This is a response to Kirsi Maki's article published on her website, Kiramet Anatolians. I know Kirsi through  email discussions about Turkish breeds over the past year, but we have never met. She is apparently lobbying the FCI hard to ensure that all Turkish dog breeds continue to be considered one and the same, despite contrary facts and Turkish sentiment. That is a pity.
 

THE DISPUTE: One or several breeds of Coban Köpegis Kirsi, when I first saw your web site, it made me very sad. Frustrated too, but mostly sad. I have had long email talks with you, and I believed you to be sincere. I really must believe that you do not understand the damage that you are doing by lobbying the FCI to hybridize all the the regional sheepdog breeds of Turkey. I am sure you don't realize that if you and your friends succeed in your campaign, it could help ensure the eventual and permanent extinction of native Turkish dog breeds. Once this happens, it is too late to say "whoops! I guess we shouldn't have done that."  Please let me explain what I mean. I am appealing to your sense of justice and your passion and intelligence, and I am hoping that you will understand that I care only about preserving an ancient breed that I know has great value, as it is, as it has been selected for by the shepherds of  eastern Turkey. Kirsi, so very many breeds of domestic animals that were developed for specific purposes in history have been completely wiped out or endangered, either by greedy corporate objectives, or by the efforts of well-meaning people such as yourself. The notion that genetic diversity is increased by breeding all the animals of a species or type--no matter what their historical or regional differences--is a dangerous notion that does untold damage to our domestic animal populations. In fact the reality is just the opposite: genetic diversity is DECREASED by hybridization. Maintenance of distinct gene pools, each developed in a certain environment, for a certain set of circumstances, is essential in order to maintain the distinctive and precious traits that different breeds possess--the recessive traits as well as the dominant ones. In the US, and I'm sure in Europe, dozens of native-developed breeds of chickens, goats, horses, cows, etc. have been lost forever by hybridization and lack of maintenance of those breeds. Now some folks are wishing they could re-create those breeds, for the various advantages they once had, and it is too late. They are buried. I have been studying the principles of genetic diversity for many years now as an amateur ecologist, environmentalist, teacher, and activist. There is plenty of information available on the web, and all of the experts agree: maintaining biodiversity requires maintaining whole families, species, and yes even BREEDS of plants and animals. Have a look at this web site: http://albc@albc-usa.org  This is the home page of the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy, a very serious and well-respected non-profit organization dedicated to preserving rare breeds. They do not work with dogs, only with farm animals (this is because they hope that canine organizations have the resourced to preserve dog breeds--chickens, goats and pigs need more help). However, the principles of biodiversity and the value of indigenous breeds hold true for dogs as well as for other domestic animals, and indeed for ALL animals. I have an article by their director, geneticist Dr. Phil Sponenberg, on my web site. It's worth reading: http://www.beautdogs.com/Sponenberg.htm   This is another very interesting site: http://dad.fao.org/dad-is/Home.htm Try searching the Breeds database. Did you know that Turkey has 8 different breeds of indigenous goats? 11 breeds of horse? 27 different breeds of indigenous sheep? Many of these breeds look similar to the outsider--but we can rest assured that they represent very different gene pools--gene pools that are lost forever when the animals are hybridized. Do you believe that all the sheep of Turkey should be bred together and considered one breed, because they are all from Turkey, or because their main differences are only coat color and coat length and texture?  You ask in your web page: >>>Is there one breed including dogs with different colour variations and dogs from different regions of Turkey? Or are there several breeds regocnised by region and appearance, meaning coat colour or length? Are the differences significant enough to separate the Turkish shepherd's working dogs into different breeds? Turkish people call these guardian dogs often kangals - true.  Which dogs do you mean by "these dogs"? Turkish people certainly do not consider all coban kopegi (shepherd's dogs) to be Kangal Dogs. Kangal Dogs in Turkey are dogs from a particular region of Turkey, with a particular conformation and coat type. That is a simple fact, and I think you are quite aware of that. And by the way, it is Kangal with a capital K--as befits a proper noun in Turkish as well as English. That is how the Turkish academics, popular media, and normal folks spell it, and the name refers only to the dogs from the Sivas-Kangal  region (see my Bibliography for a list of Turkish resources). >>>But they don't collectively consider kangals only fawn coloured with short coat. To many Turks kangals are shepherd's dogs = coban köpegis, which vary in colour and coat length.  No, I am sorry, but that is simply and unquestionably false. I am not sure where you got that idea, but I don't think even Natalka would have made such a claim! A Kangal Dog is a Kangal Dog--a purebred Kangal Dog has a certain coat length and a limited coat color range that is recognizable to just about any Turk.  I really wish you would make a trip to Turkey in order to round out your education about Turkish Dogs.  The above statement is an indication of just how fundamental your misunderstandings are, I'm afraid.  >>>But, to many Westerners a kangal is "pure" only when fawn and short coated, and therefore they are reducing the genepool of these true and rare primitive dogs. By criteria, which are of secondary importance in working dogs.  Many westerners? I am among the very, very few Westerners who insist on purebred Kangal Dogs. And we are in the minority, but we are merely following the Turkish understanding of what constitutes a purebred Kangal Dog--because they are right. There is no "reduction of the genepool" in continuing this tradition--we are maintaining the gene pool for Kangal Dogs. On the contrary, those westerners who insist on crossbreeding with Kangal Dogs in order to improve their own lines of Turkish shepherd's dogs are committing the crime of diminishing an important gene pool. With all due respect, you really need to learn some basic concepts of livestock breed conservation--hybridization (or mongrelization) does NOT mean a healthier gene pool. In fact, hybridization endangers the survival of valuable purebred strains of animals that have been developed for a particular purpose.  >>>This dispute has been going on since the Turkish shepherd's dogs first became known outside Turkey.  Only among western dog fanciers. The Turks themselves see no dispute on the issue. Their view is clear: a Kangal Dog is a Kangal Dog, quite distinct visibly and historically from the hoi polloi of shepherd's dogs and street dogs running about in Turkey.  A simple, quick perusal of the many Turkish publications about Kangal Dogs would establish this consensus.  Again, I have a bibliography of Turkish resources --where is the Turkish evidence to support your view about Turkish dogs? >>>It is worldwide and, unortunately - as it seems, eternal. The situation and evidence is not at all so clear as it is stated on some websites. On the contrary, there is a lot of evidence, which speak for the benefit of the Turkish shepherd's dogs being one breed. And kangal, akbash, kars etc. being only variations within this ancient breed. What evidence? Two geneticists who knew nothing about Turkish dogs or their history? Who based their conclusions on a small sample of mixed breed dogs and skewed data? If you truly believe that these very different regional breeds are "the same", I wonder then why you do not also believe that ALL of the livestock guardians in ALL of Europe are "the same"?  What's the difference between a longhaired Anatolian and the typical Caucasian Ovtcharka? As for "evidence"…let's have a look at it. >>>Genetic studies have been done by e.g. geneticists Roy Robinson and Dr Malcom B. Willis. They both clearly state that these variations can not be regarded as different breeds.  Quite a claim, but  Robinson and Willis did not state anything of the sort, clearly or otherwise. The "data" that both of these men analyzed was given to them  by  the creators of the Anatolian breed. That data, naturally enough, showed a variety of types produced by a mixed breeding population of dogs. What Roy Robinson "proved" is that the mixed-breed dogs scattered in among the British-bred Karabash dogs  did in fact produce a variety of colors and coat types. Not particularly profound or surprising. Similarly, Malcolm Willis looked at the hodgepodge of dogs presented to him and concluded, rightly, that they were likely to produce a wide variety of types when bred together--such is unpredictability of the the Anatolian. While I have great respect for the genetics work that Willis has done, neither he nor Robinson knew anything about the native breeds of Turkey, nor did they study the genetics of a population of actual Kangal Dogs. Thus, their "studies" shed no light whatsoever on the Kangal Dog as a breed.  >>>In Finland we feel that the decision FCI made in 1989 is correct. The best name for our breed is Anatolian Shepherd Dog, because it reveals that these dogs come from a vast area in Turkey and not only from the Sivas-Kangal region.  That's fine. It's the best for you and YOUR breed, in Finland. Your breed is not the Kangal Dog. And after 25 years of Anatolian existence, Turkey still is not in agreement with the notion of the foreign Anatolian. I have yet to meet a single Turk who will claim that the Kangal Dog is the same as that long-haired red ASD or that brindle ASD or the Akbash Dog. Perhaps such a Turk exists, somewhere--"educated" by western "experts"--but I have never met such a person, and I have looked.  >>>And, because within Kangal region also, there can be seen other than fawn coloured short coated working dogs. Sure. A few dogs with more than the usual amount of white. I have heard of a brindle seen in Sivas, but never saw a one in all my travels in the region. What does it prove if a few such dogs exist? There are other types of dogs all over Turkey, by the way--including street dogs. It is crystal clear when looking at the Anatolians at any large show, that they do not share anything like a homogenous set of genes--which defines "breed" for most people. There is no doubt that a number of the foundation imports were pets mixed with street dogs. Some appear to be Russian-type dogs from the area along the Black Sea--they are basically Ovtcharkas. Or do they become long-haired Anatolians on the Turkish side, and Ovtcharkas on the Russian side?. >>>It is said that there are three different types of guardian dogs in Turkey and stated that they are clearly different breeds, but what is the main difference between them? Only appearance, meaning coat colour and length. Of course Tazi, the sighthound, is definitely a different breed apart from the livestock guardian dogs of Turkey and, to my knowledge, we all interested in Turkish dogs agree on that. I'm glad we can agree on something! However, there are a number of Anatolians that clearly show a good deal more Tazi influence than others--some are downright whippety. What do you suppose that means? Kirsi, all breeds differ in appearance. And many, many breeds of dogs look similar to other breeds to the uninformed. And in Turkey, there are areas between the regional pockets of purebred dogs where the dogs are more or less a blend of two breeds.  In much of Turkey, the dogs are purely and simply mongrels which breed freely with street dogs and hounds.  Natalka observed this very thing herself. And around military camps they are likely to have German Shepherd blood--giving them prick ears and a prey drive. How can anyone possibly deny this if they have been to Turkey?  >>>All these big Turkish shepherd's guardian dogs do the same job; protect sheep and other livestock. The true working dogs have the same character and the same conformation all over Turkey.  I would like to see your evidence of that, especially since you've never been to Turkey. Anyone who has travelled in Turkey will see major differences in conformation among the Turkish shepherd's dogs in most areas of Turkey--they don't share much beyond drop ears and a curled tail. They are "shepherd's dogs" of no particular breed or type. Only in certain pockets can dogs be found that are homogenous enough to be considered a "breed"--the Sivas-Kangal area is one such place, and the area around Eskisehir where Akbash Dogs are found is another.  It is not just color--it is TYPE, and to some degree, temperament. That is what distinguishes all the livestock breeds from one another. >>>Differences in colour should not be important enough to divide these dogs into different breeds, or as in Belgian Shepherds, sub-breeds. Neither give one of the types a status of a special variety of the breed, since these types = different colours are born in same litters.  Bad analogy. The various sorts of Belgians were all developed deliberately and fairly recently--they are created breeds, not indigenous, regional breeds. No comparison. And I'm not at all sure if what you are saying above is true anyway.  >>>Even though I accept different coloured Turkish shepherd's dogs as equally good samples of ASDs, I still do think that ASDs have very distinguished "breed marks" such as conformation among other things.  I'm glad you think so. Tell that to the judges who shake their heads in wonder at the dog shows, trying to understand how these very different dogs called "Anatolian Shepherds" can be one breed. We see more of a range of type within the Anatolian breed than we see if we compare all the livestock guardian breeds! >>>So, not every "mongrel" found in Turkey is an Anatolian Shepherd Dog. To me their profile looks very different than that of COs, CAOs, M-As and other LGDs. ASDs have e.g. "plenty of leg" and also the tail carriage is a quite specific trait of their own. The Anatolian standard is the Kangal standard, conveniently rewritten to include all colors and coat types  (see Lumpers vs. Splitters, Q6) However, despite the consistency you claim to see in Anatolians, it just isn't historically there--and it certainly isn't there if you look at the range of "coban kopegi" all across Turkey-- a very motley assortment of dogs indeed. >>>According to geneticists Dr Malcolm B. Willis and late Roy Robinson, fawn colour is NOT pure breeding in these dogs and other colours can NOT be prevented from being born.  See above. You are comparing apples and oranges.  Sure, fawn is NOT "pure breeding" in British Anatolians--Willis and Robinson did not study a sample of Kangal Dogs!   And there is no way on earth that you will get all the colors acceptable to Anatolians by breeding two fawn dogs together. Two fawn dogs (and I mean "Kangal" fawn, not red), correctly marked, cannot produce white dogs, they cannot produce black dogs, or brown dogs, or red dogs. It is genetically impossible.  >>>For example, one of my males (BOS/WW at Helsinki Show 1998) is short coated fawn with black mask, born out of a fawn female and a reddish fawn male, both short coated. But, in the same litter there were three more fawns plus one red long coated plus one greyish fawn long coated plus one white (cream) short coated. Or, if this continues, after a few years, the two longer coated from this same litter in a kars-class? Come now, Kirsi, this is nonsense. Think about what you are saying here. You breed a fawn dog to a red male, both from mixed/Anatolian background, and you get a variety of colors and coats. Do you understand the genetics of what you have produced? Do you know the genetics of the dogs you bred? First, I'd have to see some photos to really know what you're talking about. But greyish fawn in Kangal Dogs is a product of the agouti factor in sable (fawn) dogs.  Look closely--nearly all fawn/masked dogs have at least a few dark, banded hairs throughout their coat. Some dogs have more, and they appear grey--but they do NOT have the "grey" gene. The greyish fawn dogs are perfectly common in Kangal litters, and in our standard. You bred two dogs with a mixture of color genes, and they have mixed results in a litter! Again, nothing surprising or profound there. >>>Should we register different breeds from one litter? Or, in Dog Shows, show the fawns in some special variety kangal-class and the other, differently coloured littermates, in a different class? If you cross golden retreivers and labrador retreivers for a few generations, should the puppies be shown as labs or goldens? Certainly not--they are all either crossbred, or perhaps they are some "new breed" you are trying to establish. If your standard says "they're all the same" you have created a breed that allows all colors and coat types. So be it. But true Kangal Dogs do not have the mixed litters you describe, so the point is a non-sequitor.  And yes, purebred Kangal Dogs, from Kangal parents, should be in a different class. Their gene pool should NOT be diluted by systematic crossbreeding with dogs from other regions of Turkey, nor with dogs of uncertain heritage. >>>After all, not even the kangal-enthusiasts can tell the "difference" between a kangal and a fawn Anatolian Shepherd Dog.  And why should that be a surprise? Most Anatolian breeders strive to breed to Kangal Dogs, or to dogs with a good deal of Kangal blood. They have found over the years what Natalka knew all along: without Kangal blood, those Anatolians did not breed true at all. All the "other stuff" in the background of those dogs came out of the woodwork, and constant infusion of Kangal blood was needed to keep the breed looking sort of like a breed. So today, you have a high proportion of Anatolians that look more or less like Kangal Dogs. Surprise surprise! >>>Of course, we will always have mostly fawn coloured dogs, since fawn colour is dominant in our breed.  No, sorry, but your breed allows all colors. Fawn is certainly not dominant over all the colors allowed in the Anatolian standard. The reason that fawn predominates is because ANATOLIAN BREEDERS clearly prefer it. And they prefer it because deep down inside, they clearly prefer Kangal Dogs. I think it's a terrible pity that they can't just admit that and help us preserve the true dog of Turkey instead of spending so much energy trying to hybridize it out of existence. Even Natalka preferred Kangal Dogs! Only when she wound up with a mixed breed dog did she change her stand. I call that opportunism. >>>According to studies by R. Robinson, recessive colours will be born after several generations despite of strict culling.  Again, you are misinterpreting Robinson. He argued that excess white will continue to occur, GIVEN THE MIXED POPULATION HE WAS LOOKING AT--and he certainly never said that all the other colors the ASD standard allows will occur from fawn dogs.  >>>Along the way, in the fruitless strive to get "pure breeding" fawns by culling, we will loose a lot of other, more important, qualities such as health, size and temperament as already has happened in some kennels.  One can see a dive in quality happening in many Anatolian lines here in the US, due to careless breeding, inbreeding, and willy-nilly hybridizing.  In  Sivas Kangal, people have been breeding their massive fawn, masked dogs for centuries without problems of inbreeding depression. And with careful breeding, we can avoid the inbreeding problems that plague most of today's created breeds. No, we do not have to strive to get pure breeding. Kangal Dogs are already pretty much homozygous for all of the obvious traits--as pure as any modern created breed, but much more genetically healthy than most modern created breeds.  The occasional odd dog does not disprove the integrity of the breed--mismarked dogs occur in EVERY breed.  Bad tails, wrong ears, incorrect coats occur in every breed too--will you insist on widening the standard every time an odd pup is born? As for the bits of gossip you referred to on your web site regarding British and Norwegian karabash breeders, I will refrain from comment on individual stories. The confusion in Europe with regard to mixing of Karabash/Kangal bloodlines is a tragedy. The foibles of individuals trying to cope with muddied bloodlines does not reflect on the Kangal Dog breed, but only on the mistakes of the Kennel Club and the individuals involved in creating the confusion.  In any case, I don't think that bringing up tired bits of gossip and attempting to humiliate people on a public web site helps your argument at all.  >>>Fawn and short coat is dominant in our breed, I'm not at all denying that. The majority of ASD puppies will always be short coated fawn, it is a genetic fact.  No, it is not a "genetic fact." If anatolian breeders practiced what they preached and truly bred all those odd-colored, odd-coated dogs together, you'd have a lot more variety in the breed than exists today. Instead, the variety of the Anatolians of 10 years ago is being increasingly narrowed--because everyone is breeding for "the Kangal look." Surely you cannot deny that. Again, even the late Natalka preferred them, by your admission to me. >>>And, yes, in several cases two fawn dogs, bred with each other, have produced (mostly fawn, of course) also a few puppies of other colours, even white! Yawn… Again, breeding crossbred dogs and coming up with odd colors is not a surprise. It means that the parents were not Kangal Dogs. >>>    At Saki Paatsama Seminar in Helsinki at WDS-98 Dr  Paschoud (president of the breed standard committee in FCI)  said that all the big white guardian dogs (Pyrenean, Maremmano-Abruzzese, Kuvasz, etc) are genetically the same  breed and that they could be bred with each other in order to widen the genepool, despite of different nationalities.  Well, I don't know him, but I'd be surprised if Dr Paschoud really said that exactly.  Perhaps you misunderstood him--as there are no "genetic markers" found yet that distinguish breeds. Such a statement wouldn't go over too well with the breeders of these dogs, or with the people of their native countries.  But to take your argument to its logical conclusion, I presume then you consider Turkish Akbash Dogs to be the same as those other white breeds? But wait--you think that Akbash Dogs are just "white Anatolians"--so then I suppose the Anatolian is "genetically the same" as all those other white breeds? But let's not just look at color, or white color!  Why indeed not just breed ALL the livestock guardians together and get a really wide gene pool? Why even keep the anatolian a separate breed at all? Anatolians include everything anyway!  >>>Why then single out kangal as a different breed from the other Turkish guardian dogs? These Turkish dogs are found at least  within one state and nation and, most importantly, born in same litters! I understand that Turkish people are proud of  their dogs and don't want to be told by westerners what to do with their own breed. But why support this narrow breeding, when it has taken us a century to learn the hard way what the outcome is, proof of that being the large quantity of dying breeds.  Kirsi, excuse me, but that is such a Euro-centric statement. What "narrow breeding"?? Do you have any idea how many Kangal Dogs still exist in Sivas? Thousands! How many dogs were in the foundation gene pool of most modern breeds? Two, five, a dozen?  Please, have a little respect for another culture's collective wisdom and experience. What westerners have learned the hard way is that creating a breed from a very few foundation dogs is dangerous genetic business. But what you fail to understand now is that you are creating a breed by hybridizing existing breeds, and then you are diminishing the original nativebreeds, which could spell disaster once the dogs begin to decline in Turkey (and that is happening). Who will save the original, indigenous breeds? Kirsi, it is such a terrible terrible mistake! Please, don't contribute to this sad trend! >>>Couldn't we share with the Turkish cynologists, not  just the theory, but also the "knowhow" and experience of  genetics and health aspects and try to help them to realize the  essential points in breeding, vitality of a breed in whole and not just some types of colours.  I'm not so sure that Euro-Americans have so much to "share" with the Turks. You seem to think that the Turks have no knowhow of their own, that they need your "help" even though they are responsible for the magnificent breeds under discussion without the benefit of "genetics" or pedigrees or kennel clubs! Since Anglo-Europeans have ruined, and continue to ruin, just about every breed that they have created, that seems a very arrogant statement indeed.  I find this sort of attitude culturally insensitive, to say the least. >>>Do the shepherdmen all over  Turkey care what is done and decided at e.g. Ulas Breeding  Center? Shepherdmen just want their dogs to work properly  despite their colour or coat length, just as they have done for  thousands of years. Yes, and I suppose they want their Kangal Dogs to stay Kangal Dogs--they know what works, and which dogs are best, and what they should look like, because they have bred them precisely that way for many, many generations. Who are you to tell them they are wrong, or to "help" them? >>>FCI is willing to accept crossbreeding, e.g. schnautzers and pinchers, of which we already have a litter in Finland, bred with special permission from our KC and FCI. Why then promote kangals as a special pure breeding type? It already is proven to be genetically untrue. As Dr Malcolm B. Willis says in his book "Practical Genetics for Dog Breeders", page 111: "In many breeds dislike of specific colours is often illogical. When Anatolian Shepherd Dogs were first brought to Britain they were fawn with black mask. Later other colours appeared in their litters or were brought in and it was alleged that these non-fawn colours were not pure-breds. Since no registration policy existed in Turkey there was no way of ensuring the "purity" of any import and since breeders in Turkey were free to breed as they chose the argument for only a fawn ASD is without logic. Willis is my favorite geneticist, and very knowedgeable about German Shepherds, but no one can know everything, and unfortunately he clearly knew little about indigenous Turkish breeds.  His statement, if you quote him correctly here, is logically flawed.  Breeders in Turkey are indeed free to breed as they choose, but that does not mean that they breed willy nilly. At least not in Kangal country. If Willis had travelled in Turkey, or at least sought information beyond what his ASD cronies fed him,  he surely would never have made this misinformed statement.     Your analogy between crossbreeding schnauzers and Kangal Dogs contains a similar lapse in logic--because someone is crossbreeding dogs, we must also crossbreed Turkish ones? Hmm.  And by the way, the FCI has set itself up as the "international authority" on canine matters, but by what mandate?  Are the people that run the FCI specially qualified to make international decisions about the dogs of other countries?  Do they even ask the people of countries involved?  Certainly not.  >>>Many fawn Anatolians will, and do, produce other colours including white markings and the breed is not pure-breeding for fawn with a black mask despite what some breeders may claim. Breeders would be wiser paying attention to conformation, character and hip status than expending the energy they have in fighting for fawn colours." I am not "fighting for fawn colors"--that’s simply what they ARE. I am however focusing on health and temperament, however, as any good breeder should. >>>In our Dog Magasines and where ever dogs are discussed nowadays, the main issue seems to be the health and vitality of breeds. Geneticists and veterinarians all over the world seem to be very concerned about the breeding programmes being too strict in many breeds. At the Saki Paatsama Seminar veterinarians and geneticists seemed to think that several breeds will face extinction if not "saved" by crossbreeding.  That is because those breeds were CREATED FROM A VERY SMALL FOUNDING POPULATION to begin with. And were inbred continually to show dogs for generations after that. Now they're dealing with genetic disasters. That has nothing to do with the dogs we are talking about.  Nothing whatsoever. Kirsi, I cannot help being very  disturbed that an intelligent person who loves dogs such as yourself can be so determined to take such a damaging path for Turkish dogs.  I beg you, please, take a long, objective look at the facts. Go to Turkey, go to Sivas-Kangal and have a look around, and learn enough to make a truly informed conclusion. You can do it cheaply enough from Europe.  Study a little genetics, and read up on livestock conservation a little. You owe it to these dogs that you claim to love to truly understand the consequences of what you are doing. There will be no turning back once the damage is done… the FCI decision to lump all breeds could have disastrous consequences  for Turkish native breeds if it is not amended. Please. Think about what you are doing.