroids (including: Winstrol V, Dinabol, EquiPoise
10. Furosemide
11. Nitrofurazone (antibiotic gel)
12. Prednisone

Vitamins/Supplements:

1. Vitamin K (injectable) (promotes blood clotting)
2. CytoMax
3. Canine Peak Condition or Peak Performance
4. Magnesium
5. Provim
6. Vitamin B-12 (injectable)
7. Vitamin B-15 (increases bloods oxygen carrying capacity by 25%)
8. Stress-Dex (electrolyte)
9. Liver and Iron extract
10. Canine Red Cell
11. Clovite conditioner
12. Energy Plus

Veterinary Supplies

1. Veterinary manuals, publications for dogmen (i.e. The Healthy Bulldog)
2. Catheter IV, needles, syringes
3. Gauze and leg tape
4. Hydrogen Peroxide
5. Blood stop powder (i.e. styptic powder)
6. Tourniquet
7. Betadine
8. Sutures, suture needles, needles holders
9. Staple gun and removers
10. Scalpel, surgical razor or scissors, forceps
11. Gloves, thermometer, Vaseline or KY jelly, sponges
12. Super glue

iii. Evidence Sufficient to Support a Conviction for Dog-Fighting

The courts have found the following types of evidence sufficient to support a conviction of dogfighting:

1. Testimony by law enforcement agents that had witnessed a dogfight.[89]
2. Testimony by law enforcement agents that had witnessed people gathered around a pit with wounded dogs inside.[90]
3. Testimony by law enforcement agents regarding seized items and their utility in dogfighting.[91]
4. Testimony by a veterinarian confirming the consistency of the injuries with those incurred in training or fighting.[92]
5. Evidence of a large amount of money in the possession of an individual present at an alleged dogfight. [93]

iv. Evidence Insufficient to Support a Conviction for Dog-Fighting

In some instances, it is more practical to charge a dogfighter under the general anti-cruelty statutes than to charge him or her under the state’s dog-fighting statute. Sometimes, particularly in circumstances where the fighters are especially sophisticated and elusive, the investigating officers are unable to gather sufficient evidence to charge the suspect with dogfighting. As a practical matter, it is often difficult for investigators to gather evidence and conduct surveillance over a long period of time, when suspects move frequently and keep the animals in multiple locations.  Lack of other evidence notwithstanding, fighting dogs are generally kept in egregious conditions and are often in need of medical treatment. Where there is insufficient evidence to charge an individual with dogfighting, and the circumstances warrant immediate action rather than long-term surveillance, the prosecution should bring appropriate cruelty or neglect charges. In Stephens v. State[94], the defendant was convicted of 17 counts of cruelty toward animals for keeping several fighting dogs in unsanitary conditions and without appropriate shelter. The investigation yielded the discovery of a fighting pit on the defendant’s property as well as bite sticks and other training implements. Charges were not brought for dogfighting; however, the defendant was sentenced to 6 months for each of the 17 counts -135 days incarceration and the remainder probation.[95]

Sometimes, the evidence of peripheral criminal activities such as drug distribution or gambling is so overwhelming that it is simply more efficient to prosecute the dogfighters for those crimes. In People v. Lee, et al.,[96] the defendants were suspected and known dogfighters that were ultimately convicted of conspiracy to deliver or possess with intent to deliver 650 or more grams of a controlled substance. Each defendant was sentenced to a prison term of 30 to 60 years for their involvement with drug distribution; as such, the dogfighting charges were ultimately unnecessary for the apprehension of the criminals.

v. Ownership and Culpability

If asked, dogfighters will typically deny ownership of the fighting dogs. Establishing ownership is further complicated by the fact that the dogs are generally not licensed. Most jurisdictions have statutes that encompass all levels of participation in dogfighting, so failure to establish ownership is generally not a bar to a successful dogfighting prosecution. Many jurisdictions make it illegal to “own, possess, keep, use or train”… a dog “for the purpose of fighting, baiting or injuring another such animal, for amusement, sport or gain.”[97] Under such a statute, the prosecution theoretically need not establish that the defendant owns the animal in question; rather, it would be sufficient to show that the defendant was in possession of the dog, the dog was kept on the defendant’s property or that the dog was otherwise maintained by the defendant. Many statutes simply prohibit “causing or allowing a dog to fight another dog for sport or gaming purposes.”[98] In Hargrove v. State,[99] the court interpreted the term “allow” to include any act which “contributes to the cause of” or “furthers the success of the enterprise of” a dogfight for sport or gaming purposes. Thus, if a person participates, on any level, in the “planning or financing of the event, including paying an admission, providing a location or wagering on the event or if a person encourages the event by applause or cheering, such person violates the statute.”[100] In that case, the 3 defendants were convicted for (1) “refereeing” in the dogfight; for (2) supplying paraphernalia that was used for the fight and being present in the pit; and for (3) owning the property upon which the pit was erected.[101]

Some jurisdictions specifically prohibit knowingly or intentionally allowing one’s property to be used for dogfighting. In Rogers v. State[102], the State was not required to establish that the defendants owned the dogs. Under Texas law,[103] “[a] person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly uses or permits another to use any real estate, building, room, tent, arena, or other property for dog fighting.” The defendant was convicted, sentenced to 4 years imprisonment, and assessed a $4,000 fine for knowingly allowing dogfights to take place on her property, although she was not in the immediate vicinity of the pit during the time of arrest. The relevant legal issue was whether the property was hers, not whether the dogs were, or whether she had caused them to fight.[104]

Actual ownership of fighting dogs is important to establish in cases involving culpability for “owners” of fighting dogs that injure other persons or animals.[105] Under those statutes, the “owners” may be criminally liable for injuries inflicted by their dogs regardless of whether the owners are in actual possession of the dogs at the time of the attack. In People v. Beam, [106] the court found that the owner of fighting dogs could be held criminally liable under M.C.L. § 750.49(10) [107] for a fatal mauling by his dogs although he was incarcerated at the time of the attack and the animals were in temporary custody of a third party. According to the court, an “owner” is an individual with the “legal right of possession” and actual possession is not necessary to establish ownership.[108]

vii. Dogs: Confiscation, Custody, and Euthanasia

Once the dogs have been confiscated, several legal and constitutional issues arise regarding their post-confiscation care and custody. Generally, there is a significant amount of time between the seizure of the dogs and the disposition of the criminal charges against the defendant. It is exceedingly difficult for animal shelters to house large numbers of confiscated dogs pending a trial. The animals must be individually housed and cared for by individuals that are trained in handling fighting dogs. The costs to maintain the animals for several months pending a trial can be very high, and in some areas, the dogs may usurp an inordinate amount of shelter space, thereby rendering a shelter unable to accommodate other animals. In most instances, it is most practical and humane to euthanize or re-home the confiscated animals prior to the trial. The dogs are considered property (of the defendant or another) and as such, their disposition may largely depend on each jurisdiction’s statutory rules on the forfeiture of seized property.[109]

Some states require the conviction of an individual prior to the forfeiture of objects used in the commission of the crime, in this case, the dogs. Other states do not require a conviction as a prerequisite to forfeiture proceedings. Although the ownership of the dog may not be a serious hurdle for the prosecution to overcome in a criminal dog-fighting conviction, it may become much more relevant when the courts must determine the final disposition of the dogs. An individual that seeks to challenge the forfeiture of property, in this case, the dogs, has the burden of establishing a property interest.[110] Where the defendant denies ownership of the dogs, this burden becomes particularly difficult for him to meet. Even where the defendant claims ownership of the dogs, he still has the burden of establishing ownership during the forfeiture proceedings. In some instances, claiming ownership of the dogs may implicate an individual in criminal proceedings, so the counsel for the defendant must apply for a stay of civil forfeiture proceedings pending the completion of the criminal proceedings. If the defense does not do so, it loses the right to raise this due process issue on appeal.[111]

The final disposition of the dogs may be further complicated by the fact that they are sentient property, protected by anti-cruelty statutes. Thus, an owner may legally be able to recover seized property under the relevant rules of civil procedure, but may not be able to recover the dogs under an anti-cruelty statute that proscribes the return of the dogs. Some courts have broadly interpreted statutes allowing for the forfeiture and euthanasia of seized animals to include forfeiture and euthanasia of fighting dogs that are wounded or deemed dangerous. In 32 Pit Bulldogs and Other Property,[112] the Missouri Supreme Court relied on subsection (3) of the criminal dog fighting statute,[113] to affirm a lower court order to euthanize 18 of the 32 seized pit bulls prior to the disposition of the defendant’s criminal charges.[114] According to the statute, a court may order that dogs be euthanized, prior to the final disposition of the charges, if the dog is not likely to survive or by reason of the physical condition of the dog.[115] The Court broadly interpreted the statutory language “physical condition of the dog” to mean “not only how many scars and injuries it might have but its physical condition with reference to vicious or aggressive behavior, its propensity to fight or to inflict serious injury or death on other animals, including humans.”[116]

viii. Mens Rea Requirement: Intentional vs. Unintentional Fight

Defendants will often deny culpability by maintaining that their injured or scarred dogs broke loose and fought on their own, were too aggressive during breeding, were attacked by stray dogs, or were injured while in the custody of another.[117] Essentially they maintain that despite overwhelming physical evidence of a fight, they did not engage in any wrongdoing and to punish them would violate their due process rights. Most statutes therefore make otherwise innocent conduct criminal by including an intent requirement. Thus, the prosecution must generally be prepared to show that an individual “knowingly” or “intentionally” engaged in the proscribed dogfighting activity. In Moody v State,[118] the court determined that the statute in question required “knowing and consensual involvement” in dogfighting and required the intent “to engage in dog-fighting for sport or gaming purposes.”  In Jones v. State,[119] the State established that the defendant “owned, possessed, kept, and/or trained the dogs with the intent that the dogs be engaged in an exhibition of fighting with another dog” through the testimony of the investigating officer that was present when the defendant had his two dogs fight.

ix. Constitutional Issues

Much of the recent case law on dog-fighting has probed a variety of constitutional issues. Typically, constitutional issues arise in two different contexts: (1) Constitutionality of the Statute; (2) Due Process Taking.

(1) CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE:

Appellants often challenge the constitutionality of the dogfighting statute under which they were convicted. Generally, appellants argue that the statutes are unconstitutionally vague, or overbroad. Such arguments are routinely rejected by the appellate courts.

Void for Vagueness Doctrine:[120]

In State v. Gaines,[121] the appellant, who was convicted of promoting or engaging in dogfighting and the sale, purchase, possession or training of a dog for dogfighting, challenged the constitutionality of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 959.16.[122] The appellant argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague or that it violated the void for vagueness doctrine because it did not define the term “dog-fighting” such that a person of common intelligence would understand exactly what conduct is proscribed by the statute. The court, relying on State v. Smith,[123] found that although the legislature did not specifically define the term “dogfighting”, the statute was not unconstitutionally vague because it was both broad enough to encompass a variety of criminal conduct and also sufficiently specific to provide a warning to men of common intelligence that certain kinds of behavior were prohibited.[124]

Similarly, in Hargrove v. State, [125] the appellants, who were convicted of dogfighting, gambling, and commercial gambling, challenged the constitutionality of  O.C.G.A. § 16-12-37,[126] which makes it a crime for any person to “allow” a dogfight to occur. The appellants argued that such proscribed conduct is impossible to define such that “men of common intelligence are not given fair notice of the conduct which is forbidden”[127] by the statute. The court interpreted the term “allow” as used in the statute to mean “any act which contributes to the cause of a dogfight for sport or gaming purposes or furthers the success of the enterprise of a dogfight for sport or gaming purposes.” In rejecting the appellants argument, the court found that a person of common intelligence would be on notice that it is illegal to knowingly participate, on any level, in the planning, financing, coordination or execution of a dogfighting event or to contributes to the success of the event.[128]

Overbreadth Doctrine:[129]

In People v. Parker, et al.,[130] several appellants that were charged with knowingly attending an animal fight and knowingly organizing, promoting, or collecting money for the fighting of an animal challenged the constitutionality of MCL 750.49(2)(e)(f).[131] They asserted that the language of the statute that prohibited “presence” at any “premises” utilized for dogfighting or at a dogfighting “exhibition” could be interpreted to punish the accidental or unintentional witnessing of or presence at a dogfight. According to the appellants, such punishment of innocent behavior would violate the overbreadth doctrine. The court rejected their argument stating that, “the statute does not prohibit the mere witnessing of a dogfight, but “punishes attendance as a spectator at an event legitimately prohibited by law.”[132]

Similarly, in State v. Gaines,[133] The appellant, who was convicted of promoting or engaging in dogfighting and the sale, purchase, possession or training of a dog for dogfighting, challenged the constitutionality of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 959.16,[134] utilizing the overbreadth doctrine. The appellant asserted that certain provisions of the statute, which made it a crime to “knowingly” “promote” dogfighting or to “use, train, or possess a dog for seizing, detaining, or maltreating a domestic animal” violated the overbreadth doctrine because they “prohibit constitutionally protected conduct such as a lobbyist’s petitioning the legislature to repeal the statute,[135] or the training of dogs for detaining domesticated animals such as sheep.[136]” The court rejected the appellant’s argument stating that it was “readily apparent” that the appellant was promoting dogfighting and training dogs to fight and was not engaging in innocent or constitutionally protected behavior.[137]

(2) DUE PROCESS TAKING:

The second context under which constitutional issues often arise is the seizure and subsequent forfeiture of fighting dogs. Defendants often maintain that the State infringed upon their “property” interests in violation of procedural due process. When analyzing such procedural due process claims, the United States Supreme Court employs a two-step analysis.[138] The first area of inquiry deals with whether there exists a “life, liberty, or property” interest, protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, with which the state has interfered. In the context of state seizure and forfeiture of fighting dogs, which are considered a property interest, the first step of the analysis would be satisfied. The second prong of the inquiry would be to determine whether the entity responsible for the alleged deprivation instituted constitutionally sufficient procedural protections. In other words, the owner of the dogs should generally have adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard by an impartial tribunal regarding the merits of the deprivation of the “property.” In Commonwealth v. Gonzalez,[139] the court  determined that the provisions of Pennsylvania’s animal cruelty statute, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5511(h.1),[140] which allow the police or humane society to destroy animals without offering the owner a pre-deprivation or post-deprivation hearing violated due process requirements. In that case, the defendant was charged with and convicted of 23 counts of animal cruelty under the statute for cockfighting. The roosters were confiscated and destroyed pending the trial; however the court found that the defendant was unconstitutionally deprived of an opportunity to be heard prior to the deprivation. Although the court recognized that due process requirements do not necessarily dictate when an opportunity to be heard must be afforded to an individual, it noted that in the case of “the complete, albeit humane, destruction of animals,”  the only “meaningful opportunity to ensure a fair process of decision-making” is generally going to be before the actual “deprivation” occurs.[141]

B. Spectator Issues

i. Laws

Most jurisdictions have statutes that impose criminal liability for being a spectator at a dogfight. See, Chart of Dog-Fighting Laws for specific laws by jurisdiction. The statutes all include a knowledge requirement, such that an individual must intentionally engage in wrongful conduct, and cannot be held criminally liable for accidentally witnessing or unintentionally encountering a dogfighting exhibition. Individuals charged under the criminal spectator statutes often deny any intentional participation in the dogfight. Several investigative techniques may be utilized to refute such claims. Officers should look for evidence linking the defendant to the exhibition, such as entrance fees paid to attend, wagers placed on the dogs, verbal instigation of the fights. Sometimes photographic or video evidence gathered at the scene may include footage of the defendant attending that or other fights as a spectator.[142] In other cases, the intent requirement may be satisfied through circumstantial evidence such as showing that the defendant was present at the fight for a certain amount of time, thereby negating any defense of accidentally encountering the exhibition.[143]

ii. Constitutional Issues

Typically the constitutional challenges to the spectator statutes are the same as those to the general dogfighting statutes. Defendants often appeal their criminal convictions by arguing that the statutes are either unconstitutionally vague such that a person of ordinary intelligence could not determine what behaviors the statute proscribes or overbroad, such that the statute criminalizes innocent or constitutionally protected actions.

Void for Vagueness Doctrine:[144]

In Commonwealth v. Craven,[145] the court rejected a constitutional challenge to a Pennsylvania statute that prohibits being a “spectator” at a fight.[146] The trial court had erroneously found that the statute was unconstitutionally vague in that it did not clearly indicate whether there was a mens rea requirement for culpability or whether the statute sought to create a strict liability crime for any individual present at a dogfight. In rejecting the trial court’s findings, the appellate court stated that “under its plain language, the statute only criminalizes attendance at an animal fight ‘as a spectator’.”[147] It therefore “criminalizes a person’s conscious decision to attend an illegal animal fight as a spectator and by doing so, puts individuals on sufficient notice as to what conduct is proscribed.”[148]

Similarly, in State v. Arnold,[149] the appellant, who was convicted of participating as a spectator at an exhibition featuring dog fighting, challenged the constitutionality of a North Carolina statute,[150] which creates criminal liability for any “person who participates as a spectator at an exhibition featuring the fighting or baiting of a dog,” on the grounds of vagueness. The court had little trouble rejecting the appellant’s argument. It simply interpreted the key words in question: “participates,” “spectator,” and “exhibition,” by utilizing their plain meaning according to the American Heritage Dictionary. “Participate” means “to take part; join or share with others.” An innocent passerby, who accidentally or unintentionally noticed the dogfight and immediately continued on his way, would therefore not be included in the definition according to the court. A “spectator” is “an observer of an event.” Finally, to “exhibit” is defined as “to show externally; display.” Therefore, the court held that “the plain language of the statute is not vague and is adequate to convey a clear understanding of what conduct is unlawful.”[151]

Overbreadth Doctrine:[152]

In Moody v. State,[153] the fifty-nine appellants, who were indicted for dogfighting in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-12-37,[154] challenged the constitutionality of that statute, which makes it a criminal offense for any person to cause or allow a dog to “fight another dog for sport or gaming purposes” or maintain or operate “any event at which dogs are allowed or encouraged to fight one another.” The appellants argued that the statute was overbroad in that it did not clearly define permissible and impermissible conduct, such that an individual could be punished for unintentional conduct or for the actions of others. For example, they asserted that under the statute, one who negligently allowed his dog to roam which resulted in a fight could be found guilty of dogfighting, thus criminalizing innocent conduct.[155] The court patently rejected the appellant’s argument, citing its prior holding in Hargrove v. State,[156] that the statute “requires knowing and consensual involvement” with dogfighting, and does not attempt to punish innocent or constitutionally protected conduct.

In State v. Weeks,[157] however, the court did find that an animal fighting statute contained a provision that was impermissibly overbroad. In that case, the appellant had been convicted of being “present thereat” or “witnessing” a cockfight in violation of Ohio’s animal fighting statute.[158] He appealed his conviction on the grounds that the final provision of the statute, which prohibits being “present thereat” any “place kept for” “cockfighting, bearbaiting or pitting of an animal against another,” was impermissibly overbroad in that it did not make clear whether it was unlawful to assemble in a place used for animal fighting when there were no fights going on. The court determined that the provision could be interpreted to outlaw such lawful assembly in violation of the First Amendment. As such, the court held that that provision of the statute was “constitutionally infirm” but severable from the remainder of the statute and ultimately upheld the appellant’s conviction.[159]

C. Keeping of Fighting Dogs

It is much more common for law enforcement agents to encounter pit bulls kept for fighting than it is for them to happen upon a fight in progress. Although it is much easier to gather evidence of dogfighting when the defendants are attending or coordinating a fight in progress, law enforcement agents do have legal recourse when dogs are being kept for fighting.

i. Laws

Many jurisdictions prohibit the keeping or possession of dogs trained or used for fighting. As such, criminal liability attaches for simply harboring the fighting dogs rather than for coordination of or attendance at a dogfight. See, Chart of Dog-Fighting Laws for specific laws by jurisdiction.

ii. Cases

In Ash v. State,[160] the defendant was convicted in a jury trial of “promoting or engaging in dog fighting or possessing a dog for that purpose”[161] although she was not actually present during the dog fight or raid. In that case, the defendant knew that her husband fought dogs, knew that a structure was built on her property to house the fighting dogs and included a pit to be used as a forum for the fights, and knew that large numbers of people came to her property occasionally and brought their pit bulls. She denied any knowledge of fights occurring on her property but admitted that she saw nothing wrong with dogfighting or with her 12 year old son attending the dogfights. In fact, she conceded that she and her husband had moved from California to Arkansas because dogfighting had been outlawed in California.[162] She challenged her conviction by arguing that since she was not actually present during the fight, there was insufficient evidence to show that she “promoted” dogfighting. Under the statute, however, criminal liability did not attach as a result of actual presence at a dogfight, rather it attached for simply “promoting” dogfighting, which the court interpreted to mean, “further, encourage, [or] advance.”[163] The appellate court sustained her conviction because the appellant’s knowledge of and acquiescence to dogfighting on her property and harboring of the fighting dogs “promoted,” “furthered,” “encouraged,” and “advanced” dogfighting.[164]

Likewise, in State v. Scott,[165] the appellant had been charged with and pled guilty to animal fighting, cruelty to animals, and the keeping of unvaccinated dogs, although the State had no evidence of the defendant actually attending any dogfights. Instead, the State presented evidence that the appellant trained dogs on his property with a treadmill and a carousel, and that the dogs that were confiscated from his property had scars and wounds that were consistent with dogfighting. Finally, the State showed that the appellant had business cards advertising himself as a dog fighter and that he kept a notebook listing the people who owed him money.[166] Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-203(c)(1),[167] it is unlawful for any person to “own, possess, keep, use or train” dogs for fighting or to “permit any such acts…to be done on any premises under the person’s charge or control, or aid or abet such act.” It is not necessary that an individual ever be present at a dogfight to be held criminally liable under the statute.

X. Conclusion

We are in the midst of a dog fighting epidemic in America. We are in the midst of a violent crime epidemic as well; the correlation is not a difficult one to draw. In recent years social, political, and legal forces have effectuated remarkable changes in their perception of and reaction to the blood sport. The clandestine culture of dog fighting is no longer shrouded in ignorance and apathy, and law enforcement and legal advocates are equipped with stringent laws to protect the victims and to prevent the indoctrination of future generations of criminals into the culture of dogfighting. Where only a few decades ago, dog fighting prosecutions were literally unheard of, there is now a growing body of case law to assist prosecutors in building and presenting their cases and judges are becoming more cognizant of the gravity of this type of violent crime. National efforts are currently underway to strengthen federal anti-dogfighting legislation, through the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2005.

Progressive law enforcement agencies throughout the nation have identified the overwhelming correlation between dog fighting and other criminal activity and many have developed specially trained units to aggressively combating dog fighting. The commitment of agency resources to the apprehension of dog fighters is not a sacrifice of those resources from other areas of law enforcement. On the contrary, the individuals that are apprehended by dog fighting units are the same gang members, drug-dealers, robbers, and violent criminals that the vice, narcotics, and gang units actively seek to apprehend.  Dog fighting raids tend to result in mass arrests for multiple offenses whereby serious and habitual criminals, that may otherwise be unattainable, are easily and efficiently apprehended. Additionally, dog fighting search warrants inevitably result in the discovery of evidence of other criminal activity that would often not be detected without costly investigations and surveillance. Furthermore, as most urban youth are routinely exposed to dog fighting and its peripheral crimes, they are desensitized to violence and suffering and ultimately become criminalized. Without dedicated law enforcement intervention, these children would grow up to be the next generation of social deviants that compromise community safety and drain resources from an already drastically under funded penal system. As many law enforcement agencies have already discovered, preventing their exposure to violence early on ultimately prevents the desensitization and future criminalization of children and saves future law enforcement resources.

Many local, state, and national agencies have implemented well designed, sophisticated task forces[168] utilizing local and regional law enforcement bureaus, including special agents, organized crime units, SWAT teams, drug enforcement agents, animal control officers, and child protective services. Legal institutions and individual attorneys are vital components of the task forces as well; they contribute legal expertise in prosecuting the dog-fighting cases and in developing public policies and legislative initiatives to combat dog fighting. Community based government, social and educational organizations assist the task forces through community outreach, education, intelligence gathering, and animal rescue. Many major cities have prominent officials that have developed and implemented dog-fighting initiatives; the prodigious success has garnered nationwide attention and spurred regional and state wide initiatives:

CHICAGO: One high profile success is Chicago’s Animal Abuse and Control Team (AACT), formed under Mayor Daley and led by Sergeant Steve Brownstein, which consists of 2 teams each with 1 sergeant and 5 officers. The Chicago Police Department and the Cook County Attorney’s Office sponsor DAWG, a court advocacy program to monitor dogfighting and other animal abuse cases.

Recently, Mayor Daley developed a city-wide public service “Born to Lose” campaign, targeting dog-fighting. In 2002 Chicago designated an emergency code for animal fighting and in 2003, the city received and responded to 1093 animal-fighting complaints. The city’s success with AACT prompted the creation of a state wide Illinois Illegal Animal Fighting Task Force who’s members include law enforcement, animal control, judiciary, legislature, public health and education committees.

BOSTON: Boston’s Operation Dog Tag, launched in District Eleven in 1996 under the leadership of Captain Robert P. Dunford, is considered a national model in progressive law enforcement. Dog Tag dispatches teams of city police officers, animal control officers, and armed special agents to dog-fights. Additionally, “gang investigations, drug investigations, intimidation complaints, robbery, and assaults are just some of the areas in which the Task Force has been used,” said Sergeant Tom Flanagan, Supervisor of the Boston Police Community Services Office. “We never dreamt of the success we have had.”

LOS ANGELES: Recently, the City of Los Angeles made history by announcing an unprecedented alliance between the Los Angeles Police Department and Animal Services to combat dog-fighting. With the support and guidance of the L.A. City Attorney’s Office, and under the leadership of Mayor Antonio Villraigosa, LAPD’s Chief Bratton, Assistant Chief Papa, and the Los Angeles City Council, a dedicated blood sport and animal cruelty unit has been developed and is being implemented in 2005.

From an institutional perspective, the combined efforts of the legal and law enforcement community to eradicate the culture of dogfighting are significant, success is inevitable. The reality however, is that society is merely beginning to confront the violent culture of dog fighting that has infiltrated every facet of American life for generations. For the victims, the people and animals that live in the communities that are scarred by the unfettered growth of blood sport, the situation remains desperate. Despite weekly reports of dog fighting raids and prosecutions from around the country, countless dog fights occur every night and go unnoticed, unreported, uninvestigated or unprosecuted. It will take years, perhaps decades for the current efforts to eradicate dog-fighting to have any tangible impact in the communities that are most afflicted. In the mean time, the legal, political, and law enforcement communities have the formidable task of preventing another generation from being indoctrinated into the violent underworld of dog fighting.

[1] According to the dogfighters, “[y]ou’re looking for dogs that’ll die when fighting — that’ll fight to the death.“ Eileen Loh-Harrist, Fight Clubs, Gambit Weekly, July 10, 2001, available at http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2001-07-10/cover_story.html.

[2] See, Ri’Chard Magee, Pit Bull Bait-The Short Sad Life of Dancer (AKA Dozier), YO! Youth Outlook Vol. 5, No. 2 March/April 1996 (a personal account of a dog lost to the underworld of dog-fighting and used as bait).

[3] “Game is the dog that won’t quit fighting, the dog that’ll die in the ring, the dog that’ll fight with two broken legs.” Eileen Loh-Harrist supra note 1.

[4] Joshua Brown, The Hungry Eye, Episode 3, Common-Place, Vol. 2 No. 2, January 2002, at http://www.common-place.org/vol-02/no-02/brown/brown-8.shtml(Excerpts of a fictional account of a dog-fight staged by well known dogman, Kit Burns).

[5] There are a few variations of the rules. The following are “Cajun Rules”:

RULE 1: Size of pit, optional; to be square with sides 2 feet high, scratch line 12 feet apart.

RULE 2: Referee to be chosen before the dogs are weighed in or washed and referee to conduct the contest according to these rules and his decision to be final.

RULE 3: Referee to see the dogs weighed at time agreed on and if either dog is over top weight agreed on he loses the forfeit money.

RULE 4: Parties to toss coin to see who shall wash first, each party to furnish two clean towels and a blanket.

RULE 5: If requested to do so the referee shall search the person named to wash the dogs and then have him bare his arm to the elbow and wash both dogs in the same warm water and rinse them each in his half of the warm clean water provided for that purpose.

RULE 6: As the dogs are washed clean and dried they shall be turned over to their handlers and at once taken to their corners of the pit as designated by the referee and the referee must search handlers for means of foul play and see that he bares his arms to the elbow before he receives his dog and must keep his arms bare in such a manner during the contest.

RULE 7: The dog’s owner or his representative shall be allowed at all times to be near his dog and watch to see that no harm is done him, and each owner shall be allowed to name a man or himself watch his opponent’s dog and handler at all times to see he is given no unfair advantage.

RULE 8: Either dog’s owner, handler, or watcher if he sees anything wrong must at once appeal to the referee and get his decision. And if any handler, watcher or owner violates any of these rules and thereby favors either dog the dog so favored must at once be declared the loser.

RULE 9: The interested parties shall choose a timekeeper at the pit side.

RULE 10: The dogs are placed in their corners of the pit, opposite corners, faces turned from each other and only the dogs and their handlers inside the pit. Then the referee shall say, “Face you dogs”. Each handler must always show his dog full head and shoulders between his legs. The referee says, “Let go”, but the handlers must never push or shove their dogs and handlers shall not leave their corners until the dogs are together.

RULE 11: Now when one of the dogs turns his head and shoulders away from his opponent after the fight is on it is a turn, whether they are in holds or free, and the handler must claim the turn and the referee must allow the claim if he believes it is a turn or the referee must call the first fair turn he sees whether the handler claims it or not and when the referee calls a turn he shall say, “Handle your dogs”, and each handler must pick up his dog as soon as he can without breaking a hold. Handlers carry their dogs to their respective corners the referee shall say, “Face your dogs”. Then the handlers must show their dog’s head and shoulders between their legs, facing the center of the pit. The dog that turned first must scratch first. In five seconds more the referee shall say; “Let go”, then the dog that made the first turn must be turned loose by his handler and this dog must go across and mouth the other dog. If, when he is turned loose he refuses to start at once or is he stops on the way over, or if he fails to reach his opponent must declare his opponent the winner. A handler is allowed to release his dog at anytime he sees fit after the dog whose turn it is to cross has started over. He must turn him loose when the dogs touch each other. He is not compelled to until then.

RULE 12: (a) If neither dog has made a turn and they cease to fight after 60 seconds of no action the down dog is to scratch first, if he makes his scratch the fight is on and they shall scratch in turns until the contest is decided.(b) If the down dog fails to scratch the other dog is to scratch to win. If he fails to scratch the contest shall be declared a draw by the referee.(c) No handler is to handle his dog until ordered by referee, if he does, it shall be called a foul and he is to forfeit the contest to his opponent.(d) No flash pictures or hitting on pit side shall be allowed unless agreed upon by the two contestants.

RULE 13: After the dogs are together this time either handler is allowed to pick up his dog when they are not in holds, if ordered by referee. If he tries for a pick up and either dog has a hold he must turn him loose at once. If he catches his dog up free both handlers must handle their dogs at once. Take their dogs to their corners and proceed same as at the first turn, except this time the dog which went across before is allowed to remain in his corner while his opponent makes a scratch, or goes across, and they alternate or take it turn about in this manner until one of them is declared the winner under these rules. The referee pays no attention to the turns after the first scratch.

RULE 14: If one of the dogs fangs himself, that is, if he gets his teeth hung in his own lip, his handler is allowed to unfang him. If the dogs have to be separated for this they are turned loose again, both at the same time within two feet of each other in the center of the pit.

RULE 15: No sponging shall be allowed, and no towels or anything else taken into the pit by the handlers except a bottle of drink for his dog and a fan to cool him with. The handlers must taste their dogs drink before the referee to show that it contains no poison.

RULE 16: If the handler of either dog is seen to take anything from anyone on the outside of the pit he is to lose the battle. Each party shall have the right to put a man near his opponent’s corner to watch the handler. Should he see the handler put anything on his dog he may appeal to the referee and if the referee finds anything on the dog he is to lose the battle.

RULE 17: Should either handler leave the pit with his dog before the referee renders his decision he is to lose the battle.

RULE 18: The handlers shall be allowed to encourage their dogs by voice or hand-clapping or snapping of fingers, but must not touch their dogs or use foul, dirty methods, by saving their dogs from hard fall or keeping the other handler away from his dog, or in any other way act unfairly. The referee must decide the battle against the one who does so.

RULE 19: Should the police interfere the referee to name the next meeting place.

G.A. (Gaboon) Trahan, available at: http://members.fortunecity.com/dim67/cajun.html

[6] The Final Round: Illegal Animal Fighting Manual, Humane Society of the United States, at 44.

[7] See, Mike Homan, The Complete History of Fighting Dogs (Ringpress Books, 1999).

[8] On December 8, 1876, the Long Island Star ran the story, “Two Bulldogs Chew Each Other Up,” detailing a highly publicized $1,000 championship fight. ASPCA History: Regarding Henry, at http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_history . Kit Burns was one of the most notorious early dogmen. He was closely followed by early humane organizations, but dog fighting convictions were scarce in a time when the blood sport was largely condoned by judges and other high profile figures. Id.

[9] Facts and Fun: Pitbulls, The Humane Society of Weld County online forum, at http://www.weldcountyhumane.org/facts%20and%20fun.htm.

[10] Dog Fight on the Western Front, The Bull Terrier Times, http://www.bullterriertimes.co.uk/dogfight.htm.

[11] James Dabney McCabe, Secrets of the Great City (Philadelphia: Jones Brothers, 1868). (An excerpt from chapter 44, describes the nightly scenes at Kit Burns’s: “Notice is given that at such a time there will be a dog fight at “Sportsman’s Hall,” and when that time arrives the roughs and bullies of the neighborhood crowd the benches of the amphitheatre. A more brutal, villainous-looking set it would be hard to find. They are more inhuman in appearance than the dogs. Two huge bull-dogs, whose keepers can hardly restrain them, are placed in the pit, and the keeper or backer of each dog crouches in his place, one on the right hand, the other on the left, and the dogs in the middle. At a given signal, the animals are released, and the next moment the combat begins. It is simply sickening. Most of our readers have witnessed a dog fight in the streets. Let them imagine the animals surrounded by a crowd of brutal wretches whose conduct stamps them as beneath, the struggling beasts, and they will have a fair idea of the scene at Kit Burns’s…”).

[12] Joshua Brown, supra, note 4. “Padlin stepped into the heart of Kit Burns’s Dog-paradise, the packed and heaving fighting amphitheater. Seventy-five, one hundred, a horde of men (peppered with a selection of the establishment’s whores) squatted on tiered bleachers, bodies cascading down to a low plank fence. Padlin was greeted by their vocal flatulence, full-throated and unreserved, bellowing bets and threats into the pit. He stopped in the narrow passageway between the bleachers, his head even with the top seats, arses squirming to his right and left. Listening to the encouragement impossibly mixed with abuse, he watched the two creatures wriggling in the dirt….” Id.

[13] The author interviewed several classes of 9^th graders at Pontiac Northern High School, Pontiac Michigan. In every class, all but a few indicated that they had personally witnessed a dog-fight. Sadly, the children were desensitized to the violence, as only a few indicated that they felt that there was anything wrong with it.

[14] Nike recently unveiled an advertising campaign that glorified the concept of dog fighting to promote its shoes. The company denied that the ads, which show two dogs lunging at one another, attempting to fight, promote dog fighting. According to Celeste Alleyne, a company spokesperson, “The ad isn’t about dog fighting, because the dogs never make contact with one another. It’s just about the compelling need to win, to beat your opponent and win at all odds…People have to understand the youth culture we cater to. Our market is the urban, edgy, hip-hop culture—that’s who we try to reach.” Mark Gross, Nike Draws Ire of Animal Welfare Community With “The Battle,” Speak!, at http://students.seattleu.edu/grossm/.

[15] See Eileen Loh-Harrist supra, note 1. Rapper DMX recently released a video for his song, “What’s My Name,” with two dogs lunging at each other to fight. He also alludes to dog fighting in his song, “Dog Match”: “First time I had a match and didn’t scratch…Place your bets/You can imagine what the bloodline is like…All my pups is crazy, ’cause off the leash/They can eat, stand a match for three hours at least.” A toy company called “Homies” produces Latino action figures that are sold throughout the country in stores such as Rite Aid. Two such figures, “Mr. Pit” and “Big Loco” sport their fighting dogs, posed between their legs, ready to fight.

[16] Gloria Campisi, Pit bulls are New Export: Dogfighting Gains Popularity in Europe, Philadelphia Daily News, July 10, 2000.

[17] Dogfighting latest Hobby of ‘New Russians’, Russia Today (Moscow), February 08, 1999.

[18] See, In Brief: Dog Fight Club Unearthed, The Guardian (London), May 28, 2005. Dogfighting is illegal in the UK under the Protection of Animals Act of 1911, Ch. 27, § 1.

[19] See, Dog Fighting, Wikipedia, at http://www.answers.com/topic/dog-fighting. Dog-fighting is prevalent, especially in Kabul, where fights draw thousands, including children. Though banned under the Taliban, it has resurged in recent years. Id.  See also, Catherine Philip, Pashtun Tribal Leaders Grow Rich on Conflict, Times Newspapers Limited, December 1, 2001 (discussing the former Governor of Kandahar, Gul Agha Sharzai’s involvement with dogfighting).

[20] Dog Fight on the Western Front, supra note 10.

[21] Id.

[22] See, http://www.allaboutpetswa.com/Dog%20fighting.htm (Australian website about dogfighting). See also, Kevin Meade, Low-Lifes Steal Pets for Fights, The Australian, September 25, 1998 (discussing the scope of dog fighting in Australia and efforts to raise penalties for violating the anti-fighting laws).

[23] Adolfo Sansolini, Italian Mafia Finds New Cash Cow-Fighting Dogs, San Francisco Chronicle, September 15, 2000.

[24] Id. Violators are not subject to any prison time for dog-fighting and the maximum penalty is $5,000. Id.

[25] Dog Fighting, supra, note 19. Though legal throughout Japan, dog-fighting is illegal within Tokyo. The Japanese fighting dogs are Tosa, a large breed from Kochi. Id. See also, http://www.pskochi.co.jp/senkyo.html (Japanese dog-fighting website in Japanese).

[26] See, Doug Simpson, Leashing a Blood Sport, The Washington Times, January 13, 2004, available at http://www.washtimes.com/culture/20040112-115320-5139r.htm. (Noting that there are about a dozen regularly published journals).

[27] Joe Mandak, Men Charged in Publication of Dog Fighting Magazine, Boston.com, July 26, 2004, at http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/07/26/men_charged_for_dog_fighting_magazine/.  In 2004, authorities in Pennsylvania charged two men, James Jay Fricchione of Westtown, New York and John Kelly of Jefferson, Georgia for the publication  and distribution of The Sporting Dog Journal, which began in 1972. Id. Other journals include: The Scratch Line and Face Your Dogs. Gary Cartwright, Bred To Die, The Readers Digest, January, 2003, at 83. The Pit Bull Reporter and the American Pit Bull Terrier Gazette are two other dogfighting publications. Loh-Harrist, supra, note 1. See also, http://www.pbreporter.com/index.htm.

[28] Id.

[29] An Internet search quickly yields hundreds of websites of kennels that highlight in detail specific dogs’ performances in fights with disclaimers like ‘this kennel will not participate in any activities conflicting with the Animal Welfare Act of 1976.’ The kennels often promote and sell dogs from the lineage of prize-winning fighting dogs; they take great pride in the “gameness” of their dogs. See, Simpson, supra, note 26. (defining “gameness” as “an eagerness to attack despite ripped flesh, dehydration, exhaustion or broken bones”). Some websites have photos of their champion dogs posing with their trophies, though these trophies were not earned at dog-shows. See, Joe Mandak, supra, note 27. (Quoting Attorney General Jerry Pappert, “Just as the American Kennel Club bestows the title of champion on show dogs, the Sporting Dog Journal would confer the title of champion upon a pit bull that won three fights. Five wins could bring the title grand champion.”).

[30] Several states mandate that veterinarians report evidence of dogfighting. See for example, ARS 32-2239: Mandatory Reporting Law for Veterinarians. Professional dog-fighters either treat the dogs themselves, utilizing veterinary drugs, or take injured dogs to dog-fighting colleagues for treatment, or they take the dogs to veterinarians that are aware of their ‘profession’. See, Ric Kahn, City Targets Dog-Fighting Operations;Pit Bull Trainer is Probed, The Boston Globe, July 14, 1997 (reporting on  the arrest of Javier Ruperto Medina, aka ‘Dr. Dog’, a well known figure in the dog-fighting circuit, who trained and treated fighting dogs under the guise of operating a kennel). See also, Cartwright, supra note 27 (discussing the grizzly raid of the home of a veterinary technician that was a well-known dog-fighter and “staple-man”).

[31] Susan E. Davis, Blood Sport, California Lawyer, November 1997 at 46. In a 1995 raid in San Francisco, police officers confiscated $57,000 in cash at the fight and the suspects that were arrested all posted cash bail that evening. San Francisco prosecutor, John Farrell commented that he’d “never seen so many people who were able to pay in one day. Most of them had private lawyers too.” Id. at 84.

[32] Davis, supra note 31. “These events are so hidden they’re nearly impossible to find,” said San Francisco Animal Care and Control Deputy Director Lori Feazell. “This was a once-in-a-lifetime chance.” Id. (describing a historic 1995 raid in San Francisco of one of the most prestigious fights in the country at that time) .

[33] Id. According to Sakach, “Often they expect you to fight a dog before you’re really accepted. In those cases there’s a real risk of entrapment.” Id.

[34] The Final Round: Illegal Animal Fighting Manual, Humane Society of the United States at 7.

[35] See for example, Two Macomb Residents Arrested In Statewide Dog Fight, Drug Network, News-Star.com (Shawnee, Oklahoma), May 26 2004, available at http://www.onlineshawnee.com/stories/052604/Tri_30.shtml (describing the geographic distribution of several suspects arrested in a major dog-fighting/drug raid; all were residents of 5 counties in Oklahoma).

[36] See for example, Lara Bricker, Newton Man Faces 76 Charges in Dog Fighting Gambling Operation, The Rockingham News, January 18, 2002, available at http://www.seacoastonline.com/2002news/rock/r1_18a.htm. (describing the arrest and arraignment of Christopher DeVito, a high level professional dog-fighter that lived in a “plush neighborhood” in Newton, New Hampshire. His wife was a high school teacher and DeVito was a computer systems analyst on medical leave from Harvard.). See also, Nelson Taylor, Dogs of War, www.BostonMagazine.com, November 2002, available at http://www.bostonmagazine.com/ArticleDisplay.php?id=169&print=yes (detailing the infamous DeVito raid).

[37] See for example, Criminal Profile of the Urban Dog-Fighter Chart.

[38] See for example, Former NFL Running Back Charged In Dogfighting Ring (ABC television broadcast, July 12, 2004), available at http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0704/158756.html (describing the 2004 dog-fighting arrest of LeShon Johnson, a former National Football League running back). See also, Pacers Lock Up Tinsley, St. Petersburg Times (Florida), October 30, 2004, at 12C (discussing the suspension of the Trail Blazers’ forward, Qyntel Woods, after allegations of dog-fighting).

[39] See for example, Bill Douthat, Deputies Cited for Watching Dog Fight, Palm Beach Post (Florida) July 18, 2000. See also, Dogfight: 2 Cops, 86 Others Face Trial for Cruelty, Philadelphia Daily News, July 11, 2000.

[40] See for example, Dog Fighting/Drug Distribution Ring Dismantled, Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control Press Release (May 25, 2004) (Agent Mark Woodward describes several undercover videos of fights, “Frequently, you’d see 20 to 60 people at these fights, including entire families with small children, cheering as these dogs are tearing each other apart.”).

[41] See for example, State v. Woods 2001 WL 224519 (Ohio App. 10 Dist.) (The case, though reversed and remanded for legal issues, provides a narrative of a dogfight that resulted in a fatal shooting, purportedly over a gambling debt).

[42] The Final Round: Illegal Animal Fighting Manual, supra, note 34.

[43] Cmdr. Gerard Simon, Organized Crime and Gangs Division, Detroit, MI, Commenting on the departments six month long investigation, resulting in a major dog-fighting raid in Detroit, 2003.

[44] See Criminal Profile of the Urban Dog-Fighter Chart.

[45] See, Raid Charts for drugs confiscated at recent raids.

[46] Eileen Loh-Harrist, supra note 1 (quoting a self-proclaimed “fancier” on the money-making potential of dogfighting).

[47] See, Raid Charts for monetary amounts confiscated at recent dog-fighting raids.

[48] C.M. Brown, Pit, Atlanta Magazine, 1982, at 66.

[49] But see also, California Jack, How to Save Your Dog After a Match, available at, http://members.fortunecity.com/dim67/save.htm (instructions for dogfighters on how to save their injured dogs after a fight).

[50] See, R. Evans, D.K. Gauthier, and C.J. Forsyth, Dogfighting: Symbolic expression and validation of masculinity, Sex Roles, 39 (11/12) 825-838 (1998). “I don’t care how long my dog fights, if he’s still able to keep going and choose to quit, he’s not coming home with me. He’s a dead dog.” Id.

[51] See, William Hageman, Spring Brings Rise in Dogfights Staged by Kids for Fun, Chicago Tribune, May 11, 2004.

[52] William Hageman, Spring Brings Rise in Dogfights Staged by Kids for Fun, Chicago Tribune, May 11, 2004.

[53] Id. (quoting Gene Mueller, President Anti Cruelty Society).

[54] Craig J. Forsythe and Rhonda D. Evans, Dogmen: The Rationalization of Deviance, Society and Animals: Journal of Human Animal Studies, Vol. 6 No. 3, 1998, available at http://www.psyeta.org/sa/sa6.3/forsyth.html.

[55] Id. See also, G.M. Sykes & D. Matza, Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency, 22 American Sociological Review 6, 664.

[56] Mike Mosedale, The Pugilist at Rest, City Beat (Minneapolis/St. Paul) Vol. 24, Issue 1199, November 26, 2003.

[57] Forsyth, supra note 54.

[58] http://www.donmayfield.com/1024/index.htm.

[59] This particular viewpoint is especially difficult to comprehend because the cruelty and abuse are undeniable: “[One officer] remembers when he received a call in June, 2002, from a terrified elderly couple who said a pit bull was on their front porch. When [he] arrived to take the dog, he found an animal with bite marks and dried scabs on her head. The dog had been doused with a flammable liquid, set on fire and flames had ravaged one-third of her body. Shriveled and burnt like a hamburger fallen through a grill, the pit bull’s skin was weak, but it clung to her bones. When she sat down, the bones in her leg pierced through her charbroiled skin…The dog was no doubt a loser in a dogfight… and the owner expressed his anger by setting her on fire.” Adam Gibbs, Illegal Dog Fighting Rings Difficult to Catch, Daily Kent Stater, February 18, 2003. “[Another officer] remembers a call from an older couple who found an injured pit bull in their back yard. [He] arrived to find an animal, still alive, with ‘a huge gaping hole in its skull.’ It was breathing through its head with an audible hiss. ‘It was pretty clear that it had been hit in the skull with a bat, which we heard that a lot of times they do after they lose a fight,’ Olivier says. ‘And its eyes were swollen, and it looked like a human fighter but much worse. Cuts and bleeding wounds all over its body and its legs, all the typical signs.’” Eileen Loh-Harrist, supra note 1.

[60] M. Danos, Pit Bull Fighters, Times Picayune, April 22, 1982, at S l, 8.

[61] Dogfighting: Supporters, Opponents Go Into the Pit, Morning Advocate, June 25, 1982, at C8.

[62] “You’re not forcing the dogs to do what they don’t want to do. It’s bred into the dog. You can’t force Mike Tyson and another fighter to fight. They’ve got to want to do it.” Eileen Loh-Harrist, supra note 1 (quoting a dogfighter’s rhetoric on the boxing comparison).

[63] In A Tribute to a Warrior!, one dogman recalls his indoctrination by Bobby Smith “one of the true Texas old timers.” “I pulled up at his place and found my way over to the barn where everyone seemed to be gathered. He made all the introductions. A number of well known fanciers were there including Coy and L. Keyes. After we all had our fill of the Bar BQ it was time to start weighing some dogs. The first contest was about to begin when he noticed me standing off kinda behind the crowd, keeping to myself. He pulled up a 5 gallon bucket and set it next to the pit wall and said to me “Son, get over here, I gotta job for you” at the same time handing me a stopwatch. That’s right, not only was I there but I was keeping time! That night I saw some good ones go, including some off Red Rock, & Banjo and BB Red before they reached their Grand Champion fame… When the night finally came to a close at about 1:00 am and all was said and done, my life as a dogman was forever changed. I owe that part of my journey to him. He was honest, trusting and never badmouthed a dog or a dogman. He was probably the only man in America that didn’t know “Dogfighting” was against the law! The fraternity definitely suffered a setback with his early and untimely death. To this day I still miss being able to call him up and talking dogs.” http://www.gamedogs.com/bobbysmith.htm.

[64] “To be great, one must learn from the greats.” Norman Kemmer on old timer Don Mayfield, available at: http://www.gamedogs.com/Don_Mayfield.htm.

[65] Forsyth, supra note 54.

[66] Id.

[67] Kemmer, supra note 64 (A tribute to old timer Don Mayfield. “He was the King. I will pass his information to my children and they will hear his name spoken with reverence in my house.”).

[68] Forsyth, supra note 54.

[69] http://www.gamedogs.com.

[70] http://www.donmayfield.com/1024/index.htm.

[71] Maloney v State, 532 P2d 78 (Okla. Crim. 1975).

[72] State v Caillet, 518 So 2d 1062 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1987).

[73] Silver v. United States, 726 A.2d 191 (D.C. 1999).

[74] Id. at 194.

[75] The Final Round, supra note 34, at 23.

[76] See for example, Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(c)(1).

[77] See for example, Vermont R. of Crim. P. Title 13, Section 354(2).

[78] In Los Angeles, for example, as of 2004, the Animal Services officers legally had the power of arrest, but were not provided with handcuffs or vehicles to transport detainees. They were also unarmed, save for rifles that they were only allowed to discharge on animals under very limited circumstances. In many jurisdictions, animal control officers do not have the power of arrest, are unarmed, and have received very limited criminal justice training.

[79] Minter-Smith v. State, 864 So. 2d 1141 (2003)

[80] Id. at 1143.

[81] Id, at 1143-44. “A consent to search is valid when the consent is freely and voluntarily given and the search is conducted within the scope of the consent.” Id.

[82] 480 U.S. 294, 107 S. Ct. 1134, 94 L. Ed. 2d 326 (1987).

[83] Rogers v. State, 760 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. App. 1988).

[84] Minter-Smith v. State, supra note 79, at 1144. (Citing the doctrine as defined by the court in Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002).

[85] Minter-Smith v. State, supra note 79.

[86] Id. at 1144.

[87] Some states have laws that increase the penalty if the animal that has been fought is stolen. See, for example, Arizona H2573, signed on May 3, 2004 (increased the penalty for fighting a stolen animal to a Class 6 felony). See also, Eileen Loh-Harrist, supra note 1.

“Anna knows more about dog thefts than she ever wanted… Anna had adopted India from the streets. For months the dog was a terrific pet, affectionate and playful. Last year, India disappeared from Anna’s yard, and Anna agonized that the dog was being fought, mistreated, and she’d never see her again. What happened later confirmed Anna’s fears: India was returned. A neighbor saw some kids walking India back to Anna’s house. One of them told the neighbor his brother had stolen the dog. ‘They bred her and tried to fight her, and realized she wouldn’t accomplish anything,’ Anna recalls. ‘You could tell she had given birth, and she had a big scar on her butt…She came back and she was malnourished, anemic, and she had no hair.’ That wasn’t the worst part. India’s personality, like her appearance, had also changed dramatically. ‘India was sweet, and when she came back, she was just vicious,’ Anna says. ‘She would attack my other dog … she would snap and growl at people.’ She also had begun jumping up on the tabletop to snatch food, leading Anna to believe the animal had competed with other dogs for scraps. In the end, the dog posed a danger to Anna’s other pets, and she had to give India away.” Id.

[88] ‘Exigent Circumstances’, or situations that warrant immediate action to preserve evidence or to protect a victim, arise often in the context of dogfighting. Examples of exigent circumstances include: encountering a dog-fight in progress or dogs that are severely wounded in a dog-fight and require immediate treatment. Because there is always a great likelihood that the evidence will be destroyed (or moved) if an agent leaves the dogs to get a warrant to seize them, the dogs should never be left unattended if there is probable cause sufficient enough to obtain a warrant. If there are two agents, one could secure the premises long enough for the other to obtain a warrant. If there is only one officer and a warrant cannot be obtained over the phone, the dogs should be seized. The probable cause requirement must still be met to avoid Fourth Amendment challenges. See, Dressler, Joshua, Understanding Criminal Procedure, Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. (Second Edition 1997) at 177 (offering a general overview of exigent circumstances).

[89] Ash v State,290 Ark 278, 718 SW2d 930 (1986). See also, Silver v. United States,726 A.2d 191 (D.C. 1999) (Defendant’s conviction for animal cruelty and dog-fighting was supported by testimonial evidence by a police officer that witnessed  two dogs fighting in an alley, surrounded by a crowd, while the dog’s owners incited them.)

[90] Barton v State, 253 Ga 478, 322 SE2d 54 (1984).

[91] Hargrove v State, 253 Ga 450, 321 SE2d 104 (1984).

[92] Jones v State, 473 So 2d 1197 (Ala. App. 1985).

[93] Hargrove v State, supra note 91.

[94] Stephens v. State, 247 Ga. App. 719 (2001).

[95] Id. at 719.

[96] People v. Lee, et al. 2004 WL 2914207 (Mich. App.).

[97] T.C.A. § 39-3-105(a)(1). See also, Ala. Code § 3-1-29.

[98] Hargrove v. State, supra note 91.

[99] Id.

[100] Id. at 452.

[101] Id. at 454.

[102] Rogers v. State, 760 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. App. 1988).

[103] Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.111(a)(4)

[104] Rogers v. State, supra note 102, at 671.

[105] See for example, People v. Berry, 1 Cal. App. 4th 778 (1991) (The case, which was appealed for unrelated legal issues involved a manslaughter conviction where a dog kept for fighting killed a 2 year old child.).

[106] People v. Beam, 244 Mich.App. 103 (2000).

[107] M.C.L. § 750.49(10) reads in relevant part:

“If an animal trained or used for fighting or an animal that is the first or second generation offspring of an animal trained or used for fighting attacks a person without provocation and causes the death of that person, the owner of the animal is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for a maximum term of not more than 15 years.”

[108] People v. Beam, supra note 106, at 109.

[109] All jurisdictions are subject to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ due process restraints on forfeiture of property. The Fifth Amendment provides, in pertinent part, that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Fourteenth Amendment provides, in pertinent part, ” . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” For purposes of this annotation, the requirements of either one or both of these provisions are generally referred to as “federal constitutional due process.” The due process requirements are generally satisfied by notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to forfeiture of the property.

[110] See, for example, 5A Federal Procedure, L Ed, Bonds, Civil Fines, and Forfeitures § 10:37; and 13 Federal Procedure, L Ed, Food, Drugs, and Cosmetics § 35:641.

[111] See, Daniel A. Klein, J.D., Annotation: Supreme Court’s Views As To Due Process Requirements, Under Federal Constitution’s Fifth And Fourteenth Amendments, Concerning Forfeitures Of Property To Government As Result Of Unlawful Conduct, 126 L. Ed. 2d 799. The Supreme Court has held that the standard of proof required in forfeiture proceedings is preponderance of the evidence. Id. Furthermore, the Court has held that there is no constitutional bar to transferring forfeited property to third parties. Id.

[112] 32 Pit Bulldogs and Other Property v. County of Prentiss, 808 So.2d 971 (2002).

[113] Miss.Code Ann. § 97-41-19(3) (2000).

[114] 32 Pit Bulldogs and Other Property, supra note 112, at 975.

[115] Miss.Code Ann. § 97-41-19(3) (2000). “Upon the certification of a licensed veterinarian or officer of the humane society or animal welfare agency that, in his professional judgment, a dog which has been seized is not likely to survive the final disposition of the charges or that, by reason of the physical condition of the dog, it should be humanely euthanized before such time, the court may order the dog humanely euthanized….” Id.

[116] 32 Pit Bulldogs and Other Property, supra note 112, at 974.

[117] See for example,People v. McCree, 2002 WL 276134 (Cal.App. 3 Dist.) (2002) (The defendant maintained that dogs had been injured and scarred while in the custody of the previous owners. He was convicted in a jury trial by circumstantial evidence that linked him to the dogfighting.)

[118] Moody v. State, 253 Ga. 456 (1984).

[119] Jones v State, 473 So 2d 1197 (Ala. App. 1985).

[120] See, Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926) (The Supreme Court explained that an unconstitutionally vague statute is “a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.”).

[121] State v. Gaines, 64 Ohio App. 3d 230 (1990).

[122] Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 959.16 provides in relevant part that:

“(A) No person shall knowingly do any of the following:

“(1) Promote, engage in, or be employed at dogfighting;

“(2) Receive money for the admission of another person to a place kept for dogfighting;
“(3) Sell, purchase, possess, or train a dog for dogfighting;
“(4) Use, train, or possess a dog for seizing, detaining, or maltreating a domestic animal;
“(5) Purchase a ticket of admission to or be present at a dogfight;
“(6) Witness a dogfight if it is presented as a public spectacle.

[123] State v. Smith (June 10, 1981), Licking App. Nos. CA-2772, CA-2777 and CA-2780, unreported, 1981 WL 6315.

[124] State v. Gaines, supra note 121 at 234.

[125] Hargrove v. State, supra note 91.

[126] Ga. Code Ann. § 16-12-37 provides that:

“(a) A person commits the offense of dogfighting when he causes or allows a dog to fight another dog for sport or gaming purposes or maintains or operates any event at which dogs are allowed or encouraged to fight one another.

“(b) A person convicted of the offense of dogfighting shall be punished by a mandatory fine of $5,000.00 or by a mandatory fine of $5,000.00 and imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than five years.”

[127] Hargrove v. State, supra note 91, at 4.

[128] Id.

[129] See, Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972) (The over breadth doctrine forbids any statute that criminalizes constitutionally protected or innocent behavior.).

[130] People v. Parker, et al., 1999 WL 33435342 (Mich.App.).

[131] MCL 750.49(2)(e)(f) reads in relevant part:

“(2) A person shall not knowingly do any of the following:

(e) Organize, promote, or collect money for the fighting, baiting, or shooting of an animal as described in subdivisions (a) to (d).

(f) Be present at a building, shed, room, yard, ground, or premises where preparations are being made for an exhibition described in subdivisions (a) to (d) [i.e., the fighting, baiting or shooting of an animal as a test of marksmanship], or be present at the exhibition, knowing that an exhibition is taking place or about to take place.”

[132] People v. Parker, et al., supra note 130, at 8. See also, People v. Cumper, 83 Mich. App. 490 (1978).

[133] State v. Gaines, supra note 121.

[134]Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 959.16 provides in relevant part that:

“(A) No person shall knowingly do any of the following:

“(1) Promote, engage in, or be employed at dogfighting;

“(2) Receive money for the admission of another person to a place kept for dogfighting;
“(3) Sell, purchase, possess, or train a dog for dogfighting;
“(4) Use, train, or possess a dog for seizing, detaining, or maltreating a domestic animal;
“(5) Purchase a ticket of admission to or be present at a dogfight;
“(6) Witness a dogfight if it is presented as a public spectacle.

[135] Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 959.16 (A)(1).

[136] Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 959.16 (A)(4).

[137] State v. Gaines, supra note 121, at 235.

[138] Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 (1989).

[139] Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 403 Pa. Super. 157 (1991).

[140] 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5511(h.1) reads in relevant part:

“(j) Seizure of animals kept or used for animal fighting. – Any police officer or agent of a society or association for the prevention of cruelty to animals incorporated under the laws of this Commonwealth, shall have power to seize any animal kept, used, or intended to be used for animal fighting. When the seizure is made, the animal or animals so seized shall not be deemed absolutely forfeited, but shall be held by the officer or agent seizing the same until a conviction of some person is first obtained for a violation of subsection (h.1). The officer or agent making such seizure shall make due return to the justice of the peace before whom the complaint is heard, of the number and kind of animals or creatures so seized by him, and it shall be the duty of the justice of the peace hearing the complaint, in case of a conviction, to make the forfeiture of such animals or creatures seized a part of the sentence. Where an animal is thus seized, the police officer or agent is authorized to provide such care as is reasonably necessary, and where any animal thus seized is found to be disabled, injured or diseased beyond reasonable hope of recovery, the police officer or agent is authorized to provide for the humane destruction of the animal. The cost of the keeping, care and destruction of the animal shall be paid by the owner thereof . . . ”

[141] Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, supra note 139, at 173.

[142] Commonwealth v. Craven, 572 Pa. 431 (2003) ( The State showed that the defendants attended animal fights as spectators by presenting video evidence of two fights where defendants stood above the fighting ring with their arms crossed.).

[143] State v. Arnold, 147 N.C. App. 670 (2001) (The defendants claim that he was brought to the crime scene without any knowledge of the dogfight, and did not actually witness any dogs fighting was refuted by evidence that he was on the second floor of the barn, where the dogfights were staged, long enough to have participated as a spectator.)

[144] See, Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926) (The Supreme Court explained that an unconstitutionally vague statute is “a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.”).

[145] Commonwealth v. Craven, supra note 142.

[146] 18 Pa.C.S. § 5511(h.1) states that:

A person commits a felony of the third degree if he:

(1) for amusement or gain, causes, allows or permits any animal to
engage in animal fighting;

(2) receives compensation for the admission of another person to any
place kept or used for animal fighting;

(3) owns, possesses, keeps, trains, promotes, purchases or knowingly
sells any animal for animal fighting;

(4) in any way knowingly encourages, aids or assists therein;

(5) wagers on the outcome of an animal fight;

(6) pays for admission to an animal fight or attends an animal fight as
a spectator; or

(7) knowingly permits any place under his control or possession to be
kept or used for animal fighting.

[147] Commonwealth v. Craven, supra note 142, at 437

[148] Id.

[149] State v. Arnold, supra note 143.

[150] N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-362.2 provides in pertinent part that:

“A person who participates as a spectator at an exhibition featuring the fighting or baiting of a dog is guilty of a Class H felony.”

[151] State v. Arnold, supra, note 143, at 674.

[152] See, Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)   (The over breadth doctrine forbids any statute that criminalizes constitutionally protected or innocent behavior.).

[153] Moody v. State, 253 Ga. 456 (1984).

[154] O.C.G.A. § 16-12-37 reads in pertinent part:

“A person commits the offense of dogfighting when he causes or allows a dog to fight another dog for sport or gaming purposes or maintains or operates any event at which dogs are allowed or encouraged to fight one another.”

[155] Moody v. State, supra note 153, at 456.

[156] Hargrove v. State, supra note 91.

[157] State v Weeks, 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 1090 (1992).

[158] R.C. 959.15 states in relevant part that:

“No person shall knowingly engage in or be employed at cockfighting, bearbaiting, or pitting an animal against another; no person shall receive money for the admission of another to a place kept for such purpose; no person shall use, train, or possess any animal for seizing, detaining, or maltreating a domestic animal. Any person who knowingly purchases a ticket of admission to such place, or is present thereat, or witnesses such spectacle, is an aider and abettor.”

[159] State v. Weeks, supra note 157 at 8.

[160] Ash v. State, 290 Ark. 278 (1986)

[161] Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 41-2918.1 and -2918.2 (Supp. 1985). 1981 Ark. Acts 862 prohibits persons from promoting dog fighting, engaging in dog fighting, being present at a dog fight, or committing various acts connected with dog fighting.

[162] Ash v. State, supra note 160, at 282.

[163] Id.

[164] Id. at 283.

[165] State v. Scott, 2001 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 561 (2001).

[166] Id. at 13.

[167] Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-203(a)(1) (1997) states in relevant part:

“(a)  It is unlawful for any person to:

(1)  Own, possess, keep, use or train any bull, bear, dog, cock or other animal, for the purpose of fighting, baiting or injuring another such animal, for amusement, sport or gain;

(3)  Permit any such acts stated in subdivisions (a)(1) and (2) to be done on any premises under the person’s charge or control, or aid or abet such act”

[168] Other local and regional task forces include:

NATIONAL ILLEGAL ANIMAL FIGHTING TASK FORCE: Nationwide coalition, cooperating agencies include United States Department of Agriculture, Humane Society of the United States, and more than 150 local, state, and federal police departments.

ILLINOIS ILLEGAL ANIMAL FIGHTING TASK FORCE: Statewide extension of Chicago’s AACT. Members include law enforcement, animal control, judiciary, legislature, public health and education committees.

OHIO DOG-FIGHTING TASK FORCE: Governor Bob Taft formed the task force in August, 2001, led by the State Department of Agriculture, includes law enforcement agencies statewide, based out of Cleveland.

TOLEDO DOG-FIGHTING INVESTIGATIONS: Toledo Police Gang Squad members double as dog-fighting force and regularly respond to dog-fights.

PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE ANIMAL CRUELTY UNIT: Established in 1998, 4 deputies are assigned to the Unit and regularly investigate dog-fighting.

BROWARD COUNTY (FL) ANIMAL CRUELTY UNIT: Specialized sheriff’s unit investigates dog-fighting, teaches classes to law enforcement agencies statewide on recognizing evidence of dog-fighting, investigating dog-fighting complaints, coordinating raids, and case preparation for prosecution.

NORTH CAROLINA STATEWIDE DOG-FIGHTING TASK FORCE: Includes law enforcement and other agencies from Orange County, Wake County, and Durham County, as well as contributing agencies statewide

SOUTHERN FLORIDA DOG-FIGHTING TASK FORCE: Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, and Martin counties are in the process of uniting their individual task forces to create a unified regional dog-fighting task force for police officer training, cross-reporting, and coordinated multi-agency raids. The strong statewide effort to combat dog-fighting prompted Governor Bush to stiffen animal fighting laws in Florida.

SOUTH CAROLINA ANTI-DOG FIGHTING TASK FORCE: Organized by Attorney General Henry McMaster and Chief Robert Stewart of SLED, statewide coalition of law enforcement agencies, state and local government agencies, and other state and local groups.

RHODE ISLAND ANIMAL FIGHTING COALITION: Members include investigators, animal control officers, shelter representatives and rescue groups for cross-training, education and networking.

NEW ENGLAND ANIMAL FIGHTING TASK FORCE: Regional network of dog-fighting task forces from New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont and Maine, to train law enforcement, educate the public, improve cross-reporting and communication among the agencies, strengthen animal fighting legislation and enforcement.

PONTIAC (MI) DOG-FIGHTING INVESTIGATIONS UNIT: Pilot program implemented in 2003 by Chief of Police Rollie W. Gackstetter. 4 vice squad members were assigned to dog-fighting investigations. Prior to the beginning of the detectives’ assignment, extensive intelligence was gathered, including identification of approximately 150 suspected and known dog-fighters, their criminal histories, and locations. The detectives under the leadership of Detective Mike Story, have since conducted several successful drug and dog-fighting raids, arrested many known dog-fighters, including one major dog-fighter and drug distributor who was wanted in 2 states for absconding parole, and was allegedly conspiring to transport 100+ fighting dogs and copious quantities of narcotics across state lines. In July, 2004 the City’s Animal Control Department was being taken over by the Pontiac Police Department. The City of Pontiac, like all urban areas, has been plagued by dog-fighting, gang activity, violent crime and drug abuse for decades, however since 2003, the city is setting national standards of excellence in law enforcement for identifying the correlation between these crimes, developing an innovative “dog-fighting” database as a cross reference for detectives, implementing the multi-agency task force, and conducting several successful raids since the programs implementation.  Update:  there is a new mayor, Clarence E. Phillips, and a new Chief of Police, Valard Gross, under whose leadership Pontiac has reverted to the same state that it was in prior to the laudable efforts of Chief Gackstetter and Detective Mike Story.  There is no longer a dogfighting taskforce and dogfighting is thriving in Pontiac.

SOURCE: Animal legal and historical centre- Hanna Gibson
Animal Legal and Historical Center
Publish Date: 2005
Place of Publication: Michigan State University College of Law

Large Guard Dog 101:

Most of you are familiar with the Livestock Guardian Dog, whether you already own one, or know someone who does. The most common breeds now working on (…) farms are the Great Pyrenees, Maremma, Akbash, Anatolian Shepherd, as well a cross-breeds of those. There are many other LGD breeds (…)

The first rule of thumb, particularly if you are new to LGDs, is to make sure you buy from a reputable breeder who is willing to provide on-going advice and support. Training a LGD from puppy hood is a long-term project that requires both a supervisory and training commitment from you until the dog is mature enough to perform its job independently. Make sure the pup or adult is clear of hip and elbow problems by requesting to see either University of Guelph or equivalent certification papers from at least the parents, and ideally, the grand parents as well.

The most popular LGD breeds share common physical traits; generally white or light in colouring with medium to heavy double coats. The adults generally weigh between 75 and 110 pounds, however, Anatolians vary much more in both coat length and colour, and are considered less ‘barky’ than the other LGD breeds.

To get the best out of your LGD, it is recommended that you invest time in training basic manners, such as come, stay, wait, and quiet. It is also important that you handle your LGD regularly, so that when a trip to the vet becomes necessary, it will not add further stress or possible injury to either you or the dog. Many people fear that by handling the LGD, it will become too ‘people friendly.’ However, in these days of urban expansion, including subdivisions on the outskirts of small towns, having a more ‘people tolerant’ LGD is not necessarily a bad thing. It is also helpful that your guardian dog does not chase away farm gate business!

Historically, the LGDs’ job has been an isolated one, where contact with people was limited or where thieving humans were often part of the ‘predator’ problem. Conversely, the Maremma and Pyrenees often worked in populated areas, and thus were selected for those people-friendly traits. Likely, this contributes to their current popularity amongst both commercial farmers and hobbyists. The Pyrenees in particular, has a reputation for family-friendliness. You need to be mindful of the recent changes to the OSPCA legislation, and the perceptions of well-intentioned animal lovers. What you see as a LGD in training, others may see as a puppy abandoned in a field.

This is particularly important to the farm-gate operation. Though well meaning, many folks—both city and country–are naïve about the job LGDs perform, and unwittingly interfere. To draw a parallel, I often see service dogs in the city sporting signs asking people not to pet the dog because it is ‘working.’ Unfortunately, some people choose to ignore those requests, often justifying themselves by saying, “oh, but we just wanted to pet him.”

Guard Dog: Things to consider

After identifying the existing predator problem in your area (type and numbers), many breeders suggest that1-3 dogs guarding 200 sheep on up to 200 acres is appropriate. Three dogs can be beneficial when the coyotes try their divide-and-conquer routine. It also keeps your guard dog numbers up year-round, if one is ill, on heat or whelping. If you are not planning on breeding your LGDs, consider spaying and neutering. This eliminates potential for accidental breedings and limits the wanderlust of unneutered males. Physically, it is often beneficial to alter your large breed dog ‘late’ (after 8 months of age), as well as allowing the desired territorial behaviour to develop fully.

Other things to consider are the type of fencing in place, the terrain of your pastures in all seasons–especially if pasturing year-round–and whether your pastures are adjacent to a forest or a crop that predators may use as cover. Depending on where you live and your relationship with your vet, care and upkeep of a single LGD can range anywhere from $500 to $1000 per year. If buying a mature animal, count on paying between $500 to $2,000, and $300 to $1,200 for a puppy. Based on the price of market lambs recently, if the dog saves even 2 or 3 sheep, that will go a long way towards earning its keep!

An LGD needs the traits of ‘responsibility’ (a tendency to remain with the livestock) and ‘reportability’ (regular check-ins with the human caretaker) as well as reliability in its family watchdog role. It is important to spend time observing and understanding how you LGD works, and their individual styles as well. For example, a LGD stands at the gate at midday, barking in the direction of the sheep grazing in the woods. The sheep appear, marching single file back to the barn. The dog quits barking and takes a nap. Initially, you think he has called the sheep in due to a threat in the woods, but after observation, realize he is doing this every day at approximately the same time. Conclusion; there was likely no predator threat in the woods, but he simply wanted the sheep nearby in a safe spot so he could take a nap. A smart move for a dog who works nights! If you have multiple dogs, it is also important to observe their pack order and how they allocate guarding responsibilities among themselves.

Taking your newly arrived LGD adult or puppy on regular perimeter walks of your property or pastures will help it adjust to its new home and teach it to respect your boundary fences. Sheep will eat dog food, so feeding the dog with the sheep and supervising will discourage the sheep from stampeding the dog’s food and will make sure you know your dog is getting proper nutrition.

Some people choose to free feed their LGDs and set up feeding areas that prevent sheep access. However, this does not guarantee the dog is actually consuming the food, as raccoons, squirrels and other small rodents are just as likely to steal the food. Also, leaving food out may attract the very predators you are trying to keep at bay, so assigned feeding times are preferable.

Guard Dog: Behaviours to Discourage

If left unsupervised, LGD pups will sometimes develop habits that can range from nuisance, to grounds for dismissal. Things like roosting by the stock tank and blocking the sheep from drinking, nonsense barking (like at its own echo), and over-the-top aggressive barking at visitors should be actively discouraged. More serious behaviours such as using lambs as toys, claiming newborn lambs as their own, or pulling the placenta out of a ewe definitely requires a scolding! Also, if you feed your dogs raw off the farm, never allow them to ‘eat through wool’ or you may find your dog preparing its own lunch one day. Further to this, any deadstock should be removed immediately and properly disposed of.

Last Word:

Remember your LGD, although independent, is still a dog. They are happy working but need bonding time with you and your family, however brief. This does not mean lying on your couch.

They are intelligent dogs, and can differentiate between ‘on duty’ and ‘off duty’ just as most other farm dogs know the difference between work and play. Learn to read your dogs’ behaviour—you’ll be surprised how much they can tell you about your stock and farm environment.

Guard Dog 101 By Janet Fahey

INTRODUCTION

Sheep producers losing lambs to predators or dogs find themselves seeking help to control or eliminate these losses. Several options are available to producers. Various kinds of electric and non-electric fences, traps to catch the predators, scare devices, cultural methods of penning sheep such as housing at night, using vapor lights, and guardian dogs are options quite successful in decreasing losses for many sheep producers.
Guardian dogs are receiving a lot of attention for controlling predators. Five years of research with 60 livestock guardian dogs at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois, Idaho, concluded that the success rate of using guard dogs was over 60% when trained properly and only 10% of the dogs were rated as poor. Hampshire College New England Farm in Amherst, Mass., also reported excellent results of sheep protection with guardian dogs.
Guard dogs are not a cure-all for predator problems. Guard dogs are viewed as a first line of defense against predation in many types pf operations but they need to be supplemented by other control methods. Properly integrating a puppy or dog into a sheep operation takes time, persistence, and patience. Some dogs are failures, but another dog can replace one that has failed and the second dog can be quite successful. Some guard dogs have killed sheep in the flock they are supposedly guarding. In early training, signs of rough handling and over-aggression should be handled with stern discipline.

How do guard dogs protect sheep?

Guard dogs protect sheep by patrolling, barking, scent-marking, and pursuing a predator when the sheep are threatened. A sheep producer should investigate the concept of using a guardian dog before investing in a puppy. A guard dog must form a bond with the sheep and protect them from predators. It is very important to incorporate a guard dog into the total management plan. A producer must consider other dogs on the premise and determine how the guardian dog will relate to these dogs. Some producers are forced to take the guard dog away from the sheep in order to work the sheep with working dogs.

Selecting a guard dog

The dog may be one of several breeds or a mixture of breeds. The most common breeds of guard dogs in the U.S. are the Great Pyrenees, Komondor, Anatolian Shepherd, Akbash Dog, Maremma, Kuvasz, and Sharplaninac. These dogs generally command good prices, however, the loss of a few lambs will soon pay for one. Mixed dogs were used in experimental work and were quite effective depending on how they are reared and the kind of temperament they exhibit. A pup, born of a proven sire and dam and raised among sheep will probably develop into a good guard dog if properly bonded with the flock.
A puppy raised in a kennel may have difficulty bonding to sheep, especially if over six to eight weeks of age. Choose a puppy from a line that exhibits traits complimentary to your needs. Avoid pups from overly shy or aggressive parents. Investigate the health status of the parents and look for hip dysplasia, a joint problem common to many large breeds of dogs. Consider neutering the pup to prevent problems due to heat cycles in females and males seeking females in heat. Neutering of males or females does not diminish their guarding capability.

Raising and integrating the puppy in a sheep operation

The puppy should be placed with the sheep and treated as a working dog, not a pet. Place the puppy with some lambs to avoid injury that may result from older aggressive ewes. The puppy must develop a bond with the lambs. The older sheep must be introduced gradually to the puppy. Ewes not accustomed to a guard dog may view the pup as an enemy. Over time, the sheep flock will become accustomed to the presence of the guard dog and they will tend to ignore the dog’s presence.
Feed the pup in the sheep barn when the sheep are fed. Correct the pup for inappropriate behavior such as chasing or biting the sheep and praise the pup for good behavior.

Age at bonding pup to sheep

Some breeds of dogs mature and bond to sheep sooner than others. Some pups within breeds also bond at an earlier age than others. Guarding behavior was reported at the U.S. Experiment Station in pups as young as four months of age, while other dogs were nine months of age. The larger breeds of guard dogs mature more slowly and puppy behavior was noted up to twenty-four months of age in some dogs. Patience and discipline is required with all pups.

Problems observed in guard dogs

Failure to stay with the sheep requires correction. Correct the pup for coming to the house by immediately taking it back to the sheep. A sensitive pup will respond to a verbal reprimand while a stubborn “hardheaded”. pup may need a physical correction. Chaining the dog with the sheep at night and releasing it during the day may achieve positive results. Introduce the new pup to its new boundaries on a leash and do it several times the first week. Patrolling and attentiveness to sheep will increase and develop over time. Regardless of training of some pups, a small percentage never strongly bond to sheep.

Playing with the sheep

A certain amount of licking, pawing, chasing and nipping can be expected with some puppies. Boredom contributes to playful activities between puppies and the sheep. The problem can be minimized by moving the pup to a larger area, or in some way changing the pup’s environment. Closely supervise a new pup and this will eliminate the formation of bad habits. Play behavior decreases with age.

Sheep accepting new pup

The time required for the sheep to accept the pup will vary with the time of year it is placed. Lambing time is one time when the ewes will be protective of their young lambs. It generally takes several days to a few weeks for the sheep to accept the pup. Sheep accustomed to a guard dog are easily moved by herding dogs but the guard dog may have to be chained or placed away from the sheep.

Notify neighbors when purchasing a guard dog

A guardian pup is a valuable animal. They must be protected from accidents by moving vehicles, being mistaken for a predator by neighbors, shootings and trappings. A patrolling guard dog may easily be mistaken for an intruder. Notify your neighbors that you have purchased a guard dog.
Guard dogs become ill the same as any livestock. Be aware of a loss of appetite, diarrhea or a change in behavior. Consult your veterinarian and get proper immunization and deworming for your pup.

Conclusion

Guard dogs have become very effective in controlling predators and dogs on many Missouri sheep farms. Guard dogs are not 100% effective; there is variation across and within breeds of dogs. Handling may be one cause of failure. Guard dogs must be properly trained to be successful. Patience, perseverance and discipline are required to teach a guard dog to bond and accept the responsibility of guarding a flock of sheep.

Written by: by Helen A. Swartz, Ph.D.
State Sheep, Goat & Small Livestock Specialist;

Lincoln University at Jefkrson C:ity, University of Missouri, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture

As the “new kid” on the block, your LGD will need to be introduced to everything about its new home. A proper introduction will help ensure that your dog will become the guardian you want and need rather than a “problem child” demanding too much of your time and effort re-training and re-orienting it to do the work of guarding your stock.

There are many aspects of introducing your new LGD; let’s look at them one at a time.

If your new LGD is a puppy, a natural tendency is to bring the cute little thing into the house so it won’t be lonesome and afraid in its new surroundings. DON’T DO IT! Your puppy has lived in a barn around goats since birth. Your barn will not only provide a familiar environment for the pup but will start from the beginning teaching it that its home is where your stock is, not where its humans are.

The area

If your new LGD is an older dog, provide a secure place such as an escape proof pen for its first night. Take it for a walk on a lead around the perimeter of your pen(s) or pasture so it will understand the limits of its new area. You may need to do this several times before the dog shows an understanding that this is its new area to protect. Your sensitivity to the animal will help you decide when the dog is ready to be released into its new area.

The animals

Although there are headings for the different situations you may have, only the new elements to be considered are addressed in each category.

Other dogs

There are several categories of “other dogs” that may be associated with introducing your new LGD.

1. LGDs. If your dog is a puppy, your adult LGDs should accept the pup almost immediately. You may have to witness a short explanation of “I’m the boss and you’re the puppy,” but there should be no serious problem.
2. Great Pyrenees are a special case in the LGD world at this point. Pyrs are generally not same gender aggressive if one or both of them is spayed or neutered. Introducing Great Pyrenees in this case should be easy and simple, needing little time but still requiring you to be alert for anything more than a short alpha demonstration.
3. Introducing intact same gender Great Pyrenees or the same gender of another LGD breed regardless of reproductive status can be a risky and traumatic business. We recommend that you do not try it initially. You can try penning them in adjoining pens and see how they act. If you just have to put two adult LGDs of the same gender together, wait until they have had time to adapt to their new home, but be prepared to break up a “for real” dog fight. With younger dogs the fight is sometimes not too serious, other times, especially with fully adult dogs; it can be a fight to the death. If you plan on same gender intact dogs working together, start with only one adult and let the puppy(ies) grow up with the adult. There will still be fights as the pups go through adolescence and become adults but the chances of lethal fights will be greatly decreased.
4. Pet dogs of any breed. Do not let them into your stock pens, introduce them to your new LGD, or encourage your new LGD to accept them. We strongly recommend total segregation of pets from LGDs. We understand that people often let their pet dogs associate with their LGDs to no ill effect. There is always the possibility, however, that either latent instincts of the pets will come to the fore or that the LGDs will learn to accept other dogs as “OK”. If you decide not to segregate your pets from you LGDs, you are opening yourself and your stock to the possibility of carnage and mayhem on a large scale. We feel it’s just not worth the gamble.

Goats familiar with guardians

If you raise goats that have been around dogs before, you’ll have very little to do in the way of introducing a farm raised or already working LGD to his or her charges. Simply put the dog on a lead and take it into the area where the goats are. Observe both the dog and the goats and when they are all comfortable, release the dog and observe some more to ensure everything goes well. The entire process may take as little time as five or ten minutes but do not take that estimate for granted; stay there, observe, and don’t leave until you and the animals are at ease with the situation. If the dog is mature, or close to it, that may be all it takes. Some dogs, however, require some time to accept new stock, even if the stock is dog friendly. You’ll never know for sure until you watch all of the initial behavior. You may need to pen your new dog in the area of the stock for a while until it understands that this is its new home. (A note here: it is also wise when introducing a new goat into your herd to insure your LGDs accept it. Some dogs require time and you may need to pen the goat in an adjacent pen while the dogs get accustomed to it.)

An immature dog or puppy may become excited or exuberant about all these new friends and want to sniff them all immediately. If this happens, and you’re lucky, a mature goat will teach the pup some manners and decorum and that will be that. If that mature goat isn’t available, you need to take its place. When you observe inappropriate behavior by a pup, immediately interrupt that behavior by shouting harshly and/or exhibiting some form of threatening behavior of your own. Make it short and to the point, stopping immediately when the pup changes its behavior. If you observe this behavior from a pup, you need to ensure that the pup knows it will not be tolerated. The closer you can copy its mother’s behavior in correcting it, the more effective it will be.

In any discipline, immediacy is paramount. If you don’t interrupt the behavior, there’s a good chance that the pup will not know why you’re being “mean” to it. If you believe that the undesirable behavior may continue, secure the pup in an escape proof pen in the immediate area of the goats, preferably in a holding pen close to the barn, and release the pup when you can observe it until you’re satisfied that it will behave appropriately.

Goats unfamiliar with guardians

If you raise stock that have no experience with dogs, you must protect pups and younger dogs from them initially. An older dog will sense the fear and hostility in the goats and should treat them gently while avoiding any confrontations. A panicked or dog-fearing goat will attack a dog and can injure them badly. Many LGDs will not fight back and, if the dog doesn’t understand it is endangered, it will not know about avoiding attacks until it learns by experience. Other LGDs do not tolerate that kind of behavior and will put a stop to it immediately. To say the least, this may lengthen the time you need to accomplish the introductions. Your presence and awareness are paramount during the introductions so that you can avoid this type of potential disaster. Some pups have never had to deal with this situation and will need to be protected. We recommend securing the pup in an escape proof pen in the center of the goats’ area. The goats can make the adaptation to the presence of a dog and you can take the dog among them on a lead until you see that everyone has accepted the situation. Even then, providing an area where the pup can escape an attack is prudent. The stock should adapt fairly quickly, within hours or a few days at the most. Again, you need to be sensitive to the attitudes of your animals and observe their relationships.

Guardians unfamiliar with your species of stock

If possible, it is always easiest to buy your new guardian from a farm that raises the same type of animals that you do, otherwise there is a chance your new LGD will consider them as predators initially. Take your dog in among the animals on a close lead and explain that these are its new charges to guard. Make sure it understands that you expect it to take care of these strange new critters. In this case, the escape proof pen in the center of the herd is a virtual necessity. Your dog will live in close proximity to its new charges until everyone seems to accept the situation. If your stock has not been around dogs and shows aggression toward your LGD, once again, pen the dog in the center of the herd, taking it out into the herd on a short lead regularly until everyone is accepting of the situation

Chickens and other fowl

We don’t know how they decide but some LGDs want to chase chickens and others don’t. If this is important to you, let your breeder know in advance and have him help you select a dog that shows little to no interest in chasing chickens. If you are getting a puppy, the odds are that you will need to pay particular attention to introducing your dog to your fowl if they will come into contact, or for that matter, if you plan for the dog to be guarding fowl. When the dog gets to your farm, have some chickens penned so they are available to you and set the dog in the pen with them. Explain that they are to be treated as animals to be guarded and stay with the dog to ensure it leaves the fowl alone. If you have free range chickens, after penning the dog with some chickens for a short time, arrange for chickens to be in the stock area where the dog will be living. Be alert to its reaction to the birds as well as your other stock and correct any tendency you see for chase behavior. With any undesirable conduct, early detection and fast, interruptive action are the most important factors in stopping this behavior before it becomes a major problem.

Planning for future stock but none are present

If you are starting a stock operation and want a Livestock Guardian to protect them when they arrive, make your arrangements to receive the stock and the dogs at about the same time. If you must acquire one before the other, get the stock first, then the dogs. LGDs need to be “with” their stock, not locked up alone and waiting for them or treated as a pet until the new animals arrive and then expected to turn into an LGD. Getting your LGD early is asking for problems.

General Characteristics of LGD

Earlier we mentioned that your new LGD is not like any dog you’ve met. This is true enough that people with years of experience with dogs often, after acquiring their first LGD, find themselves facing situations they never imagined existed. We’d like to address some of these differences here. At this point we need to tell you that we raise Great Pyrenees and have never raised or owned any other breed of LGD. Rather than make the brash statement that all of the LGDs will conform to the behaviors we’re going to talk about, we’ll say right now that they won’t all fit into one neat mold. We will say that it is our opinion that the more common breeds of LGDs will generally fit the behaviors we’ll mention to a greater or lesser degree but we offer these to you so you’ll recognize what’s happening when you come across one of these behaviors, not to say that it is a “one size fits all” description of LGDs.

Independence is, perhaps, the single most obvious and sometimes irritating characteristic people notice with their first LGD. We’ve even had people tell us that LGDs should all be obedience trained so that the owner should have control of the dog instead of letting the dog do what it wants when it wants to do it. This is an idea we applaud when it’s aimed at pets and dogs that work in close concert with humans. With LGDs it is asking for total disaster.

Your LGD is the result of thousands of years of breeding to teach it to evaluate threat situations in an instant and to act in a way that best counters the perceived threat. Even if you, the dog’s owner, wanted to live with your goats on a 7/24 basis, you could neither see nor hear the threats as effectively as your dogs could. You couldn’t communicate directions to one dog fast enough to counter many of them, and you surely couldn’t be with several dogs simultaneously to guide each one through various behaviors. These dogs are there so you don’t have to live with your stock on a 7/24 basis.

Another result of this breeding is that LGDs just don’t fall all over themselves to please you when you give them commands. You can teach them basic obedience if you choose, but it will never be like watching a Border Collie drop to the ground the second you tell it to. Opinions vary among stockowners about just what kind of obedience their dogs should learn. However it’s phrased, usually the owners will have the dog come when they need it, be quiet long enough to administer medications like wormer when necessary, and not beat them through the gate every time it’s opened. More than that is frosting on the cake.

Your LGD should be bonded to the stock and be glad to see you in the pasture, not the other way around. Some dogs will be more willing to be pets than others, but all should bond to the stock if given the correct environment. This means that you can pet them and give them treats if you want to, but do it in the goat yard, where the goats are. DO NOT do it outside of the goat yard or even by the gate if the goats are not there too. We cannot say often enough that most LGD failures are the result of inadvertent training for failure by the owners and teaching your LGD to expect human attention when they leave their stock is definitely failure oriented training.

LGDs often have dominance issues with each other and sometimes with humans. You want to ensure that your LGDs understand that you are Alpha. If you raise them from pups it shouldn’t be too hard, but we make a practice of regularly standing over our dogs (meaning we stand astride their back-a superior position) of either gender, holding them, and for short times physically controlling their movements. We do this so that if the time ever comes when we must exert a physical superiority over any one of them, they have already given their consent to be treated that way. When you need to work with an injured dog, or in some other emergency, you may not have the time to assert dominance over them.

Multi-Use LGD

These dominance issues between dogs will often lead to fights, especially at feeding time, if you allow it. Pups and adolescents will fight and may even draw blood but it is seldom serious. On occasion (the occasion being they’re able to get to each other) adult dogs (strangers or dogs that are always separated, not necessarily those who have grown up together) of the same gender will fight and these altercations may be lethal. We would advise that you break these fights up if possible although your personal safety is critical here. The dogs will not be aware of you and, if you should place one of your body parts where teeth are being used, you could be injured. Here are some ways that have worked in the past to break up fights. If there are two people available, each of you grab a tail (preferably a different one for each of you) and hold the dogs apart until they calm down enough for you to assert physical control over them and take them to separate pens. We have heard of hitting the dogs over the head but don’t recommend it. If you are alone and are lucky enough to have a hose handy, spraying as high a pressure water as possible in their faces will sometimes cause them to stop long enough to get them separated. As a last resort, hitting and pushing them apart with a 2×4 can work although it can be difficult to do and maintain your personal safety. If the fight is truly lethal, almost any means your imagination can come up with, other than placing yourself in the middle of it, is better than losing a dog.

LGDs will sometimes amaze you with the way they respond to the goats. During kidding season, they will often help clean and dry new kids if the mother goat will let them. Some individual dogs will be so protective of new kids that they will not allow the mother to approach it. This is not a breed trait that we know of but individual dogs of different breeds have been known to act this way. Obviously this is not to be allowed and the dogs seem to understand when you correct them.

It seems that many LGDs have an affinity for babies and often you’ll find kids leaving the mother at night and curling up with the dogs. When a goat leaves her kids in the woods and then forgets where she put them, we’ll often find a dog curled up with them, waiting for us or the mother to come back and claim them.

There are, perhaps, more differences between the guarding behaviors of the different LGDs than in any other single thing. Some dogs guard property as their personal territory while others don’t care where they are as long as they’re with their stock. Some have combinations of these two behaviors. Here is a typical guarding behavior for a Great Pyrenees.

First, they’ll warn all predators of their presence through barking and “marking” their territory. In most cases, a wild animal will not attack stock when it’s protected by dogs and the warnings are sufficient. Wild predators that have no other options will fight to get access to the stock, as will domestic and feral dogs on a killing binge. If the predator persists, the Pyr will threaten and see if the predator will leave. If not, the Pyr will stay between its stock and the predator to protect the stock and deny access to them by the predator. Great Pyrenees will fight when necessary to protect the stock but they are not as aggressive about this as some of the other LGDs who will choose to fight if the predator doesn’t heed their early warnings. This is a case where a Pyr will definitely herd its animals while it holds them in a group and keeps them away from the threat. Pyrs and other LGDs will usually work as a team when there are multiple dogs available, some doing guard duty with the stock while others advance to meet the threat. The way that they divide the duties appears as if they had held long meetings, deciding just who would do what and go where. While this is obviously not what happens, their coordination can be amazing when working as a pack.

While this is certainly not an exhaustive collection of LGD behavior, it can give you some idea of what to expect from your new LGD.

We often hear that people want their LGD to do double duty; on one hand they need a livestock guardian and, on the other, they’d like a yard/house dog to keep them company. Right up front, let’s acknowledge that this can work, but we don’t think it can work well. There are two distinct aspects to this idea that need to be examined before you make a decision that may be irrevocable and find that you have a situation you didn’t quite expect.

First and foremost are the laws of physics. No dog can be in two places at the same time. Almost as important is the fact that no dog curled up in a nice warm closed-up house will be as alert or as able to detect and react to predators as a dog out in the pasture with the goats.

The simple fact is, when you have the dog with you, it’s not with the livestock. This may seem obvious but we get the impression that not everyone actually considers this when thinking about dual-purpose dogs. Even if the dog does alert to predators while in the house, the reaction time to let the dog out of the house and move to the area where the stock are threatened may take longer than the predator needs to “grab a quick bite” and be on its way. This lengthened reaction time will hold true in varying degrees whether the dog is in the yard, in a house with a “doggie door”, or shut in.

Most people want the company of a dog in the evening when they’re home. This companionable interlude happens at the same time that the hunters begin their daily quest for dinner so at the exact time when your guardian is most important, it’s in the house. By the very nature of the job description, a dual-purpose dog cannot perform both jobs constantly and effectively. The argument may be made that wild predators will sense the lingering presence of the dog and avoid the place. This overlooks the fact that dogs keep most wild predators away by their immediate presence and the threat of forcing a fight for the opportunity to chase prey. It also overlooks the fact that feral or domestic dogs don’t give a fig if they smell your dog; unless it’s there to confront intruders, other dogs will ignore it. For those who say they have a dual-purpose dog and they are happy with the arrangement, we can only wish them luck and hope that nothing with big teeth or sharp claws falls through the holes in their defensive plan.

Part two of the consideration has to do with the individual dog and its ability to live two separate lives simultaneously. Some dogs can, some can’t. Some LGDs are not suited to live in a household and some can do it. The fact is that your LGD was probably raised in a barn with stock. This is what it has been conditioned to and what it is used to. Your dog, if it is an adult, should be bonded to your stock, not to you. When you teach the dog to value your presence more than the stock’s presence, it can be very difficult to keep the dog’s focus on the stock during those times you want it with the goats. If your dog is a puppy, it should adapt to both you and the goats easily, but it will have a preference. Persuading the pup to accept living in the non-preferred style, while allowing it access to its preferred style on an intermittent basis, can be a Herculean task.

We have also found that LGDs are often quite uncomfortable when brought into a house. They aren’t used to it and usually whatever purpose you had in mind is thwarted before you can even begin. If you adapt an LGD to the house, it will still gladly go into the pasture but getting them to stay there while you go to the house can be a problem. As we said earlier, some dogs can handle this schizophrenic lifestyle while other dogs can’t. The problem is that your dog may be unable to make the sudden and repetitive adaptations between both kinds of existence. If this is the case, there is a good chance that by the time you discover this inability you’ll have lost a good LGD.

LGD Grooming and Health Care

One of the things we hear fairly often is, “I don’t want a dog with a long coat because I don’t have the time to take care of it.” Think about this: “Did the shepherds of long ago spend any time brushing their dogs?” The real answer is, “No one really knows.” It is hard to imagine that they did though. A long coat on a pet or show dog is not the same as a long coat on a working dog. At least with a Pyr, the coat is pretty well self-cleaning and self-maintaining. Sure you can cut out matted hair every few months but the dogs will lose their coat at least on an annual basis and the mats will fall away. Since these dogs live outdoors and often have no manufactured shelter at all, their coats have natural oils that help protect them against the weather. One of the implications of this is that you certainly don’t want to wash an LGD as it will reduce their ability to withstand the sometimes driving rain or other wet or cold conditions in which they may live. Although you do need to notice the condition of your animals and insure they stay healthy on the outside as well as on the inside, all-in-all a long coated LGD doesn’t need the excessive care that other long coated breeds demand.

Goats are often raised in parts of the country where the temperatures can get pretty high. We often hear that a long coated dog will get too hot. Although there is some accuracy in that statement, the coat doesn’t play as major a role in heating and cooling as you might expect. Dogs don’t sweat like people. They sweat through the pads of their feet. They also expel heat through their mouth, primarily using their tongue as a radiator and, consequently, they have some trouble throwing off heat during the hottest parts of the year because the tongue isn’t a particularly large part of the body. A dog is pretty inefficient as a cooling machine so most dogs can use some help during hot weather if we expect them to stay active. Some folks actually shear their dogs for summer to help keep them cooler but we don’t recommend it. The coat is a marvelous protection against the sun (a shorn dog can sunburn easily and white is actually a highly reflective color). It’s also protection against teeth, claws (remember other dogs are predators too, not just the relatively shy wild predators), briars and sharp branches which are possible in much goat country. There are not too many parts of the country where sudden summer storms are unknown so, even during the hot season, they may need their coats intact to keep them dry and warm in a storm. A shorn coat can also open a dog up to attack by various insects that normally can’t penetrate the thick hair. Timing can play a major role here too; if cold weather comes before the coat grows back in, then your dog will surely have trouble coping with the elements. A partial measure is to shear only the stomach so the dog can get closer to the coolness of the ground when they dig a new bed.

First and foremost to protect your LGD in hot weather, we recommend water. There’s nothing like a dip in a pond, tank, or even a large watering trough to cool off a dog that needs to get rid of some extra heat. The constant availability of water for both internal and external use is the single strongest tool you have to keep your dogs healthy throughout the summer.

On occasion, you’ll find an inflamed area on a small patch of your dog’s skin. Usually the dog will bite or scratch at it and remove enough hair in a roughly circular spot that you can see the red and possibly oozing skin. These are called “hot spots” and usually are caused by external parasites or allergies. Fast treatment is urgently needed as these are minor problems that will probably grow rapidly and/or develop infections. There are several remedies for hot spots. Commercially, Sufodene, available in the pet section of department stores, and Cut Heal, available in the horse section of farm stores, are quite effective. We’ve also used corn starch (simply pack the hot spot with it) and found it as effective as the commercial products. The hot spot will usually dry up in two or three days with a daily application and there is no lasting effect. As always, if you have questions about this condition or if it doesn’t go away quickly once you treat it, check with your vet. In fact, we recommend you check with your vet before you have this condition, or any of the others we’ll talk about, so you’ll be prepared with expert advice from your own vet.

Let us add here that everything we say about dog conditions, problems, and medication is either from our limited experience with our own dogs, anecdotal from other breeders, or from our vet for our specific situations. We are not veterinarians and the things we’ll mention here are more for your awareness so you can have preventive consultations with your vet rather than to lead you through any veterinary procedures.

You’ll need to be aware that there are other skin problems your dog may experience including any of several different types of mange. If you have questions regarding any abnormalities in your dog’s appearance, the safest bet is to consult your veterinarian.

External parasites can also cause your dog severe problems, including death, if there are too many of them. Fleas and ticks are the most common and we use Frontline brand flea and tick treatment that we get from our vet. It can get expensive but nothing we’ve found seems to be as effective. Dipping your dog in various brands of poison made for dipping can kill the fleas and ticks if you can get it soaked through the coat (a difficult job at best with some breeds) but it wears off quickly, especially in wetter areas, and it is a real hassle to dip most LGDs. There are other types of treatments for dogs and off-label drugs that we’ve heard recommended but before you use them, once again, please consult your vet.

The most dangerous of the internal parasites of which we are aware are heartworms. These things can degrade the quality of your dog’s life as well as shorten it. Our vet tells us to start heartworm treatment on pups at about four months; check with yours about it if your LGD is a puppy. If your LGD is an adult, insure that you know whether it has been given heartworm treatment before you acquired it. If it didn’t, and has heartworm, if you treat it, you’ll kill the worms and they can create a blockage in the heart that can be fatal to your dog. Your vet can test for heartworm if you’re not sure of your dog’s history and it’s the only sensible thing to do if you don’t know and want to start treatment. As far as we are aware, there are two different types of treatments for heartworm. There are heartworm-specific medications called Heart Guard and Revolution and there is Ivermectin (we need to stress it’s not Ivomec Plus). Ivermectin is significantly less expensive than the heartworm-specific medications but it is off-label usage and may be lethal to collie type dogs. (We have often been made aware that some folks give their collies this medication with no ill effects but that doesn’t change the fact that it may be lethal to them). We give one cc per hundred pounds orally on a monthly basis but we checked with our vet before we started and suggest that you check with yours. Ivermectin also will generally keep your dogs free of intestinal parasites other than tapeworms. Once again, however, you must look at your dogs on a regular basis and, if their coat looks poor, they seem to start losing weight for no reason, or their gums lose color, have your vet do a fecal exam if you don’t have the equipment to do it yourself.

There are several vaccines which are generally recommended to keep your dogs healthy. We use a seven-way shot (there are some differences in brands but ours covers Distemper, Adenovirus Type 2, Coronavirus, Parainfluenza, Parvovirus (MLV & KV), and Leptospira Bacterin). We order from a supply house. It’s much less expensive to give the shots yourself but your vet should be willing to guide you through it and tell you exactly what vaccines to purchase. At this time, multiple puppy shots with annual boosters for adults are generally recommended although there is some talk about not needing to vaccinate adults that often. We still do the annual boosters and will continue to do so until our vet tells us that the new evidence is clear that we need to change.

Rabies vaccine is a virtual requirement for your dogs. Their job is to stand between your stock and predators, all of which may possibly be rabid. You can get the vaccine and give the shot yourself, but in Oklahoma as well as several other states, the law considers the dog as unvaccinated unless the shot is given by a veterinarian. As usual, dog owners and breeders will argue about which way is best but the answer is, of course, “Whichever way you feel fits your situation” and that is a question no one but you can answer.

Finally there’s the question of spaying and neutering. It is a question as much of effectiveness for your LGDs as it is a social or health question. A “fixed” dog tends to keep its attention on the job much more consistently than does an intact dog as well as the fact that a bitch attending to her pups is not out guarding.

A second and quite major consideration is: “What effect will excessive testosterone have on your intact males?” We found to our dismay that one of our dogs who had been an excellent guardian as well as stud dog couldn’t take the pressure when he reached the age of four years. He was in with a bitch in heat as well as a very rutty buck and several does that were in heat. The particular combination led him into aggressive dominance driven behavior towards the buck. As a result, we have one buck that was mauled and we felt after trying several different interventions that we needed to castrate our stud. We kept him away from all the other animals for a month while the heaviest testosterone levels subsided and have since placed him back as a guardian to insure his appropriate behavior before offering him for sale as an adult guardian.

There quite often is a big controversy about spay/neuter any time you gather dog owners and we won’t get into the social aspect of it right now. The health part of spay/neuter you can discuss with your vet. Spaying is a surgical procedure and we have our vet do all the spays for our dogs. Castration can be done on the farm with the same elastrator and bands you use for goats. Again, check with your vet for the details and make sure you vaccinate the dog for tetanus if you do it yourself. Early spay and neuter is a concept that is readily accepted among most vets at this time. One of the big advantages to the dog owner is that the vet often charges a fee for the procedure that is based upon the size of the dog. With LGDs, eight to twelve week old puppies are a lot smaller and, consequently, the procedure is a lot cheaper than with adult dogs.

We recommend that you take a close look at the question of spay/neuter for LGDs and for pets. It isn’t going to go away and PETA is getting more heavily involved in trying to force legislation to mandate it. It’s a complicated issue and when you add the “Animal Rights” agenda, the facts of the issue can get obscured pretty easily. We think that it’s far more than a question of budget or attitude; it’s a question of “What’s the best action that we, as individuals, can take for ourselves, our dogs, our stock, our pocketbooks, and our personal freedom?” Often the answers to these questions seem to contradict each other and we believe that LGD owners have a responsibility to look deeply at the whole issue. If you do, you may very well end up with the same position that your first reaction led you to but at least you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing that you reached a studied conclusion.

LGD Food Delivery Systems

Perhaps one of the most common issues that people with LGDs have questions about is feeding their dog. We’ve talked about your feed choices earlier so here we’ll address the question of delivering the food to your dogs rather than your goats. Some LGDs will protect their food from all comers while others are real wimps and stand back while even young goats gorge on delicious high dollar food.

For those worried about the goats, our advice is, don’t be. If the goats clean up the dog food, the only real victims will be you and your budget because dog food sure ain’t hay and you’ll keep replacing it until your dog actually gets to eat. If the dog protects its food, it may sound like your dog is going to kill something but, if you’ll watch without panic, you’ll see that there is a lot of threat noise and posturing but no grabbing or biting. (At least there had better not be or you have some heavy re-training in your future!)

Especially if you have multiple LGDs, the most efficient answer we’ve found to feeding working LGDs is to use self-feeders. This will keep you from being locked into a specific time to feed the dogs. It also means there is always free choice food available to the dogs so they’re never stacked up at the gate waiting to be fed just as the goats decide to go back out to forage. We have never had to hold food back from any of our working dogs because they were eating too much and they seem to stay quite healthy choosing when and how much to eat without our interference. In addition, alpha and dominance issues in regards to food can be resolved according to the dogs’ schedule, not yours. It seems to be somewhat less violent that way.

Self-feeders are easy to locate. Usually everyone from the local feed store to the local pet store will have some variation of the self-feeder for dogs. We find that the size that holds about 50 pounds works well for us, but if you have a single dog, you might want to try one a bit smaller. You’ll need one with a capacity that will hold enough to feed your dog for as long as possible without molding in the feeder. The quantity your dog eats daily, the humidity, and the insect activity in your area are the major issues affecting the amount of food you can effectively store in the feeder and still provide quality food for your dog. If you can find someone who manufactures or assembles the actual feeders, you may save a good deal of money buying seconds. These feeders can be classed as seconds for a marred finish on the metal or other similar inconsequential irregularities. We bought ours several years ago for about half the price we would have paid in a retail store. If you have chickens, you’ll need to raise the feeder by placing a milk crate or similar item under it to prevent the chickens from getting the leverage they need to open the door and eat if they manage to find the feeder.

Simply using a self-feeder is not, unfortunately the complete answer. If your goats like dog food, a little thing like a gravity activated swinging door won’t stop them. They’ll have it figured out as fast as your dogs do (if not a little faster, the dogs aren’t as greedy about their feed as the goats are.) You’ll have to allow your dogs access to the feeder while denying access to the goats. Although it sounds difficult to imagine such a thing, the method is quite simple: surround the feeder with a sturdy fence, cut hole in the fence too high and too small for a goat to jump through but placed just right for your dog and, presto!, you have a goat proof dog feeder.

We have placed hog panel, cattle panel and utility panel (but a wooden fence or any barrier too high for goats would work) around the feeder and cut a hole in the panel about 14 inches off the ground with the hole being 9 inches to 1 foot square. The dogs can get through the hole to get to the feeder and the goats can’t. Make sure any sharp edges or points are smoothed off to protect the dogs when they go through because it is a tight fit. Variations of this method include making a hole for the dogs to crawl under or teaching them to jump in over the top. We don’t use these variations because we feel it teaches and encourages the dogs to use skills helpful in circumventing our fencing.

To teach the dogs to use the feeders, put them in the ‘pen’ show them the food, and lock them in. They can almost always figure out how to get out. You do need to check though; we’ve had some rescue dogs that would have stayed in there forever if they weren’t released. You may have to do this two or three times before they catch on.

On occasion, you’ll find that a goat or two will figure out how to get in to a specific feeder. In that case, you’ll have four choices:

1. Reconfigure the feeder fence with a different height from ground and a smaller hole.
2. Sell the goat or otherwise physically remove it from the pen where the feeder is located.
3. Feed the dogs individually.
4. Resign yourself to feed that goat dog food.

We have never found a way to un-train the goat from getting into the feeder without either making changes in the way it’s built or making it just as unusable for dogs as it becomes for goats. (i.e. electric fence to keep animals away is just too inclusive!) The goat will learn easily that it is a “bad thing” to be in the feeder but that just means they run when they see you coming.

With a little patience because the really determined goats will provide excellent quality control data, you’ll have a goat proof dog food delivery system that will provide your LGDs with quality food on a continuing basis.

Written by: Dan and Paula Lane, Oklahoma, Langston University /Goat Research

Livestock guardian dogs (LGDs) are dogs that are purpose-bred for living with the flocks they guard, to reduce predation. For hundreds of years, these rugged animals have lived outside with sheep, year round, withstanding harsh elements. They use the same shelter as the sheep and get extra feed in winter. As a result, LGDs do not require a doghouse but may require some extra care when guarding the ewe flock in winter. Keeping them with the sheep provides the livestock with protection against wolves, coyotes and other dogs.

Livestock Guardian Dogs

An LGD is bonded to the flock it lives with and should want to stay with the ewes. Shepherds say the dog thinks it is a sheep. Researchers believe the LGD is treating the sheep as if they were other dogs, and the sheep are treating the dogs as if they were other sheep. The flock of sheep and dogs together respond to each other’s feeding behaviour and alarm signals. Behaviour born of centuries of selection for certain traits means LGDs are less likely to kill a sheep and are predisposed to follow their flock.

A livestock guardian dog works a 24-hour day, alert to intruders. Often the dog’s mere presence in the area or simply a strong bark will derail a predator’s plans for the sheep. Breeds used as livestock guardians, including Great Pyrenees, Maremma, Komondor and Akbash, possess the ability to act independently of shepherds while working to protect the sheep. These dogs are hardy animals and even during severe weather may choose to not enter shelter such as a doghouse or barn. They prefer to sleep where they have a full view of their surroundings and the sheep. Pasture studies found that generally, at night, the dogs stayed within about 200 m of the food, water and bed grounds of the dogs and flock. According to Lorna and Raymond Coppinger, pioneers of LGD research, the behaviour of a successful LGD includes the “absence of the stalking, chasing instinct and a curious mixture of juvenile, maternal and courtship behaviour directed toward the sheep.”

Characteristics of Livestock Guardian Dogs

LGDs are expected to be attentive to the animals they guard. A successful LGD must be:

• trustworthy – They will not endanger the sheep they are charged to protect.
• attentive – LGDs stay with the flock and do not roam away.
• protective toward the sheep

According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Factsheet, shepherds benefit from owning an LGD by:

• not losing sheep to predators
• reducing labour by not having to pen sheep nightly to avoid predation
• being alerted to disturbances in the flock or on the farm
• making more efficient use of pastures and potential expansion of the flock
• not finding their flock ravaged by domestic dogs, a very traumatic experience for a shepherd

Handling the Cold, Winter and Rain by Livestock Guardian Dogs

Professors Ray and Lorna Coppinger studied 1,000 LGDs for over 10 years and ran the Livestock Dog Project. According to Ray Coppinger, whether dogs can sleep outside depends on the weight of the dog. Large dogs have less trouble handling the cold of our winters than the heat of our summers. Dogs are poor at radiating heat but good at conserving their heat. Sheep may require access to shelter, such as barns or stands of bush, during winter rain storms. In contrast, LGD breeds generally have a long, flat, weather-resistant outer coat that sheds water, and a thick, “downy” undercoat for warmth. Rough-coated, undercoated, short-eared dogs can withstand lower temperatures than smooth-coated, greyhound-shaped dogs. However, according to Prof. Coppinger, it is body mass that really determines cold resistance in dogs. At about -32°C, medium-sized dogs (under 32 kg) start to take action against the cold by shivering or increasing their metabolic rate (burning energy to produce heat). Larger dogs, such as LGDs that weigh around 45 kg, can withstand even lower temperatures before reacting to the cold.

Doghouses have been placed in summer pastures by Western U.S. open range ranchers (pasturing sheep in areas where there are no fences) to provide a home site and feeding station for the dogs. They place a salt lick on the back of the doghouse to attract the sheep to this area so the doghouse becomes a socializing point for the sheep and dogs, helping reduce roaming.

Respondents to the Ontario livestock guardian dogs survey conducted through the Large Flock Operators (LFO) working group in 2003 commented that their older dogs would seek shelter from the cold rain. Others stated their dogs would sleep outside the pole barns, while the sheep slept inside. Of the LFOs surveyed, those that supplied a doghouse for their LGDs stated that the dogs never used the doghouse, and that they always slept outside.

Shelter for Livestock Guardian Dogs:

Full-fleeced sheep that are healthy and properly fed can spend the winter outside without access to a barn. Sheep and livestock guardian dogs require a windbreak for very cold, windy days. A windbreak may take the form of a bush that can be around the outside of the field to block the wind or in the field, allowing sheep to enter it for shelter. Wooden windbreak fences looking like tall snow fences, or made of partially porous windbreak “cloth,” can provide adequate wind shelter for sheep and the dog.

Sheep will also use each other as shelter from the wind. When a sheep on the windy side becomes cold, it moves and works itself into the centre of the flock. LGDs will do the same, burrowing into the centre of the flock if they want to get out of the wind. LGDs will lay in the fence row of a field, using the shrubs and snow banks for shelter. Dogs have been seen lying on top of the round bales of hay in a feeder. If large round bales are unrolled for feeding, the dogs will lie on the hay.

Feeding of Livestock Guardian Dogs:

According to the LGD owners survey, shepherds increased the amount of feed offered to the dogs during extremely cold weather and/or increased the fat/energy content of the feed during the winter months. Some sheep producers have self-feeders available for the dogs, allowing the dog to decide if and when it requires more feed. Since these dogs often choose to stay outdoors in all weather conditions, their metabolic action may increase in response to severe weather, causing them to need more feed. One dog food manufacturer suggests that dogs need about 7.5% more feed for every 5.5°C drop in temperature, once the temperature reaches the point were the livestock guardian dogs is shivering or trying to avoid the cold.

When coyotes are pressuring a flock and “working” the LGDs, the dogs often lose some weight. Some shepherds change dog feed to a higher energy feed during these times of the year. The National Research Council reported in Nutrient Requirements of Dogs that “Requirements for work and adverse environmental conditions make a . . . systematic schedule for meeting such diverse requirements impractical. Thus, it is recommended to feed to thrifty body condition . . . reliable sign of uncomplicated energy deficiency is generalized loss of bodyweight.” In other words, a dog losing weight needs more feed or a higher energy feed.

Especially during harsh weather, check the body condition of your LGDs. Some shepherds check daily, some formally score the dogs’ body condition several times each year. To do this, place both thumbs on the dog’s backbone and run the fingers along the rib cage. You should be able to feel the dog’s ribs – an livestock guardian dogs should not be fat. If you cannot easily feel the bony part of each rib, the dog may be overweight. When viewed from above, looking down on to the dog’s back, a clearly defined waist should be visible behind the ribs. From the side, the abdomen should appear tucked up.

Lifespan of  Livestock Guardian Dogs:

The longevity of working dogs is dependent upon their life span and whether they show the appropriate guarding behaviour. The Livestock Dog Project run by the Coppingers found that 11% of dogs culled were inattentive to livestock and 57% had injured or killed livestock. The longer a dog stays on the farm, the more cost-effective it will be for the shepherd. The purchase price, training costs and ineffective juvenile months will be amortized over a much longer time period.

Lorenz and colleagues (1986) reported that “Untrustworthy dogs often exhibited a high frequency of play behaviour and were often noted to be overfed and overweight. This disposition for ‘extra’ play may be reflective of a diet too high in calories.”

Livestock guardian dogs are adaptive and can make changes to their routine as conditions change. In Ontario, LGDs are not tethered and can make their own choices and changes to their microclimate as the need arises. Using the same shelter as the sheep it protects, a properly fed, well-conditioned LGD does not require a traditional doghouse.

Livestock guardian dogs (LGDs) are dogs that are purpose-bred for living with the flocks they guard, to reduce predation. For hundreds of years, these rugged animals have lived outside with sheep, year round, withstanding harsh elements. They use the same shelter as the sheep and get extra feed in winter. As a result, LGDs do not require a doghouse but may require some extra care when guarding the ewe flock in winter. Keeping them with the sheep provides the livestock with protection against wolves, coyotes and other dogs.

Written by: Barry Potter – Livestock Specialist/OMAFRA; Craig Richardson – Animal Care Specialist/OMAFRA; Christoph Wand – Beef, Sheep and Goat Nutritionist/OMAFRA; Livestock Guardian Dogs and their Care in the Winter

Too many livestock owners have experienced “predation” problems first hand. These people have discovered that a “predator” is not always a mountain lion or a hungry coyote. It can be a stray dog or even a family pet. When one of these predators strikes either in fun or with the intent to kill, livestock suffers. Goat and sheep owners are two of the primary groups concerned about predator control; however, they are not alone in their desire to control predators. It is an interest they share with small livestock owners, ranchers, farmers, and even suburbanites from Maine to California.

A number of animals have been used as herd or flock guardians, among them llamas and donkeys. However, where there is strong pressure from predators, these animals themselves may become prey. More recently, Dean Anderson of USDA and Dr. Charles Taylor of the Texas A&M University Research Station, Sonora, Texas, in conjunction with New Mexico State University, have worked with mixed herds of cattle and sheep. When these species are run together, they can “bond,” with the cattle becoming the herd protectors and readily accepting the sheep as herd members. Goats, however, have not been used in this research. Lacking a strong flocking instinct, goats can present a problem in a guarding situation. However, many goat owners have had great success using livestock guarding dogs.

A NEW INTEREST IN AN OLD METHOD

Predator control has always been a concern, but within the past two decades there has been increasing controversy about both the effects and the efficiency of traditional predator control methods (trapping, poisoning, aerial hunting, and scare tactics). In addition, with the current concerns about the eco-system and endangered predator species, there is now more desire to deter predators rather than exterminate them. Thus, for a modern answer to the age old problem of predation, the New World looked to the Old World, and to the livestock guarding dogs.

In this country, the United States Department of Agriculture and its Animal Damage Control division have long worked with ranchers and farmers facing predation problems. By 1986, the U.S. Experimental Sheep Station was at work gathering objective data in one of several studies of livestock guarding dogs of various breeds. The result has been valuable information for guarding dog owners and continued interest in documenting all of the livestock guardian breeds, including those lesser known breeds. Anyone interested in the results of those studies should contact their state Animal Damage Control Office and request a copy of USDA bulletin #588, entitled “Livestock Guarding Dogs”(4). A video by the same title is also available.

THE OTHER STOCK DOGS

Livestock guarding dogs are very different from the “other” livestock working dogs — the herding dogs. Herding dogs use intimidation and actual physical force to move livestock. These dogs are not usually left on their own with stock; they serve as the herdsman’s right-hand and typically remain with him unless sent after stock. When he is sent after the flock, the herding dog uses the “predator eye” to intimidate herd animals and move them away from him. When the “eye” fails, some dogs bark or nip to force stock to move.

Typically these herding dogs are small to intermediate in size and dark in color with prick (upright) or semi-prick ears. They also share a desire to please their owner, which results in breeds like the Border Collie being ranked high on lists of intelligence and trainableness. Those same lists rank the livestock guardians rather low. Most livestock guard dog owners will testify that it is a case of attitude rather than IQ that makes the guard dogs a challenge at times.

LIVESTOCK GUARDING DOGS

No one really knows where the first livestock guardian originated, but there is no doubt that they have been a part of agriculture since the earliest, prehistoric days. Early Greek and Roman writers, such as Varro and Columnella, describe two kinds of massive guard dogs already commonly seen in Greece (Epirus) and Italy, a dark dog and a white dog. The dark colored dogs were used to protect home and property from nighttime intruders, and the white “shepherd’s dogs” were used for guarding sheep. The color of the dogs was not happenstance. The dark dogs were better able to surprise nighttime intruders. The white dogs bedded down with the sheep were a surprise to predators but were easily distinguished by the shepherd from the darker colored wolves and bears.

The livestock guardian breeds tend to be large (25″ or more at the withers) with drop ears. There are some colored breeds, such as the Tibetan Mastiff, the Caucasian Mountain Dog, the Kangal Dog, the Yugoslavian Sarplaninac, the Anatolian Shepherd, and the Cao de Castro Laboreiro. Most of these are rare breeds with very little data so far concerning their performance in this country as livestock guardians.

The majority of livestock guardians today in the U.S. and Canada are members of the white guarding family. They form a “chain” of guarding dogs stretching form East to West: the Akbash Dog of western Turkey, the Maremma of Italy, the Komondor and the Kuvasz of Hungary, the Liptok or Chuvatch of Czechoslovakia, the Tatra or Podhalanski of Poland, and the Great Pyrenees of the French Pyrenees. These dogs have been described as sharing a triad of traits: tall, white, and courageous (2).

REASONS FOR OWNING A LIVESTOCK GUARDIAN

There are a number of reasons for getting a livestock guardian. The first is active intruder or predation problems, including those with domestic canines or human intruders. Another is potential problems. According to the U. S. Sheep Experimental Station in Idaho, livestock guardians have an 80% success rate; the Farm Center in Massachusetts reports a 79% success rate. When unsuccessful dogs are moved to a new situation, that rate jumps to over 90%. The explanation for this high success rate is probably the result of changes in herd-guard dog management and physical environment, such as size of pasture or range, age or type of livestock to be guarded, and the presence of other guard dogs.

GUARDIAN TRAITS – BONDING

The livestock guardian’s success is due to several unique characteristics, namely, the ability to bond combined with an “independent” disposition. Any goat owner who has bottle fed kids understands the principle of “bonding.” Bonding results in the kid regarding humans as “mother.” Likewise, the livestock guarding dog accepts the herd animals as his “pack” and accepts a subordinate rather than dominant place in the herd.

Many livestock guard dog experts today say that pups should be introduced to stock by 8 to 12 weeks. Many of those experts are working with pups that will be expected to “range” with sheep, goats, and cattle over thousands of acres with minimal human contact. However, numerous small land holders running stock on fenced acreage report excellent results with older guard dogs that were not introduced to stock until they were over a year, perhaps even several years old. Once puppies are bonded to a species of livestock, USDA studies show that removal for up to six months does not affect the bonding. Once bonded to stock rather than people, many dogs can be placed successfully with a different species. For example, livestock guardians raised with sheep and/or goats have successfully made the switch to the other species or even to camelids (llamas and alpacas) and ratites (ostriches and emus). Many guarding dogs are in situations where they learn to accept several species as part of their social group. Thus, even the most dog aggressive guardians learn to accept the herder’s dogs or the family’s pets as a part of the “herd.” They also become protective of the people they are associated with.

The bonding process results in the dog not only accepting the animals he guards as equal but even as dominant to himself. While the herding dog “eyes” stock and relies on dominating the herd, the livestock guardian will go out of its way to avoid confrontation with the animals it guards. For example, when an irate doe stamps her feet and charges, the guard dog will usually just move away or lie down and avert its eyes. In this way, the guard dog avoids making threatening eye contact. He seems to realize that his own success relies on being accepted by the herd.

Most guard dog owners feed their dogs in the pens or pastures with the stock. One danger here is that a young dog will let the goats or sheep eat his feed or even drive him away from it. However, most livestock guardians will learn to defend their food from their charges. Some dogs growl and snarl in order to fend off hungry (or curious) goats and sheep at feeding time. Others have different tactics. One guard dog owner reports that her dog reaches over and gently grasps the thieving ruminant’s muzzle in her mouth. The kibble-thief will then quit, disgusted at having had dog lips on her nose. As always, the herd owner must be aware of any potential problem, taking care to protect both the young dog and the herd.

INDEPENDENCE

Along with their size and strength, the livestock guardians share an independent attitude which can be frustrating to a first time guard dog owner. This attitude leads to the most common complaint, which is about their “independent” behavior. For centuries, these dogs have been bred to take care of themselves and their herd with little interference from humans. Visitors to a herd where there are guarding dogs often observe that the dogs do not seem to do anything. A good guardian should not have to do much. He will typically make his “rounds” at some time during the day, checking out the pasture or pen. He will spend much of his day lying where he can see both the herd and the surrounding area. Once a guard dog has decided what he should — or should not — do, it can be difficult to change his mind. This is when it is important that the owner has taken some time with his dog in order to establish himself as the “alpha” (dominant) member of the group.

TRAINING

Most livestock guardian breeds are not known for their desire to “perform” for their owners. However, because of the potential need to catch the dog and transport him (from pasture to pasture or to the vet), some leash training and commands are needed. Adrienne Foote, who runs Maremma and Great Pyrenees on range with sheep and angora goats, reports that leash training a dog allows it to be tied. There are also other benefits. When one of her guardians was caught in a fence snare designed to catch coyotes, the dog did not panic. Instead it stood quietly until it was found and released. A little training averted a tragic ending.

Commands such as “no,” “up” (into a trailer or truck), and “sheep” or “out” (to the herd) are easily learned and usually obeyed because they pertain to what the guarding dog does — go with his sheep or goats. “It’s okay” can be an important cue to let a guardian dog know that the situation is under control and that he can relax. Even “come” and “sit” will often get a response from the guarding dog if the commands are not overused. When it comes to “Fetch,” “Heel,” or “Catch the frisbee!,” get a Border Collie!

These breeds are undeniably intelligent, but they are “work-oriented.” Much of what they learn is learned by “on-the-job” observation. Livestock guardians can learn that only certain people are to open the gates or that no strangers can enter pastures or barns unescorted by family members. Some of the breeds are markedly canine aggressive. Their instinct is to react in a hostile fashion toward any intruding canine — domestic dog or wild coyote. However, these dogs can learn to accept herding dogs or family pets.

When he perceives a threat, the livestock guardian typically tries to position himself between the threat and his charges. If the intruder does not withdraw, the dog continues to warn and will finally attack. Experienced dogs will omit the posturing and warning stage and immediately attack a predator. There are documented cases of livestock guardians successfully defending their herds from predators as fierce as grizzly bears. Likewise, there are cases where they have also protected their herds from birds of prey and even from “two-legged coyotes.” As aloof and “laid-back” as these dogs may appear, when they are challenged, they are up to it.

BEFORE BUYING A LIVESTOCK GUARDIAN

Before getting a guard dog, the herd or flock owner should have a secure area where the young dog will be. If he cannot wander, he won’t. However, once the problem exists, it is necessary to stop it. USDA figures show that most livestock guard dogs in primarily western working situations are dead by the age of three. Being shot by hunters and being hit by cars while the herd is being moved are two common causes of death. If the guard dog stays home and in his pasture, he is usually safe.

POTENTIAL PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

Training largely consists of preventing problem behavior from developing. The greatest offense a livestock guardian can commit is chasing or playing with stock. If this behavior escalates, it results in stock being killed or at least injured. Most often this seems to happen in situations where the guarding dog is young and confined in too small an area or with young stock.

As a pup grows, he is usually put with older animals, bucks or rams and mature does or ewes, so that if he tries to play with the stock, he will meet with a firm rebuke. For goat and sheep owners, however, it is important to protect a young puppy from ill-tempered stock that could injure him. If a mature dog is physically attacked and hurt by an aggressive doe or buck, he may defend himself by using his massive size to knock the attacker to the ground or by actually biting an ear. Usually this signals the end of the “bullying” by the doe or buck, and peace based on mutual respect follows.

A young dog may chase out of boredom. Young sheep and goats will run. This encourages the young dog to chase and catch, just as he would do with another pup. If a dog is chasing, move him. Give him an area where he can have more room to exercise. Put him with older, more dominant stock that will not tolerate his behavior. However, avoid placing a dog with aggressive animals that he has to defend himself from. The goal is to build a lifetime friendship between the dog and the flock. If changing pastures and animals does not work or is not feasible, think about using a drag, one of the methods described to stop a dog from “traveling.”

If other family dogs are allowed to roam free, be certain that the young livestock guardian is not joining in and being taught to chase stock by those pets. While many of the breeds are dog aggressive, a young livestock guardian will usually accept family pets as his peers and will join them in their “fun.”

Another solution is reducing the amount of energy provided in the diet. There is now some evidence that a lower protein diet may be better for larger breeds. Not only does it help reduce the level of activity, but it also helps to slow the growth of the young dog to a normal rate, helping to prevent joint problems.

“Traveling” or wandering off the property is the second greatest problem. Traveling may mean that the dog has set a large territory for himself to guard and that he may in fact be guarding neighboring pastures, as well. A northern California goat dairy realized that their young guard dog was crossing a busy road to patrol the pasture of a neighboring Holstein dairy. While the neighbor enjoyed having stray dogs run out of his pasture, the guard dog was endangering her life and her owner’s investment.

There are other possible causes of traveling. One is the approach of breeding season. Neutering male and female guardians is the solution to this particular problem. However, roaming may also be caused by boredom or may indicate a dog that is not really bonded to his stock. If it is boredom, a change in the environment (relocation or the addition of another stock guardian) or preventive measures (improved fencing or a drag) is in order. Not being bonded to livestock is more difficult to cure. Here is where purchasing from a reputable, experienced breeder is the best solution. That breeder’s advice may make the difference between success and failure.

Electric wire is an effective deterrent for a dog that is going over a fence or digging under. Less sophisticated means of discouraging escape are “drags,” tires or logs tied to the collar of the dog. Another remedy may be isolation. When a dog leaves the flock and goes to the house or barn, personnel at the U.S. Sheep Experimental Station recommend locking him up, by himself, away from stock and people for two or three days. This has proven to be effective. This isolation may need to be repeated before the dog learns that there is a direct cause and effect relationship between leaving the flock and being isolated.

Another problem sometimes arises when a livestock guard dog is first introduced to stock. The sheep or goats may not accept the dog. When the dog tries to move close to them, they may simply move away. This can be a real problem for herds on range. In those situations, the dog or dogs should be introduced when the stock is confined, such as during lambing or shearing time. Another alternative is to raise the dog with a group of younger animals that will eventually be turned out with the larger herd.

Nighttime barking can be a problem for more suburban owners. The livestock guardian seems to know instinctively that predators are a threat after dark. Young dogs are particularly prone to excessive barking; it is a form of posturing, warning any would-be intruders that a guard dog is on duty. It works on the same principle as “whistling in the dark” for humans. Livestock guard dog owners who live in populated areas recommend bringing the dog indoors or crating him (in the barn or pen) if repeated reprimands have no effect. This is rarely a complaint with dogs out on pasture, possibly because they outgrow this behavior before it is noticed.

Remember: the guarding breeds are intelligent. They respond to verbal and even hand signals. Reprimands rarely need to be physical. In fact, the livestock guard dog may resent being struck. These dogs should, however, be accustomed to being handled and lead. The owner should always be able to restrain his dog. If the dog is accustomed to this, he will be easier to handle if an emergency arises.

Judy Nelson, an Akbash Dog breeder for over twenty years, suggests that rolling the livestock guard dog over on his back, then petting and handling him is a “massage” designed to gently assert the owner’s dominance and build trust at the same time. The livestock guardians live very much according to the rules of the wild canine pack; there are “alpha” dogs just as there are “alpha” goats. In both cases, the owner simply needs to be “the most alpha of all.”

WHICH BREED IS BEST?

There is no easy answer to the question of which breed is best, but the best answer is “It depends.” Just as in goats, very often the first question to ask is “What is available and affordable?” Most goat owners want a herd guardian — not a foundation for a breeding program. Talking to breeders and owners is a step in the right direction. One recommendation that is often given to goat and guard dog buyers is “Pick your breeder!” However, just as Nubians generally vary from Saanens and Alpines from LaManchas, there are some breed differences.

DISPOSITION

In a study of 763 livestock guard dogs and approximately 400 herdowners conducted by the University of Idaho, behavioral differences were seen between different breeds, but ultimately the success rate was similar. More Komondors were reported to have bitten people, fewer Great Pyrenees injured livestock. In addition, Great Pyrenees seemed to mature faster (outgrew their playfulness) than the other breeds, notably the Komondor and Anatolian. However, the Great Pyrenees left their herds more often than Akbash Dog and Maremma. When it came to being aggressive toward predators, Akbash Dogs were aggressive 100% of the time as were Kuvasz. When it came to being aggressive toward intruding dogs, the Akbash and the Maremma topped the list (compiled from Livestock Guarding Dogs, USDA Bulletin number 588, 1990 and 1993 revised). The Tatra and Tchuvatch numbers were either so low or non-existent in the study that no conclusions could be drawn. [See additional information provided by USDA researchers on livestock guard dog breeds in charts based on current information in 1996.]

PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES

Differences in disposition are not the only differences seen between the livestock guarding dog breeds. There are physical differences as well. Coats may vary from “corded” or matted on the Komondor, to rather long, thick, and wavy on the Kuvasz or Great Pyrenees, to smooth as is seen in some Akbash Dogs and Maremma, two breeds which allow both long and smooth coats.

There are also differences in height and weight; however, there is often great variation between individuals of the same breed. A chart has been provided to summarize some of these traits. Perhaps the most important think to remember is that these breeds have a successful history of livestock guarding in North America.

WHICH SEX?

The USDA studies have shown that both intact and neutered males and females work equally well (4). The instinct to reproduce does not determine the instinct to protect. In fact, there are practical problems with intact dogs of both sexes. They are more liable to roam when the instinct to breed interferes with the instinct to guard. In the case where both males and females are used to guard a herd, when a female is locked up away from the herd to avoid an undesired breeding, the male may also abandon the herd and bed down near the female until she is released again.

A dog (male) may be very protective of a female at this time and even become aggressive toward stock or people that “intrude” into the area. Some sheep and goat owners have reported that neutering has been one solution to the problem of young male guarding dogs chasing ewes and does. Most people prefer to keep neutered stock as livestock guardians. The demand for pups is limited and the cost and trouble of maintaining breeding dogs is more than most livestock people want to deal with.

HOW MANY IS ENOUGH?

Once the potential livestock guard dog owner asks, “What kind of dog should I get?” the next question is often, “How many dogs do I need?” Again, the answer is “It depends.” The number of dogs needed depends on the size of the flock or herd, the size and type of terrain the flock will be on, and the amount of predator pressure in that area.

A good livestock guardian will take on the responsibility of guarding several hundred acres. If there is no serious predator problem, that dog can do an effective job. On the other hand, when predators, such as coyotes, are very active, a lone guard dog is inadequate and quite possibly at risk. A common tactic is for the coyotes to come in and split the herd or flock. When the single guard dog goes with one bunch, the coyotes hit the second, unprotected group.

Even two dogs pastured with a single herd may be inadequate. One Texas sheep and goat producer recounted a situation in which coyotes split the herd in two, with each of her two Great Pyrenees going with a group. The coyotes then attacked the group guarded by the female, the smaller of the two dogs, killing her and several goats. Realizing that a single dog would certainly be at risk, the herd owner quickly got a replacement guardian, a neutered female Akbash Dog.

Now she has had to confront a new problem. The new guard dog is more predator aggressive and has killed several coyotes but has also been attacked and injured by coyotes. She has started confining this dog to the barn at night for fear that the dog will be lured out and killed. Accessing the situation, the herd owner has decided that what is needed is a third dog who will back up the new, aggressive livestock guardian up in a fight. The old dog just is not doing that. While the herd to be protected is less than 200 head and in a fenced pasture of several hundred acres, the wooded terrain and the aggressiveness of the coyotes has created a situation where a number of dogs are needed.

HEALTH

Nowadays health care for dogs is more convenient than it used to be, and health care for livestock guardians may be even more important than for family pets. These dogs are more likely to be exposed to diseases carried by wild animals. Rabies is certainly a serious concern throughout the U.S. today. Likewise, canine parvo virus is often carried by coyotes and can be devastating. Annual vaccinations are a must. Heartworm is another genuine health threat, which can easily be avoided with a preventive once-a-month treatment.

Because all of the livestock guarding breeds are large, hip dysplasia is always a concern. Most livestock guard dog breeders have their breeding dogs tested for hip abnormalities with OFA (the Orthopedic Foundation of America) or the Genetic Disease Control Center in Davis, California. However, all too often people who simply decide to raise a litter or two do not. Canine hip dysplasia can be a completely disabling condition and is certainly one that every livestock guard dog owner should be aware of.

The best recommendation is to research the breed you are interested in. Write to the registering association (many of these breeds are not registered with AKC). Talk to your veterinarian, breeders, and owners. Then pick a breeder that inspires confidence. Talk to them about specific health concerns or genetic problems with hips, shoulders, or eyes. In general, however, the livestock guardians are relatively free of genetic problems. That is due to the fact that any condition which hampered a dog in its guarding quickly lead to the elimination of the dog. This was certainly true in their own countries and is still true of dogs on range today in this country.

AGGRESSION

While livestock guardians are “guard dogs” in a sense, most of them regard their role as a preventive, defensive one rather than an aggressive, offensive one. Just the presence of a large, less than friendly canine will deter most intruders — human or animal. These breeds tend to be slow to mature; thus, a young dog that is very aggressive towards people or other dogs is not desirable. Imagine what he (or she) will be like at the age of maturity when a real sense of protection and territory has developed. However, even pups as young as three months will bark at changes in their environment or intruders in their territory.

SUCCESS

Just as with livestock, management goes far toward determining the success of the livestock guardian, and the herdowner is a great determiner in that equation. Just as a sheep or goat producer must understand certain basics about the needs and behavior of his stock, the owner of a livestock guarding dog must understand his dogs. It is important to remember that many of these breeds are long-lived, some reaching the age of thirteen or fourteen years. Thus, an investment in a livestock guardian is a long term investment and commitment, one that should profit the herdowner and the livestock guardian, as well as the livestock.

A NEW DIMENSION

Today the reintroduction of native predators into many areas where they have long been absent has added a new dimension to stock keeping. Residents in many areas are having to re-evaluate how they do things on a daily basis. Carol Wood, a Tatra breeder, recently received a call from a fellow Washington resident who runs a Tatra with his cashmere goats. He reported wolves were making their presence known in his area, in an area where they had not existed for decades. “I know they are wolves; they don’t hunt like coyotes, and they don’t sound like coyotes. I have seen them. They are wolves, and I need at least one more livestock guard dog.”

The mountain lion or cougar is increasing in numbers in various parts of the country thanks to the often controversial efforts of conservationists. Livestock guardians have long been used to protect sheep and goats. Larry Allen, a Colorado sheep man, says that one year he lost over ten thousand dollars of lambs to mountain lion on his winter range in Utah, but putting Akbash Dogs guardians with the herd reduced losses dramatically. It is now unusual for him to have a lion kill. Another threat to stock is certain birds of prey. Livestock guardians have proved to be affective against eagle attacks in Texas and Montana, when the sheep and goats are confined to a pasture rather than running on range.

No one can predict what the future of the livestock guardians will be. At a time when many sheep producers are cutting back operations, alternative livestock producers are discovering these incredible dogs. Today there are more livestock guard dogs working than ever before. The demand for guardians has increased and the level of public awareness has benefitted the dogs, their charges, the livestock owners, and even the Animal Damage Control, whose livestock guarding dog program has often faced opposition from advocates of the old-time “poison ‘em and trap ‘em” school of predator control. Livestock owners, however, are not the only people with a growing interest in livestock guardians. With mountain lion attacks on local residents and campers being reported in states as widespread as Montana, California, Texas, and Washington, guard dog breeders are reporting more inquiries coming from people who live in rural areas or who spend a great deal of time out of doors in those areas.

Many people have discovered that livestock guardians are for flock, farm, and family. As one experienced livestock guard dog owner commented, “Livestock guard dogs are not for everybody. I am one of the lucky ones. They are for me.”

BREEDS — PHYSICAL TRAITS

There’s something in the long grass. Watching. Waiting. The dog can smell it. He has been resting in the shade of a tree, but he’s not sleeping. He is always vigilant. The animals with him in the paddock are his adopted family – his brothers and sisters. And he will protect them.

The Anatolian Shepherd barks, gets to his feet and lets off another deep, warning bark. That should be enough. If it isn’t, he’ll take further action. Should the predator in the grass – a cheetah looking for an easy meal – actually attack, it would be met with lethal force. The dog will defend his flock – or die trying.

What the cheetah doesn’t know is that the dog is also her friend. Before the Anatolian took over protecting the herd, the farmer who owns the animals would have shot first and asked questions later. The dog has been placed on the land to deter predation by cheetahs, and the strategy is working.

Cheetah Conservation Fund (CCF) was founded in 1990 in Namibia. Patricia Tricorache, assistant director of international programs, has been with the non-profit organization about nine years. “They’re very protective,” she says of Anatolians, a Turkish breed that’s found a new job on the African continent. The fund has harnessed this protective instinct to create a defender for Namibia’s sprawling farms.

The southern African nation has the highest number of wild cheetahs in the world, and that’s only 3,000. According to Tricorache, worldwide estimates run between 10,000 and 12,000, including a small population in Iran.

Executive director Laurie Marker founded CCF after her experience working with the big cats in Oregon in the 1970s. Tricorache says Marker wanted to know more about the animals, had trouble finding answers, and decided to make it a personal mission. Fast forward a few decades, and Marker has earned a Ph.D. from Oxford, while the non-profit CCF has a million-dollar annual budget (all from donations), a 39,000-hectare farm – including a museum, visitors centre, genetics lab, field research facility and small, luxurious house for ecotourists – and a full-time staff of about 40 (augmented by 100 volunteers each year). “We are the world authority on cheetahs,” Tricorache explains.

Cheetahs are facing a number of obstacles, she says, one of the worst being habitat loss. Cheetahs are also one of the few diurnal hunters, according to Tricorache, which means they’re more visible than hyenas or leopards. To make matters worse, cheetahs sometimes take the blame for kills made by other animals.

In 1994, CCF determined that Anatolians might be the answer to the practice of shooting cheetahs (the fund is also branching into using Kangal Dogs, and has bred smaller mongrels for subsistence farmers). The region of Turkey from which the breed originates has a similar climate to Namibia – very dry, extremely hot during the day, but cold at night. The breed is long-lived and has avoided many of the structural problems often found in large breeds. It also doesn’t hurt that they carry the tonnage to get the job done.

Although it’s legal in Namibia to shoot a cheetah if it’s threatening a farmer’s livelihood, Tricorache says farmers are fundamentally conservationists who would rather not kill animals. Science-based research into the problem of predation was key to winning converts.

The Livestock Guarding Dog program usually gives pups to farmers free of charge, and they’ve placed over 330 so far. Three founding dogs were originally donated by an American breeder.

“The first Anatolians sent to Namibia were donated by Louise Emanuel of Birinci Anatolians in Charlottesville, Va.,” says Marilyn Harned, an accomplished American breeder and breed historian. Other American breeders have contributed dogs or semen.

The dogs relate to whoever they grow up with. At eight weeks of age, that becomes the animals they are supposed to protect. Tricorache says humans are the bosses, but not family – if the dog is going to be a human companion, it probably won’t save the farmer’s livestock. “There is a big, big emphasis on training.”

Tricorache says CCF is seeing success. Since the fund’s arrival in Namibia, the number of cheetahs killed has dramatically decreased. Interestingly, Tricorache is not aware of any case where a CCF dog has killed a cheetah, or vice versa – deterrence, apparently, is enough.

Farms that use the guardian dogs have seen livestock losses drop. And when farmers need to remove a cheetah from the area, trapping them and passing them on to CCF has become an option. The fund’s farm currently houses 52 cheetahs – often injured or orphaned – most of whom will be released.

Three cheetah cubs (cut from the abdomen of a female after the farmer shot her and the wife noticed the animal was pregnant) are being groomed to be ambassadors for the species. They are being habituated to people and fed by hand, and will be used in CCF’s educational programs. The hope is that what these individual animals lose in freedom, the species will gain in admirers. Showing a cheetah to a child is one way of ensuring the species’ survi-val, says Tricorache.

While Anatolians have been getting the job done overseas, North America is not without admirers of the breed. Correna Kelly of Grand Pre, N.S., got her first Anatolian Shepherd 15 years ago from the then-president of the Anatolian Shepherd Dog Club of America. She produces occasional litters under the name Royal Canadian Anatolians, and says she’s had people on her waiting list for five years.

It’s not surprising the Anatolian was picked by CCF, as the dog Kelly describes sounds born to the role. The national dog of Turkey dates back over 3,000 years, she explains. It’s an independent thinker, a guardian that wants to stay with its charges and lacks a desire to prey upon them. She also says that it has the smarts of a wild animal.

Working independently of people, it can’t afford to risk serious injury, so it follows a progressive path to defending its flock: first a bark from lying down, then standing and barking. Fighting is the last resort. Anatolians have the physical characteristics to handle that task when they must. The breed has been clocked at 32 miles an hour, Kelly says, and her seven-year-old male – Can. & Am. Ch. Kandira’s King of Hearts – stands 33 inches at the withers and weighs in at 140 pounds.

Kelly says the dogs can be aloof, yet the harsh but effective Turkish practice of culling dogs that show aggression to children has resulted in a breed that’s tolerant of small children and women. “A child under 10 or a senior could rob me blind,” says Kelly.

The founder of Royal Canadian Anatolians isn’t opposed to the breed being in more Canadian homes, but she wants to see owners who are good ambassa-dors. These large, independent animals are “not a dog for everyone,” she says.

Tricorache would likely concur. They can be sweet, but “you have to [be] smarter than them,” she says.

Written by:  Eric Sparling; Dec 2010