An interview and article

Here is an article written by Carolyn Campbell for the Alberta Wilderness Association newsletter.

She interviewed Joe Engelhart and myself, about what we do to prevent depredation.

I am excited to be part of a shift in focus from the mindset of " the only good predator, is a dead one", to one, more conservation and co-existence minded.

I believe the only way forward for ranching is to be sustainable and finding ways  to reduce wildlife/human/ranching conflicts.

Thank you Joe Engelhart and Carolyn Campbell.

(You can use the side bar on the article itself to scroll further down, and the magnification icon on the top right of the article to make the letter size bigger, or you can just "pop it out" and it will open in Google docs window)

The strange case of the Romanian Livestock Guardian dogs

When wolves start systematically targeting livestock guardian dogs (LGD),
then something strange is going on.
When a wolf kills a dog in the USA, it almost always makes the news headlines.
(Wolf Kills LGD)

Photo Source:http://www.canineefficiency.com/ Vostinars Carpatins resting in the shade

The anti -wolf groups utilize this to prove how invasive and evil wolves are, the ranching community use this as an example of how helpless they really are in keeping their animals safe from predators, some, animal rights lobbies use this to prove how cruel it is to place dogs in a working situation and hunters use it as a reason to propagate more wolf hunting.

 Very few people stop and look at  the reasons or events, surrounding the  kills,  few people ask the "why" question in these cases or look at the circumstances, leading up to this kill.

The events surrounding the systematic killing of LGD in Romania in 2001-2002, did have some inquiring researches asking; why it was happening and what could be done to prevent this.

The findings on this strange case, are still relevant today, in any country..

I would like to add, that while using this discussion/report of Annette Mertens and Helgo Schneider as a "lead into" my blog, I would like to add  the following points:
I purposely decided to use this report,
 it as it was one of the few pieces I have ever read that did address the aspect of crossbreeding and the possible devastating effects it can have on both LGD and on predator management.
I have not (yet) found an article in  the English language literature that I have read ( and I am not saying I have read everything!) that actually talks about the effects of cross-breeding and the socio -economic aspect that influence the quality of LGD.

 Although, I do not doubt that there are inaccuracies, misinformation and sensitive points in the original report,
I felt that it did not distract on where I wanted to head in my blog.

  Remember, this blog is not a discussion on  the merit of the report,
or the method used to build the report,
 it is not a discussion on Romanian politics or whether Mertens and Schneider were a good researchers or not.

All of those issues are not THE discussion,
I believe the conclusions drawn in this report are accurate for many countries.
  The conclusions about the crossbreeding, quality of dogs and the socio economic impacts,
 are the key to this blog.

So, what is the strange case of the Romanian LGD?
( at the end of this blog you can find the original reference to this article)

In Romania, from January 2001 to October 2002, in an area close to 70 square kilometers, wolves were responsible for the killing of 62 sheep, 7 cattle, 1 kid (goat), 2 foals  and a staggering 186 dogs
(157 adult LGD, 2 pups and 27 smaller dogs ( herding dogs).

Just to compare; over a 20 year time span, about 83 LGD were confirmed wolf kills, in the Rocky Mountain region of the USA (Bangs et al. 2006).
{A Review: The Use of Livestock Protection Dogs in Association with Large Carnivores

in the Rocky Mountains by C. Urbigkit & J. Urbigkit}

.  Some household  incurred more systematic attacks, in certain time periods, than others.

Here are some numbers relating to livestock killed by wolves in this time period:

59% of attacks on livestock happened during the day when the owner was absent

32% at night

9% at dusk or dawn 

Where was  the livestock  during an attack?

79% were free grazing

19% in a wooden enclosure

2% in a barn/stable

The LGD were in the vicinity of the stock in 77% of the attacks
and in 23% the LGD were absent.

Now, some LGD numbers:

Dogs were attacked throughout the year with some peak months.
(Remember, that 186 dogs were killed in a 1.5 year time span) 

84% were adult LGD, the rest small dog and pups

52% of the dogs were running free when attacked

48% while they dogs were chained up

91% of the attacks occurred at night

6% at dusk and dawn

3% in the day

The number of dogs at the household at the time of attacks:

39% had one dog

33% two dogs

77% of the dogs killed were killed close to livestock, while the livestock was left unhurt!

80-100% the dogs were consumed by the wolves.

Some findings: 

·         Wolves preferred households with lesser dogs (which correlates with the findings that number of sheep killed decreased with relative numbers of LGD.

·         The most affected households, were remote and close to the forest ( easy access for wolves).

Photo: www.bbc.co.uk

So, what was going on?

In a nutshell:

Socio-Economic problems

To understand part of the problem one needs to look  at the recent  history of Romania. Up until the 1970’s each household in a rural area had one or more dogs, during the last years of communism, a large “rationalization” occurred; moving rural families off the land and into cities and apartment buildings so that the land could be better utilized and farmed.

This left a vast population of stray dogs left roaming the countryside.
 Many LGD breeding activities were not really controlled by shepherds and the traditional LGD were free to mate with any stray that happened by ( and there were millions of strays).

The resulting pups were still utilized as LGD. Generations of this type of uncontrolled breeding occurred, to the point where very few original, pure bred LGD existed.

These crossbred dogs were smaller than their original purebred ancestor weighing between 25-35kgs (55- 77 lbs). The guarding skills were variable.

The next problem that arose was that the dogs were never actively trained by the shepherds (now this is  a good point to consider, bearing in mind that many ranchers and farmers in the USA and Canada) have been indoctrinated to believe that these dogs need no training and little handling!).
The shepherds just left these pups to roam with the sheep and learn from the other dogs. This fact, according to the researches, was a major issue that influences the quality of the dogs.
Why? Well traditionally the good dogs would be kept in a group (a family pack) and kept all the time with the livestock during the entire year.  This maintained the bond with the stock and with the pack. Unfortunately, many dogs were placed on a chain thought the fall and winter months away from the stock and away from the pack, and because of this, the dogs did not get the opportunity to coordinate themselves into a functional team.
Some of these dog are the relegated to the outskirts of the flock and pack.

Another issues has to do with the health of the dogs, there is no national veterinary service regulating or monitoring the health of dogs.  The dogs are rarely vaccinated or treated for illnesses, resulting high numbers sick and weak dogs in the shepherd camps.

Hunting laws limit the number of LGD that are allowed to be kept in mountain areas with flock.

Due to an increase in poverty in the small livestock breeders, the economic stress on the shepherds is creating a negative cycle in the management of their flocks. These shepherds cannot afford to purchase a good quality pup.

 The costs of veterinary treatments and feed, and a deterioration in the quality of feed being fed to the dogs often leaves the dogs in a undernourished and weaker condition. The dogs are less confident in their abilities and become increasingly scared of predators as they dog realize that physically they are no much.

With this lack of good nutrition the dogs spend more and more time away from the flocks in order to hunt and find additional food sources.

The vulnerability of livestock and their guardian dogs, is dependent on many socio-economic factors. Simply running higher number of LGD   does not represent an effective solution to depredation, unless certain socio economic conditions are met, to allow the livestock keepers to adequately maintain the dogs ( purebred dogs, proper food,  veterinary treatment, and training).
Larger numbers of poor quality dogs is not enough to keep the wolves at bay!

The final conclusions of this report to reduce livestock/carnivore conflict are:
(Quoted directly from the report)

    "A legal background that promotes the conservation of extensive livestock breeding techniques and adequate damage prevention methods.

An agricultural and rural development policy that supports better marketing conditions for small livestock producersAn infrastructure that supports the livestock raisers in assuring the sanitary and veterinary treatments of LGD.

  A governmental strategy to drastically reduce the numbers of stray dogs in the country"

Want to read more?
Here is the bibliography to the article:

Annette Mertens and Helgo Schneider. (2005, 12). What is wrong with Romanian Livestock Guarding Dogs? A Discussion. Carnivore Damage Prevention News, December 2005, pp. 9-13.

Just Google: Romanian Stray dogs for more information on this aspect.

All is not lost:
Many shepherds risked their lives to ensure that good, original  working dogs (and, their livestock) was preserved in a time of political upheaval.
It is a reminder, how dire certain situations can be and how passionate these shepherds were, and are, in holding onto something they regard as necessary and valuable.


Thankfully, there are good initiatives to rectify this problem in Romania.

Ray Dorgelo from Canine Efficency (http://www.canineefficiency.com/),
helps with projects in Romania (in the Carpathian Mountains) to ensure that Shepherds get good quality dogs to help prevent conflicts between wildlife and livestock.

For more information about how the Carpathian dog is being preserved you can visit this websites: carpatinclub.ro and carpatin.net
As a side note, I would also like to add that this problem is not just a Romanian problem,

Similar problems also occurred in Bulgaria ( and probably other East European Countries),  There are programs in place to breed back and preserve the original Karakachan breed.

 Here is the link: Bulgarian Karackachan

*****

So, here is my view on the implications and ramifications of this research and how it can apply to the North American/ Canadian situation,  in reducing conflicts between wolves-livestock and the dogs that guard them.

Here are some of the lessons we can learn from the unusual situation in Romania.

1. The quality of the dogs is very important.
   Random breeding’s, cross breeding of non LGD breeds, all results in a decrease in working ability.
   To have good working LGD there needs to be; selection of desired traits, there needs to be a focus on producing quality dogs who can perform a quality job.
   Cross breeding of non LGD is the beginning of  the decline into poor quality working dogs, a watering down of the genetic traits and can result in the physical decline of the dog.
   Not only that, it also jeopardizes the dog’s life and that of the livestock.
   
   
    If I see an advertisement where the breeder is selling their GP x collie, Anatolian x Aussie or whatever cross as livestock guardian dogs, I shudder. I believe that the breeder is contributing to the decline of LGD in general, he is breeding dogs who will be vulnerable to wolf kills and is misleading future puppy buyers. That breeder is also indirectly contributing to the economic decline of his puppy buyer.
   
   To the buyer of such cross bred pups, it is obvious to me that the buyer has  no clue what a real working LGD needs to do or the traits they need to possess in order to do their job successfully. They are setting themselves, and their stock up for failure. Anyone propagating that their LGD x with a non LGD, makes an awesome LGD, is pulling the "wool over the buyers eyes"
   
   This also has implications for LGD breeders, we need to keep selecting for desirable traits, we need to maintain a level of physical capability and we need to elevate the genetic traits needed to be good LGD.  It is not good enough to merely breed two LGD together, both dogs need to be  quality dogs who are proficient at their jobs. We cannot compromise on good working ability. Down the road it burns the rancher who is trying to keep his stock safe from predators and it burns wildlife management, who have to deal with the negativity that surrounds a wolf  who kills a dog.
   
2. Maintaining the correct numbers of dogs are essential to reduce conflict.
   The one or two dog situation is not providing protection to the livestock. One or two dogs alone is wolf bait. It is not fair to the dog to be expected to work alone. A dog who is alone is easily overwhelmed by the huge task of protecting the livestock and defending it territory. They become less confident, tired and unsure. The dog is no fool, and does realize that it is no match for wolves or a pack of coyotes. I believe that one of the biggest reasons why livestock keepers in the USA and Canada suffer losses to predators is primarily because they are under dogged. Too few dogs, or dogs who are getting to old, allow coyotes to learn that it is possible to be very brazen, it is possible to tire out the dogs and over power them. Now, not every situation warrants a pack of dogs, if your stock are in good fences, close to the house, enclosed in a barn, or you have a low predator load, or you have additional safe guards in place, your stock graze in a controlled area, then you perhaps do not need a pack of 5 dogs to keep your 3 sheep safe. Their is not a magic ratio. But, on a middle to large operation, too few dogs is worse than too many dogs.
   
3. A well-developed (family) pack is essential in providing adequate protection.  They can work in a coordinated way, the dogs have time to rest, patrol, get experience and have the backup they need. They are more confident  and more protective of both their territory, and their fellow pack mates. A stable pack provides constant protection to the livestock, where every dog understands its role in a threatening situation. A stable pack will also keep stray random dogs from breeding with females in the group, and in this way ensure the integrity of the pack.
   
4. Shepherds do need to provide guidance and training to the young dog. This time allows the shepherd to make better breeding decisions, can stop unwanted behaviors such as roughhousing with the stock, roaming, wool pulling or dogs who show a lack of bravery, confidence and will highlight dogs who do not have the pack mentality. The time spent training the dog is an essential part of ensuring the pup does grow up with a strong desire to protect the livestock, the owner and the territory. It builds a bond with the pup and in doing this, the pup will be less inclined to wonder off.
   
5. Good health care. Raising LGD to be successful adults takes time and money. Simple vaccinations, regular deworming go a long way in maintaining the health of the dogs. To extend this, ensuring that the adults being bred are well built and have correct structure, also extends the working life of the dog. It is heartbreaking and financially devastating if a dog gets a debilitating health issue at a young age. Some dogs are being bred to be too bulky, others are not large enough, others have genetic problems such as hip dysplasia, or entropian, all elements that can reduce the working life span of the dog.
   
6. Feed well. A well fed dog will be fit, energetic, will maintain its health and be relaxed and more focused on its job. The dog needs the nutrients to build good muscle tone. Dogs who are on the edge of its nutritional requirements will be less focused on its job and may stray to look for food. The pack will be less stable as food fights will be more frequent and more violent. Feed the best you can.
   
7. A chained dog, on the back forty, without supervision or additional dogs to protect it in wolf country is a sitting duck. A dog that roams far and wide, is food for a hungry wolf. A dog that does not stay in the pasture with the stock is not a LGD, as he is away and therefore unable to protect the stock. A dog that roams is a liability.
   
8. Night corralling stock, preferably away from a forest line provides a smaller area for the dogs to patrol and a barrier to cross for predators. If possible, provide as much human activity at the stock, as this is also a deterrent for the predators. Utilize this time to train young dogs, check stock, feed. A win-win situation.
   
9. Be fair.  It is not fair to place an old dog out with stock where he could be in harms way. It is not fair to overwork a dog and put him in a vulnerable situation or a situation that he cannot be effective despite his best efforts. It is not fair to place a dog who is any way compromised, such as sick, injured, weak or too young in a situation where he could be targeted by predators. It is not fair to the stock, to be under dogged either.
   
10. And the final, and perhaps most important point to consider in reducing wildlife/ livestock conflicts is the economic situation that the livestock keeper is in.
    Perhaps, this is the key point for wildlife managers and Government organizations to consider in wildlife management, if the livestock owner is not making money, there will never be a resolution in wildlife/livestock conflicts.
    It cuts on both sides.
    The keeper cannot afford to put in good dogs, or feed a pack, or maintain their health, he will sell his best pups to make money and  a negative downward cycle will start. The decline in quality dogs will could mean a weakness that predators can utilise. This in turn will trigger more lethal controls, bounties, frustration and of course an unwillingness to cooperate in any wildlife management programs. The livestock keeper will not be able to afford better fencing, or utilize other non lethal methods to deter predators. He may have to work out, resulting in less time spent with the stock and dogs.
    
    I think initiatives such as selling of locally produced products, consumer awareness, labels such as Organic or Wildlife Friendly, access to good markets and infrastructure. Id improvements can be made in the economic situation of shepherds, this may be the  road to a higher tolerance of predators, wildlife management and co-existence in general.
    A positive situation where both the producer and the wild life can prosper.

We are in a unique situation here in Canada and the USA as we have no tradition in  utilizing LGD, and we have no native breeds of LGD.

 In fact, the rise of use of LGD has only been a recent event (the last 40 year or so).
The Old World knowledge has just not been available to many producers here and everything we know about LGD, has been told to us by a number of researchers.
 Information on good breeding and selection, the number of dogs to run, how to raise them, how to train them needs to be examined and molded to fit the New World’s with its unique challenges.

I, would like to add that I have not covered every aspect of this discussion (yet) and that I would like to return to this in a few blogs down the road.

Issues, that pertain perhaps to the wolf's perspective, such as:

-  wolf territorial conflicts with LGD need to be looked at, as this may be a reason for wolf/LGD conflicts here in North America.

-  perhaps, those wolves, came to regard the dogs as a food source, due to the large number of stray dogs roaming rural Romania.
 The wolves did consume the dogs in almost every case.

There is still so much to learn, to examine and to discuss,
 I am sure the last word is not said on this topic!

Have a good weekend!

Wildlife

I like lists,
so here is a list of the wild animals I have seen this past week.

-White tail deer
- More white tails

- Elk

- Mule deer

- Coyote

- Fox

- Bald eagle

- Raven

- Black Bear

- Great Horned Owl ( he is regular..)

and this fellow:

The animals I saw this week killed on the highway are
a white tail deer and 2 young moose.
I hope it was not this one.

Hope you have a wild day!!

A gift in the post

I love to read.

This week I received a lovely gift from one of my favorite researchers and writers; Dr Cristina Eisenberg.
Thank you so much for sending me a copy of your latest book!!

The Carnivore Way: Coexisting with and conserving North America's predators.

Image from: http://www.northeastwolf.org/blog/category/all

As many of you know nature, wildlife and of course the my continued quest for fostering more co-existence between ranching and predators are important to me.
In fact, it is not just important to me,
but, I also believe that finding the balance of co-existence, is vital to our ecosystems,
some argue that it is vital to our survival.

I think this book will be close to my heart and look forward to reading it.

THANK YOU CRISTINA!!

This is what Island Press, the publisher says about this book:

"What would it be like to live in a world with no predators roaming our landscapes? Would their elimination, which humans have sought with ever greater urgency in recent times, bring about a pastoral, peaceful human civilization? Or in fact is their existence critical to our own, and do we need to be doing more to assure their health and the health of the landscapes they need to thrive?

In The Carnivore Way, Cristina Eisenberg argues compellingly for the necessity of top predators in large, undisturbed landscapes, and how a continental-long corridor—a “carnivore way”—provides the room they need to roam and connected landscapes that allow them to disperse. Eisenberg follows the footsteps of six large carnivores—wolves, grizzly bears, lynx, jaguars, wolverines, and cougars—on a 7,500-mile wildlife corridor from Alaska to Mexico along the Rocky Mountains. Backed by robust science, she shows how their well-being is a critical factor in sustaining healthy landscapes and how it is possible for humans and large carnivores to coexist peacefully and even to thrive.

University students in natural resource science programs, resource managers, conservation organizations, and anyone curious about carnivore ecology and management in a changing world will find a thoughtful guide to large carnivore conservation that dispels long-held myths about their ecology and contributions to healthy, resilient landscapes."

This book is available through Amazon, Barnes, Island Press etc.

Dog food

Feeding a pack of livestock guardian dogs can be expensive.
However there are a number of ways to help reduce the overall feeding costs.
This is how we “do it.”
How we "do it" does not mean to say how you should do it.
Each one to their own choices and decisions.

Feeding dogs is always regarded as a “hot topic” among dog breeders and dog owners. 

Some swear by certain brands, others by raw feeding, yet others by “traditional” foods that dogs would eat in their land of origin.

I have the simple belief to feed what we have,
what is available,
 as best as we economically can,
and as naturally possible.

I am not influenced by fads, great marketing, or clever packaging of big brand names of dog food.
In fact, I am actually fairly adverse to these gimmicks in the dog food industry.
I like to keep it simple and affordable.

So, this is what we do most of the time with our adult dogs.
We are feeding 8 Sarplaninac dogs,that is over 800 lbs. of dog,
 every day.
(Add some more, for all the border collies, too...)

For the most part, their diet consists of raw feeding.
By raw feeding, I mean we feed whole carcasses cut up for our dogs.
We have a livestock ranch, and where you have livestock, you also have dead stock.
As we check all our animals twice daily, if we have a dead sheep or cow,
we usually find it in a “fairly fresh” state.
Dogs have evolved and have adapted to many types of diets, their stomach acid is very powerful, and they are able to digest very stinky, rotten meat without too many ill side effects.
We do not however, feed very stinky rotten meat,
 the dogs will sometimes bury it, or hide it and then dig up later to chew on again.

Lucy with her beef

We will take the dead animal (whose body has been protected by the dogs until we arrive) and freeze it.
We have a freezer dedicated to dog food.
The sheep are frozen for at least 2 weeks.
If we have lambs/chickens/calves who die, they too end up in the freezer.
In the winter it is very convenient, with temperatures below minus 20, we can easily freeze the carcasses outside and do not need the freezer (advantages to living in Canada!).

After a violent bull fight we were left with 3 dead, they became the winter food for the dogs. 

After being frozen for a few weeks (we do this to kill the tapeworm that causes C-Ovis in sheep),
Eric will take his chainsaw and just cut the sheep up into thick slices.

Eric cutting up a bull for the dogs.

 The whole carcass gets used--guts, stomach, bones, and all.
Usually these pieces are pretty chunky so the dogs may only get fed once every two days.

Putting it into an economic perspective:
An 18 kg bag of kibble costs about $40 per bag and our dogs eat a bag every 2 days.
A dead ewe has $0 value, as she is dead.
When utilized for the dogs, as food, she has a value.
Our dogs eat 3-4 days from her.
The dead sheep is now saving us $60-$80 in feed costs.

So, instead of having a loss from the dead animal we actually "profit" from her death.

Many people warn us that once the dogs have “tasted lamb” or "tasted blood" they will not be reliable as LGDs anymore.
This is not true; the dogs can clearly distinguish between a live animal and a dead animal.
They will protect a carcass, and then when cut up and offered as a meal a few weeks later, will willingly eat it then.

Lucy  protecting a dead sheep carcass from ravens and other predators.

 We do not leave whole carcasses out for the dogs to eat from.
We like to know “what” the animal died from, so do not want the dogs to scavenge on carcasses.

By removing and feeding the dead stock we remove any attractants for predators.
If there are no carcasses to dig up or scavenge on, most predators will move on.
In studies it has been found that feeding off dead animal piles encourages predators to hang around,
who will then more likely start predating on livestock.
Removing carcasses or dead piles,
can decrease predation by 55 times!
If we do have a dead animal that we will not feed,
we compost that carcass to dispose of it.

If we have no dead stock available, we may choose to butcher some cull animals for the dogs.
This could be an old ewe, or one with a bad udder or one who is too thin, in fact, anyone who is on the cull list. We will slaughter the cull and proceed with freezing and later cutting.

Fena enjoying some elk ribs.

 The value of a cull animal is higher as dog food than it is to sell her.
Transport costs, auction costs, and commission costs are simply too high for the amount you will make from selling her.
Feeding her to the dogs is economically a better choice.
Dog kibble is expensive, feeding fresh mutton is cheap and is a high value food.

Shadow with a day or two's worth of meat.

 Not only that, I would also argue that it is better for the welfare of that cull animal,
who does not have to undergo the stress of a 7 hour transport,
going through an auction barn,
 being shipped to a slaughter plant possibly on the other side of Canada.
She simply and humanely gets killed right here at the ranch where she was born and has spent her life.

Another added value is that you are feeding your dogs a high quality (local) diet,
better than kibble made in some far away country, with unknown ingredients, risk of recalls, and poor processing.

At certain times of the year, one can often collect hunting scraps and get butchering remains.
We have laying hens so a few eggs can also be added to their diet as needed.

Hunting scraps

There are times when we do feed kibble, our dogs are flexible, and they eat what they are offered.
Sometimes, when travelling it is convenient to feed kibble rather than taking some sheep chunks along with us.

When we do feed kibble, we feed a mid range kibble,
we do not fuss about corn gluten or animal by products.
We feed a standard maintenance kibble.
However, feeding kibble in among hundreds of sheep is quite a chore,
 as the sheep really like and want to eat the kibble!

Our dogs are healthy, fit, and energetic, have no allergies, have great coats and strong clean teeth, and are never ill.
Is their diet balanced?
Well, I like to believe so, based on their health and their appearance.
I feed to need.
More work, very cold, then the dogs get more.

When feeding pups, I will raise them on a raw diet and also feed them kibble so that they can transition well into a home that may not be feeding a raw diet.
The pups get a standard (Purina) puppy food, that is easily obtainable all over. 

I believe the benefits of feeding old and dead stock are high.
The only disadvantage may be that the cutting up part is a little gory.

Going from carcass to dog food.

 Seeing the dogs enjoying a healthy meal of mutton or beef, knowing we have recycled, made the best economic decision (rather than dumping the dead, we create a value for that dead animal), made a humane choice for the cull animal, and removed attractants for wildlife
makes this way of feeding a good choice.
As the old saying goes, “Waste not, want not.”

Vuk, sheer bliss.

Non lethal measures to protect livestock turns out to be cheaper than lethal control

A 3 year study conducted on South African livestock farms, found that non lethal control to mitigate conflict with wild life was cheaper than traditional lethal control.

Well, this is no surprise to me and I am so happy that more people are researching this, as I not only believe this is a more sustainable way to ranch, is better for the wildlife and the environment,
and it seems also be better for the rancher too!


To read the whole article ( this is just a tidbit) please follow THIS link and open the pdf attachment on that page.

Dead or alive? Comparing costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal human–wildlife conflict mitigation on

livestock farms

J . S . MCMA N U S, A. J. DI C K M A N, D. GA Y N O R, B. H. SM U T S and D. W. MA C D O N A L D

Abstract: Livestock depredation has implications for conservation and agronomy; it can be costly for farmers and can prompt retaliatory killing of carnivores. Lethal control measures are readily available and are reportedly perceived to be cheaper, more practical and more effective than nonlethal methods. However, the costs and efficacy of lethal vs non-lethal approaches have rarely been compared formally.

We conducted a 3-year study on 11 South African livestock farms, examining costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal conflict mitigation methods. Farmers used existing lethal control in the first year and switched to guardian animals (dogs Canis familiaris and alpacas Lama pacos) or livestock protection collars for the following 2 years. During the first year the mean cost of livestock protection was USD 3.30 per head of stock and the mean cost of depredation was USD 20.11 per head of stock. In the first year of non-lethal

control the combined implementation and running costs were similar to those of lethal control (USD 3.08 per head). However, the mean cost of depredation decreased by 69.3%, to USD 6.52 per head. In the second year of non-lethal control the running costs (USD 0.43 per head) were significantly lower than in previous years and depredation costs decreased further, to USD 5.49 per head. Our results suggest that non-lethal methods of human–wildlife conflict mitigation can reduce depredation and can be economically advantageous compared to lethal methods of predator control.

Words, comments and name calling

Words are strange things, 

 the power they hold is immense.
This blog is mostly about this power,
the associations we form and

a reaction to a Facebook comment.

The associations we make with words, are directly linked to what our parents teach us. 

Calling a penis a penis is embarrassing,
talking about sex and other “difficult topics”
 is just easier when a penis
becomes a …willy.

Words shape how we think about certain topics.

Language is powerful, and easily creates a mental picture,
or
 results in a negative/positive attitude towards a certain subject. 

Racism is full of examples where,
 the use of specific words,
 are used to create a negative image of the person or race involved.

 Associations with certain words soon evolve into “beliefs".

If we say something often enough,
we actually start believing what we say.

Now, onto the power of words in relation to predators

and our tenacious attitude towards them.

Does our attitude towards predators simply depend on the  way we talk about
or describe them?

Think of the word “coyote”,

 for most people when you say the word "coyote",
most  think immediately of the smaller, wild canine.

 Add in the word “marauding” or “killer”,
then the mental image that is created..
becomes heavily associated with negativity,

and,
 a feeling of slight fear and apprehension enters our thoughts.

This form of describing animals is often,
 the initial introduction we have as kids,
 to many predators;
“the big bad wolf” the “man eating Tigers”, “marauding coyotes”
all imply evil,
something to be feared and a direct danger to ourselves.

 The media world lives off the use of these emotive evoking words.

If the only way we ever hear a coyote being described is as being
evil, killer, varmint etc,
then soon,
 this becomes the mental image we create about  the animal.
 The feelings created by the association of these words,
 soon becomes our belief pattern...
irregardless of the fact,
 that we may never have met a people killing coyote before.

Although I was raised with willy's, rather than penises,
 I was always told that a wolf is a wolf,
a jackal is a jackal,
and,

 a lion, is a lion.
Simple and  neutral.
Never vilified.

I cannot remember my parents ever using negative words to describe any wildlife.

 I believe this attitude and neutrality has shaped me, and that way I see animals.
I never had fear ingrained in me;
I did not grow up believing that all wolves were bad,
and that all coyotes are marauders.

 I wonder,
if this is why so many people have an irrational fear towards predators
simply because of the language used to describe them?

Did, Little Miss Red Ridinghood,
really cause so much damage,
 that we have an irrational hatred towards wolves because of this fairy tale?

I believe,
 if we want to strive for co-existence,
then attitudes needs to change,
we can only change attitudes,
 if we can change the way we think about and describe things.

If we can leave out words such as killer coyotes, and marauding packs,
perhaps the first step can be made towards co-existence! 

So, this leads me to a recent post on Facebook,
this comment,
 instigated, this blog post. 

I did edit this post, I took out  names and corrected some spelling:

They (coyotes) are increasing in numbers here in TX and they are attacking and killing people in the Houston suburbs, who venture outside to save their little dogs or cats who come under attack. Feeding coyotes is the worst possible suggestion. They already have no fear, are experienced killers and when fed or when they find a reliable source of food their numbers explode. For the first time ever in 35 plus years of owning livestock they found my dog food bins on the feed shed and ripped them apart. The female who kept tearing into my feed room now has a pack of 15 to 20 marauders constantly crossing the part of my property that is un-fenced and without a LGD. I now walk out my door with a pistol or a shotgun after several recent deaths just south of here that was the result of coyote attacks on elderly people or small children playing. I have invested in spring loaded coyote proof barrels with lock down lids for my feed. Now they come in daylight hours within several feet of my door. Fencing the rest of my property so that my Akbash can protect our entire place is a greater priority than ever before my 88yr old father in law meets with some tragedy. I've had just about all the coyote sympathy I can stand.......

I read such posts with a sense of amazement..
(and this post is fairly mild in comparison to others I have read)

the descriptive adjectives, the blatant untruths and the ingrained fear/hatred
towards coyotes just astounds me.

 I did a few internet searches, looked up some stats to try and verify the allegations in this comment.

I did numerous  searches for "coyotes killing people in the Houston suburbs", "deaths by coyotes",  etc
 I did not find one case in Houston.
 I then looked up for all Texas..
and then USA..
and could also not find evidence that coyotes were "killing people" in the numbers suggested by this poster.

  If a coyote kills a person it makes headline news, no matter where they are.
Any wildlife, killing a person makes the evening news.

What I did find was;
only two fatal coyote attacks have been recently documented by experts:
 In August, 1981, a coyote attacked a 3 year old child in California and in October 2009, a 19-year-old Canadian women was killed by two coyotes.
There have been more documented cases of coyote bites and attacks,
 and also a few in Texas, in the last few years
however,
this statement made by the poster:

They are increasing in numbers here in TX and they are attacking and killing people in the Houston suburbsand,
after several recent deaths just south of here that was the result of coyote attacks on elderly people or small children playing

is simply not true.

I am not ignorant to the fact that coyotes kill livestock,
nor that they can serious injure a child.
I am not blind to the damage they can cause.
I am aware of the "nature of the beast".
 You have to respect the wildness of a wild animal,
but surely,
 rationality and common sense must also prevail?

What oozes from this statement is the irrational fear,
the negativity in the description and of course the loathing of  the coyote.
I wonder if the poster ever had "sympathy" for a coyote?

When I see a coyote, I view it as a mouse catcher extraordinaire,
I see an animal that is smart, intelligent and doing what it was meant to do.
I do not have "sympathy" for this animal,
it does not need sympathy.

It is simply a hunter.

Not all coyotes are “experienced killers”.
Killing is a learned behavior; the pups need to learn how to kill sheep.
Unprotected livestock creates a “learning opportunity”.
 It is very difficult to teach a coyote to stop killing your livestock once it has learned how to do so,
it is not that they are evil, or demonic,
it is simply, a coyote being a coyote.

 Preventing them from learning this behavior in the first place,
 is a very important part of the process of keeping your stock safe.

I do agree with the poster that feeding wildlife is a very bad idea and should be avoided; improving fencing to allow the dog (s) to patrol more,
 is an excellent step to take to prevent conflicts between coyotes and stock.

I would like to hear what people do to promote co-existence,
however making unfounded, irrational and fear based statements adds nothing to the conversation.

Mouse killing cats?
Now, that is another story..

Relastionships

Just let me state upfront that:

1. I am not a scientist, biologist or zoologist

2. What I am about to write are my thoughts and opinions,
and these may be wrong!

The relationship between predators and prey is fragile one and one perhaps not yet fully understood.
The ecology of fear, and the trophic cascade effect of predators on both the prey and their ecosystem are relatively fresh ideas, these are fascinating reads!
( The Wolfstooth, Cristina Eisenberg amongst others..)

 Not every interaction between predators and prey results in predation.

Predators need however, to stay in fairly close contact with their prey,

  to ensure a constant supply of food.

You will see lions drinking side by side with zebra, at a pool in Africa,
or cheetahs walking past herds,
where the prey is wary, but not flighty.

Many times, predators will just be passing through,
 observing
and resting close to the prey animal.

This all gets me thinking about the relationship between the coyotes and our sheep.

A few months back I got a call from a sheep rancher in central Alberta.
He runs a fairly large herd and has an older Great Pyrenees dog in with his stock
He was concerned about what he was observing.
 The coyotes would be coming within about 50 m of the flock
and the guardian dog did not seem to respond to this anymore.

Sure, if the coyotes came in closer the dog would get up and bark.
According to the owner, the dog was just not so into chasing off the coyotes.

Now, in my opinion there are a number of things going on here.

 1.Coyotes are the masters of observation, they have all day to watch and learn what we are doing, they learn our routines, our patterns and even the habits of our stock and guardian dogs.
In all likely hood these coyotes are just checking out what is  going on.
They are not in predatory mode (yet)
and just scoping out the situation.
2. This dog was older and alone. ( I will return to this point a little later)
3. The coyotes are probably in the process of habituating both the dog and the stock to their presence.

Habituation is a subtle process, it can be defined as

"Habituation is a decrease in response to a stimulus after repeated presentations. As a procedure, habituation is the repeated presentation (the Coyote) of an eliciting stimulus ( the dog chasing) that results in the decline of the elicited behavior (dog ignoring the coyote) (the process of habituation)."The American Heritage® Science Dictionary

Without the coyotes behaving in a predatory manner, the stock and the dog learns to disregard the presence of the coyotes. 

The dog may have initially barked at, or chased off  the coyote,
 however after time the dog got tired and accustomed to the presence of the coyotes.
Slowly, the dog started reacting less and less to the presence of the coyotes.
This could be due to the fact that it was alone and older.

One of the biggest errors I see with sheep ranchers is that they
do not have enough guardian dogs out doing the rounds.

One dog is never enough, the expectation that one dog can protect the livestock is simply not feasible.
In time the dog will become exhausted and will even become a target for predators.
A dog alone has no back up, no rest and will lose confidence if predators repeatedly test the dog.
It is the proverbial "sitting duck".

In some instances two dogs may suffice, depending on the number of livestock, terrain, predator load and other measures implemented to discourage predation.

Running a "pack" of dogs has a whole number of advantages:
-more guardian potential for your flock
-young dogs are trained and raised within the safety of the pack
-the dogs create their own territory and will drive off intruders
-more dogs will divide the jobs of perimeter patrol and close up protection
-they give the predators less chance to "habituate"
-more fresh dogs, the dogs do not get played out as easily
-they give each other  back up

It also has its disadvantages ( feed costs, naughty behaviour, roaming) however,
the advantages of having more dogs, far outweighs the negatives.

It is a number game, to have sufficient protection for your flock, you need enough dogs.
The most efficient pack is one that is built up of various ages, similarly to a wild canid pack.
You have a few older adults, some younger adults, a teenager or two and an up and coming pup.

The breed of guardian dog also has an impact on how the dogs react and behave,
however that discussion will need to wait for another blog sometime.

So, on to our situation:
I have seen this  ( habituationg) behaviour in the local coyotes here.

They regularly check out what we are doing, if we move the stock, change our patterns the coyotes come and see what has happened and what has changed.

 A few weeks back  I noticed a coyote coming around all times of day, staying way beyond the fence, but checking things out.
(We only had two dogs in the flock at that stage).

Not long after that, I found the same coyote laying on a bale watching what was going on.

A few days later, the same coyote was laying on a bale with the sheep.
There was a progression in the coyote's behaviour and his boldness.
I blogged about it  HERE and what our response was to this increased boldness.

I needed to up the dog numbers,

and thankfully I have some "spares" kicking around.

Last weekend, things came to a head, with the dogs killing a coyote in the night corral of the ewes.

Due to the large amounts of snow,
 we have now moved the ewes into another pasture,
 this is going to be the 2013/14 winter corral.

This week, we have seen more coyote activity again.
A large male coyote ( I am assuming the mate of the female) has been coming around, checking things out,
patrolling the fence line and laying on the bales at the cows.

I know that wolves will often leave a killed coyote on a well used trail as a possible warning to other coyotes,
so, I decided to leave the dead coyote on a well used trail in the bush hoping that this too will warn the other coyote to keep his distance.
We will observe and watch
and if needs be we will add in another dog or two to ensure adequet protection and maximise discouragement.

Every morning we let the sheep out of the corral so that they can look and dig for some grass
 and can nibble on some bales.
Leading the way is guardian dog VUK.
He is the black dot upfront.

He goes ahead and the ewes will follow him out.
This behaviour of the dogs going ahead and "sweeping" an area clean is what we like to see.
They will move any predators out of the area where the sheep are moving into.

Now, I have always said, even with dogs, and fences, and night corralling, and carcass removal etc,
it is an illusion to think that no predation will ever take place.
It is also an illusion to think that no deaths will occur.
Sometimes the sheep get killed, or our dogs get injured and occassionly a predator will die.

However, it is our responsibility to do everything in our power to reduce the chance of conflict,
and discourage predators from hanging around our stock.
Having enough dogs to be able to protect the flock,
(and to ensure the dogs safety)
 is one of the most important management factors we implement on our ranch.

WHAT??

..is where I left  off on my last blog.

As I was mooching around and snapping the odd random photo on the ranch,
I looked up to see a coyote laying on a bale.
Nothing really unusual,
as  the coyotes lay on the bales watching what we do quite often.

What did rather surprise me is that this coyote was laying on a bale,
in the middle of the pasture where the sheep were grazing!

Now, just because we do not kill,  shoot, hunt, trap, snare any predators on our place,
it does not mean that we have to tolerate bad behaviour on the part of the predators.

I want to co-exist, but they do need to respect my sheep's personal space.

And, this  intrusion is a little too close for comfort.

Now, our ewes have pretty much the run of the back half of our place.
They are roaming around about 320 acres of heavy bush and some pastures  eating off the second cut alfalfa hay before winter sets in.

This area is thick with predators.

The ewes

 It is not that we don't have enough guardian dogs out there,
the problem is more of a  logistical nature.

We have 7 active sarplaninac guardian dogs,
however here is what I am dealing with:

Fena is out of action because of her pups.
Katcha and Shadow have been in with the ewes but that needs to change.. ( see below)

Katcha and Lucy dislike each other, they like to fight at times.
Vuk and Lucy are in with the lambs.
Mali is in with the rams.
Beli was not in with anyone,
 as he and Vuk cannot be close to each other.
They will make every attempt at killing each other if given the opportunity.
I generally like to have a pasture of two separating these two!
Shadow  and Mali are not yet mature enough for the big jobs,
and Mali is going through some "puberty"  issues that need working on.
To top it all off Katcha is in season and will need to be moved away from the boys.

So, in order to thwart any intentions of the coyotes making an easy meal of our ewes,
 I needed to add in some proverbial "BIG GUNS".

That means rearranging the dogs to be more effective.
So, Katcha moved out because of her impending heat, she is in with the rams.
( We want the boy's minds to stay on the job at hand).
Mali is in another group of rams, as she still needs a little supervision.
Vuk was moved to another alfalfa pasture with "his couple hundred lambs"

Vuk

Fena was releived of her motherhood duties to come and join the team.
Lucy was taken from the partnership with Vuk, and moved to the ewes.
Beli was added in.
Shadow stayed where he was.

The A- Team is now Beli, Fena, Lucy and Shadow.
Let me introduce each of these dogs.

From left to right: Lucy, Fena, Beli and Shadow (keeping a respectful distance from Beli)

Beli is our BWD ( Big White Dog).

He is an active coyote chaser,
he is the oldest adult male here, he was been in some skirmishes and knows the drill.
He likes to patrol, checks in with the ewes and is  the "muscle" in this mix.

Beli

Fena, is the spotter, the sniper.



She is the most experienced female on this place.
She can spot a coyote a mile away, she knows exactly where the coyotes hang out,
 what their routes are and is constantly watching out for them.
Plotting and planninng.
Very intelligent, reliable, calm and intuitive.

Fena

She is  the one to warn of danger,
when she barks, the others pay attention!
She uses this sometimes as a distraction, when another dog has a nice bone and she wants it,
she will walk off, peer into the bush, growl and warn,
the others come running and she sneaks back to get the bone.
I regard her very much as the brains of this security department.

Then we have Lucy, the daughter of Fena and Beli.



Another outstanding dog, she is alert, willing, sharp, attentive.
She knows the drill, gets along with most of the other dogs (except for Katcha).
A great, reliable worker.
She is next in line for the top dog position here.

Lucy

Finally, we have Shadow.
Sigh.
What must I say?



He is still a bit immature,
does not know the ways of Wile E Coyote yet.
This is his opportunity to wake up..



to learn, to shine..

Shadow

Every night the all the sheep and lambs are night corralled,
this makes  the work for the dogs easier,
and gives me more peace of mind.

By night corralling,
the chance of being predated on is reduced
by 79-94% (according to scientiests in Europe)
add in some good dogs and  a few electric fences
and, the odds are stacked in favour of  the sheep.

Since, I have readjusted things on our place,
I have not seen a coyote on a bale for the last few days.

More dog power,
a management adjustment and things are back to being orderly.

A bit more of this..

And, it was time to move on for this coyote..