Comment to ' Molosser or dog breeds you consider best guards?'
  • The beautiful CAO u have as avatar is one of them for sure. So, just to remain into this breed (it would be better to call it as family, not breed, since there are as many strains as each Central Asia country has its own (and often more than one) Alabai or Volkodav, two words to indicate the same dog. The word ''Volkodav'' (the dog who fight against wolves) honestly is a Russian word but it's used generally to indicate CAOs which come from Turkmenistan.

    My favourite is the Torkuz type (CAO from Uzbekistan) but i love the Arian Molossus too and other strain from the Siberian area. I appreciate alot also the Tagikistan type due his incredible agility, resistance and speed on the long distance , but it's a matter of tastes.

    Anyway, choosing whatever of the CAOs strains u can't fail, each one (if aboriginal) is a great dog, ready basically for every purpose related with protection, livestock and so on.

    But my personal theory goes even beyond this. So, what's the difference between an Anatolian Shepherd dog named ''Kars'' and a Caucasian Ovcharka? And are there differences enough to say Maremma-Abruzzese shepherd , Tatra and Kuvasz are different breeds? And Kangal, Akbash and Kars aren't maybe the same breed just into different coat and colours belonging all from the same original dogs (probabilly 85% from Assiryan-Babylon Molossus X 7,5 % some local wild dogs x 7,5% some kind of sighthounds) ?

    Different thing if u choose some so called ''reivented dogs'' like Cane Corso (i want u to remeber that this breed, despite of what breeders say, has been reinvented into 1980 in Italy, since the original one it has been lost since XVIII sec...) or Neapolitan Mastiff (lost in the night of the times and reivented from ZERO around 1930) or Perro da Presa Canario (lost in XVI and reivented several centuries after) or Ca de Beau, or Presa Mallorquin. All these dogs (and many others) aren't the original ones at all, since, apart from the shape who can be more or less similar to the original, they started from completely different breeds to create the new ones, so all the features and the values of the originals are lost forever.

    For example, the current ''Neapolitan Mastiff'' was originally the mighty Roman Molossus (english Mastiff comes from him although without any common sense someone says it comes from molossus imported by fenices in Britannia which is anti-hystorical and it doesn't make any sense, infact why fenices would have wanted to import such a dogs so far...?) and he was lighter , without loose skin , incredible aggressive and very healthy. So, the opposite of the current ones. The same for the other mentioned breeds. The debate would be very long but i want to stop here.

    I personally think actual cinology is too much compartimental, it wants to divide into specific breeds what's the nature decided instead to be free. And local shepherds just don't care it, they keep on crossing different type of the same big family of central Asian shpepherd dogs trying to get dogs useful for their purposes, do not caring at all about look and standard similarities. They care the function only. Because they are WORKING dogs, not useless and weak show dogs.

    0 0 0 0 0 0