# Bikers clash again with lgd's in Colorado



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

More clashing going on in Colorado between bikers and lgd's. 
http://www.adventure-journal.com/2011/10/colorado-hikers-and-bikers-under-attack-from-sheep-dogs/


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

I get something about satilite pitures of snow cover.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

Hope I got it fixed now. From link: "Across Colorado, hikers and mountain bikers have been attacked, mauled, threatened, and harassed by sheep dogs"


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

There's no place sacred anymore for wild animals or raising livestock. We must all assimilate to the hikers and peddle bikers.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Fowler said:


> There's no place sacred anymore for wild animals or raising livestock. We must all assimilate to the hikers and peddle bikers.


No you just have to be a responcible user of public lands. From the article.


> The BLM is considering changing its policies regarding grazing on public lands for next spring. Either moving sheep farther from trails, or *requiring more handlers to be out with the animals and dogs* and possibly implementing other measures as well.


And another reason to ensure your insurance will cover you if your dog attacks someone. Take the blinders off and see the situation; don't, assume you can keep a dangerous animal (even) on your land with no responcibilities attatched


----------



## BarbadosSheep (Jun 27, 2011)

When these dogs were developed, weren't they usually working WITH shepherds, instead of being alone to handle all situations on their own? The way I see this, if you want to use public lands and intend to employ dogs AND expect the dogs to keep all predators away, then a shepherd needs to be there to back-up the dogs. It's unfair to the dogs to expect them to do this all alone. It's also unfair to the public (bikers, hikers) who wants to use the lands that their tax dollars are supporting and have to contend with dogs who are alone with no handlers.


----------



## MonsterMalak (Apr 15, 2011)

The ranchers need to make sure their dogs are safe with people before being used on public lands. Socialization, exposure, testing,,, whatever it takes.

Otherwise, we risk regulations, breed bans, etc...
I agree with barbado Sheep on this.


----------



## Grazer (Dec 23, 2011)

Since it's public lands they're using, the shepherds should be there with their dogs. It would probably prevent most if not all accidents with bikers, hikers etc.


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

I would have thought at least a sign would have been in place to warn the public. At least that way they enter at their own risk.


----------



## BarbadosSheep (Jun 27, 2011)

But they shouldn't have to enter at their own risk.....that land belongs to them just as much as it does the dog owners. A rancher should not be allowed to use public land in such a way that it makes it dangerous for others to use it. If the dogs are dangerous to people, then they should not be there unsupervised. Incidents like this make LGDs look bad and most really aren't. But sadly, many ranchers are using these dogs to replace good human shepherds and the dogs are nearly feral, making them very dangerous. I bet they lose a lot of dogs this way too, to packs of wolves. It's really an unfair burden that's been placed on the dogs.


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

They take that risk also when entering any type of National forest wheather it be against bears, snakes, wolfs, etc and I agree with the human sheperds. I am not debating the none socializing of LGD's. However the sheep farmers had to summit a request to allow them to graze there, so it is IMO up to the approvers of the request to make sure proper procedures are in place for the public. Honestly my vent has nothing to do with LGD's.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

I agree that there needs to be shepherd's along with the dogs on public lands. We need to protect the dog from the public so to speak. So many folks nowadays are completely out of touch with reading an animal or knowing how to behave around them. Combine that with a dog that like somebody else mentioned could be semi feral then you have a bad situation. 
What can we do as shepherds and dog owners to help prevent situations like this? 
I've given it quite a bit of thought. First we have no lgd organization so to speak to promote and educate. Folks who buy a dog are pretty much on their own, with some getting help from the breeder or forums. That's of course only as good as the experience of the breeder or forum. 
The working lgds are unlike other breeds in that there is no competition for guarding the flock. There aren't clubs and groups where people meet with their dogs , compare notes and help each other out, or mentor a newbie. The dogs aren't taken places to get a better idea on temperament. In most cases the breeder is a farmer with a dog or two. 
I think a lgd registry/club would be good with every puppy buyer receiving a dog care packet. The packet would include training, responsibility, etc. The same club could put out a few ads or flyers talking about the environmentally/people friendly dog who keeps sheep safe from the predators. Of course if it was a commercial you would have to show this sweet little lamb snuggling up with a lgd.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

It is sort of hard to find a shepherd. Dogs are easy to find. People give them away all the time.


----------



## wolffeathers (Dec 20, 2010)

This would be the case where human aggressive LGDs would NOT be the solution. This type of situation would be better suited for the human friendly dogs like the Great Pyrs that have been socialized, which if anyone noticed the article pointed out as a breed that is bred to be "antisocial". Aggressive/Extreme LGDs have their place and could be proper suited on private property contained behind a good fence to keep theives away in a problem-prone area, but not in a public area where they roam free. 

I didn't realize there were areas where you could publically graze livestock. Are the flocks just taken out there and dropped off, or are shepherds present? I think I would have to side with public safety on this issue, shepherds need to have their dogs under control, this isn't an issue of people tresspassing. Keepers and breeders of LGDs certainly don't need the bad publicity of human-aggressive dogs dropped off to guard their sheep unattended on public lands.


----------



## thaiblue12 (Feb 14, 2007)

I am not saying people cannot use public land, but they need to use their heads. I have seen people at the State Parks feeding wildlife, at one the chipminks are so habituated to humans and their feeding that they will climb up your legs to get food. 
One lady said to me that people screamed out their car window to her telling her to go back to California when she was trying to feed the moutain goats. She said to me, "How did they know I am from Cali?"

Here in CO we have open range, so people should jog, run or bike away from the animals and not through them or try to pet or feed them. it is common sense. They are no more entitled to use that land then the rancher who may have been using that land for many years. 

The article tries to be dramatic, the two cases, one got nipped not bit, one had his bike tires bit. I am not saying it is right but there was no one "mauled" by these very "aggressive" Pyrs or Akbash. Sounds like these people were warned off but did not heed it at first. 
The lady who was attacked in '08 rode her bike through the herd and was screaming. She said she was screaming since she expected trouble from the dogs, then why ride through?? I would not bike through a herd of deer or elk why go through a herd of sheep? She of course sued, you can't sue a herd of elk and I bet if they were in front of her she would have gone another way. 

I do not agree with getting the dogs and tossing them in the herd and walking away. The public lands should be shared and both sides should use their heads. Aside from the possible predators there may be human theft as well so I am not sure what the answer would be to keep stock and humans safe aside from signs saying Dogs and sheep ahead and people going in another direction. But I still think some would ride on through thinking they as humans have more right to it then the animals do.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

BarbadosSheep said:


> But they shouldn't have to enter at their own risk.....that land belongs to them just as much as it does the dog owners. A rancher should not be allowed to use public land in such a way that it makes it dangerous for others to use it. If the dogs are dangerous to people, then they should not be there unsupervised. Incidents like this make LGDs look bad and most really aren't. But sadly, many ranchers are using these dogs to replace good human shepherds and the dogs are nearly feral, making them very dangerous. I bet they lose a lot of dogs this way too, to packs of wolves. It's really an unfair burden that's been placed on the dogs.


I completely agree with this.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

wendle said:


> I agree that there needs to be shepherd's along with the dogs on public lands. We need to protect the dog from the public so to speak. So many folks nowadays are completely out of touch with reading an animal or knowing how to behave around them. Combine that with a dog that like somebody else mentioned could be semi feral then you have a bad situation.
> What can we do as shepherds and dog owners to help prevent situations like this?
> I've given it quite a bit of thought. First we have no lgd organization so to speak to promote and educate. Folks who buy a dog are pretty much on their own, with some getting help from the breeder or forums. That's of course only as good as the experience of the breeder or forum.
> The working lgds are unlike other breeds in that there is no competition for guarding the flock. There aren't clubs and groups where people meet with their dogs , compare notes and help each other out, or mentor a newbie. The dogs aren't taken places to get a better idea on temperament. In most cases the breeder is a farmer with a dog or two.
> I think a lgd registry/club would be good with every puppy buyer receiving a dog care packet. The packet would include training, responsibility, etc. The same club could put out a few ads or flyers talking about the environmentally/people friendly dog who keeps sheep safe from the predators. Of course if it was a commercial you would have to show this sweet little lamb snuggling up with a lgd.


Just so you're not the lone voice on this excellent idea. Educating owners and the public is why I pushed for this forum here but it's just a little bulletin board in the great big internet. Responsible proper use of LGDs should be everyones goal Advocating for farmers rights and to fight crazy legislation is best done through an organization of stake holders, not the media!


----------



## Goatress (Feb 4, 2011)

I am afraid you are going to hear more and more about issues like this as recreationists enter public lands more often.

The article's title p.o.'d me off; its quite biased the terms they use.

I personally am one for more hands on shepherding. Because of all the ancient research done here in the 1980's, no thanks to some college brain trusts who started perpetuating the myth that LGD's should not be socialized or handled, you have today, new generations of 'hands off' ranchers.

They maybe see their cows once a month? They don't see their sheep unless a herder comes in to tell them of losses.

With increased wolf predation in many parts of the US my mantra as of late has been more hands on LGD work.

The DVD I am involved in making with a conservationist group will be touching on this very topic, and much more...it IS time for everyone, big and small outfits alike, to be more involved in their livestock production, and not just throw dogs out there, and walk away, never handle them, etc. The negatives to doing this are too lengthy to list here, but some of you on this board have experienced personally what its like trying to work with or use a non-socialized LGD.

Signs should be used alerting people to the presence of LGD's. You can print them off for free on the USDA site. You can buy them online. But if those recreationists are so arrogant as to put their nose in the air and then venture into the sheep in spite of being warned to stay away from them, that is when I have absolutely no pity for them whatsoever. They deserve to be bitten.

Ranchers pay for the right to use public lands. Its not free. They have rights to run stock responsibly on BLM land. Sad thing is there are many irresponsible sheepmen out there who do not share my personal compassion for their own LGD's. And they've been running sheep like this for years. This will not change overnight. Unfortunately with the way our present government is going I fear more regulation is going to come out of these encounters, and not all of it is going to be beneficial. It would behoove ranchers to be more proactive, take closer inspection of their stock and dogs, and respond to incidents like this in a civil manner. Unfortunately papers will make us out to be the bad guy in this if we don't all work on more hands on sheperding and responsible LGD ownership.

And I'm too pressed for time to go into the effect this could have on running some breeds over others, but there is another whole posting topic right there.....


----------



## Goatress (Feb 4, 2011)

wendle, there are already brochures out there (USDA) informative material about LGD's, stock, etc. Suggest you peruse their website. There is already a Govt. produced brochure on running LGD's. Dated, yes and with some bad info in it as well as good, but this stuff is already out there, folks. Its just very dated....but its there to send home with puppy buyers to brief them on LGD's. I send information home with all my customers including health records. This should not be a big secret but unfortunately some people act like it is...well it isn't. This info has to be put out there, but it has to be good info too.


----------



## wolffeathers (Dec 20, 2010)

How do the dogs get fed if they are unnattended for such lengths?


----------



## Goatress (Feb 4, 2011)

wolffeathers said:


> How do the dogs get fed if they are unnattended for such lengths?


Yup. How do they. Good question.
I hope people who are just beginning to own LGD's are reading these threads and taking note....it takes hands on and a lot of work. No easy way out.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

I don't know how they do it in Co, but in ID the large sheep ranches have shepherds with the sheep as well as the dogs, and I didn't see anything in the article that said the dogs were alone with the sheep. 

If you could see the erosion that follows the bikers- both pedaled and powered- when they don't stay on developed trails on our mountain, you would wonder why they are allowed to use the BLM land at all. I know most people are responsible but way too many are not.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Around here the ranchers will feed the dogs every day, unless they have some Peruvian or Mongolian shepherds, then the herders feed the dogs every day. 

When a band is spread out over a half mile, happily grazing, the herder can be right beside the dogs when the biker arrives on the far side of the herd, screaming and pedaling. The dog takes off at 30 mph. The short legged Peruvian in oversized rubber boots takes off at 10 mph. Guess who gets to the biker first?


----------



## Goatress (Feb 4, 2011)

Person in CO who's ranch is in the range of a large sheep outfit tells me she has seen and knows for a fact that the irresponsible owner goes out and shoots a ewe and that is how his dogs eat. Disgusting, inhumane, cheap, and the lowest form of stockmanship. He regularly abandons his LGD's. They end up on her back porch.

If you are inferring that someone being there won't make a difference...I beg to differ on that. I think it can and does.

And yes there are many irresponsible land users out there ripping up ground and off trails. The same ones who ignore the LGD signs...I'm sure. The same ones who deserve to be mauled, IMHO!

Back to work. My Kangal is whelping out tonight, whoo hoo.....three already, more to come.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Goatress said:


> And yes there are many irresponsible land users out there ripping up ground and off trails. The same ones who ignore the LGD signs...I'm sure. *The same ones who deserve to be mauled, IMHO!*


That would look great in a lawsuit. And it really helps your cause to advance LGDs responsibly.


----------



## Goatress (Feb 4, 2011)

Everyone is entitled to an opinion Ed, like it or not...so go ahead and sue me for mine if you like, lol.....

My LGD's don't wander off to chase bikers. Their responsible owner keeps her fences up and fixed and her neighbors happy and dogs where they are supposed to be.... .


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Goatress said:


> Everyone is entitled to an opinion Ed, like it or not...so go ahead and sue me for mine if you like, lol.....
> 
> My LGD's don't wander off to chase bikers. Their responsible owner keeps her fences up and fixed and her neighbors happy and dogs where they are supposed to be.... .


Wait, I thought we were talking range bands on BLM and Forest allotments. If you are talking farm flocks, bikers aren't an issue.


----------



## wolffeathers (Dec 20, 2010)

Even if the shepherd were there and couldn't recall the dog, I would have to put people safety first. If the dogs become an issue, they'll either be banned from public lands or they'll have to find a way to seperate the sheep from the people(no matter how irresponsible or ignorant a biker).

Livestock keepers have to put people first, especially in this new day and age where the vast majority of the population is ignorant to livestock etiquette(like not riding through a guarded flock on a bike and screaming).

Although, I don't recall the articles saying anyone got hurt, just harrassed by dogs. A big dog can give an encouraging nip on the back tire, but if it were really to be a "mauling," it wouldn't have taken much to pull that person to the ground, especially with more than one dog. No harm, no foul, but shepherds should probably heed the potential issue between public grazing and livestock ignorant folks.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

I don't know any shepherds that aren't at least with their sheep once, and usually twice a day. They also generally have woven wire fencing in larger operations. Fencing can get washed out or have a tree fall on it allowing the lgd's to get out. Through properly bred and trained dogs the shepherd needs to be sure they are people safe. Nobody deserves to get mauled. The actions of only a few can unfortunately have a large impact on many shepherds through dog legislation.


----------



## Olivia67 (Mar 6, 2008)

I say run a few llamas with the sheep, once a biker gets spit in the face for spooking the flock, I think that might be something that will be remembered. Sheep can get really hurt by being spooked like that and as someone mentioned above, if the dogs nipped the wheel of the cycle then the warning was done properly. And who is paying for the $$ losses of sheep when they spooked and get injured? A sheep with a broken leg isn't going to make it to market. I just don't like anyone who shows disrespect for someone else's property, even if their tax $$ helped pay for the land. It isn't owned by just one person and they have to pay attention to what they are doing as well.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

We don't have any biker problems but our Pyrs enjoy swimming out to escort rafters off "our" section of the river. They don't bark or bite and are always polite and well mannered. They just calmly swim alongside until the interlopers are well downstream. Sometimes the rafters get a little nervous but word seems to have gotten out in recent years and now people call out for them to come join them.:grin:


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

> if the dogs nipped the wheel of the cycle then the warning was done properly.


 This is the proper role of a LGD!!?? None of this is really about the proper role of the LGDs it's about their use on public lands (if not private) and whats going to happen if public perception starts making laws. Look what happened to Pitbulls.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

maybe more people w/ BLM exclusive grazing leases need to take advantage of their legal RIGHT to post and where feasable fence the morons out (at least in the states that allow it). although that won't stop most of them the trespassing charges will directly affect their liability standing.


----------



## Deep Woods (Jun 12, 2011)

When the farmers have to stop running their livestock on "public" land because of a bunch of common sense lacking city folks wanting to ride their bike or hike there..I wonder where those same "citidots" are going to get their steaks and lamb chops from.....FARMERS FEED THE PEOPLE..LEAVE THEM ALONE!!


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Pops2 said:


> maybe more people w/ BLM exclusive grazing leases need to take advantage of their legal RIGHT to post and where feasable fence the morons out (at least in the states that allow it). although that won't stop most of them the trespassing charges will directly affect their liability standing.


Which states allow leaseholders to keep the public out of BLM lands?


----------



## Goatress (Feb 4, 2011)

In Nevada, it is not unusual to see signs posted on BLM land that it is being used by a ranch, ie., mixed use, and anyone entering the area is put on notice that they are on mixed public/private land (no there are not always fences to show where one begins and the other ends) and so the person entering said land is responsible for keeping their hands off cattle, not disturbing stock, not taking anything off or from line camp shacks, keeping gates as they are (that is if open, leave open, if shut, leave shut), etc. There is a huge sign at the entrance to the Gamble/Winecup Ranch saying as much. IE: You go through this gate, you are put on notice....etc. They may not stop you from coming on this mixed use land, but out here anyone caught acting suspiciously around cattle or sheep or cutting fence or off the bike trails or destroying property, are usually dealt with very firmly by ranchers and buckaroos. We've had a spate of lots of cattle thefts up here and people are itchy fingers over it. Anyone caught out there under suspicious circumstances is given the third degree. When the Burning Man crowd shows up it gets real interesting although they usually stick to the highways and just go to Black Rock and don't hang around much.


----------



## Goatress (Feb 4, 2011)

Ross said:


> This is the proper role of a LGD!!?? None of this is really about the proper role of the LGDs it's about their use on public lands (if not private) and whats going to happen if public perception starts making laws. Look what happened to Pitbulls.



No, dogs shouldn't attack people. And yes, the idiots who provoke them to defend their stock in such manner, will have to pay the piper too, Ross. This is not the dog's fault. Its doing its job. If recreationists break laws they need to be held accountable to the full extent of the law. If they are harassing a flock of sheep, they are in a word, in trespass of private property (a ranchers' sheep). Responsibility runs both ways. There are more citified idiots out there thumbing their nose at the law and private and leased property rights than there are neglectful ranchers running 'rabid attack LGD's', I think. Yeah, it'll be interesting what happens down the road. You can see what stupid extreme pro wolf management and the re-introduction has spawned: SSS. Well just think of all the bodies laying out there in the Nevada desert dumped over the decades by the mob that have yet to be found.....I suppose arrogant bikers who disregard signage and harass livestock will have plenty of room out there too~, ya think????!! Hey, I live in N. Nevada....only 30 years ago a neighbor rancher to the place I cowboyed on was notorious for feeding his hired hand to his hogs....and never got busted for it....I knew a guy who held up a train at gunpoint..... Some parts of this place are not for lightweights or the faint of heart....or irresponsible recreationists. And I've yet to see or meet a vicious LGD out here, I'll add~!!!


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> Which states allow leaseholders to keep the public out of BLM lands?


Utah for one. *IF* you have *exclusive grazing rights*, the lessee can fence & post BLM & state owned land. in effect this also gives them control over hunting access, so a lot of these tracts participate in "limited entry" lotteried hunts to keep the laws from being changed.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Pops2 said:


> Utah for one. *IF* you have *exclusive grazing rights*, the lessee can fence & post BLM & state owned land. in effect this also gives them control over hunting access, so a lot of these tracts participate in "limited entry" lotteried hunts to keep the laws from being changed.


Interesting...you would guess that the laws would be the same in all states since the BLM is federal but I guess not. Here anyone can go on public lands whether or not they're leased . Or so I've been told.

We have had the problem in the past of a grazing leaseholder fencing _us_ out of our private land. They were confused about where the public land ended and ours began and just fenced along the road. They'd been doing it for years and didn't see the need to change. We didn't even have to take down the fence...local fishermen cut it and took parts of it down to get to a fishing hole.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

the federal administrative regs are uniform, but the states counter that w/ laws that prohibit restricting access.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Goatress said:


> No, dogs shouldn't attack people. And yes, the idiots who provoke them to defend their stock in such manner, will have to pay the piper too, Ross. This is not the dog's fault. Its doing its job. If recreationists break laws they need to be held accountable to the full extent of the law. If they are harassing a flock of sheep, they are in a word, in trespass of private property (a ranchers' sheep). Responsibility runs both ways. There are more citified idiots out there thumbing their nose at the law and private and leased property rights than there are neglectful ranchers running 'rabid attack LGD's', I think. Yeah, it'll be interesting what happens down the road.



Whoa!! No where does the article say the bikers were harassing the stock or provoking the dogs, quite the contrary they were on paths, and trails! You're making apologies and trying to shift blame!

You start by saying dogs shouldn't attack people and before you know it the dogs are not at fault and are doing their job????? Mauling people and chasing them on public paths? That was the point of the article.


LGD owners better be looking down the road, because I can see what's coming fairly easily.


----------



## Goatress (Feb 4, 2011)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> Interesting...you would guess that the laws would be the same in all states since the BLM is federal but I guess not.


 Lisa, that's what I thought too.


_LGD owners better be looking down the road, because I can see what's coming fairly easily._

What, Ross, you have a crystal ball? Or is this a quiet wish coming true that you have for LGD's being regulated out of existence so we can't use them? 

DeepWoods said it best: *When the farmers have to stop running their livestock on "public" land because of a bunch of common sense lacking city folks wanting to ride their bike or hike there..I wonder where those same "citidots" are going to get their steaks and lamb chops from.....FARMERS FEED THE PEOPLE..LEAVE THEM ALONE!!* :goodjob::bouncy:


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

Ross said:


> LGD owners better be looking down the road, because I can see what's coming fairly easily.


It's already starting. Google breed ban list and Anatolian Shepherd. I see Great Pyrenees is also on a list, but not sure what area. There are others too. Komondor, Kangal, Kuvasz, to name a few. It just depends on what area you look in. 
http://peekaboo420420.hubpages.com/...Restricted_Breeds_Is_your_Dog_On_The_New_List

As long as people use, advertise, breed, or sell lgds as personal or property protection dogs the risk increases for banning or increased laws/fees of owning them. 
Those who support aggressive lgds are affecting the future of farmers who make a living off livestock and depend on their lgds for predator control.


----------



## Deep Woods (Jun 12, 2011)

The "citidiots" are selfish and only concerned with their "recreational activities", which do not benefit anyone but themselves. Very selfish people!!! The farmer is producing meat and by-products to feed and sustain a multitude of people around the world and some ignorant selfish people want to stop the use of the farmers "tools" (lgd dogs) for their selfish "recreational activities"....Boy talk about ignorance, stupidity, and selfishness at it's best...citidiots! ! ...Maybe the farmers should just give in and let the "citidiots" starve to death and then they won't be a pest anymore..

But ya know the farmers are wise and they know that they have other people with common sense and needs that do depend on them, so they continue the fight, all because a few "citidots' want to ride their bike or hike where they raise food for them. The farmer has enough problems with animal predators, disease, and other issues without "citidiots" adding to the problem. Go ride in the city park and leave the farmers alone.

The Farmer does not need a bunch of "citidiots" and their selfish little wants taking away anymore of the farmers precious time. 

FARMERS FEED PEOPLE...LEAVE THE ALONE ! ! !


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Deep Woods said:


> The "citidiots" are selfish and only concerned with their "recreational activities", which do not benefit anyone but themselves. Very selfish people!!! The farmer is producing meat and by-products to feed and sustain a multitude of people around the world and some ignorant selfish people want to stop the use of the farmers "tools" (lgd dogs) for their selfish "recreational activities"....Boy talk about ignorance, stupidity, and selfishness at it's best...citidiots! ! ...Maybe the farmers should just give in and let the "citidiots" starve to death and then they won't be a pest anymore..
> 
> But ya know the farmers are wise and they know that they have other people with common sense and needs that do depend on them, so they continue the fight, all because a few "citidots' want to ride their bike or hike where they raise food for them. The farmer has enough problems with animal predators, disease, and other issues without "citidiots" adding to the problem. Go ride in the city park and leave the farmers alone.
> 
> ...


I don't think the ranchers are raising meat for any altruistic reasons. They're making a profit like anybody else in business, and they have their own recreational activities that they probably wouldn't like to see curtailed either.

Most ranchers who I know love to hunt and snowmobile, and they do it on public lands too. There is a controversy in my area right now about closing a certain remote section of very high up, National forest to snowmobilers to protect endangered Selkirk Caribou from stress during their gestation. 

You can bet the ranchers are part of the group kicking up a huge fuss because they don't want to lose their recreational rights to this area of public lands. 

I don't see any easy answer to this problem. Seems like the public should have rights to their public lands and the ranchers leasing the grazing rights should be able to run their dogs and flocks. I'm awfully glad my Pyrs don't go after people though...that's a liability I don't need.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

> What, Ross, you have a crystal ball? Or is this a quiet wish coming true that you have for LGD's being regulated out of existence so we can't use them?


What Wendle said. I've been farming cattle and sheep for 35 years, if that matters. The point is still people who don't use the dogs correctly or try to blame others for their problems are themselves, the problem.


----------



## Grazer (Dec 23, 2011)

When I read that breed ban list, I didn't know whether to be mad or amused.
They have pugs, Boston terriers and golden retrievers on the list as well lol
Seriously, are these people for real? Obviously whoever created that list knows nothing about dogs and specific dog breeds.
Nor does it say in which areas are these dogs banned/restricted etc.

Here are 2 reasons why such ridiculous thing as "list with banned breeds" even exists.
Paranoid media and politicians with their own agenda that often know nothing about dogs just love to come up with the "vicious breed" terminology.
They do it for their own personal gain: money.
And then there's also the problem of inexperienced, uneducated people getting a powerful breed they can't handle.

There's nothing wrong with LGD's being used as property protection dogs as long as they are only sold to experienced, responsible dog owners.
In fact that was part of their job for hundreds even thousands of years in Europe and Asia.
4 legged creatures weren't the only thing farmers used to worry about.

Anyway my point is, there are unfortunately millions of people that happen to be terrified of dogs and know nothing about dog's behavior.
Greedy politicians and unethical media love nothing but to use that fear in their advantage so they try to label those breeds as dangerous.

The key here is education and breeders of powerful breeds only selling puppies to experienced, responsible owners.


----------



## thaiblue12 (Feb 14, 2007)

Ross said:


> Whoa!! No where does the article say the bikers were harassing the stock or provoking the dogs, quite the contrary they were on paths, and trails! You're making apologies and trying to shift blame!
> 
> You start by saying dogs shouldn't attack people and before you know it the dogs are not at fault and are doing their job????? Mauling people and chasing them on public paths? That was the point of the article.
> 
> ...


Where did the article say they were on public paths? 

The lady who was atttacked in 08 and then sued ( big surprise) admitted she rode directly through the herd of sheep and was screaming. She did not go around, or away, she went *through*. She claims she was screaming because she expected trouble, well I vote her for a Darwin Award. 

Here in CO it is Open Range, if you do not like it you have to fence the animals out. The hikers and bikers here ride off paths often, they also despite signs stating not to have their own personal dogs off leash do it more often then not. So my dog is on leash hiking and their ill behaved dog comes running up to mine but it's ok... to them. Nor do they pick up their dog's waste. They are not innocent off their own ill behavoir and the article is media hype which I am not buying into. 

Biting a tire is not an attack or a mauling. I am sure Fix-A-Flat would have put him right  Out Sprint the dogs my left eye, not a chance but it makes for better reading.
There is no reason why the land cannot be shared, no reason why these people who run, bike or hike all over cannot use common sense and avoid the animals. If there was a bear in their path I am sure they would head in the opposite direction, but since it is fluffy sheep they think they can go through. Maybe even cause a mini stampede which they may find funny, or try to pet the sheep, take their pictures with them and post it on facebook, who knows we won't unless there are cameras around. 
Some of them feel like since it is public land they can do or go where they want to so if they stop feeling so entitled and make better choices they can avoid the dogs. I have seen this behavior here as well when they close a cave for bats during their/mating birthing season and the humans hop the chain link and ignore the signs. 

We do not own all of nature and do with it as we please.


Oh and the genius who wrote the article does not even know that wolves are not in CO, humans got rid of most of them 70 years ago. Now here and there a few might come from Yellowstone like the two that entered the state and were killed. that they could have found out with a simple phone call to Fish and Game or even googled it.


----------



## Deep Woods (Jun 12, 2011)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> I don't think the ranchers are raising meat for any altruistic reasons. They're making a profit like anybody else in business, and they have their own recreational activities that they probably wouldn't like to see curtailed either.


There maybe some truth to your statement...but why don't we see how many of the "citidiots" would raise a selfish fuss if the farmers stopped producing meat and even vegetables for their "lavish" lifestyle...Regardless the farmer is providing food and by-products and the "citidots" are following their selfish desires and providing nothing for others by their biking and hiking.
FARMERS FEED PEOPLE...LEAVE THEM ALONE ! ! !


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

> The lady who was atttacked in 08 and then sued ( big surprise) admitted she rode directly through the herd of sheep and was screaming. She did not go around, or away, she went through. She claims she was screaming because she expected trouble, well I vote her for a Darwin Award.


 Well I must have missed that in the article, so thanks. But I'll put it out there. Is it the LGDs job to stop that? Any idea as to the outcome of the law suit?


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

> In 2008, a mountain biker in Vail was mauled and this past summer there have many near misses. Letters in Silverton and Durango papers chronicled the dangers, including one from a hiker who said he was tromping along ten miles west of Molas Pass *on the Colorado Trail* when he was pursued by two snarling guard dogs who charged and nipped, baring teeth. The hiker had to head off trail and fend off the canines with his trekking poles.
> 
> A mountain biker wrote to the Durango Telegraph to describe being entirely surrounded by guard dogs *on the Colorado Trail* and having no choice but to desperately out-sprint them, fearing he might fall as they bit at his bike&#8217;s rear wheel.


There ya go Thaiblue in bold for ya. Still can't find anything on the woman who was mauled acting stupidly.


----------



## Deep Woods (Jun 12, 2011)

And these selfish, self-centered, "citidiots" cannot lie...?? The "citidiot" type of people have an agenda to push and will tell or say whatever to get their agenda thru and their "recreational" area like they want it. Grow up people!


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Deep Woods said:


> And these selfish, self-centered, "citidiots" cannot lie...?? The "citidiot" type of people have an agenda to push and will tell or say whatever to get their agenda thru and their "recreational" area like they want it. Grow up people!


 You're absolutely right, so what are you going to do about it?


----------



## thaiblue12 (Feb 14, 2007)

Ross just because the writer said *on the Colorado Trail *does not mean they were on a public trail, here a footpath that people walk and have smashed down weeds it called a trail. Does not make it a public one or recognized one. Either way I have trouble believing in this writer since they made so many mistakes, such as calling them sheep dogs, saying we have wolves here and a few other mistakes. 

Anyway back to the lady in '08......
Here is from an article, I pasted some not all, it is in full here, along with good comments:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/11/27/20091127sheepdog-attack1127-ON.html

As soon as Renee Legro saw the sheep, she screamed.

The herd, 1,300 strong, has been coming for *30 years to graze * in this valley on the backside of the Continental Divide.

But as Colorado has become an adventure sports destination, the once-empty valley has filled with hikers, campers and mountain bikers like Legro, and she was about to tragically embody the collision of the old West with the new. 

Legro, 33, screamed because she knew what came with the herd - guard dogs. Shortly after she rolled down a hill and came upon the sheep, a dog leaped at her, locked its jaws on her hip and yanked her off her bike.

A second dog pounced as she fell. The two enormous canines, powerful enough to fend off bears, tore at her until her cries drew two campers who drove them off.

The emergency room doctor lost count of how many stitches Legro required. ( Actually they did not lose count, it is was another article, it was 60 or under, I forgot) 
To Legro and her husband, Steve, there was one person responsible -- Sam Robinson.
The Legros wanted Robinson charged with a crime. Eagle County animal control officers told the Robinsons there would be no criminal charges. 
He charged Robinson with a single misdemeanor - ownership of a dangerous dog.
Alarmed, Robinson decided he couldn't get new dogs to protect his herd.
"I would never touch another of them, not the way that law reads," he said. "No matter how good a dog is, you never know."
But free of the protective dogs, Robinson's herd was raided by predators. He lost 26 percent of his sheep in the last year. His sense of victimization grew. First the state had outlawed the traps that kept his herd safe. Now, he said, it was taking away his last line of defense.




They sued in June 2010, I cannot find the outcome, she said had to quit her job due to this unrelated to her job attack:

Bloch's firm filed the suit on behalf of Legro and her husband, Stephen Legro. They are seeking monetary damages from Sam Robinson and his wife, Cheri Robinson, for Legro's injuries.
The complaint does not spell out how much money the Legros are seeking in damages, Bloch said.
He filed the lawsuit in Eagle County District Court a month ago.


This is from the Denver Post, now if they hiker and bikers followed the pamphlets and the dogs are trained to go back to the sheep when told, I do not see why it would not work. But there are the people who will not listen and a farmer who may not train......

Lessons for hikers and bikers are coming in the form of posters and pamphlets. The posters let backcountry users know where to expect to encounter sheep and their guard dogs and what to do if there are confrontations. The pamphlets elaborate on that.

Some of the instructions sound familiar; like "don't feed or pet the dogs" and "do not try to outrun the dogs." Some are puzzling: "Do not take a dog with you." And some are simply helpful: "Stop and get off your bike, put your bike between you and the dog and tell the dog to 'go back to the sheep.' "

Etchart added another helpful hint: Don't throw rocks because when you bend over to pick up a rock you might get bitten in the backside. That happened last year to a hiker who encountered one of his dogs above Silverton.
-----------------------------


Deep Woods enough with the "citidiots"!! One, not all of us who use to live in the city are idiots, and two it is getting old with you singing the same song over and over. My goats and chickens are quite well and taken care of by this former city girl, thanks!


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

They should be safe no matter where they go from preventable injury, including your land not just public or leased land. Calling it "the Colorado trail" twice certainly implies they were where they were supposed to be. 
The point remains LGDs in the news for attacking people and no particularly good defence from the industry. Wendle brought it up before there needs to be a voice from responcible LGD owners. Maybe even group insurance?


----------



## Goatress (Feb 4, 2011)

Chuck if you delete Grazer's post in my quote please leave the part about uneducated people....can't handle etc. 



Grazer said:


> When I read that breed ban list, I didn't know whether to be mad or amused.
> They have pugs, Boston terriers and golden retrievers on the list as well lol
> Seriously, are these people for real? Obviously whoever created that list knows nothing about dogs and specific dog breeds.
> Nor does it say in which areas are these dogs banned/restricted etc.
> ...


Amen Grazer, I personally turn down twice the number of people I accept for homes to my pups. I have gotten to be a crank about it, I won't even answer vague or uninformative Emails....and I flat won't sell one pup to anyone who really should be buying three. 

And you are right, LGDs served as camp protectors as well as protecting the stock. Its only been in the US where we try to do the 'hands off' stuff with LGD's, that they were pushed out and told to do one job with stock. Most native lands, there is MUCH MORE interaction with the herder/owner with the dogs. If you stray too close to sheep in some of these lands you WILL be confronted by the herders LGD's. And it is up to YOU how you handle that. I speak to people over there all the time in different countries and am constantly told how the dogs will chase off people who come too close. Some WILL attempt to bite. Some won't.

Again.... DOING ITS JOB. They have two legged thieves too.

And....the better educated we are and the more responsible stockmen we are the lesser chance of us being taken to the cleaners by some deep pockets biker who goes off the trail (I don't agree with Ross I think those people could have been straying off the trail, definitely, the Pacific Trail is not some two inch wide rut, in some areas it is very wide....!) and provokes something with stock. Yes LGD's have been in use for a millenium...a lot longer than tree hugging bike riders.....if they were total failures they would have never lasted this long. The sheep and the LGD's in this CO situation were there first.....not the bikers. But in a liberal court suddenly the poor 'victim' gets all the fuss and tears.... :smack And the paper article is soooo biased it gags me.

DeepWoods is right, to make like the biker didn't stretch the truth or outright lie is sheer ignorance. 

Actually I think putting together a fund to support and to cover lawsuits would be a good idea for stockmen with LGD's. But breed regulation, ugh. Again, here people are trying to blame the dog....when its the owner who needs to be responsible. AND THE RECREATIONISTS....who are the Johnny Come Latelys...NOT the sheep and the dogs!


----------



## Goatress (Feb 4, 2011)

Someone over on the Pet Forum was questioning the true basis of the Homesteading Forum just this morning, when someone let their pet mongrel get bred, and everyone was slapping them on the back and cooing and fussing, instead of telling them hey you just a minute....and promoting responsible pet ownership. I too have to wonder, when someone speaks out they get slapped upside the head here yet I personally was allowed to be slandered (my attorney came on this forum at my direction, and even read what the Mods let the person post and he was like, well....when do you want us to send them the letter to HT Forum and the poster....?)...AND...those slanderous posts are still on this forum in a locked thread. 

I have to scratch my head at times over the decisions that some of the Mods make. I used one little cuss word once - it slipped out - and was told I was one post away from being banned. Ummmm okay. But leave that slander up by all means.....I didn't find Grazer's post offensive just strongly put.


----------



## Goatress (Feb 4, 2011)

...Oh and yes its MY TURN to hijack a thread! LOLOL...touche....


----------



## thaiblue12 (Feb 14, 2007)

Deep Woods said:


> deleted post was quoted hereQUOTE]
> 
> LOL first off I did not see or read your post, I am sure I would have found it humorous. Nor did not whine, squeak or otherwise run to a mod about it. I have never complained to a mod about anything, ever.
> Personal attack, bad language or otherwise, I have never pm'ed them or hit that little report button..... Why not? Because I could careless what a nameless faceless stranger says to me or about me, it does not hurt my feelings or cause me to give it a second thought.
> ...


----------



## Goatress (Feb 4, 2011)

thaiblue12 said:


> Goatress they are and have been getting slapped down for the breeding in that thread.
> Back to the topic.....
> 
> Ross I know you are anti- LGD


They are now but not in the beginning no one would say what needs to be said.
What happened to personal accountability and responsibility? Out of fashion now, is it?

And yes Ross you are most admittedly ANTI LGD so that is also why I take most of what you say with a salt block......


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

I'm certainly anti LGD for myself. No two ways about it. I can see how some operations could make use of them; however, using LGDs to ward off thieves is a sure fire method to get a breed banned. I know some places allow you to protect your property very aggressively, but most do not. 

What worries me most is the simple fact we have so few farmers left and even less new blood coming to the job, the industry really doesn't need another black eye or small operators losing their farms through law suits. (FWIW thats why I volunteer my time here on HT to help beginning farmers get started) 

The fellow being sued lost 25% of his flock, that's terrible, did he try any other protection methods or not? I've farmed sheep for 20 years (and15 in cattle before that) and I have had years of losses that high, but it wasn't just predation as such if at all. About every 4 years you can expect something to sting your flock. Its not always a huge losses but it'll be something you thought you had under control. Worms or vaccination failure or a bacterial infection storm or?? Since we're set on reading what we like rather than taking it as written I'll hypothesize a little too. When somebody wants to narrow down every loss to predation, I know they're either being economical with the truth, or they just haven't encountered the real problem yet. Maybe coyotes did wipe out 25% of the flock but I know very well they (the preditors) could have been assisted with worm loads weakening the flock or pneumonia or pulpy kidney or drought stressed pastures and nitrate poisoning, or a multitude of other problems that crop up. If you've never had problems you should count yourself lucky but you're simply over due. 

The rancher can blame coyotes, thats fine they probably did wipe out weaklings for sure and cleaned up deaths, but that means he probably didn't get a chance to post any either. What's almost certain is the court system is going to side with the injured party and then the real costs add up. How much did the dogs save him and how much are they about to cost him? That's a risk I'd never take on. YMMV


----------



## Grazer (Dec 23, 2011)

I don't know if this is even possible, but it seems to me that a good solution would be if farmers who lease public lands would be required to put up tall fences before they can let their stock (accompanied by LGD's) graze.
Perhaps with some "no trespassing" signs.
Fences that could easily be removed once the farmers were done with that piece of land.
I don't raise livestock, so I don't know if that's even possible.

And again, a responsible dog owner is the key here..
As a responsible owner would do everything in their power to make sure that the occasional hikers/bikers cannot be attacked by their dogs.
But if people (intruders) still enter the fenced area and get bitten, then the law should not be on their side.

Or perhaps once a farmer leases public land it should stop being public land? Therefor all hikers/bikers are automatically not allowed to be there? 
And there could be signs put up to let other people know that the land is in use...

I'm not a lawyer, so I may be speaking gibberish here ;P

Also, like Goatress said putting together a fund to support and to cover lawsuits would be a good idea for stockmen with LGD's.

Btw, my post never got deleted, at least not as far as I know..
Maybe you confused my post with someone else's post Goatress?


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

> But if people (intruders) still enter the fenced area and get bitten, then the law should not be on their side.


 Its not in most places, you can not knowingly have hazards on your property. That's why I asked if people were intent on using LGDs to protect their property. If yes they are wide open to prosecution (again in most places) because they knowingly keep human aggressive dogs. I hate to use the analogy of keeping a junk yard dog to protect junk, but at the very least keep your eyes open to the reality of your own court system. You will be held responsible for damages your dog inflicts on others. Your dog may very well be destroyed, and (in the case of LGDs) too many hitting the news will bring about breed bans. Its a well worn path. Go ahead shoot the messenger!!


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Grazer said:


> I don't know if this is even possible, but it seems to me that a good solution would be if farmers who lease public lands would be required to put up tall fences before they can let their stock (accompanied by LGD's) graze.
> Perhaps with some "no trespassing" signs.
> Fences that could easily be removed once the farmers were done with that piece of land.


It's not possible. Some of the allotments are fenced and the ranchers who run the allotment fix the fences each year. But other allotments are not fenced for various reasons. One, the terrain can be almost vertical. Two, the allotment might be 5X10 miles or more. Three, in a scenic recreation area, you don't really want tall fences running for miles. Four, the cost would kill any hope of a profit. Five, stopping the movements of wildlife would open up a can of worms with various government and wildlife groups. Six, people are all over some of the allotments, hunting, camping, fishing, and even riding their little bikes. 

That's off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more.


----------



## Grazer (Dec 23, 2011)

Ed Norman said:


> It's not possible. Some of the allotments are fenced and the ranchers who run the allotment fix the fences each year. But other allotments are not fenced for various reasons. One, the terrain can be almost vertical. Two, the allotment might be 5X10 miles or more. Three, in a scenic recreation area, you don't really want tall fences running for miles. Four, the cost would kill any hope of a profit. Five, stopping the movements of wildlife would open up a can of worms with various government and wildlife groups. Six, people are all over some of the allotments, hunting, camping, fishing, and even riding their little bikes.
> 
> That's off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more.


Yes I was already afraid that wouldn't be possible.
Still keeping livestock with lgd's that guard them and general public separated, is an idea that I hope doesn't gets dismissed.
Since I'm not an expert, I really wouldn't know how that can be accomplished, but it has to so everyone can live in peace.
Farmers losing livestock to predators because they can't keep lgd's would be very unfair.

@ Ross: I'm aware of the law system, but I'm saying the law is not flawless, especially in this case.
All dogs are territorial; just how territorial depends on the breed and the temperament of that particular dog.
And all dogs have teeth, so them biting is always a possibility.

If a person has a locked fenced property (I'm talking about a strong 6 ft fence) and there is a "no trespassing" sign and/or "dogs in the yard, keep gate closed at all times" sign, yet an intruder still comes in and gets bitten by a dog, then there should be no sympathy for that person.

Only a person with bad motives would be doing that anyway. And those people are usually armed to the teeth (but then not even the best personal protection dog could help you lol). 

They can always sue you for getting bitten, but the law should not be on their side.
Especially since robbers often do not hesitate to murder the homeowner if they are discovered. That has happened a thousand times in the past.

On top of that, the intruder should feel lucky that the owner didn't meet them with a gun. As in a lot of states you can shoot someone breaking in to your home if you fear for your life ; just depends on the Castle Doctrine of that state.

But I think I'm getting off topic here.


----------



## Goatress (Feb 4, 2011)

As an LGD breeder, and as someone who knows the benefits of good guardian dogs for stock, I don't agree with a good percentage of the negative forecasting going on here, particularly by people who don't use LGD's.

And....so I'm outa this thread.....:lock:


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Just a question - Ross knows the Canadian laws - and how they apply, is it possible that they are different in the different states of the US?

Sorta like the castle laws of defending your home or your whole property is allowable in some states and not in others, or in other countries.

I think maybe out outlooks on these things are different due to the different laws and where everyone grew up.

(I read Grazer's post after posting this)


----------



## Grazer (Dec 23, 2011)

Also...what about the fact that livestock that's allowed to walk, graze and spend their entire day in sunlight is much healthier than the poor animals stuck in those bio-industry factories so to speak.
So when they're healthier they'll need less antibiotics and stuff; something we all benefit from (unless someone is a vegan of course lol)

These animals who can graze freely have then a much better life quality and that wouldn't be possible if there were no LGD's to protect them from large predators. Because I understand that it's not always possible for farmers to be there with their stock.
Also having LGD's makes the need for farmers to shoot and kill predators a whole lot smaller.
And what about organic farmers?

Anyway, I'm just saying that I personally would much rather leave public spaces where farmers let their livestock graze alone, than to eat something stuffed with grow hormones and antibiotics etc...


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Allowing grazing animals access to pasture should be law IMO but it would jack meat prices through the roof.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Ross said:


> Its not in most places, you can not knowingly have hazards on your property. That's why I asked if people were intent on using LGDs to protect their property. If yes they are wide open to prosecution (again in most places) because they knowingly keep human aggressive dogs. I hate to use the analogy of keeping a junk yard dog to protect junk, but at the very least keep your eyes open to the reality of your own court system. You will be held responsible for damages your dog inflicts on others. Your dog may very well be destroyed, and (in the case of LGDs) too many hitting the news will bring about breed bans. Its a well worn path. Go ahead shoot the messenger!!


thats not true. this extreme liability we have in north america is the exception in the world. in about 90% of the world if you trespass & get chewed up by the guard dog or your hands cut to ribbons on the broken glass aeop the wall, your legal standing is to shut your pie hole & suck it up because you created the problem not the property owner. the american shift from this attitude is rooted in the 20th century w/ litigators becoming the dominant background of our legislators. even in the first half of the 20th century, the recreationists approaching the stock & getting bitten would have had no legal standing.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

I was talking about N America.


----------



## thaiblue12 (Feb 14, 2007)

This is the last time I will address this.....
No matter how long I have been here, how many posts I have or what ever else favoritism you seem to think they are showing me or the other long term members I can assure you that if I called someone a name, used curse words or broke any other type of rule the mods would call me out on it whether I had 12 posts and been here for two weeks or have over 10,000 posts and have been here for 7 years. 

Ross, Angie or whomever can feel free to tell you if they chose that I did not report your posts. Maybe no one did and since this is a hotter topic the mods are keeping a watch on it (and Ross is already here reading and posting) and they deleted what they did not like. Not all of your posts are deleted. 

You accused me and maybe others of "downing you" but isn't that what you are doing to the mods by saying they are using a "crooked double standard"? 
Nor did I down you I disgreed with you and you constant use of one word, especially since I use to live in the city over 15 yrs ago, grew up in one too. You can disagree with me and it's ok, not everyone has the same ideas and if we did life would be quite boring. 




Angie I have no clue about the laws in Canada but here specfically in the state of CO where all these issues arose it is Open Range, so if you do not want the livestock on your property you must fence them out. This includes all livestock except for horses and mules, they are not allowed to free range. So the sheep farmers are not breaking any laws by renting the land and just putting their sheep there without fencing. The dogs however bring up another issue which hopefully will only effect Public lands with actual trails for human use. Maybe the herders can have them graze further away from those areas. 

Ross he use to trap until that was banned then he started to use dogs. Probably not all the losses where sickly lambs, if he has them in the mountain areas; there are also mountain lions as well as bears, down here we just deal with coyotes who also hunt in packs, the largest pack I have seen is 4 hunting in the daytime. They are not as large as the ones up by you they weigh 35-50 lbs on average.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

Ross, I'm surprised you haven't had problems in all those years with predators in Canada. I was good for a few years here, until expanding my flock. Before having lgds I had quite a few losses. These were not just ill or lambs. These were healthy adult sheep. Right now with just one adult lgd there is still some coyote pressure, but no losses as long as the sheep and goats are all in the same pasture. When I accidentally locked my lgd up in the yard one night, I lost a goat.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Oh I have had losses and still do. I just don't use LGDs because I honestly believe in the long run they will cost me more. I certainly researched the system very carefully I have more than a few friends who tried them (Pyrs and Anatolians) with very mixed results. None use them now. One friend in particular faced a similar situation to the rancher here in question, his dogs left his property and molested people walking on the road. His insurance balked at paying and it was only the sanity of the judge he didn't lose more. He no longer farms.

Good luck to ya Wendle getting into some sort of LGD association. Note the lack of success in most kennel clubs and even breed clubs have to rally as one voice. But who knows it might work.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

> Ross he use to trap until that was banned then he started to use dogs. Probably not all the losses where sickly lambs,


 I was speculating a possibility, based on my experience. They might well have been his best crop ever.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

I think it helps if the dog is trained/socialized/bred to be people friendly in the case he might get out. This whole my dog can be a big bad biter if a two foot stranger walks in the property is a scary thing. What happens when one day that dog gets off his property by 3 feet because a tree falls on the fence. I have two creeks running through my property, plus some heavy woods, and deer in the area. It's not hard to get a fence down, washed out, or a hot wire blown through. If a stranger walks on my property, I'd rather the lgd be friendly. His only job is to deter coyotes.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

As an aside we don't talk about how this place is administrated, its a privately run site and thats how it'll stay. If there is a post that needs to be reported click the little triangle with the exclamation mark in the middle in the top right of the post box in question. Not every post is read or read fully. Nobody has that kind of time so your help is very much appreciated. Doesn't mean we'll agree with you but it will get looked at. For example I wasn't reading the dog pregnancy thread until someone suggested I do. its now locked until i can read it all. Thanks guys!


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Oh crud i forgot. About slandering folks on HT, remember this. YOU are responcible for YOUR posts, not HT. And YOU agreed to the terms of service with your free use membership which absolves HT and its administrators from prosecution by you. So again know your legal stuff and don't post stupid stuff. Just Be Nice!!


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Ross said:


> I was talking about N America.


yeah so was i when i pointed out the shifting of responsibility for your own stupidity & misconduct on to the victims of said stupidity & misconduct.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

thaiblue12 - thanks for the information. I thought Colorado was a fence out your problems/cattle. Protect your own, etc.

And to the best of my knowledge reported posts were not done by you, and if you'd been disagreeable and talking down - you'd have been deleted, too.


----------

