Secondary Hazard of Livestock Protection Collars to Skunks and Eagles

Burns, Richard J.; Tietjen, Howard P.; Connolly, Guy E.

doi:10.2307/3809522

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… * Sources: 1, Angst 2001 ; 2, Hoare 2001 ; 3, Karanth & Madhusudan 2002 ; 4, Osborn & Parker 2003 ; 5. Ogada et al 2003; 6, Smith et al 2000a; 7, Andelt 2001 ; 8, Smith et al 2000b; 9, Shivik 2006 ; 10, Mason et al 2001 ; 11, Noss & Cuellar 2001 ; 12, Burns et al 1991 ; 13, Ratnaswamy et al 1997 ; 14, Treves & Naughton‐Treves 2005 ; 15, A.T. unpublished; 16, Woodroffe & Frank 2005 ; 17, Linnell et al 1997 ; 18, Schultz et al 2005 ; 19, Wydeven et al 2004 ; 20, Meriggi & Lovari 1996 ; 21, Mishra et al 2003 ; 22, Naughton‐Treves & Treves 2005 ; 23, Mech et al 2000 ; 24, Shaw et al 1988 ; 25, Carr & Halvorsen 2001; 26, Treves et al 2006 ; 27, Raik et al 2005 ; 28, Murombedzi 1992; 29, Du Toit 2002 ; 30, Virtainen 2003 ; 31, Montag 2003 ; 32, Bulte & Rondeau 2005 ; 33, A.T. unpublished; 34, Zabel & Holm‐Muller 2008 ; 35, Dunwoody 2007 ; 36, Jacobson & McDuff 2009 . …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, many surveys show public preference for capture and relocation of problematic carnivores (Manfredo et al 1998; Naughton‐Treves et al 2003), yet wildlife authorities balk at the costs of such interventions and research shows that they rarely reduce damages in the long run (Linnell et al 1997). Similarly the effects of interventions on target wildlife and unintended consequences for non‐target wildlife may lower the relative feasibility of any given intervention, especially when managing valued or protected species (e.g., Burns et al 1991). Our PIP workshop participants grasped these ideas readily.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Participatory Planning of Interventions to Mitigate Human–Wildlife Conflicts

Treves¹,

Wallace²,

White³

2009

Conservation Biology

200

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation of wildlife is especially challenging when the targeted species damage crops or livestock, attack humans, or take fish or game. Affected communities may retaliate and destroy wildlife or their habitats. We summarize recommendations from the literature for 13 distinct types of interventions to mitigate these human-wildlife conflicts. We classified eight types as direct (reducing the severity or frequency of encounters with wildlife) and five as indirect (raising human tolerance for encounters with wildlife) interventions. We analyzed general cause-and-effect relationships underlying human-wildlife conflicts to clarify the focal point of intervention for each type. To organize the recommendations on interventions we used three standard criteria for feasibility: cost-effective design, wildlife specificity and selectivity, and sociopolitical acceptability. The literature review and the feasibility criteria were integrated as decision support tools in three multistakeholder workshops. The workshops validated and refined our criteria and helped the participants select interventions. Our approach to planning interventions is systematic, uses standard criteria, and optimizes the participation of experts, policy makers, and affected communities. We argue that conservation action generally will be more effective if the relative merits of alternative interventions are evaluated in an explicit, systematic, and participatory manner.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Participatory Planning of Interventions to Mitigate Human–Wildlife Conflicts

Treves¹,

Wallace²,

White³

2009

Conservation Biology

200

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As the sheep industry declined, Mendocino County flocks dropped from 117,900 sheep and lambs in 1962 to a low of 16,000 in 1995(Agricultural Commissioner 1962,1995, with a parallel rate of decline noted in Humboldt County (Hackett 1990).…”

Section: Unacceptable Lossesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sodium fluoroacetate, the active ingredient found to be safest and most effective, received federal registration for use in the LPC in 1985 (Connolly 1980(Connolly ,1993Moore 1985). Its relative selectivity and safety is documented (Burns et al 1991;USDA 1994). The collar requires the sacrifice of the lamb in the process, because the toxicant is not lethal until several hours following ingestion.…”

Section: Livestock Protection Collarmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sheep-killing coyotes a continuing dilemma for ranchers

Timm¹,

Connolly²

2001

Cal Ag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Secondary toxicity occurs when Compound 1080 levels are high enough in a poisoned animal to affect other animals that scavenge the carcass. When striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) and golden eagles were fed a diet simulating toxin levels found in coyotes killed by LPCs, all study animals reduced their food intake, and half of the eagles showed sublethal signs of 1080 poisoning (Burns et al 1991).…”

Section: Lethal Selective Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coyote depredation management: current methods and research needs

Mitchell

Jaeger

Barrett

2004

Wildlife Society Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the severity of livestock depredation by coyotes (Canis latrans), reviews evidence implicating breeding (or “alpha”) coyotes in the majority of incidents, evaluates currently used depredation control techniques, and suggests directions for future research. Nonlethal control ranges from varied animal husbandry practices to coyote behavioral modification or sterilization. These methods show significant promise but have not been proven effective in controlled experiments. Therefore, many livestock producers rely on lethal control, and most employ nonselective strategies aimed at local population reduction. Sometimes this approach is effective; other times it is not. This strategy can fail because the alpha coyotes, most likely to kill livestock, are the most resistant to nonselective removal techniques. An alternative is selective lethal control. Livestock Protection Collars (LPCs) and coyote calling are the primary selective lethal approaches. However, LPCs do not have support from the general public due to the toxicant used, and the factors affecting the selectivity of coyote calling have not been studied. The greatest impediments to effective coyote depredation management currently are a scarcity of selective control methods, our lack of understanding of the details of coyote behavioral ecology relative to livestock depredation and wild prey abundance, the absence of solid research examining the effectiveness of different control techniques in a variety of habitats and at multiple predation intensities, and the dearth of rigorous controlled experiments analyzing the operational efficacy of selective removal versus population reduction.

show abstract

Secondary Hazard of Livestock Protection Collars to Skunks and Eagles

Cited by 5 publications

References 5 publications

Participatory Planning of Interventions to Mitigate Human–Wildlife Conflicts

Participatory Planning of Interventions to Mitigate Human–Wildlife Conflicts

Sheep-killing coyotes a continuing dilemma for ranchers

Coyote depredation management: current methods and research needs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About