I have been around these dogs and the necessary life style since my childhood. It is obvious that there several views about this subject without any tangible and rational arguments. Most of the information available is time and content wise based on very limited research and is repetitive. Visiting a few villages and flocks for a few days in a limited geographical area and drawing outcomes through the collected or available data would give one a limited portion of the whole picture. This approach in the past gave two basic results: One is considering the whole shepherd dog population of Turkey as one breed "Anatolian Shepherd Dog", the other one is creating new breeds like "Akbas" without looking the meaning of the word and the extent and the content of its usage. The above second international approach affected the Turkish public and consequently manipulated city Turks and Turkish Academicians to accept a new breed. To me this is a breed inflation not a discovery. The Kangal side of the confusion started in Turkey and affected some clubs in other countries. So far there is not any clear remark in Turkey that clarifies the qualities of Kangal Shepherd Dog. Is Kangal a dog from only Kangal region? Is any dog from that region a Kangal? We can say "Yes" to the first question. We should say "No" to the second one, because there is variation of types in that area. Then it must be a type of dog, which can be mostly found in that area in its best form. There is no consesus on the subject, because we are referring to different qualities by using the same word. Recently any fawn colour dog with a black mask goes as a Kangal, and the local strains are being negatively damaged by this attitude.
I am actually focused on the Yoruk dogs. They are ignored and even the term "stray" is used in order to elavate the importance of the major two famous strains. I am not intending to create a new breed but bring out whateverelse Anatolia offers. I am here to introduce them to you for them to be recognised.