People get quite emotional over this question. It is a complex issue, and you'll ultimately have to decide for yourself. In doing so, it is wise to consider Eurasian history, geography, and the prevailing Turkish point of view, and not be influenced by anecdotes, unsubstantiated myths and gossip, or what your friends have chosen to believe. At the bottom of this page, you will find links to more information and sources from both sides of this quite controversial question. 

Anyway, the basic "bone of contention" for Turkish LGD (livestock guardian dog) fanciers is whether: 
 

* all the livestock guardian dogs in Turkey, regardless of their regional origin and type, should be considered ONE breed, known as the "Anatolian Shepherd Dog"  OR * there is a generic CLASS of Turkish dogs, known as "shepherd's dogs," among which regional breeds of distinct type and temperament, such as the Kangal Dog, can be discerned. 

But inside Turkey, the native country of all of these dogs, the existence and recognition of regional breeds is beyond question. Our purpose here is to try to set the record straight about Turkish dog breeds. This effort generates a lot of conflict, unfortunately. 

What do Turkish people say about their native breeds?

 The Kangal Dog is the regional breed most widely known and admired in Turkey. Ask almost any Turk what a Kangal Dog is, and you will get a pretty accurate description, perhaps embellished with a bit of glorious myth and legend about the prowess of the breed. Everyone knows this breed, where they come from, what they look like, what they have been bred for. Other breeds, such as the Akbash and Kars Dogs, are less widely known outside their region of origin. However, you would be hard pressed to find any Turkish person who believes that the Kangal Dog and the Akbash dog are the same breed, or that all the livestock guardians throughout the country are the same breed, and most Turks have never heard of the "Anatolian Shepherd Dog." 

Keep in mind that the majority of Turks today live in urban areas, and those who keep dogs tend to prefer small foreign pet breeds. But as the popularity of dogs as pets is on the rise in Turkey,  interest and pride in indigenous Turkish breeds is rising also. There are a number of Turkish veterinarians and canine breeders who have been researching the history and function of their native dogs, particularly Kangal Dogs, with regard to genetics, health, temperament, and trainability. Many of these Turkish experts have published articles about the dogs, and their view corresponds clearly with the public perception: Kangal Dogs are a "breed apart" and not to be confused or interbred with other Turkish "choban kopegi" (shepherd's dogs). 

Turkish people are aware and proud of the attention that Kangal Dogs are getting overseas. Most Turks, however, are blissfully unaware of the "controversy" in the West regarding their native dog breeds. For those few Turks who do understand the lumpers vs. splitters debate, the prevailing view is expressed most eloquently in a letter by Dr. Cenap Tekinsen, Dean of the Veterinary Faculty at Selcuk University. 

If it is not recognized in Turkey, then how did the Anatolian Shepherd Dog come to be?

The early history  was outlined in a book by Braund and is well a look for those interested in this question. The breed known as the Anatolian Shepherd Dog was essentially created about 30 years ago by a small group of Americans.  What these Americans  had in common was that they owned puppies from two livestock guardian dogs brought out of Turkey by Lt. Robert Ballard, who was stationed there for a military tour. The female was buff colored, the male was a long-coated brown and white pinto. Lt. Ballard had never owned a dog before in his life, and was so presumably new to the world of canine registries and breed standards.  The dogs came from an area outside Ankara, and they were large, working type dogs--but dogs with no "breed" status in Turkey. They would have been referred to by any Turk as a "choban kopegi" (shepherd's dog). This is a generic term, and should not be misconstrued to imply that the "choban kopegi" is a breed in the sense that English speakers use the term. The fact that "choban kopegi" is a type rather than a breed name is clearly acknowledged on a web page of the ASDI (Anatolian Shepherd Dogs, International) in this rather confusing but telling statement: 
 

"The most widely used and Internationally accepted name for the "type" Çoban köpegi upon which the Anatolian  breed is based is the Anatolian Shepherd Dog."* 

Those who own, breed, and fancy the Anatolian Shepherd Dog often say that the Kangal Dog (or the Akbash Dog or the Kars Dog) is but a "color variation" of their chosen breed.  However, some Anatolian fanciers do seem to understand that Turkish livestock guardian dogs differ from region to region, and not only in terms of color and coat length. The rather broad range of conformation, head shape and temperament found in Anatolians reflects a background that includes a variety of sheepdog types from different regions of Turkey , along with the Ovtcharka-types along the Black Sea coast, but this lack of typiness is simply dismissed as "welcome genetic variation." Of course, in any newly created breed, type inevitably begins to  "settle" as the interpretation of the breed standard becomes more uniform among breeders. This seems to be occurring for the Anatolian now, but judging from recent ASD advertising,  the trend seems to be toward the "Kangal  look" and away from the initial "welcome variety" found in the breed.  Many breeders now state their preferences for fawn/black-masked dogs explicitly; a few even claim that their dogs ARE Kangal Dogs or Akbash Dogs based on the color they happen to be! 

In recent years, as the Kangal Dog gains its rightful worldwide recognition and respect, ASD club and breeder  efforts to subsume the traditional Turkish Kangal Dog within the American-created Anatolian Shepherd Dog breed has been stepped up considerably. In such circumstances, confusion reigns. 

OK, so the Turks insist that they have more than one breed of LGD in their country; what's the geographical and historical evidence to back it up?

In arriving at a meaningful description of the ancient LGD breeds and the people who developed them, the fairly recent national borders are far less significant than regional, historical, and geographical borders. 

Turkey is a very large country: about 770,000 square kilometers. Historically, it has been divided up into pretty distinct areas based on geographical coherence/isolation, which in turn led to regional differences in culture and language, and in the color of sheep raised. It also led to regional differences in livestock breeds and in the dogs that protected them. Over hundreds of years these regional breeds have "gelled" so that, while the regional breed borders might be fuzzy, different breeds can be nevertheless clearly delineated. Furthermore, outside the areas where sheep-raising is the main industry, the sheep and the dogs are scattered. Villagers who raise sheep near western towns or around main highways cannot possibly keep their dogs separated from the variety of mongrels that abound there. Their villages and towns will have LGD types intermingling with pariah dogs and sighthounds, and there is no way to maintain a pure gene pool of livestock guardian dogs.  Along the Black Sea and the Russian border, the dogs are rough-coated Caucasian Ovtcharka types, and very different from Kangal Dogs and Akbash Dogs. Yet the Anatolian-Shepherd clubs claim that all LGDs within Turkish borders are... "purebred" and of one breed.

In sort, if one looks at a demographic map of Turkey, or better yet, has the opportunity to travel around Turkey, one realizes that the claim "all LGDs in Turkey are a single, coherent breed" is completely untenable. 

Would it be sensible to lump together all the many livestock guardian breeds of Europe, Russia, and Asia  because they seem to have roughly similar  behaviors, size, and ear set? Of course not. Similarly, the attempt to "lump" all the dogs of Turkey into a single breed ignores the obvious phenotypical breed differences, as well as the history behind the various breeds. 

Here's another way to look at it: There are at least 10 livestock guardian breeds found in Mediterranean Europe through Russia. These include the Maremma of Italy, the Great Pyrenees of France, the Greek Sheepdog, the Polish Tatra, the Estrela Mountain Dog of Portugal, the Komondor and Kuvasz breeds of Hungary, the Slovak Cuvac of Czechoslovakia, the Sar Planinetz of Yugoslavia, and several breeds of Ovtcharkas from various parts of Russia. Let's exclude for a moment the Russian dogs, since they are also the subject of "splitter vs. lumper" controversy, and consider this: 

Turkey has only been a unified state for hundreds of years. It is a nation of nations, with a turbulent history of intermingling peoples and cultures. Now, Turkey has a land mass roughly equal to the countries of France, Greece and Hungary combined. Among them, these latter three countries have four different breeds of livestock guardian dogs, each of them white, each sharing a common history, but each significantly different because they developed in different regions, by different peoples, for different conditions. Or, look at Poland, Italy and the Czech Republic, where you can again find four different LGD breeds in a region smaller than that occupied by modern Turkey. In fact, it could easily be argued that you find more variation among the Turkish breeds than you do among the white flockguards of Europe, and not only in terms of color. The Kangal Dog, Akbash Dog, and Kars Dog do in fact differ quite significantly in conformation and temperament if you look at average examples of each breed. And it is easy to see why!  They have developed in historically and geographically separated environments for a very long time. Why should they be considered the same breed just because they happen to fall within the vast borders of modern Turkey? 

When evaluating an article or web page, ask yourself whether the information presented comes from a person who has researched the dogs in Turkey as well as by email and telephone. A quick trip to Turkey to buy dogs and visit some tourists sites along the way does not qualify as "research." Look at the bibliography provided, if any. Serious research is documented research. The proof is in the pudding! 

Why then did the early Anatolian fanciers overlook the regional differences, if these differences were so obvious back then when they named their breed?

No doubt the early ASD breeders did the best they could, out of love and pride for their dogs, but like most of us, they were amateurs. It seems there was a lack sufficient resources and/or commitment for the travel and research necessary to really understand the dogs of Turkey. The early American  imports were done by military personnel who lived in bases isolated from ordinary Turks, travelled little in the country, and spoke little or no Turkish. They simply liked the dogs they had brought home, and wanted them to be recognized as a breed. Later, Anatolian fanciers took short trips to Turkey to rush about the countryside, buy a dog or two, and bring them back home. Most were amateur dog enthusiasts, and had little idea how to even formulate hypotheses about Turkish dogs while in the country; most of the discussion and theorizing came later, back stateside. 

Once the commitment was made, however, and more dogs were imported, and clubs had been formed, it became too costly in emotional and financial terms to contemplate changing the way the dogs were defined and named, despite compelling evidence. For some Anatolian breeders, perhaps it was a matter of pride; for others, a matter of financial investment. A few seem to find importance in the argument that they managed to obtain 'official western' recognition for their Turkish breed before the Turks had a chance to. There are a few Anatolian fanciers in the US who accept the multi-breed classification for Turkish dogs , but are understandably reluctant to take a public stand on it. 

In other countries, the picture is more complex yet. In Great Britain, the earliest  importers did recognize the Kangal Dog, calling it at first the Anatolian Sheepdog. Later they changed their breed name to Anatolian Karabash (the Turkish idiom for the Kangal "black headed" pattern), to distinguish themselves from a few misinformed dog importers who had appropriated the Anatolian name and standard to include a wide assortment of dogs.  Through an unfortunate series of blunders and  a deliberate misinformation campaign, the British Karabash breeders were forced by the all-powerful Kennel Club to change their standard years later. This is because non-Karabash  (non-Kangal) dogs were sneaked  into the registry, followed by a calculated campaign to allow "all colors and coat lengths" and dogs from all regions of Turkey--which meant effectively the hybridization of  the breed itself.  When the Turkish breeds were thus lumped together, the name given  was Anatolian Shepherd -- an absurdity that defies all reason (they are not sheep-herding dogs) and creates much confusion.  However, certain British breeders, along with a number of continental Europeans, continue to breed purebred Kangal/Karabash stock and await the day when the mistakes will be rectified by the Kennel Club and the FCI (Federacion Canine Internationale). There are strong movements among these breeders in Great Britain and Germany  to re-classify Turkish LGDS, and return to the original Turkish Kangal Dog standard for those dogs which can demonstrate pure Kangal lineage. Australia has already achieved this!  But it appears that the British KC and the FCI are reluctant to change the status quo, however misguided it may be.

How can Anatolians and Kangal Dogs be different breeds if their breed standards are the same?

The reason for the similarities between the two standards lies in the early history of the Anatolian "breed". The founder of the Anatolian Shepherd Dog breed brought home a pair of dogs after a military tour of duty in Turkey, and these were the first dogs he had ever owned. He had no idea whether Turkish sheep dogs were recognized as a breed inside or outside Turkey. But after breeding a litter of puppies, the breeder, and owners of the first litter, decided to name their breed and get it recognized.  They were neophytes to this process, and sought help in getting started. First they asked around to find out if anyone else had attempted to get western breed-club recognition for Turkish dogs. By writing to the  British Kennel Club, they found that there was indeed a club involved in  breeding Turkish Karabash (i.e. Kangal) dogs and had obtained Kennel Club recognition for the breed. 

When the ASD founders asked for and got a copy of the breed standard for the Karabash dog, they of course realized that their Ankara-bred long-coated pinto and buff-colored dogs did not fit the description of the Karabash Dog. However, they felt that their dogs deserved breed status, so they modified the British Karabash standard by adding all colors and coat types, and paraphrasing the rest.  This is a crucial fact for this discussion:  The Anatolian breed founders did not write a standard to describe the structure and behavior of the dogs they had; they took an existing breed standard, one that described Kangal Dogs,  and added "all colors and coat types." We have copies of correspondence between the American founder of the Anatolian and the British Karabash club that document this fact beyond question.

That said, the breed standards are not exactly the same. Some parts of the breed standard used by the Kangal/Karabash club in England were paraphrased a bit, and minor details were changed here and there. Keep in mind that the formats for standards with the AKC, UKC, British Kennel Club, and FCI all differ. 

The Karabash breeders, in written correspondence with the ASD founders in the early days,  were very clear about the fact that Karabash Dogs came from northeast Turkey, and from their travels, they had reported that  the sheepdogs in other areas of Turkey were too diverse in type to be considered a breed.  The Americans insisted on creating their own version of the Turkish shepherd's dog, and so they appropriated the Karabash standard and then expected their dogs would live up to it. Of course, that was an unrealistic expectation.

Which brings us to the next question... 

I have seen photos of Kangal Dogs, and photos of Anatolians. A lot of those Anatolians look like Kangal Dogs to me.

Within a few years and a few litters, it was clear to Anatolian Shepherd Dog breeders that they could not produce consistent litters that fit their own standard. At least one of the early ASD breeders  wrote to enquire about  purchasing  Karabash breeding stock from Great Britain, citing the failure of American Anatolians to breed true to their standard in terms of structure and type. Some Anatolian fanciers made the journey to Turkey to obtain Kangal Dog breeding stock. Only with the massive infusion of Kangal Dog bloodlines do some lines of Anatolians now appear to fit the standard that had been based on  Kangal/Karabash dogs. This back door approach has, after 25 years of effort, produced some fine Anatolians. With each generation, and the repeated use of several popular sires, the dogs are becoming  more uniform, and it is clear is that the dogs referred to as "Kangal-type" by Anatolian breeders are the dogs in highest demand. 

The number of Anatolian breeders who went to the Kangal area in Turkey for breeding stock increased as Kangal Dogs became better known, and as  Turkish reports and descriptions of the dogs were translated and made available. Among those who rushed to Sivas to obtain dogs in the early 1980s were representatives of the Anatolian Shepherd Dog Club of America (ASDCA); while insisting that the Kangal Dog was "only a color" of their breed, club members nevertheless funded a canine authority to go to Turkey, observe the dogs for a short period, and import 13 dogs specifically from the Kangal region to add to the Anatolian breeding program in the United States (Coppinger, Coppinger and Harned, 1996). 

Those Kangal imports have been interbred with shepherd's dogs imported from other regions of Turkey, and other Kangal Dogs have since been added to the pool. Also, keep in mind that the earliest Anatolian imports came from around Ankara, and the shepherd's dogs there have varying amounts of Kangal heritage as well. In summary, since there is a lot of Kangal blood in the Anatolian lines, especially since the 1980s, the "Kangal look" seems to be rapidly becoming "typical" as well as the preferred color and type of many Anatolian breeders. Again, this is not surprising, given the quality and reputation of Kangal Dogs in general. (Interestingly, there is less controversy about Akbash Dogs; although these are also superb Turkish LGDs, they are less widely known in Turkey, and thus were not sought out by Anatolian importers to the extent that Kangal Dogs were. Kars Dogs have so far been pretty much ignored by everyone!) 

Does the Turkish view even matter? After all, they are Muslims, and I hear they don't have much respect or affection for dogs anyway. 

 This line of questioning is of course  insulting and ethnocentric, but it has certainly come up more than once on email discussion lists. Of course the Turkish view matters. The dogs were developed in their villages, and have become famous as TURKISH dogs. They are a natural resource and a cultural treasure, just like the handicraft techniques and crop varieties developed over generations by a group of people. As for the religious issue--well, both the Bible and the Koran have pretty similar views on the relationship between humans and animals--interpreted literally, neither are particularly humane nor environmentally sound. 
Go to a sheep-herding village and ask to see the best dogs--then determine whether the dogs are well cared for (within the means of the poor villager, of course), and an object of pride--even affection. I am sure there is no difference between the pragmatic attitude of a Turkish, Greek, or Italian villager toward his dog. Or an American farmer, for that matter, when it comes to working animals. They are primarily expected to work for a living, but of course some become the objects of family affection! 

I heard that the interest in Kangal Dogs was essentially started by a couple of Americans who published an article or two and started a fad, in Turkey as well as abroad.

This is a patently silly argument, to put it mildly. The persons in question are David and Judy Nelson, an American couple who had lived in Turkey for five years. To claim that this pair could by themselves so inflame the entire country with the intense pride that the Turks have for their Kangal Dog requires quite a stretch of the imagination. Certainly the Nelsons have undertaken more research on Turkish dogs than any other westerners, and have returned to Turkey numerous times over the years.  But their Turkish friends got them interested in Kangal Dogs, not the other way around. 

Furthermore, British interest in "Karabash dogs" began some 18 years before the Nelson publications. Charmian Steele and others  imported and began to breed and show these dogs which they called "Anatolian Karabash" (Turkish for "black-headed"), in the mid-1960s. Germans and other Europeans joined the rush to obtain these fine animals. Most of the imports were obtained from western Turkey in and around Sivas province.

The "Kangal Boom" so alarmed the Turkish government, which was trying to research, propagate, and conserve the best of the breed, that they long ago slapped a ban on the export of their national treasure. In view of this simple fact, it becomes ridiculous to claim that the Turks take a mere proprietary interest in their dogs, spurred by western interest. On the contrary, there is no Turkish kennel, commercial or otherwise, that exists to breed Kangal Dogs for sale. Villagers certainly do not put signs out on the road to attract passing buyers, and in fact are generally very reluctant to sell their purebred dogs at all! 

By the way, the biggest market, and the best prices for Kangal Dogs, are found not in the trickle of foreigners that make it out to Sivas, but in fellow Turks: large-scale sheep operators, factory owners, and the wealthy urban elite. It is illegal to export Kangal Dogs--plain and simple.

To turn this argument around, if it were possible for foreigners to so deeply influence Turkish views about their dogs, then there should be a big Turkish interest in Anatolian Shepherds! After all, foreign Anatolian breeders far outnumber Kangal and Akbash breeders. Anatolian fanciers managed to get their breed recognized by the AKC first, and so they can take part in more shows and make more money selling their dogs--a big plus for status-conscious urban Turks. They have a bigger club budget to spend on publications; they could even host their own symposium if they wanted. In terms of attracting new Anatolian fanciers and breeders in Turkey, it would be far easier, logistically, to "go Anatolian" than to insist on pure Kangal Dog or Akbash Dog stock, which require a long uncomfortable trip to remote areas. However, this author knows of not a single Turk who is actively involved in or supportive of Anatolian breeding, selling, showing, or promotion. So much for "foreign influence" on the Turks. 

This is also a crucial fact: in the 30 years since the creation of the Anatolian Shepherd in the U.S., and despite heavy campaigning from numerous well-heeled Anatolian promoters,  not one single Turk has stepped forward to publically support the view that "all the Turkish shepherd's dogs are the same breed." An embarrassing fact indeed for the Anatolian promoters.

If the Turkish people are in such agreement about a multi- breed classification for their dogs, why don't they educate the rest of the world about their dogs?

That process is underway. In October 1996, there was a Turkish Shepherd's Dog symposium held at Selcuk University in Konya. It was organized by the veterinary faculty at the University, in conjunction with Turkish government breeders and researchers from around the country. They invited an equal number of foreign speakers from the US, England, and Holland to speak about various aspects of Turkish dog breeding and function outside Turkey. There were over 200 participants, and the media coverage was good. The purpose was to get together and share the "state of the art" with regard to the classification, breeding, training, genetics, and health of Turkish LGDs. The view of all the Turkish participants, and most of the foreign speakers, was clear: there is more than one breed of livestock guardian dog in Turkey, and the standards and names for these dog breeds should reflect Turkish views. 

Read the statement by Dr. Tekinsen, Dean of the Veterinary Faculty at Selcuk and principle conference organizer, for a particularly well-written Turkish expert view. 

But why haven't we heard more from the Turks during the past 30 years of Anatolian Shepherd Dog history?

Well, please realize that Turkey is a developing nation. Not too many Turks have access to the Internet, faxes, or foreign dog clubs! More generally, consider that back in the early 70s, when more dogs were being slipped out of the country and named "Anatolians," Turkey was in the throes of rapid adjustment to IMF-induced "structural adjustment" and cultural clashes. It was and still is experiencing a wave of migration from the villages to the cities, the growth of poor urban ghettos, the emptying of villages except for old people. Sheep-herding as a way of life is disappearing, and the dogs who guard them, too. But most folks had plenty to worry about besides the decline of their indigenous dog breeds. 

However, as is often the case, such tumultous changes bring about nostalgia for the past. I believe that the wave of interest in travel, urban hobbies, and the indigenous dog breeds of Turkey by urban and rural Turks alike is related to this trend. Similarly, a resurgence of national pride in all things Turkish can be seen as an constructive reaction to the socially-disruptive forces of a high-inflation economy, and the humiliation of EEC rejection. 

More and more urban Turks are keeping dogs as pets. Of course, the allure and status of "foreign purebred" dogs has kept many Turks from appreciating their own native breeds, but then, it is not easy or advisable to keep a Kangal Dog in Istanbul. Turkey does not have a kennel club--yet. Only a very few Turks are on the internet. Even fewer are aware that there is any kind of controversy among foreigners regarding their dogs. Is it any wonder that Turks are only now speaking out? 

I heard that there is no such thing as a "pure" Kangal Dog, and that Kangal breeders in Turkey and the US just kill any pups born "off color." 

This is another common line of questioning (or accusation, depending on the motive behind it). First: If a foreigner breezes in to the Sivas-Kangal region waving dollars and ignorance, and has only a couple of days to look at dogs, and is telling the local Kangal citizenry that he/she wants to buy some nice "Anatolians"--they aren't likely to walk off with the cream of the Kangal crop, which would be illegal anyway.  Buying a good Kangal Dog generally requires time, patience, ability to speak Turkish, and some very good connections in order to obtain special export permission. Buying a dog that "looks kind of like a Kangal" takes less effort, and can be accomplished in just about any town east of Ankara. Or even at the markets of Istanbul.

As for dogs from the government breeding stations, it must be realized that the leadership and quality of dogs at various facilities has varied over the years. The officials in charge come and go (the town of Kangal, for example, is not a plum posting). When I visited in summer 1996, there was a knowledgeable, committed "kaymakam" (like a mayor) with an excellent staff in charge at the Kangal Breeding Station in Kangal. He has  made major improvements to the stock and facilities. However, the operating budgets provided to the officials in charge of the kennels has never been adequate for purchasing quality dogs or providing top- notch nutrition and veterinary care. Also, I would not be surprised if more than one underpaid kennel caretaker has been "cooperative" enough to obtain one of those "government Kangals" (or a reasonable facsimile) for the rich foreigner. More than one Anatolian breeder has bragged to me about smuggled Kangal Dogs from government breeding facilities. But, surprise, they did not always end up with fabulous dogs! All it indicates is that someone in the scenario may have been ignorant or dishonest. 

Second: The Kangal Dog, like the Akbash Dog, is a naturally-developed, regional breed. Of course, if you really want to get Buddhist about it, there is no such thing as "pure" anything--no pure Anatolians, no pure Kangal Dogs, no pure Pyrs, no pure Dobermans. Hey, there is at least one registered Anatolian with upright, pricked ears. What does that mean? We are all forced to use the word "pure" as an abstraction; those who take the word literally are kidding themselves. It is a relative term. But clearly, Kangal Dogs are far more consistent and worthy of breed status than a collection of sheep dog types and ovtcharkas from all around Turkey. Anyone who goes there can see that. 

We saw two litters with mismarked puppies out of literally dozens of litters during our travels in Sivas/Kangal. The villagers we talked to indicated that such pups were not "saf Kangal" (pure Kangal). Well, white boxers or dobes with a chest blaze are occasionally born--and sold as pet quality. In Kangal, a pinto puppy could be the result of pariah dog influence, and is thus undesirable. Further southwest, it could point to an Akbash Dog cross. Fortunately this is rare, since good Kangal Dogs bitches in season are generally well guarded . 

Aren't you endangering the health of the dogs by selecting for color? Isn't that limiting the gene pool too much?

This is something of a "trick question" posed by those who advocate the "lumping" all Turkish breeds together into one breed. There is no need to select Kangal Dogs for color, since they already come that way, and they breed true. That is, true Kangal Dogs whelp puppies with a light fawn body color and black masks, though they may have  varying degrees of masking and varying amounts of dark hairs in the outer coat. The real question might be, "would it be advantageous to lump all the Turkish breeds together so as to breed from a larger gene pool?" 

In fact,  while it is true that purebred Kangal Dogs are dwindling at an alarming rate in Turkey, there are still thousands of them scattered throughout their native range and beyond. In the US, we are working toward building our population of dogs from unrelated lines, and with a high level of commitment to genetic health among breeders,  we can avoid the dangers of inbreeding. 

Of course, there are a number of popular "created" breeds have been genetically ruined by inbreeding and poor breeding practices. I am sure you can list your own examples of  breeds which have become characterized by certain genetic health problems, or which are no longer reliable in terms of temperament. On the other hand, consider that the Great Pyrenees was "reconstructed" from only about 20 dogs gathered up in France after the war, and serious breeders continue to produce fine dogs that can both win in the show ring and work as effective livestock guardians . Also, a number of today's rare breeds are in quite good shape genetically, thanks to careful efforts of the clubs and individuals committed to the breed. These include the Leonberger, the Coton deTulear, and the Kangal Dog! It is up to breed fanciers and promoters to continue efforts to improve the strength of the breed and work together to eradicate remaining problems. 

The argument that we should ignore the Turkish multi-breed classification, and continue to mix together all types of LGDs from Turkey for "genetic health" reasons, is rather absurd. The various regional LGD breeds, as they exist in Turkey, have been subjected to natural and human selection for many generations, and careful choice of stock combined with a careful breeding program should continue to yield healthy offspring. 

Isn't there a compromise possible?

Mutual tolerance and respect is certainly possible.  This is not a case of the "good guys vs. the bad guys"--while there is a good deal of  "willful ignorance" and even maliciousness among Anatolian breeders with regard to the regional breeds of Turkey,  the main problem for most people in the breed is simple lack of knowledge. It is a sad fact that most Anatolian fanciers have very little knowledge about, or interest in, the true origins of their chosen breed.  Few have ever been to Turkey or spoken with Turkish people about the dogs in Sivas-Kangal vs. the dogs elsewhere. They love their Anatolians, and can be forgiven for wishing to believe that they own an "ancient Turkish breed." 

Kangal Dogs are much sought after by Anatolian breeders, and so many Kangal Dogs have been imported or acquired for the Anatolian gene pool that increasing numbers of Anatolians do indeed look like Kangal Dogs. However, they are not purebred Kangal Dogs, and the litters they produce continue to be highly variable in type. Live and let live. But there can be no compromise when it comes to exchanging dogs for breeding purposes.  We are committed to protecting the health and the future of purebred Kangal Dogs, and maintaining the Turkish standard for their national breed. 

At the moment, breeders of AKC-registered Anatolians cannot use Kangal Dogs in their breeding programs, as their registry has been closed. No further imports of Kangal and Akbash dogs can be added to the Anatolian registry, and they are forced to continue breeding from the dogs they have.  However, there are other Anatolian clubs and independent breeders in the US and Europe which will continue to import Turkish dogs and classify them in ways counter to Turkish interests, and detrimental to the original breeds; also, the AKC could decide to open its Anatolian registry to imports in the future, too. Since so many of the most recent Anatolian imports have been Kangal Dogs, and to a lesser extent, Akbash Dogs, it is a worry for those of us who are concerned about preserving  the regional breeds. 

Our very strong view is that the people who have developed the Turkish shepherd dog breeds over generations of work, care, and selection deserve to have a say in how their dogs are named and defined, whether in their own country or overseas. It is also patently obvious that the Turks are correct in insisting that the Kangal Dog is an ancient regional breed that differs significantly from the pool of generic "choban kopegi" from which the Anatolian Shepherd was created. To say the Kangal Dog  is "the same" as an Anatolian is offensive to the Turkish people, and runs counter to empirical evidence to boot. It is neither cheap nor easy to travel to the different regions of Turkey to see Kangal Dogs and Akbash Dogs in their native environment; however, for those who have done so, the reality of multiple breeds with particular characteristics and histories is beyond question. And beyond compromise. 

---------------------------------- 
*From the official ASDI web site, viewed 10/3/98, section entitled "How Many Breeds of the Çoban köpegi Are There?" See my Links page for this and other sites on Anatolians.