Akbash Dog

This is the central question of the page, and the honest answer is neither “the Akbash is a separate breed” nor “the Akbash is a variety of the Anatolian”, but a list of who draws the line where. Different schemes produce different lists, and none of them is mistaken: they simply answer different questions.

• United Kennel Club (USA). Recognised the Akbash Dog as a separate breed on 1 January 1998 and places it in the Guardian Dog Group; the standard in force is dated 1 April 1998. In its preamble the UKC states plainly that recognition followed the fieldwork of the Americans David and Judy Nelson, who studied these dogs in Turkey from the 1970s.
• The Turkish state. The Akbash was entered on the list of native breeds and lines as a separate annex (Ek-32) to communiqué No. 2006/32, published in the Resmî Gazete on 9 July 2006, issue No. 26223. The register is kept by the ministry of agriculture; in the same document, immediately alongside, stands Malya — a sheep, not a dog, which tells you this is a general register of genetic resources rather than a canine nomenclature. Earlier, in 2002, the Turkish Standards Institution issued a separate breed standard (TS 12891).
• The Turkish kennel federation (KIF). Keeps the Akbash on its list of national breeds separately from the Kangal, the Aksaray Malaklı and the Turkish hounds, and describes it as the Turkish version of the white flock dogs of southern and eastern Europe.
• The FCI. Here the Akbash has no entry and never had one. Until 2018, FCI standard No. 331 was called “Anatolian Shepherd Dog” and lumped the Kangal, the Akbash and the other Turkish guardian types into a single breed. In 2018 the FCI changed the name and issued a new standard: the version in force, No. 331 of 15 June 2018, is called “Kangal Çoban Köpeği”. In the FCI’s Group 2 breed list Turkey today appears with exactly one entry — the Kangal; neither the Akbash nor even the former name “Anatolian Shepherd Dog” is on that list. So for the FCI the white Turkish dog has not lost a slot of its own — it never had one, and the shared slot now carries the name of a different regional type.
• American practice in the 1980s. Here the line ran somewhere else entirely. An article on the Anatolian Shepherd Dog in the journal Rangelands for April 1982 lists the Akbash simply as a colour variant of the Anatolian: “Other color variants may include buff or white (Akbash — ‘white head’)”. White Turkish dogs were then registered in the United States as Anatolians, and part of today’s confusion comes straight from there.

The Turkish registration entry of 2006 contains a separate line under genetics: “scientific studies have proved that Kangal and Akbash dogs differ from one another”. The status of that sentence is worth understanding: it is a claim made by a regulatory document, and it names no particular study. A document asserting that something has been proved is not itself the proof. But the work it most likely rests on can be found — and it should be read together with its sample size.

A master’s thesis carried out at the Middle East Technical University (METU) in 2005 under the supervision of Professor İnci Togan read 585 base pairs of the mitochondrial DNA control region in 105 Kangal and 9 Akbash dogs. The result does separate the two groups, and separates them neatly: Kangals carry a rare haplogroup D, found only in Scandinavian (36% of samples), Turkish (20%), Portuguese (20%) dogs and in a single Spanish one — and it is entirely absent from the Akbash samples. By the same sequences Kangals proved closer to Scandinavian and south-west Asian dogs, and Akbash dogs closer to European and East Asian ones. A separate study using 100 microsatellite markers likewise found a statistically significant difference between Kangal and Akbash.

Nine dogs is few, and mitochondrial DNA shows only the maternal line, so caution is in order here. But the more interesting point is another one: by body build the two breeds do not differ. Turkish animal scientists who measured 59 Akbash dogs concluded that in body measurements the Akbash bears a “very close resemblance” to the Kangal and the Kars shepherd dog — the only difference found was in body length, shorter in the Akbash, that is a more compact frame. So the markers separate these breeds and the centimetres do not. Both results are correct; they simply answer different questions.

The practical conclusion for a reader is simple. If you are shown a pedigree, look at which organisation issued it: in a UKC document the Akbash will be an Akbash, in an FCI document the white Turkish dog has no column at all, and in Turkish paperwork everything depends on whether it is the ministry’s register, the TSE standard, or the kennel federation’s catalogue. These systems are not arguing with one another — they are simply not about the same thing.

The UKC standard puts the origin cautiously: “the origins of the breed are obscure”, though it is “known to be an ancient pure breed”. That caution is worth keeping, because the specific figures for the breed’s antiquity wander. The 1982 article mentioned above writes of Anatolian dogs “over 6,000 years” and invokes Babylonian times; popular texts about the Akbash more often name around three thousand years. These numbers rest on no dated material and cannot be reconciled with each other — so the most accurate thing that can be said is that the breed is old and nobody has measured its age.

The frankest statement on this comes from the FCI itself, in the preamble to the standard of the neighbouring Turkish breed: “although each nation eagerly designates a breed history for their national breeds, rarely is it possible to come up with an accurate one, especially when it comes to livestock protection dogs”. Those are a kennel federation’s words about its own genre, and there is no better caveat to any claim of three-thousand-year antiquity.

What is genuinely documented is the modern part of the story, and it is strikingly concrete. David and Judy Nelson began studying white Turkish flock dogs in the 1970s and, according to the UKC standard, imported over 40 Akbash Dogs to the United States. Those dogs became the foundation stock for the breed in the United States and Canada. In 1980 the U.S. Department of Agriculture brought Akbash Dogs into its Predator Control Program — and that is where the numbers come from that landrace breeds normally do not have.

The timing was no accident. In 1972 the federal government banned poisons on federal lands, and a directive from the Secretary of the Interior in November 1979 stated that policy would now emphasise non-lethal methods. Sheep producers needed a tool that worked without poison — and Eurasian flock dogs turned from an exotic curiosity into a subject of government research.

What happened next deserves saying plainly. The American breed association was founded in 1979, and by 1996 roughly 1,500 Akbash Dogs were registered in the United States. In Turkey itself, at the time of a 2012 animal-science survey, no breed club or association existed at all, no written pedigrees were kept for these dogs, and the population, in the authors’ estimate, was shrinking year by year. Those same authors cautiously suggest that there may by now be more Akbash dogs in the United States than in their homeland. That is a suggestion, not a count — but it explains why the most detailed data on a Turkish breed are published in English.

In Turkey the Akbash is traditionally kept around Eskişehir, Afyon, Polatlı and Sivrihisar, though the state register notes that it is bred in various regions of the country. The Turkish kennel federation describes the Akbash as the Turkish version of the white flock dogs of southern and eastern Europe, and adds a careful suggestion: if one thinks of the movement of flock dogs from east to west, then the Akbash can be seen as the source of all these white breeds, from the Pyrenean Mountain Dog to the Kuvasz. The hedge here is part of the claim: this is the federation’s own version, not an established descent, and retelling it as fact would be a substitution.

The Akbash’s size is a good illustration of how non-existent ranges are born. One thing deserves attention here: the UKC standard gives no weight range at all. It names two averages — 120 pounds for a male and 90 pounds for a female in good condition — and adds that weight should be in proportion to height. A pair of averages is not a range; stretch them into a single interval and you get a number that appears in no document and describes neither sex.

The interesting thing about this table is not the disagreement but its direction. The lower bound of the UKC standard for males (76 cm) lies above the mean height of Turkish dogs (71.2 cm by the register and 75.9 by field measurement). The American standard, in other words, describes a noticeably larger animal than the one measured in the breed’s homeland. Neither side is wrong: a standard is a requirement for breeding within a particular population, a register is a snapshot of the dogs that actually walk beside flocks, and the TSE normative standard sets a wide corridor of the permissible. Before calling anyone’s figure “wrong”, it is worth asking what it measured.

And one more observation a buyer should know. The UKC standard says that “gender differences can be striking in this breed”. Field measurement of 59 Turkish Akbash dogs did not confirm it: for none of the traits measured was the difference between males and females statistically significant, and by live weight the females actually returned a slightly higher mean — 45.2 kg against 44.9 for males. A different, geographic difference did turn up instead: dogs from Afyon (40.6 kg) and Manisa (40.3 kg) proved appreciably smaller than dogs from Eskişehir (48.8 kg) and Ankara (45.4 kg). In Turkey, then, “the size of an Akbash” depends more on the province than on the sex.

The same survey also answers the practical question of when the dog stops growing: by measurement Akbash dogs reach adult size at about two years, with only minor growth afterwards. That fits what both the UKC and the Turkish register call full maturity at 2–3 years — the body, in other words, gets there before the head does.

The UKC standard describes the Akbash as a long-legged, lean, muscular dog and stresses separately that the breed represents “a very rare and special mixture of Mastiff and gazehound characteristics”. That is the registry’s own wording, and it matters: from the gazehound, on the standard’s account, come the long legs, deep chest, tucked-up flank, shallow lower jaw, speed and agility; from the Mastiff come height, weight, a broader head and the overall impression of power. Judges are told to prefer dogs showing a balance between the two types rather than a dominance of one.

• Head: wedge-shaped, free of wrinkles, the skull longer than broad, the muzzle roughly half the length of the head from occiput to nose. The Turkish register classes the head as mesaticephalic — intermediate between the narrow-long and the broad-short. Nose and lips black or dark brown; a complete lack of pigment on nose, eye rims or lips is a disqualification.
• Ears: pendant, V-shaped, slightly rounded at the tips, set rather high. There is a detail here that is rarely written about: the UKC standard notes that in Turkey the majority of Akbash Dogs have their ears cropped as puppies. Cropped ears on a dog imported from Turkey are not penalised, but on a domestic-bred dog they are a disqualification.
• Eyes: medium-sized, almond-shaped, from golden brown to dark brown with darker preferred; eyelashes white. Blue eyes are a disqualification.
• Body: chest deep and moderately wide, reaching almost to the elbows; the topline inclines very slightly from the withers to the back, with a definite arch over the loin and a long, sloping croup; the flank is well tucked up, and the standard names this outright as evidence of the gazehound influence.
• Tail: uncut, thick at the base. At rest it hangs low, reaching to the hock, with the bottom third often forming a hook; in movement or excitement it is carried in a curl over the back. A docked or short tail is a fault.
• Coat: double, in two equally acceptable lengths — medium (short to medium, lying flat, giving a sleek and racy look) and long (often slightly wavy, with a distinct ruff and profuse feathering). Neither type is preferred. The Turkish register describes the same pair of types in its own words: short-haired and long-haired.
• Colour: always white. Light biscuit or grey shading around the ears or in the undercoat is never penalised as long as the overall impression stays white. Grey or silver-blue skin pigmentation is desirable but not required. Any overall colour other than white, defined spots on the outer coat, black whiskers and black eyelashes are disqualifications.

The white coat is not aesthetics but a working feature: a shepherd has to tell his own dog from a predator at dusk. It is also the one part of “Mastiff plus gazehound” that can be checked by eye: leg length really does distinguish the Akbash from the stockier Kangal, and that is the feature people rely on when telling the Anatolian Shepherd Dog (Karabash) and the Akbash apart visually.

The UKC standard sums up the temperament in three words: calm, quiet, steady. And it adds the trait that governs everything else: the dog is independent and capable of responding correctly to changing circumstances without human direction. The Turkish register puts the same thing from its own side — it “does its duties without needing to be warned”, active at night and calm during the day.

How it differs from herding dogs

The Akbash is a guardian, not a herder. It does not circle a flock steering the animals’ movement the way a heeler or a collie does. The Turkish breed description states outright that the Akbash builds “a protective and balanced relationship” with the animals of the flock — that is, it embeds itself in the flock rather than directing it.

The second trait to know before buying: the breed matures late. The UKC writes that guarding instincts are demonstrated at a young age, but the dog matures slowly both physically and temperamentally, with individuals requiring two to three years to reach their prime; females mature faster than males. The Turkish register independently names the same interval — 2–3 years — and the same difference between the sexes. That is two years during which a very large adolescent with opinions of its own lives in your yard.

The standard does not hide the awkward side either: the Akbash is “by nature watchful of other dogs and may, on its own territory, react aggressively to intruding dogs”. The Turkish register adds a domestic detail from pack life — where several dogs live together there is a hierarchy, the strongest eats first, a particularly good morsel may be guarded jealously from other dogs and from the owner alike, and leftovers get buried.

This is the most valuable part of what is known about the breed at all, and at the same time the part where it is easiest to attribute somebody else’s numbers to the Akbash. So it matters to see which study the Akbash dogs were actually in, and which they were not.

A survey of producers in the USA and Canada (Green and Woodruff, 1988). Researchers at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station of the Department of Agriculture mailed 948 questionnaires between January and August 1986 and received 399 written replies reporting on 763 dogs across 47 states and 7 Canadian provinces. Of those, 62 were Akbash — the fourth largest group after Great Pyrenees (437), Komondors (138) and Anatolians (56). Every owner rated every dog separately.

The portrait that reads out of this table is not the promotional one. In overall success the Akbash did not differ statistically from Great Pyrenees, Komondors, Anatolians or Maremmas — the authors state plainly that no particular breed was rated more highly. What the Akbash did turn out to be is the most aggressive in both directions at once: every single owner without exception described them as aggressive to predators, and 92% as aggressive to other dogs, appreciably above the sample average. And that is not free: Akbash dogs injured sheep in 20% of cases against 7% for Great Pyrenees (the authors note separately that fewer Pyrenees injured livestock than Komondors, Akbash or Anatolians). People, on the other hand, they bit less often than average — 6% against 7%, and appreciably less often than Komondors.

One more line deserves attention: the share of owners calling the dog an economic asset is the lowest of the large groups for the Akbash — 71% against 82–84% for the others. Together with the highest attachment to the flock (71% stay with the sheep “mostly”) this adds up to a coherent picture: the dog takes its job very seriously indeed, and some of that seriousness lands on the wrong recipient.

How much livestock this saves (Colorado, 1986 and 1993). The second study — a survey by Andelt and Hopper published in 2000 — measured not breeds but outcomes. Over seven years the number of Colorado producers using dogs grew from about 25 to more than 159, and the share of sheep under canine protection from about 7% to about 68%. Producers without dogs lost 5.9 times the proportion of lambs to predators in 1986, and 2.1 times the proportion in 1993. Of the 160 producers using dogs, 84% rated their performance excellent or good, 13% fair and 3% poor. In that sample the Akbash was the second most common breed: of 176 producers, 83 used Great Pyrenees, 34 used Akbash, 15 Komondors, 3 Anatolians, and 41 used several breeds at once.

And now for what is not in these numbers. The most detailed record of attrition among flock dogs is the 1986 work of Lorenz, Coppinger and Sutherland, which followed 449 dogs in 31 states over 1978–1983. Of these, 216 were lost: more than half to accidents (124), a third to culling for behaviour (72), and only 20 to disease. Among the accidents, 40 dogs disappeared, 38 were hit by vehicles, 17 were shot and 11 poisoned. Of the 72 culled, 44 had injured or killed livestock. The semi-annual mortality rate before 30 months was 13%, falling to about 5% afterwards — the main risk, in other words, falls in the first two and a half years. But there were no Akbash dogs in that cohort at all: it consisted of 120 Turkish Anatolian Shepherd Dogs, 74 Shar Planinetz, 56 Maremmas, 12 Castro Laboreiros, 183 crosses and 4 Tibetan Mastiffs. These figures therefore describe flock dogs in general, not the Akbash, and carrying them over to the breed would be a substitution.

The Akbash coat is double: longer, coarser outer guard hairs over a dense, soft undercoat. The standard notes that the thickness of the undercoat varies significantly with the climate and with how much the dog is exposed to the weather, and that the undercoat is normally shed annually. A long-coated Akbash in full undercoat looks heavier than a medium-coated one, but in summer or in a warm climate the difference all but disappears. The Turkish description adds a practical nuance: the long-coated type is better suited to being kept in cold conditions.

Unlike breeds such as the Peruvian Hairless Dog, whose skin needs constant protection from the sun and regular moisturising, the Akbash is shielded from any weather by its own coat.

The basics of care:

• Brushing: twice a week with a brush or slicker. During the annual shed of the undercoat this becomes a daily job.
• Bathing: rarely. Frequent washing strips the protective oils, and dirt largely falls out of a coat like this once it dries.
• Nails: the standard describes them as grey, brown or white and requires that a dog be presented with nails blunt; on a working dog on hard ground they often wear down by themselves.
• Ears: pendant, so worth checking regularly — moisture collects under an ear that lies flat.
• Dewclaws: the standard allows them to be absent, single or double, and permits their removal — this is not a sign of impure breeding.

And one more detail for the owner of a show dog: the UKC standard does not penalise the marks of work — neither honourable scars nor teeth broken in the field.

There is a direct hint here from data rather than from advice. The 1988 survey recorded how owners had actually reared their dogs, and found two things. First, the commonest method was rearing exclusively with sheep, with human contact minimised (57% of cases); another 30% reared the dog in looser association with the flock, and only 2% put it through obedience training. Second, and more importantly: dogs kept with livestock from an age of two months or younger were more successful than those introduced later. The age at which the dog was acquired made no difference — what mattered was the age at which it found itself among the sheep.

For a domestic Akbash the conclusion is the mirror image: if the dog is to live with people, then the attachment has to be built to people and to whichever animals it is meant to regard as its own — and built early.

Key principles of rearing:

1. Respect, not fear. The standard describes the Akbash as responding well to basic training despite its independent nature. Physical pressure produces the opposite result — a refusal to cooperate.
2. Early socialisation. Between 2 and 6 months the puppy should meet as many people, dogs, vehicles and situations as possible. Remember that line of statistics: 92% of Akbash dogs were described by owners as aggressive to other dogs — this is where the difference is laid down.
3. A long horizon. The breed matures over two to three years. Judging the results of your training in the first year is simply premature.
4. A fence rather than a chain. An Akbash needs territory to patrol; the Turkish register recommends keeping such a dog under control by day and free at night.

This breed rewards an individual approach, best supplied by a trainer who works specifically with landrace flock-guardian dogs.

• The breed’s name is simply a description: akbaş is Turkish for “white head”, as against karabaş, “black head”.
• The UKC standard makes a special provision for cropped ears: on a dog brought from Turkey they are not held against it, on a domestic-bred dog they are a disqualification.
• In Turkey flock dogs are fitted with iron-spiked collars — protection for the neck against wolves.
• In 1980 Akbash Dogs entered the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Predator Control Program — and it is thanks to that that the breed has field statistics at all.
• Black whiskers and black eyelashes are each separate grounds for disqualification under the UKC standard.

Are the Akbash and the Anatolian Shepherd Dog the same breed?

It depends on who is answering. The UKC and the Turkish state register treat the Akbash as a separate breed; American practice in the 1980s described it as a white colour variant of the Anatolian; the FCI has no separate standard for the Akbash. These are different systems of record, not a dispute about a fact.

Is the Akbash suitable for a family with children?

The standard describes it as loyal and quietly affectionate with its own family, including children and family pets, but aloof and suspicious towards strangers. The practical consequence: the dog may read your child’s rough-and-tumble with a visiting child as an attack, so adult supervision is essential.

Can an Akbash live on a chain?

No. This is a dog whose work is to walk its territory; the Turkish breed description explicitly recommends leaving it free at night.