Review of Methods to Reduce Livestock Depradation: I. Guardian Animals

Smith, Martin A.; Linnell, John D. C.; Oddén, John; Swenson, Jon E.

doi:10.1080/090647000750069476

Cited by 59 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…LPDs have successfully reduced prédation, mainly from coyotes, on individual farms (Green et al 1984, Coppinger et al 1988, Andelt 1992. Most published accounts suggest that LPDs can reduce sheep depredation by 11% to 100% (see Smith et al 2000). The vast majority of these studies pertain to sheep operations with coyotes as the primary predator.…”

Section: Studies Of Livestock Protection Dogs and Predatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Livestock Protection Dogs in the 21st Century: Is an Ancient Tool Relevant to Modern Conservation Challenges?

Gehring¹,

VerCauteren²,

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Europe and North America share a similar history in the extirpation and subsequent recovery of large carnivore and ungulate species. Both continents face challenges and opportunities for managing human-wildlife conflict at the junction of livestock production and wildlife conservation. Prédation of livestock and disease transmission between wildlife and livestock is an ongoing and escalating worldwide issue. In order to manage ihis conflict, producers need effective tools, and they have used livestock protection dogs (LPDs) for reducing prédation for well over 2000 years.We review the history of the use of LPDs, including the loss ofinjormation on their use and the paucity ofscientißc research on their effectiveness. We discuss the potential for LPDs to be integral components in modern-day livestock husbandry and outline future directions to pursue.

show abstract

Section: Studies Of Livestock Protection Dogs and Predatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Livestock Protection Dogs in the 21st Century: Is an Ancient Tool Relevant to Modern Conservation Challenges?

Gehring¹,

VerCauteren²,

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…LPDs are generally regarded as effective in reducing livestock depredations caused by coyotes (Green et al 1984;Andelt 1992;Andelt and Hopper 2000;Smith et al 2000), but their effectiveness against wolves is more tenuous (Gehring et al 2010a). VerCauteren et al (2008) and Gingold et al (2009) provided experimental evidence of the ability of LPDs to deter deer from livestock pastures and modify ungulate behaviour, respectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Utility of livestock-protection dogs for deterring wildlife from cattle farms

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. Livestock producers worldwide are negatively affected by livestock losses because of predators and wildlifetransmitted diseases. In the western Great Lakes Region of the United States, this conflict has increased as grey wolf (Canis lupus) populations have recovered and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have served as a wildlife reservoir for bovine tuberculosis (Myobacterium bovis).Aims. We conducted field experiments on cattle farms to evaluate the effectiveness of livestock-protection dogs (LPDs) for excluding wolves, coyotes (C. latrans), white-tailed deer and mesopredators from livestock pastures.Methods. We integrated LPDs on six cattle farms (treatment) and monitored wildlife use with tracking swaths on these farms, concurrent with three control cattle farms during [2005][2006][2007][2008]. The amount of time deer spent in livestock pastures was recorded using direct observation.Key results. Livestock pastures protected by LPDs had reduced use by these wildlife compared with control pastures not protected by LPDs. White-tailed deer spent less time in livestock pastures protected by LPDs compared with control pastures not protected by LPDs.Conclusions. Our research supports the theory that LPDs can be an effective management tool for reducing predation and disease transmission. We also demonstrate that LPDs are not limited to being used only with sheep and goats; they can also be used to protect cattle.Implications. On the basis of our findings, we support the use of LPDs as a proactive management tool that producers can implement to minimise the threat of livestock depredations and transmission of disease from wildlife to livestock. LPDs should be investigated further as a more general conservation tool for protecting valuable wildlife, such as ground-nesting birds, that use livestock pastures and are affected by predators that use these pastures.

show abstract

“…Full wolf pack removal can reduce future livestock depredation events in a local area (Bradley et al 2015), but lethal control is not always socially acceptable (Bruskotter et al 2009). Nonlethal options including increased human presence (e.g., range-riding: horseback riders monitoring livestock), livestock guardian dogs, changes in cattle age classes, electric fencing and fladry (a string of flags hung along a fence), and changing calving dates have helped reduce livestock depredation in certain situations (Shivik and Martin 2000, Smith et al 2000, Bradley and Pletscher 2005, Shivik 2006, Muhly et al 2010b, Breck et al 2011, Barnes 2015. Such methods, however, often are only successful for short, e.g., 60 days, durations (Musiani et al 2003, Shivik 2006, and wolf predation of livestock remains a challenging problem wherever wolves and livestock overlap.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Troublemaking carnivores: conflicts with humans in a diverse assemblage of large carnivores

Morehouse¹,

Boyce²

2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Human-wildlife conflicts are a global conservation and management challenge. Multipredator systems present added complexity to the resolution of human-wildlife conflicts because mitigation strategies often are species-specific. Documenting the type and distribution of such conflicts is an important first step toward ensuring that subsequent management and mitigation efforts are appropriately targeted. We reviewed 16 years of records of complaints about two species of strict carnivores, wolves (Canis lupus) and cougars (Puma concolor), and two species of omnivores, grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and black bears (Ursus americanus) in southwestern Alberta and evaluated the temporal and spatial distribution of these complaints. Conflicts were most frequently associated with bears (68.7% of complaint records), reflecting a diversity of conflict types attributable to their omnivorous diets. Although grizzly bears killed and injured livestock, the majority of conflicts with bears were attributable to attractants (grain and dead livestock for grizzly bears, garbage for black bears). In contrast, wolf and cougar incidents were almost exclusively related to killing or injury of livestock. Complaints for both bear species have increased over the past 16 years while cougar and wolf complaints have remained relatively constant. Grizzly bear and cougar conflicts have been expanding into private lands used for agriculture. Although community driven, targeted mitigation measures have helped reduce conflicts with grizzly bears at the site level, conflicts at the broader scale have continued to increase and continued work is necessary. Long-term human-carnivore coexistence clearly is possible, facilitated by continued monitoring and local efforts to mitigate conflicts.

show abstract

Review of Methods to Reduce Livestock Depradation: I. Guardian Animals

Cited by 59 publications

References 13 publications

Livestock Protection Dogs in the 21st Century: Is an Ancient Tool Relevant to Modern Conservation Challenges?

Livestock Protection Dogs in the 21st Century: Is an Ancient Tool Relevant to Modern Conservation Challenges?

Utility of livestock-protection dogs for deterring wildlife from cattle farms

Troublemaking carnivores: conflicts with humans in a diverse assemblage of large carnivores

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About