Content uploaded by Nicolas Lescureux
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nicolas Lescureux on May 13, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Cooperation and expertise for a sustainable future
John D. C. Linnell and Nicolas Lescureux
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
2
Linnell, J.D. C. & Lescure ux, N. 2015. Livestock
guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with
a new relevance for mitigating conservation
conflic ts. Norwegian Inst itute for Nature Research,
Trondheim. 76 pp.
Trondheim, March 2015
ISBN: 978 -82-426-3500 -6
COPYRIGHT HOLDER:
© European Commission
This publicat ion may be cited without res triction
provided the s ource is stated
GRAPHIC DESIGN
Kari Siver tsen, NINA
NO. PRINTED
50
CONTACT
John D. C. Linnell, john.linnell@nina.no
CONTACT INFORMATION
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA)
Postal addre ss: P. O. Box 5685 Sluppen,
NO-7485 Trondheim
Office address: Høgskoleringen 9,
NO-7034 Trondheim
Telephone: +47 73 80 14 00
http://www.nina.no
1
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
3
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
4
xxxxxx
Preface
The work described in this report constitutes a pilot action on large carnivores devel-
oped within the project Support to the European Commission’s policy on large car-
nivores under the Habitats Directive – phase 2 (contract no. 07.0307/2013/654446/
SER/B.3), financed by the European Commission via the Istituto di Ecologia Applicata,
Rome, with guidance from the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (IUCN/SSC LCIE).
It’s objective was to inspire best practices and improve communication between
stakeholders, specifically by developing resources about livestock guarding dogs that
explore their historical use and relevance for helping reduce conflicts between live-
stock and large carnivores in the 21st century. The contents are based on an accu-
mulation of experience that has come from within multiple projects, many of which
have been co-funded by the EC’s LIFE program. This experience has been co-devel-
oped by the work of livestock producers, agricultural specialists and environmental-
ists. In addition, we build on cultural historical and ethnographic research that the
authors have conducted in recent years. This has involved working with and inter-
viewing many shepherds and livestock breeders across southern, central and eastern
Europe, including both those who have always worked with livestock guarding dogs
and those trying to integrate these dogs into their grazing operation for the first time.
On the one hand, we hope that this report will increase the level of awareness of
both the heritage value and modern day usefulness of these dogs for protecting live-
stock from large carnivore predation. On the other hand, we are also trying to com-
municate a balanced view concerning the challenges and limitations of using live-
stock guarding dogs in a modern context. There is no magic solution to the complex
challenges that large carnivores represent for livestock producers. However, livestock
guarding dogs are a very valuable and versatile tool in the pastoralist’s toolkit that can
be used in many situations, and whose application can also be integrated with other
tools, such as fencing, to create functional solutions.
2
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
5
Norsk institutt for natur forskning
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
6
Introduction
Human and large carnivores, like wolves and bears, have been sharing the landscapes
of Eurasia for millennia, ever since the first humans colonised the continent during
the Ice Age. Their early relationships were probably complex, with carnivores rep-
resenting both a threat to human lives and providers of carrion that early humans
could scavenge. Eventually, the relationships between humans and wolves took a
dramatic turn and led to the emergence of domestic dogs. Although there is much
debate about the domestication process, it is possible it began as long as between
15,000 and 12,000 years ago. These early dogs were probably used as both guardi-
ans and as hunting companions, and represented the first step in a major change in
the way that early humans interacted with the wildlife that surrounded them. The
next major step was the domestication of wild ungulates like sheep, goats and cattle.
The need to protect these herds from wild predators promoted a dramatic change in
the way humans related to large carnivores. Their previously ambiguous relationship
now became one of direct competition that stimulated humans to adopt increasingly
advanced ways to kill large carnivores. It also opened the way for the ”domesticated
wolf” to adopt a new role as guardian of the flocks against their wild ancestors! A role
that they have continuously maintained until present times.
This is the story of those dogs and the wild carnivores that they were bred to defend
against. We will follow the tradition down through the millennia, travelling across all
of Europe and into the adjoining regions of the Middle East and Central Asia. We shall
see how their fates were linked; how the historical decline of the large carnivores led
to the decline of the livestock guarding dogs, and how the recovery of large carni-
vores is leading to a renaissance for the dogs and the pastoral systems in which they
were imbedded. However, the 21st century differs dramatically from those of the past
in terms of the ecology of the environments and the social, cultural and economic
systems surrounding pastoralism. The central question we ask is to what extent can
these symbols of our Eurasian cultural heritage continue to mitigate the impacts of
the large carnivores that are returning to our modern day landscapes?
Detail of a miniatu re of a wolf, sneaking up on
sheep from downwind (Bestiary, England, c.
1200-c. 1210, Royal MS 12 C. xix, f. 19r)
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
7
23
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
8
Large carnivores in Europe and
neighbouring regions
Europe and central Asia were home to a diverse guild of large carnivores at the end
of Ice Age. Europe was home to lions, leopards, brown bears, wolves, Eurasian lynx,
and wolverines, while the neighbouring parts of the Middle East and entral Asia
also contained tigers, cheetahs, snow leopards, and hyenas. These species were all
widespread at the time our story begins when human societies progressively shifted
from hunting and gathering to farming and pastoralism. As soon as humans became
herders of domestic livestock, they have used a great deal of effort and ingenuity to
kill carnivores. As human populations grew, farmland increased to the detriment of
forest, technology and tools evolved, human impact increased and large carnivore
species declined. These declines reached their most extreme in the late 19th and
Distribut ion of Eurasian lynx, wolves and brown
bears in Europe a s of 2011 (www.lcie.org).
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
9
early 20th centuries. By this stage, lions and leopards were long
gone from Europe (the last records come from Roman times)
and wolves, bears and lynx had been effectively exterminated
from most of western and central Europe. Their populations
were also greatly reduced in southern and eastern Europe
although small remnant populations held on in many of the
mountain areas. In the Middle East and Central Asia, lions and
cheetahs were reduced to tiny relict populations in India and
Iran respectively, and Caspian tigers held on until the 1950’s.
Leopards and snow leopards have survived across wide areas
in the mountains and rugged terrain that gives them refuge.
Wolves were the species that retained the greatest part of their
range; a testimony to their adaptability and resilience. For pas-
toralists wolves have probably been the single most problem-
atic species and have become symbols for this age-old strug-
gle between the shepherd and the predator.
The relationship between humans and predators remained
largely unchanged until the post-World War 2 period when
the modern day environmentalist movement began to take
form. The period from the 1960’s to the 1980’s led to a dra-
matic U-turn in human attitudes towards nature which led
to far-reaching changes in policy. Instead of indifference or
active extermination, the goals for large carnivores in most
countries switched to those of conservation and protection-
ism. In most populations, the carnivores responded positively
to this breathing space, also availing of the dramatic improve-
ments in forest cover and the abundance of wild herbivore
prey that had begun earlier in the century. Eurasian lynx and
brown bears have been given a helping hand in some areas,
being reintroduced into areas like the Alps and the Pyrenees.
With a few exceptions, most large carnivore populations have
begun to recover, with wolves especially recolonizing many of
their former haunts, including Scandinavia, Germany, France,
Switzerland and even recently arriving in Denmark. At least
one large carnivore species is now found across one third of
the European continent. The best available data indicate that
we now have as many as 17.000 brown bears, 12.000 wolves,
9.000 Eurasian lynx and 1200 wolverines in Europe . The situ-
ation of large carnivores in the Middle East and Central Asia is
less clear, but even there many species are maintaining their
populations or even expanding.
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
10
History of livestock guarding dogs
Several hypotheses have been advanced concerning the origins of livestock guarding
dogs (LGDs). Some trace their origin to the Tibetan mastiff; others focus on a breed of
dog called Molossers given to Alexander the Great by an Indian king. Although many
things have been written about the origins of LGDs there have been surprisingly few
systematic investigations into their past use by either historians or archaeologists.
Genetic, archaeological and behavioural studies tend to confirm that the wolf is the
main ancestor of the dog and the first undisputed domestic dog remains dates back
to ca. 15,000 years ago in Europe and ca. 12,000 years ago in several places including
Syria, Cyprus, Iraq, northern China, and the Russian Far East. Livestock domestication
events for most other species (cattle, sheep, goats, pigs) all occurred in the Near East
at around the same period between 8,500 and 11,000 years ago. Despite the proba-
ble co-occurrence of livestock and dogs in some regions, the most ancient associa-
tion between dogs and sheep in archaeological records only dates back to ca. 5,600
BP, without any information on what function these dogs had.
The co-occurrence of sheep (or goats) and dogs is a necessary but not sufficient con-
dition for the emergence of LGDs. There are some historical preconditions for the
presence of LGDs . The first one was the practice of large-scale extensive sheep-farm-
ing. It is probable that families owning a few sheep and practicing mixed farming
did not need (and maybe couldn’t even sustain) such large (and hungry) dogs. LGDs
are therefore linked with large flocks grazing in open landscapes like mountain pas-
tures and steppe areas. In fact, it is noticeable that the original location of LGD breeds
corresponds quite well with places of transhumant and/or nomadic shepherding.
The second precondition is of course the necessity to protect the flocks from pred-
ators, which is confirmed by the absence of LGDs in places with no large carnivores
as well as their disappearance from places where large carnivores became extinct. As
Johanes Caius already wrote in 1570 about English dogs: “Our shepherdes dogge is not
huge, vaste, and bigge, but of an indifferent stature and growth, because it has not to deale
4
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
11
with the bloudthyrsty wolf, sythence there be none in England”
(following their extinction in the late Middle Ages). The last
condition for the presence of LGDs is the possibility for live-
stock owners to feed them, and notably to provide them with
proteins. Meat was certainly not an option in the past when a
lot of people couldn’t even afford it for themselves. Therefore,
whey, as a by-product of cheese making, was probably a cheap
way to provide proteins to such huge and hungry dogs, but it
then implied that pastoralists were producing dairy products,
either from their sheep or cows. Nowadays, whey is still used
to feed LGDs, notably in the Balkans, mixed with some flour or
old bread.
The oldest unambiguous written mention of dogs dedicated
to guarding livestock appears in Aristotle’s History of Animals,
dated from 2356 years ago.
“Of the Molossian breed of dogs, such as are employed in the chase
are pretty much the same as those elsewhere; but sheep-dogs of
this breed are superior to the others in size, and in the courage with
which they face the attacks of wild animals. Dogs that are born of
a mixed breed between these two kinds are remarkable for cour-
age and endurance of hard labour.”
The Jennings Dog is a Ro man sculpture of a dog
identified at the British Museum as a M olossian
guard dog. It is a 2nd centu ry AD Roman copy of
a Hellenistic bro nze original. © Trustees of the
British Museum.
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
12
Then, livestock guarding dogs are described in great detail, as
well as the way to raise and use them, in the writings from the
Roman writer Varro’s Rerum rusticarum libri III, dated from ca.
2100 years ago .
”There remains ……. only the topic of dogs; but it is of great interest
to those of us who keep fleece-bearing flocks, the dog being the
guardian of the flock, which needs such a champion to defend it.”
According to Varro, these dogs were used to guard sheep and
goats against wolves, since other livestock are able to defend
themselves:
“Under this head come especially sheep but also goats, as these are
the common prey of the wolf, and we use dogs to protect them.”
Varro also provided numerous details on how to choose and
use a dog for guarding livestock, to the point that for the most
part his text would certainly be still relevant today:
”In the first place, they should be procured of the proper age as
puppies, and dogs over age are of no value for guarding either
themselves or sheep, and sometimes fall a prey to wild beasts.[…] It
is better, therefore, to buy from a shepherd a bitch which has been
trained to follow sheep, or one that has had no training at all; for a
dog forms a habit for anything very easily. […] The food of dogs is
more like that of man than that of sheep: they eat scraps of meat
and bones, not grass and leaves. Great care must be taken for their
supply of food; for hunger will drive them to hunt for food, if it is
not provided, and take them away from the flock […] You should
also feed them barley bread, but not without soaking it in milk; for
when they have become accustomed to eating that kind of food
5
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
13
they will not stray from the flock. They are not allowed to feed on the flesh of a dead sheep,
for fear that the taste will make them less inclined to protect the flock”.
”In the matter of rearing after birth, if the litter is large you should at once pick those that
you wish to keep and dispose of the others. The fewer you leave the better they will grow,
because of the abundance of milk […]. Some people castrate them, because they think that
by this means they are less likely to leave the flock; others do not, because they think this
makes them less keen”.
”To protect them from being wounded by wild beasts, collars are placed on them — the
so called melium, that is, a belt around the neck made of stout leather with nails having
heads; under the nail heads there is sown a piece of soft leather, to prevent the hard iron
from injuring the neck. The reason for this is that if a wolf or other beast has been wounded
by these nails, this makes the other dogs which do not have the collar, safe”.
The vigilant eye. Illust ration by French artist
Jacques Callot (1592-1635) from the book Lux
Claustri (the light of t he monastery) showing a
flock pro tected by a net and a guarding dog.
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
14
”The number of dogs is usually determined by the size of the flock;
it is thought to be about right for one dog to follow each shepherd.
But the number varies with the circumstances; thus in countries
where wild beasts are plentiful there should be more, as is usually
the case with those who escort the flocks to summer and winter
pastures through remote woodland trails. On the other hand, for a
flock feeding near to the farm two dogs are sufficient. These should
be a male and a female, for in this case they are more watchful, as
one makes the other more keen, and if one of the two is sick that
the flock may not be without a dog.”
Even if the first known mentions of LGDs are from ancient
Greece and the Roman Empire, this doesn’t mean LGDs were
first used in these place and at these times. The origins of LGDs
and the chronology of their introduction remain uncertain.
More research is needed to assess the presence of LGDs, either
in archaeological remains or in ancient texts from other places.
Indeed, to our knowledge no historical study of LGDs has
been conducted. A few scattered accounts can be found but
the place of LGDs in pastoral systems in Eurasia from Roman
times to the beginning of 20th century remains poorly studied
Nevertheless, a quick investigation of iconography reveals that
LGDs were present and used throughout this period.
One example is the Triptych of the Burning Bush, painted by
Nicolas Froment between 1475 and 1476 and displayed in Aix
cathedral. On the central panel, accompanying a mixed flock
of sheep and goats lies a white dog with cut ears and a spiked
Central panel from Nicolas Froment’s Triptych Le Bui sson ardent (the burning
bush) (1475-1476, Cathedral of Aix-en-Provence), showing a mixed flock of
sheep and goat guarded by a dog with a spiked collar.
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
15
collar. It is highly probable that this is a representation of a
guarding dog. Another good example is shown in the emblem
book “lux claustri” written in the mid-seventeenth century and
illustrated by Jacques Callot. One of the engravings, “the vigi-
lant eye”, shows a flock inside a net protected by a dog wearing
a spiked collar. Once again, the role of the dog is obvious. Later
on, in the mid-nineteenth century, several painters illustrated
the daily life in the Pyrenees and in a few pictures LGDs appear,
looking quite similar to modern ones. Despite these very inter-
esting representations, we lack information on the distribution
and use of LGDs during historical time, even though it appears
they were probably widespread.
M.-A. Alophe (1812-1883) drawing of a mountai n dweller from the Spanish
Pyrenees showing a shepherd with his guarding dog.
Illustration from Le Kalendrier des
Bergiers (the shepherds’ calendar)
published in 1508, showing a f lock
attacked by a wol f in the background
and a shepherd accomp anied by two
guarding dogs wearing spiked collars in
the foreground.
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
16
Livestock guarding dogs as cultural heritage
3
ALENTEJO MASTIFF
ROMANIAN SHEPHERD DOG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
12
14
10
11
15
16 17
18
CASTRO LABOREIRO
1
ESTRELLA MOUNTAIN DOG
2
SPANISH SHEEPDOG
4
GREAT PYRENEES MOUNTAIN DOG
5
MAREMMA SHEEPDOG
6
TORNJAK
7
KARST SHEPHERD
8
ŠARPLANINAC
9
POLISH
TATR A SHEEPDOG
10
KUVASZ
11
K
ARAKACHAN DOG
12
G
REEK SHEEPDOG
13
KOMONDOR
14 15
AKBASH DOG
16
KANGAL DOG
17
CAUCASIAN OVCHARKA
18
19
TURKMEN ALABAI
19
20
MONGOLIAN KHONCH NOKHOI
22
21
22
KAZAKH TÖBET
20
TIBETAN MASTIFF
23
INDIAN SHEEPDOG
24
23
KYRGYZ DÖBÖT
21
24
Diversity of breeds and their local identity
Nowadays, it is possible to recognize approximately 50 breeds of LGD. Many of
them are recognized both by the American Kennel Club (AKC) and the Fédération
Cynologique Internationale (FCI) with their respective standards. However, it is highly
probable that all these breeds are recent creations with the standards almost certain-
ly being set in an environment isolated from that in which the dogs were actually
used. In addition, the establishment of breeds recognized either by the FCI or the
AKC is leading to the standardization of LGD breeds mainly based on morphological
characteristics whereas the origin and use of LGDs was mainly based on their ability
to protect the flocks.
Some breeds are not recognized by these international organizations and alterna-
tively one breed can have several local names. Thus, some breeds will be associated
with one country, even though very similar dogs are present in the neighbouring
countries on the same mountain range where the traditional transhumance pat-
terns used to cut across these countries’ borders. Therefore, the exact number of LGD
breeds remains unclear, varies according to authors, and the splitting between dogs
appears quite arbitrary.
In several places it appears that dog breeds hold substantial political and identity
values which have biased the separation between different breeds and the con-
struction of their history, giving birth to unsupported assertions about the origins
of breeds. It is probable that this strong identity value associated with a particular
breed is mainly an issue for kennel club members. Indeed, even if they have their
own criteria according to which they select their dogs, active LGD users are far more
concerned about the working abilities of their dogs. The extent to which a breed
traditionally had a name simply reflects that they were local dogs, with most breed
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
17
3
ALENTEJO MASTIFF
ROMANIAN SHEPHERD DOG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
12
14
10
11
15
16 17
18
CASTRO LABOREIRO
1
ESTRELLA MOUNTAIN DOG
2
SPANISH SHEEPDOG
4
GREAT PYRENEES MOUNTAIN DOG
5
MAREMMA SHEEPDOG
6
TORNJAK
7
KARST SHEPHERD
8
ŠARPLANINAC
9
POLISH TATR A
SHEEPDOG
10
K
UVASZ
11
KARAKACHAN
DOG
12
GREEK
SHEEPDOG
13
KOMONDOR
14 15
AKBASH DOG
16
KANGAL DOG
17
CAUCASIAN OVCHARKA
18
19
TURKMEN ALABAI
19
20
MONGOLIAN KHONCH NOKHOI
22
21
22
KAZAKH TÖBET
20
TIBETAN MASTIFF
23
INDIAN SHEEPDOG
24
23
KYRGYZ DÖBÖT
21
24
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
18
names meaning ”the dog from this region”. The Great Pyrenees comes from the
Pyrenees, the Mareema comes from Mareema, and so on.
With few exceptions, the most striking aspect of these dogs is actually their similarity
rather than their differences. It is possible to speculate about the degree to which
shepherd cultures established contact and exchange practices, and dogs, across the
wide sweep of Eurasia. These similarities are even more evident when looking at the
wider pastoral system within which these dogs have been used.
Livestock production systems as age old bio-
cultural adaptations
Since its origins in the Near East livestock breeding has spread across most of the
world and, combined with agriculture, has dramatically shaped many of our land-
scapes. Nowadays, extensive pastoral production systems cover about 25% of the
Earth’s terrestrial surface. Throughout the world, 100 to 200 million people depend
on pastoralism, which is of both economic and cultural value. Pastoral systems are
very diverse throughout the world, but they are generally characterized by high
mobility and dynamism, low population densities, and a high reliance on local and
traditional knowledge that has accumulated through the ages. The pastoralism sys-
tems show greater similarity to the patterns of grazing used by wild ungulates than
those of more stationary livestock production systems. In addition, pastoralists often
use locally adapted livestock breeds and actively help to preserve them, thus main-
taining livestock genetic diversity. Pastoralists also contribute to biodiversity conser-
vation through their knowledge of various species and their management of the
landscape which helps to maintain these species as well as their interactions with
other elements of the ecosystem through herbivory, host-parasite cycles and nutrient
cycling. However, the densities of livestock kept are often much higher than those of
wild ungulates and the grazing regimes often induce higher grazing pressures on the
vegetation.
118
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
19
Extensive livestock grazing, often combined with human activities such as burning,
mowing and intensive use of firewood, has transformed landscapes and created new
habitat types. The suppression of shrubs, bushes and trees as well as trampling by
livestock and the net removal of nutrients has favoured the emergence of a vegeta-
tion community dominated by grasses, and where species that have poor compet-
itive ability thrive. These new habitat types are often very rich in fungal, floral and
invertebrate diversity and help to maintain a greater degree of habitat diversity than
would otherwise have occurred. These habitats also provide good grazing conditions.
As such, the system can be viewed as a bio-cultural system where livestock practic-
es and the associated biotic communities have developed a high degree of inter-
dependence. Compared to many other agricultural practices, pastoralism can clear-
ly increase plant and landscape diversity. Finally, in addition to favouring biodiverse
6
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
20
landscapes, pastoralism has enhanced the cultural richness of the landscape through
numerous buildings, tracks, rock carvings, droving roads, stone walls, livestock pens,
etc. which can be viewed as living monuments to an ancient heritage. They would
quickly fade away if pastoralism and transhumance systems were to disappear.
LGDs as a component of the pastoral system
Considering the ecological and social context in history, we can hypothesize that it
would have been almost impossible for herders to exploit the grazing resources of
these wilder landscapes at greater distance from settled areas without the presence
of livestock guarding dogs to help protect the flocks from the predators that have
always occurred in these areas. As such, the dogs can be viewed as essential ingre-
dients in the development of this bio-cultural system. The dogs, however, did not
work alone. Throughout Eurasia, they have been integrated into a system that com-
bines the constant presence of shepherds following the flocks during the day and
the night-time gathering of flocks into enclosures. Since nomadic or transhumant
grazing does not lend itself to having permanent structures, simple netting enclo-
sures were often used which require that shepherds also slept in proximity to the
flocks so they could respond to the alarm raised by the dogs. The ability to defend
their flocks against predators using both reactive and proactive culling of carnivores,
to remove livestock killers and maintain shyness among the predators, has probably
always been a part of most pastoral systems.
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
21
Livestock guarding dogs in
the 21st century
Having looked at the history of LGDs through more than two
thousand years the question remains concerning their place
in the 21st century. To answer this we have to look at two very
different contexts. In those parts of Europe where large carni-
vores persisted, such as the Carpathian mountains, the Balkans,
central Italy and the Iberian peninsula (and the mountains of
the Middle East and much of Central Asia), LGDs were retained
as integral parts of the livestock production system. In the
countries from the former Eastern Bloc, the upheaval associ-
ated with the Soviet era and the post-communist transition to
a market economy has left its scars on the traditional systems,
and it is probable that the quality of the LGDs declined in many
areas. However, in general it has been impossible for shep-
herds to herd sheep without these guardians who work round
the clock to protect the flocks and alert the shepherds to
approaching predators. As a result, LGDs remained an integral
part of these traditional pastoral systems with extensive graz-
ing, wide-ranging movements of the flocks (transhumance),
night-time gathering, and constant presence of shepherds.
The relevance of LGDs has not diminished with time.
In these pastoral systems, the major present day threat is coming
from external factors that threaten the whole system. The col-
lapse of state agriculture support through veterinary care and the
infrastructure to buy livestock and livestock products, the general
decrease in lamb meat consumption due to impoverishment, the
7
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
22
privatization of pastures and other factors have led to a major collapse in sheep production.
Thus in Eastern Europe, the number of sheep and goats decreased from c. 169 million in
1991 to c. 31 million in 2001. Despite the presence of LGDs, many herders in these regions
also increasingly complain about the changing behaviour and increasing number of preda-
tors following the end of state sponsored predator-control. A final issue concerns social forc-
es that are making it harder to recruit a new generation to the difficult and poorly paid life
of the shepherd.
The other situation concerns the areas of western and northern Europe where large carni-
vores are returning to areas from which they have been absent for decades or centuries.
Released from the pressures of carnivore presence herding systems rapidly shed the bur-
den of these large hungry dogs and night penning which is often detrimental to sheep
growth, health and wool quality. Following the widespread recovery of large carnivores
in recent decades, the herding systems that had developed in the absence of predators
are suddenly being confronted with attacks that are viewed as intolerable. The impacts
are felt by shepherds on many levels. Although state compensation systems can buff-
er against some of the economic losses, the extra workload and the social and psycho-
logical impact of losing animals is often unbearable. Beyond this obvious social impact
on livestock breeders and shepherds, these situations often generate conflicts that can
quickly grow and lead to illegal retaliatory killing of large carnivores, demonstrations, and
heated conflicts between different groups in society.
In addition, reduction in grazing pressure leads to the encroachment of shrubs and
reforestation that begins to lead to the loss of the grazing dependent landscapes.
This leads to a loss of landscape diversity and many associated species. These grazing
dependent landscapes often have a very high aesthetic value for the modern public.
In addition, they have a strong cultural value in many regions that value the land-
scape as living cultural heritage with all the associated traditions, paths, buildings,
and walls. In many cases, the existing conservation legislation has also recognised
the biotic value of these landscapes and calls for their conservation, which requires a
continuity of use of traditional grazing practices.
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
23
In these contexts, the reintroduction of LGDs is being widely proposed as a suitable
protection measure to allow grazing to continue; often in combination with other
measures like electric fences and night-time gathering. LGDs are thus acquiring a new
status. They are becoming a tool in the modern conservation toolbox to protect both
large carnivores and grazing dependent landscapes indirectly through their role as
a livestock protection measure. The hope is that reducing damages on livestock will
increase the tolerance of livestock producers for the presence of large carnivores.
However, the ease with which LGDs can be reintegrated into western European pas-
toral systems varies greatly, reflecting the diversity of European landscapes, cultures
and pastoral practices.
119
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
24
Opportunities
As a consequence of the political and economic changes of recent decades, the
European continent is undergoing dramatic environmental changes. These changes
vary regionally, but in many part of Europe there has been a general trend for the
“lowlands” to see an intensification of agriculture and increase in human populations
and the “highlands” (and other marginal areas designated as Less Favoured Areas by
the Rural Development Funds) to see both a reduction in agriculture and a decrease
in their rural human population.
Together with protective legislation and active conservation measures, the reduced
human pressure on habitats has contributed to the recovery of large carnivores. It is
also leading to shrub encroachment and the reforestation of the landscape. These
changes are creating a wide range of challenges for rural populations including
socio-economic difficulties and the loss of tradition and identity in the face of global
change.
In some contexts, LGDs allow the maintenance of sheep grazing in places where it
would be too risky to graze without dogs, i.e. in specific habitats and regions where
the risk of depredation is high. To some extent, and being cautious about the diver-
sity of contexts, LGDs can potentially slow down the vicious cycle of land abandon-
ment leading to loss of grazing pastures and increased difficulties of maintaining live-
stock breeding activities. In many parts of Europe a range of conservation projects
and government schemes have been encouraging herders to adopt LGDs and learn
how to use them under modern conditions.
In other contexts, LGDs allow livestock breeding activities to resume even under quite
challenging situations. For example, in the eastern Polish Carpathians, people are
resuming sheep breeding activities on meadows surrounded by forest where wolves
are present. Breeders are adopting some of the traditional husbandry methods which
8
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
25
are still in use in the Tatra Mountains (a mountain range in the western Carpathians
on the Polish/Slovakian border), but are also adapting them to the context of village
meadows close to the forest, combining LGDs and electric fences. Thus, they can
maintain the presence of sheep in meadow enclaves within the forest in the absence
of shepherds.
Thus, in some contexts LGDs are used to maintain borders between the “domes-
tic” flock – and the “wild” wolf, preventing the later from coming into the domestic
area. LGDs are also sometimes used to cross the border in the other direction, help-
ing herders to graze their sheep in “wilder” places like forest or shrubby areas where
reforestation is occurring.
In summary, LGDs provide the following opportunities;
• Protecting livestock from large carnivores and decreasing damages to livestock.
• Maintaining the use of traditional pastoral practice in countries where LGDs have
always been in use.
• Renewing a forgotten traditional practice when favourable conditions are present
in countries where LGDs disappeared and where large carnivores are returning.
• Maintaining grazing in shrubby areas where it would be even more difficult to
protect flocks without LGDs.
• Maintaining the diversity of LGD breeds which are highly symbolic of many rural
cultures.
• Maintaining a population of working LGD breeds based on their working abilities
rather than external appearances.
• Maintaining the ancient heritage of this complex human – animal relationship
implying multiple domestic species working together.
• Favouring the coexistence of livestock breeding activities and the presence of
diverse large mammals, including large carnivores, when favourable conditions
are present.
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
26
Limitations and difficult issues
Requirements
Even when LGDs are bred and trained to defend flocks from predators and intruders,
their use cannot be isolated from a complex herding system in which they have to be
integrated. As a part of transhumant pastoral systems, LGDs have been traditionally
used in combination with shepherds and quite often with night-time enclosures, as
shown by numerous ancient dry stone sheepfolds that can be found across Eurasia.
When confronted by a threat, LGDs will bark and alert shepherds who will encour-
age their dogs and also help them to prevent predators from coming close to the
flock. LGDs can obviously work best when the flocks that they are defending are con-
centrated. Different sheep breeds show different flocking behaviour, but the work of
shepherds and herding dogs, as well as night-time enclosure is also instrumental in
helping the dogs in their task.
However, herding systems vary across Europe and they have been changing through
time. Notably, in many places the modern market economy has been leading to an
increase in the size of flocks and a decrease in the number of shepherds. In some
cases, pluri-activity farm economies prevent livestock breeders from being able to
permanently guard their flocks.
In some systems, notably when sheep are not free ranging but are moved between
fenced meadows, LGDs can be put with sheep inside a fence (electric or not) and
then do not require the presence of a shepherd. In that case, electric fences com-
bined with LGDs appear to be efficient against predators. The situation is more com-
plicated if flocks are left to free-range without supervision. In such cases the LGDs
may develop a tendency to wander, leaving the sheep unguarded, and also potential-
ly harassing wildlife and people.
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
27
In addition, night-time enclosure and fencing of meadows – which favour the effi-
ciency of LGDs – are not always possible in some herding systems, notably when
there is a need for nocturnal grazing or when the grazing resources are scarce and
sheep have to travel relatively long daily distances. In some cases, going back to the
sheep barn each night would cause erosion through trampling.
Limitations
Most scientific studies of LGD efficiency come from areas such as North America or
southern Africa where they have been recently introduced. There are comparatively
few studies that document their efficiency from Eurasia. However, considering the long
history of LGDs’ use, it is highly likely that the practice would have been abandoned in
most places if it didn’t show at least some effect, considering there is a cost in maintain-
ing it. In many places in Europe where large carnivores are present, it would certainly
have been impossible to develop large scale extensive grazing without LGDs.
Although LGDs are large and powerful dogs, they are not super-dogs. They will not
prevent all damages, especially when facing adaptable predators like wolves. Like all
other means of livestock protection, there can be ecological and climatic conditions,
which will favour large carnivore attacks (steep terrain, shrubs, rain, fog). LGDs can
also be killed by wolves and there are also cases where they have bred with wolves,
which is certainly not compatible with the defence of the flocks.
Difficult issues
In places where dogs are traditionally used, livestock breeders accept that there is a
cost to maintain several LGDs with their flock but they readily pay this cost because
they value the presence of the dogs, even in situations where they may not strictly
be needed.
However, in places where LGDs are being introduced or reintroduced, they mean
additional costs and work for livestock herders and shepherds. Notably, they are not
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
28
easy to manage if they are used as an emergency reactive solution when predators
are already back and if adult dogs are directly introduced. Indeed, the lack of knowl-
edge and know-how about training and management among livestock breeders and
shepherds recently confronted with large carnivores is very challenging and comes
in addition to the stress caused by depredation. Inter-individual differences between
dogs can be quite important and problematic individuals (aggressive dogs, dogs that
harass sheep, dogs leaving the flocks) have to be rapidly detected. In transhumant
systems where sheep spend winter inside or in areas with no threats, LGDs have to
be cared for and fed, even when they are not “at work” anymore, which can give the
impression of an unnecessary investment.
It is generally advised to have several dogs in order to be able to defend the flock,
meaning even more work for the shepherd and requiring major changes to well-es-
tablished practices and habits. In addition, there can be a pack effect when several
LGDs are present and this can become problematic for other landscape users.
One of the main problems with LGDs appears in areas of intensive summer tourism.
There are numerous cases of LGDs threatening hikers and of hikers being obliged
to find alternative trails because they can’t pass through a pack of LGDs. Even a few
events of this type can generate controversy and conflicts in places where LGDs have
been recently introduced. The potential for conflicts is even higher when hikers are
accompanied by their own pet dogs.
Various reasons have been invoked to explain such cases: inappropriate dog behav-
iour (e.g. problematic individual, poorly trained LGDs, bad previous experience with
humans, etc.), the absence of a shepherd with the dogs and flocks, and inappropriate
behaviour by the hikers. Rather than trying to attribute blame, it is important to admit
that it is challenging to reconcile tourist activities like hiking and mountain biking
with numerous flocks defended by LGDs. Nonetheless, this cohabitation between
rather intensive touristic activities and the presence of LGDs exists in some places and
there’s hope that appropriate solutions could emerge.
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
29
Another conflict can arise when hunting dogs come close to the flocks and are con-
sidered as a threat by LGDs who can attack or even kill them. In some countries, this
has led to hunters killing LGDs in retaliation, generating conflicts between livestock
breeders and hunters.
Last but not least, the question of potential LGDs’ impact on wildlife has to be seri-
ously taken into account, notably in places where marmots and wild ungulates are
present.
H. de Montaut ’s (1825-1890) drawing of a
shepherd trying to prevent his guarding dog from
attackin g a hiker in the Pyrenees (Eaux-Bonn es,
Ossau valley), thus showing th at problems of
coexistence between tourism and livestock
guarding dogs alrea dy existed in the 19th
century.
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
30
Conclusions
LGDs are very potent symbols of an extensive pastoral system that has existed across
the mountains and plains of Eurasia for millennia. The near ubiquity of their pres-
ence across the continent – from the Atlantic seaboard of Portugal in the west to the
Mongolian deserts in the east – is testimony to their central role in enabling herders
to graze their flocks in rangelands where predators occur. In the 21st century LGDs are
regaining relevance in the face of large carnivore conservation policies. They do not
represent a panacea to all the problems that predators cause for livestock herders and
are not a one-size-fits-all solution. However, they certainly represent a key compo-
nent of the toolkit that is going to be needed to face the challenging co-occurrence
of extensive livestock grazing and of large carnivore populations in a rapidly chang-
ing European landscape.
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
31
Photo gallery
The followingpages consist of a series of photographs depicting livestock guarding
dogs, pastoralists and pastoral landscapes from across Eurasia, from Portugal in the
west to Mongolia in the east. Organised by country, the objective is to illustrate the
diversity of contexts where livestock guarding dogs are used today.
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
32
ALBANIA
910 11
12
13
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
33
14
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
34
BULGARIA
14
16
17
18
15
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
35
19
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
36
CROATIA
20 21 22
23
24 25
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
37
26
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
38
ESTONIA
27
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
39
FINLAND
28
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
40
GEORGIA
29 30 31
32
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
41
33
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
42
INDIA
34 35 36
37 38
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
43
39
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
44
ITALY
40 41
42 43
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
45
44
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
46
45 46
47
48
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
47
49 50
51
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
48
Former Yugoslav Republic of
MACEDONIA
52 53
54 55 56
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
49
57
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
50
MONGOLIA
58 59 60
61
62
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
51
63
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
52
POLAND
64 65
66 67 68
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
53
69
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
54
70 71
72
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
55
73
74
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
56
PORTUGAL
75 76 77
78
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
57
79
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
58
80 81
82
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
59
84
85 86
83
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
60
ROMANIA
87 88
90
89
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
61
91
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
62
SLOVENIA
92 93
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
63
94
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
64
SPAIN
95 96
97 98
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
65
99
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
66
100 101
102 103
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
67
104 105
106
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
68
SWITZERLAND
107 108
109
110
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
69
111
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
70
TURKMENISTAN
112 113 114
115 116
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
71
117
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
72
Further reading and resources
Many resources about livestock guarding dogs, pastoralism, and conflict mitigation can be found online on the
homepage of the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe at www.lcie.org
Search the publications database under ”themes” for either ”Livestock guarding dogs” or ”Livestock protection”.
There are resources here in multiple European languages that describe in much greater detail how to use live-
stock guarding dogs in practice. The pages of the newsletter Carnivore Damage Prevention News in particular
contain much information on livestock protection.
The European Commission also has many resources on large carnivores on their home pages; http://ec.europa.
eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/index_en.htm
A series of projects co-funded by the LIFE program have accumulated much experience on the use of livestock
guarding dogs. These projects have resources online in many languages.
Source Languages
LIFE Arctos ” Brown Bear Conservation: Coordinated Actions in the Alpine and Apennine
Range ” [ http://www.life-arctos.it/home.html ]
EN, IT
LIFE Medwolf ” Best practice actions for wolf conservation in Mediterranean-type areas ” [
http://www.medwolf.eu/ ]
EN, IT, PT
LIFE WOLFNET [ http://www.lifewolf.net/it/component/content/ ]
LIFE Extra ”Improving the conditions for large carnivore conservation: a transfer of best
practice” [ http://www.lifextra.it/ ]
EN, IT, BG, RO, GR
LIFE Co-Ex ”Improving coexistence of large carnivores and agriculture in southern Europe
”[ http://www.life-coex.net/ ]
EN, FR, HR, IT,
ES, PT
LIFE SLOWOLF ” Conservation and surveillance of the conservation status of the wolf
(Canis lupus) population in Slovenia ” [ http://www.volkovi.si/ ]
EN, SL
LIFE CRO-WOLF ”Protection and Management of Wolf Populations in Croatia”
[ http://www.life-vuk.hr/vuk/ ]
HR
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
73
LIFE WOLF-ALPS ”Wolf in the alps: implementation of coordinated wolf conservation
actions in core areas and beyond” [ http://www.lifewolfalps.eu/ ]
I
Sweden’s Wildlife Damage Centre [ http://www.viltskadecenter.se/ ] SE
Norway’s Wildlife Damage Centre [ http://www.bioforsk.no/ikbViewer/page/prosjekt/
hovedtema?p_dimension_id=19579&p_menu_id=19593&p_sub_id=19578&p_
di m2=19580 ]
NO
AGRIDEA – Swiss Livestock Protection Information [ http://www.herdenschutzschweiz.ch/ ] FR, DE, IT
There is a vast popular and scientific literature on livestock guarding dogs. Some key introductory references
include;
Breber, P. (2008) The Sheep-Guarding Dog of Abruzzo. Pensoft, Sofia
Caetano, P., S. Ribeiro, and J. P. Ferreira. (2010) Cães de Gado. Bizancio, Lisboa.
Cummins, B. and P. Lore. (2006) Pyrenean partners: herding and guarding dogs in the French Pyrenees. Detselig
Enterprises Ltd., Calgary.
Coppinger, R. and L. Coppinger. (2001) Dogs. A startling new understanding of canine origin, behavior and evo-
lution. Scribner, New York.
Landry, J.-M. (2004) Synthèse de la littérature sur les chiens de protection. Institut pour la Promotion et la
Recherche sur les Animaux de Protection, Corgémont (CH).
Rigg, R. (2001) Livestock guarding dogs: their current use world wide. IUCN/SCC Canid Specialist Group Occasional
Paper 1, 1-133.
Serpell, J., editor. (1995) The domestic dog: its evolution, behaviour, and interactions with people. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
74
xxxxxx
Picture credits
The authors are grateful to all the photographers that freely contributed their images for this publication.
Aleksander Trajce: 10, 14
Annette Mertens: 89, 90, 91
Christoph Angst: 110
Daniel Mettler: 107, 108, 109, 111
Dijana Zupan: 23
Duccio Berzi: 40, 42, 50, 51
Francisco Alvares: 6
Gareth Goldthorpe: 29, 30, 31, 32, 33
Luisa Vielmi: 3, 45, 47
Grupo Lobo: 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86
Jasna Jeremić: 20, 21, 24, 25, 26
Joaquim Pedro Ferreira: 1, 76, 78, 79
John Linnell: 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 34, 35, 36, 38, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 52, 55, 57, 70, 71, 72, 73,
74, 87, 88, 92, 96, 99, 101, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
Juan Carlos Blanco: 95, 97, 98, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106
Kalyan Varma: 37, 39
Miha Krofel: 93, 94
Nicolas Lescureux: 53, 54, 56, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
Nikica Skroza: 22
Petra Kaczensky: 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63
Sider Sedefchev: 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Teet Otstavel: 27, 28, 41
Coverphotos:
Jasna Jeremić (Front) and Nicolas Lescureux (Back)
Livestock guarding dogs – cultural heritage icons with a new relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts
75
Picture list for LGDs’ map page 12 and 13:
1. Castro Laboreiro – ©Joaquim Pedro Ferreira
2. Estrella Mountain Dog – © Grupo Lobo
3. Alentejo Mastiff – ©Joaquim Pedro Ferreira
4. Spanish Sheepdog – © John Linnell
5. Great Pyrenees Mountain Dog – Creative Commons: heartspoon via wikipedia
6. Maremma Sheepdog – © Duccio Berzi
7. Tornjak – © Jasna Jeremić (SINP, Croatia)
8. Karst Shepherd - © Miha Krofel
9. Šarplaninac - © Nicolas Lescureux
10. Polish Tatra Sheepdog – © Nicolas Lescureux
11. Kuvasz – Public Domain – Erdelyi kopo
12. Karakachan Dog – © Sider Sedefchev
13. Greek Sheepdog – © John Linnell
14. Komondor – Creative Commons: Kari via wikipedia
15. Akbash Dog – Creative Commons: Teddy Llovet via wikipedia
16. Romanian Shepherd Dog – © Annette Mertens
17. Kangal Dog – Creative Commons : Sarah Murray via Flickr
18. Caucasian Ovcharka – © Gareth Goldthorpe
19. Turkmen Alabaï – © John Linnell
20. Kazakh Tobet – © Daniyar Daukey (Tobet foundation : http://www.tobet.kz)
21. Kyrgyz Döböt – © Nicolas Lescureux
22. Mongolian Khonch Nokhoi – © Petra Kasczensky
23. Tibetan Mastiff – Creative Commons: Melanie Ko via wikipedia
24. Indian Sheepdog – © John Linnell
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA)
NINA Head Off ice.
Postal address: P. O. Box 5685 Sluppen, NO-7485 Trondheim
Telephone: + 47 73 80 14 00 Telefax: +47 73 80 14 01
E-post: firmapost@nina.no
Bus. Ent. No.: NO 950 037 687
http://www.nina.no
ISBN 978-82-426-3500-6
Cooperation and expertise for a sustainable future
