- Author: Dan Macon
Note: this is the second in a series of posts on nonlethal livestock protection tools. Click here to see the first in the series. Both posts are adapted from:
Macon, D.K, R.A. Baldwin, D.F. Lile, J. Stackhouse, C.K. Rivers, T. Saitone, T.K. Schohr, L.K. Snell, J. Harper, R. Ingram, K. Rodrigues, L. Macaulay, and L.M. Roche. IN PRESS. Livestock protection tools for California ranchers. Oakland: University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 8598 (in press).
Livestock death loss to predators is typically much lower than loss from disease and natural causes (based on USDA data and my own surveys of California ranchers). Even so, predators can present significant localized challenges – and for many ranchers, a single loss to a predator may be one too many. As I mentioned in my previous post, indirect losses (mostly stress-induced production problems and added labor) may be more significant in economic terms than death losses (see Ramler et al. 2014).
For me, as a small-scale sheep producer, livestock protection tools are important for a number of reasons in addition to preventing death losses. Since we graze our sheep on rangelands and pastures that are 3-10 miles from our home, I can't watch them 24-7. Livestock protection tools can alter human behavior, alter livestock husbandry practices, alter predator behavior and/or provide disruptive or aversive stimuli to predators (Shivik 2004). As with any management tool, my selection of specific nonlethal tools depends on efficacy, cost-benefit considerations, public perceptions (including market forces that may increase demand for predator coexistence), and my own attitudes toward and confidence in the methods.
In this post, we'll examine several tools that have been suggested for use in wolf country. As with the tools I discussed last week (guardian animals and electric temporary electric fencing), the efficacy of these tools depends on a number of the factors outlined above.
Attractant Removal: Many predators are also opportunistic scavengers; therefore, a dead animal may attract predators into an area currently being grazed by livestock. Attractant removal involves the removal and disposal of dead livestock, as well as the removal of sick or injured livestock. These strategies can reduce attraction to areas used by livestock and may avoid giving predators a taste for livestock (Wilbanks 1995). Observational evidence in the northern Rocky Mountains and on the Modoc Plateau suggests wolves that are attracted to bone yards may be more likely to kill cattle or sheep in adjacent areas (T. Kaminski, pers. comm., 2016). Bone yards may also attract livestock guardian dogs away from the livestock they are protecting (N. East, pers. comm., 2016).
Anyone who's tried to dispose of the carcass of a 2000-pound bull that managed to die 15 miles from the nearest dirt road will know that this tool presents a number of logistical challenges. Many times, we don't find a carcass before it's discovered by scavengers. Even if we can get the carcass to the road, the cost of transport and disposal in a rendering facility may be cost prohibitive. Burying livestock carcasses is currently legally prohibited in California (Antonelli et al. 2016), as is the composting of mammalian flesh (CalRecycle 2017). In light of these challenges, ranchers might consider moving a carcass as far away from livestock as possible.
Fladry or Turbo Fladry: Believe it nor not, flapping flags hung at the right height can deter wolves. Fladry is a series of cloth or plastic flags attached to a rope or wire that creates a novel visual stimulus wolves find uniquely frightening (Bangs et al. 2006). Over time, wolves may become habituated to fladry, willingly crossing fladry barriers to kill livestock (Musiani et al. 2003). This study also found that fladry may push wolves to neighboring ranches or unprotected pastures. Turbo fladry (electrified poly-wire with flags, powered by a standard electric fence energizer) may be as much as 2 to 10 times more effective than non-electrified barriers (Lance et al. 2010). I would think that fladry may be a useful tool in smaller-scale pasture settings (e.g., heifer calving pastures or sheep bedding grounds). Fladry may not be an effective deterrent for predators other than wolves (Davidson-Nelson and Gehring 2010), although one study has suggested fladry may deter coyotes as well (Young et al. 2015a). If you want to try turbo fladry, USDA Wildlife Services has several miles of it available to loan to ranchers – call the Wildlife Services state office at (916) 979-2675 for more information.
Night Penning: Night penning is exactly what it sounds like – it involves bringing livestock into a secure pen at night. Night penning (and to a lesser extent, simply night gathering) sheep can be effective in reducing wolf predation, especially when used in conjunction with livestock guardian dogs and/or human presence (Espuno et al. 2004). While night penning can provide protection during vulnerable periods, it comes at the cost of additional labor and facility construction and maintenance (Wilbanks 1995). In my experience, night penning works with small groups of animals (for 4-H or FFA projects, for example); it simply isn't practical in extensive operations.
Alarms/Scare Devices: Some predators seem to be afraid of novel stimuli. Strobe lights, propane cannons, and siren devices (including radio- and motion-activated guard devices) may temporarily displace or confuse predators (Bangs et al. 2006). Early research into battery-operated strobe or siren devices in fenced-pasture sheep operations across the western United States found that these devices deterred coyotes for up to 91 days and reduced lamb losses an estimated 44 to 95% (Linhart 1984; Linhart et al. 1992). However, habituation can be a problem if these devices are randomly—rather than behaviorally—activated (Shivik and Martin 2001). On the other hand, preliminary research at the University of California Hopland Research and Extension Center (Mendocino County) indicated mixed results with a new type of strobe light that emits random patterns of flashing light (trademarked as FoxLights). While initial results suggest FoxLights may be effective in deterring fox predation, the data collected so far do not support hypotheses of reduced livestock predation by coyotes, black bears, or mountain lions (McInturff et al. 2016).
In my next post, I'll discuss research and personal experience regarding the effectiveness of human presence (herders or range riders), as well as the importance of adapting these strategies to changing conditions. I hope others will share their experiences with these tools, as well!
Be sure to check out the Livestock-Predator Information Hub at http://rangelands.ucdavis.edu/predator-hub/!
- Author: Dan Macon
Legal restrictions and public perception regarding lethal predator control make nonlethal livestock protection tools critical for ranchers and small-scale livestock owners alike. Equally as important, many producers (myself included) emphasize co-existence – part of what I enjoy about grazing sheep in our foothill rangelands is the opportunity to be around wildlife. For those of us who cannot be with our livestock around the clock (that would include most of us, I presume!), these tools can also offer peace of mind.
Over the next several months, my Ranching in the Sierra Foothills blog will highlight information from a forthcoming UC publication on livestock protection tools. These blog posts, which reflect both research-based knowledge and real-world experience, are intended to help ranchers and small-scale livestock owners evaluate the types of tools that may fit their site-specific needs. In this post, I'll briefly describe two of the tools that we use in our pasture-based sheep operation near Auburn.
Livestock Guardian Animals: Dogs, donkeys, and llamas are the most commonly used guardian animals. Research (and
Temporary Electric Fencing: Fences can either be physical barriers (like field fencing) or psychological barriers (like electric fencing). In my experiences, few (if any) fences are 100 percent effective. An adult coyote can squeeze through a 4”x6” opening; a mountain lion can scale a 6-foot fence. In our sheep operation, we've had good success using 42” electro-net fencing. These fences, which come in 164-foot sections, feature electrified horizontal poly wires and plastic stays between posts. We use battery powered fence energizers, and I should note that these electro-nets take significantly more power than smooth-wire electric fences (I like to have at least 0.25 joules per net – in other words, a 3-joule energizer is needed to power 12 sections of fence). Research in Montana suggests that electro-net can significantly reduce coyote intrusion into paddocks (Matchett et al. 2013). While I've seen a coyote jump my electro-net fencing while I was building a paddock, I've never observed a coyote inside a paddock once it was electrified (in more than a dozen years of using electro-net fencing extensively).
Obviously, these (and other) livestock protection tools have costs associated with them. Ranchers – and small-scale livestock owners – must compare the costs of these tools with the protection benefits. Costs are easy to tally; benefits are more challenging – after all, how can I measure the number of livestock NOT killed by predators. That said, site- and operation-specific combinations of these tools seem to prevent direct losses, and may reduce indirect impacts in some production systems as well (Stone et al. 2017).
In my next post, I'll discuss several more livestock protection tools, including attractant removal, night penning and alarm/scare devices. I hope other producers will share their experiences with livestock protection tools, as well! In the meantime, be sure to check out the Livestock-Predator Information Hub at http://rangelands.ucdavis.edu/predator-hub/.
References
Andelt WF. (2004). Use of livestock guarding dogs for reducing predation on domestic sheep. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 20:55-62.
Breck S. (2004). Minimizing carnivore-livestock conflict: the importance and process of research in the search for coexistence. In N Fascione A Delach ME Smith (Eds.), People and Predators: From Conflict to Coexistence. (13-27). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gehring T et al. (2010a). Utility of livestock-protection dogs for deterring wildlife from cattle farmers. USDA National Wildlife Research Center – Staff Publications. Paper 1344. (Available at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2342&context=icwdm_usdanwrc).
Matchett MR Breck SW and Callon J. (2013). Efficacy of electronet fencing for excluding coyotes: a case study for enhancing production of black-footed ferrets. USDA National Wildlife Research Center – Staff Publications. Paper 1522.
Ramler J et al. (2014). Crying wolf? A spatial analysis of wolf location and depredations on calf weight. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 96(3):631-656.
Stone SA et al. (2017). Adaptive use of nonlethal strategies for minimizing wolf-sheep conflict in Idaho. Journal of Mammalogy. 98(1):33-44.
- Author: Dan Macon
About 12 years ago, we acquired our first livestock guardian dog from a ranch in eastern Yuba County. Scarlet, as we named her, came to us as a 6-month old Akbash-Pyrenees pup. We were neophytes in the world of livestock guardian dogs, so we immediate put Scarlet with our breeding flock. The following February, when the first lamb hit the ground, Scarlet promptly decided that the lamb was hers; she chased the ewe away and cleaned the lamb. As we learned, maternal instinct can be a powerful force - in sheep and in dogs. A few days of watching her closely and scolding her when she tried to mother a lamb seemed to fix the problem.
This weekend, we experienced the opposite relationship. Our youngest daughter has her own small flock of sheep that she breeds for fair lambs. This fall, she's taken in a number of additional ewes from folks that want lambs from her ram. These sheep are in a pasture adjacent to the paddock where Elko (our LGD pup) is living. Emma also has several ewe lambs from this year that she recently sold; we're working on arrangements for the buyers (who are in Twin Falls, Idaho) to pick them up. The oldest of these ewe lambs came into heat this weekend, and her maternal instincts kicked in. Yesterday, we noticed that she was taking a keen interest in Elko. As we watched her, we realized that she was treating Elko like her lamb. She'd paw at him to get him to stand up (which ewes will do if they want their lambs to nurse). She licked him vigorously like she was trying to clean afterbirth off him. And she'd knicker at him like a ewe will do to call her newborn lamb.
Elko was intimidated by her behavior. He'd yelp if she backed him into a corner, and he'd nip at her if her licking became too aggressive. We decided that it would be best to separate them; we put the ewe lamb into a different paddock. Elko seems to be fine with the rest of the sheep in his pen.
I'm curious if others have observed this kind of behavior! What have you done when something like this has happened?
- Author: Dan Macon
Over the course of the next several years, I intend to post regular blog entries about the development and management of a new livestock guardian dog puppy. This is my introductory post.
On Monday, we acquired Elko, a Pyrenees x Akbash pup, from Fred Groverman in Petaluma. With livestock guardian dogs, I'm less concerned with a specific breed (or combination of breeds) than I am with a pup's genetic and environmental background. I want a pup that comes from working parents, and I want a pup that was whelped and raised in close proximity to livestock. Elko meets both criteria.
There are two (at least) schools of thought about purchasing LGDs. Some producers (me included) prefer to purchase a pup at 8-12 weeks of age. In my experience, the period from 8-20 weeks of age is critical for forming social bonds between the dog and the livestock he/she will spend his/her life protecting. I think this phase is also critical for exposing the pup to our management system. Our dogs need to learn about electric fence. They need to learn that we move sheep (and dogs) frequently. They need to be comfortable with (but not bonded to) people. I'm still learning how to train these dogs; we've found that 30-40 percent of the puppies we start will work in our system. That said, I'm convinced that a dog works better when it's reared in the environment in which it will work. Other producers prefer to purchase older dogs that are ready to go to work - and there are dog breeders in the West that accommodate this demand. These older dogs are typically much more expensive - and usually guaranteed to work. Part of the cost of these older dogs, I think, is that the breeder assumes the risk that a particular dog won't work.
LGDs are capital expenses for a sheep or goat operation. In comparing the two systems I've outlined above, I think it makes sense to divide these costs into three categories: acquisition, development, and management. Acquisition costs include the cost of the pup and the expense involved in taking possession (mileage, usually). The development costs include veterinary and feed costs incurred up to the point where the shepherd decides the dog will fit the management system. Management costs are incurred from that point forward. I think these categories are useful for a couple of reasons. The actual cost of a working LGD should include both the acquisition costs and the development costs - and these are "stranded" costs when a dog doesn't work out. These are also the costs that are reflected in price of older dogs that are ready to go to work.
Our management costs are $500-600 per year per dog - this includes (primarily) feed and vet expenses. While Fred Groverman graciously gave Elko to us, I'm going to value our new pup as if we'd purchased him. Here are our acquisition and development costs to date:
Acquisition Costs |
|
Purchase Price |
$400.00 |
Mileage (230 miles RT @ $0.545/mile) |
$125.35 |
Total |
$525.35 |
Development Costs |
|
Dog Food |
$46.85 |
10-way Vaccine |
$13.99 |
Total (as of 9/24/17) |
$60.84 |
When I brought Elko home, we built a creep feeder for him (basically a pen in which he could eat without the sheep trying to steal his food). We exposed him to the electro-net we use to fence our sheep immediately - and he learned to avoid it immediately. We put him in a paddock with several ewe lambs and an older ewe to doesn't take any guff from any dog.
I've found that the sheep take some time to evaluate a new dog. For the first several days, the sheep avoided Elko. As of this morning (day 6), the sheep all seem to accept him. When I fed the sheep this morning, I observed the ewes following Elko to the fence. Later, I watched Elko licking the face of one of the ewe lambs - a sign of submission on Elko's part (and a sign of acceptance on the ewe lamb's part).
I'm hoping readers will ask questions and respond with their own observations of LGD development and behavior! This is the first of many posts, I'm sure!
- Author: Dan Macon
As in much of the world, carnivores and grazing livestock in our four-county region (Placer, Nevada, Sutter and Yuba) share the many of the same rangeland habitats. In some cases, land use conversion of rangelands - often to urban or suburban development - concentrates livestock and predators on a shrinking landscape - making conflict inevitable (see Zimmerman et al., 2010).
As many ranchers know, the main predators of sheep, goats and cattle in our region are coyotes, mountain lions, black bears and domestic dogs. In the last several years, gray wolves have come back into northern California. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) recently collared a female member of the newly named "Lassen Pack," apparently in the mountains somewhere west of Susanville. Gray wolves in California are protected under both the state and federal endangered species acts; lethal control of gray wolves is not an option in California. CDFW anticipates that gray wolves will eventually move as far south as I-80 in the Sierra Nevada and Mendocino County in the Coast Range.
Closer to home, I attended a meeting of the Sutter-Yuba Farm Bureau this week, which featured a discussion about a mountain lion that was collared and recently spotted in the Sutter Buttes (an area in which such sightings are apparently unusual). Ranchers in the Buttes were legitimately concerned about the safety of their livestock. While mountain lions are a specially protected species in California, ranchers can obtain depredation permits if a mountain lion has killed livestock. According to CDFW, if you suspect lion depredation, you should preserve the carcass and scene (by placing a tarp over the carcass, covering tracks with cans or buckets, and minimizing disturbance). Call your nearest CDFW office or local Wildlife Services specialist (or county specialist in Placer County). If a lion kill is confirmed, CDFW will issue a depredation permit. See below for contact information for these agencies.
Livestock protection tools - guardian dogs, electric fencing, increased human presence (to name a few) - can offer site- and operation-specific protection for grazing livestock. Along with a number of campus-based specialists and other farm advisors from through northern California, I have been working on a new publication that will help ranchers (and others) evaluate these tools for their own operations. We hope the publication will be available this fall. We will also be launching a livestock-carnivore information hub on the UC Rangelands website. Stay tuned!
Finally, we have also initiated a long-term survey to evaluate the direct and indirect impacts of predators on rangeland livestock operations. This study, which will continue over the next 10 years, will examine direct impacts (death loss) from predators, as well as potential indirect impacts (reduced conception rates, lower weaning weights, increased labor, the cost of nonlethal tools, etc.). If you are a commercial livestock producer who has at least 5 years of records on your operation and who plans to stay in business for at least 10 more years, please contact me if you're interested in participating in this project. My email is dmacon@ucanr.edu.
In the meantime, I have provided a number of links regarding depredation and carnivore-livestock co-existence, as well as contact information for local agency offices.
- California Department of Fish and Wildlife - Region 2 (which includes Placer, Nevada, Sutter and Yuba Counties)
- USDA Wildlife Services - California - the state office can provide contact information for wildlife specialists in your county.
- Placer County Agriculture Department (Placer County employs its own wildlife specialists, who are available to assist with depredation problems)
- National Wildlife Research Center - the research arm of USDA Wildlife Services. The center is conducting a variety of research projects related to livestock-predator interactions.
- CDFW Gray Wolf Conservation Plan
- CDFW Gray Wolf FAQ Sheet for Ranchers - tools for California livestock producers to discourage wolf presence, guidance for suspected wolf depredation, and wolf legal status.