Register      Login
Wildlife Research Wildlife Research Society
Ecology, management and conservation in natural and modified habitats
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > WR > WR10023
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 37(8)

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

Thomas M. Gehring A C , Kurt C. VerCauteren B , Megan L. Provost A and Anna C. Cellar A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Department of Biology, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI 48859, USA.

B National Wildlife Research Center, USDA APHIS WS, Fort Collins, CO 80521, USA.

C Corresponding author. Email: gehri1tm@cmich.edu

Wildlife Research 37(8) 715-721 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR10023
Submitted: 12 February 2010  Accepted: 16 July 2010   Published: 22 December 2010

Abstract

Context. Livestock producers worldwide are negatively affected by livestock losses because of predators and wildlife-transmitted 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 2005–2008. 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.

Additional keywords: bovine tuberculosis, coyote, grey wolf, livestock protection dog, mesopredators, white-tailed deer, wildlife damage management.


Acknowledgements

Our study was funded by Central Michigan University (Research Excellence Fund Award), Central Michigan University College of Graduate Studies, USDA-APHIS-WS-National Wildlife Research Center, USDA – Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, Animal Welfare Institute (Christine Stevens Wildlife Award), CITGO Petroleum, Inc., Defenders of Wildlife, and National Geographic Society-Conservation Trust. Logistical support was provided by Michigan Department of Natural Resources & Environment, USA Forest Service, and the Warren family. We are grateful to livestock producers who participated in this study and to A. Boetcher, R. Brown, J. Detraz, K. Luzinski and J. Pejza for valuable field assistance. We thank B. Swanson, D. Uzarski and D. Woolnough for assistance with statistical analyses and two anonymous reviewers for comments that improved the manuscript.


References

Andelt, W. F. (1992). Effectiveness of livestock guarding dogs for reducing predation on domestic sheep. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20, 55–62.
Berg N. A. (1986). USDA goals for strengthening private land management in the 1980s. In ‘Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference’. (Ed. R. E. McCabe.) pp. 137–145. (Wildlife Management Institute: Washington, DC.)

Breck S. W. (2004). Minimizing carnivore–livestock conflict: the importance and process of research in the search for coexistence. In ‘People and Predators: from Conflict to Coexistence’. (Eds N. Fascione, A. Delach and M. Smith.) pp. 13–27. (Island Press: Washington, DC.)

Brown, T. L. , Decker, D. J. , and Dawson, C. P. (1978). Willingness of New York farmers to incur white-tailed deer damage. Wildlife Society Bulletin 6, 235–239.
Conover M. R. (2002). ‘Resolving Human–Wildlife Conflicts: the Science of Wildlife Damage Management.’ (Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL.)

Conover, W. J. , and Iman, R. L. (1981). Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics. American Statistician 35, 124–129.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Coppinger R. , and Coppinger L. (1996). Interactions between livestock guarding dogs and wolves. In ‘Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World’. (Eds L. N. Carbyn, S. H. Fritts and D. R. Seip.) pp. 523–526. (Canadian Circumpolar Institute: Edmonton, Canada.)

Coppinger R. , and Coppinger L. (2001). ‘Dogs: a New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution.’ (The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.)

Coppinger R. , Coppinger L. , Langeloh G. , Gettler L. , and Lorenz J. (1988). A decade use of livestock guarding dogs. In ‘Proceedings of the 13th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Eds A. C. Crabb and R. E. Marsh.) pp. 209–214. (University of California: Davis, CA.)

Dorrance, M. J. , and Bourne, J. (1980). An evaluation of anti-coyote electric fencing. Journal of Range Management 33, 385–387.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Fritts S. H. , Paul W. J. , Mech L. D. , and Scott D. P. (1992). Trends and management of wolf-livestock conflicts in Minnesota. US Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication No. 181. (US Fish and Wildlife Service: Washington, DC.)

Gates, N. L. , Rich, J. E. , Godtel, D. D. , and Hulet, C. V. (1978). Development and evaluation of anti-coyote electric fencing. Journal of Range Management 31, 151–153.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Gehring T. M. , Hawley J. E. , Davidson S. J. , Rossler S. T. , Cellar A. C. , Schultz R. N. , Wydeven A. P. , and VerCauteren K. C. (2006). Are viable non-lethal management tools available for reducing wolf–human conflict? Preliminary results from field experiments. In ‘Proceedings of the 22nd Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Eds R. M. Timm and J. M. O’Brien.) pp. 2–6. (University of California: Davis, CA.)

Gehring, T. M. , VerCauteren, K. C. , and Landry, J.-M. (2010a). Livestock protection dogs in the 21st century: is an ancient tool relevant to modern conservation challenges? Bioscience 60, 299–308.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Green J. S. , and Woodruff R. A. (1999). Livestock guarding dogs: protecting sheep from predators. Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 588. (US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC.)

Green, J. S. , Woodruff, R. A. , and Tueller, T. T. (1984). Livestock guarding dogs for predator control: costs, benefits, and practicality. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12, 44–50.
Halfpenny J. C. , and Bruchac J. (2001). ‘Scat and Tracks of the Northeast: a Field Guide to the Signs of Seventy Wildlife Species.’ (Falcon: Guilford, CT.)

Hansen, I. , and Smith, M. E. (1999). Livestock-guarding dogs in Norway. Part II: different working regimes. Journal of Range Management 52, 312–316.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Kellert S. R. (1981). Wildlife and the private landowner. In ‘Proceedings of the Wildlife Management on Private Lands Symposium’. (Eds R. T. Dumke, G. V. Berger and J. R. March.) pp. 18–34. (LaCrosse Printing Company: LaCrosse, WI.)

Leopold A. (1933). ‘Game Management.’ (Charles Scribner’s and Sons: New York.)

Linhart, S. B. , Sterner, R. T. , Carrigan, T. S. , and Henne, D. R. (1979). Komondor guard dogs reduce sheep losses to coyotes: a preliminary evaluation. Journal of Range Management 32, 238–241.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | US Census Bureau (2010). ‘Statistical Abstract of the United States.’ 129th edn. (US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC.)

VerCauteren, K. C. , Lavelle, M. J. , and Hygnstrom, S. (2006). Fences and deer-damage management: a review of designs and efficacy. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34, 191–200.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Wydeven A. P. , Schultz R. N. , and Thiel R. P. (1995). Monitoring of a recovering gray wolf population in Wisconsin, 1979–1991. In ‘Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World’. (Eds L. N. Carbyn, S. H. Fritts and D. R. Seip.) pp. 147–156. (Canadian Circumpolar Institute: Edmonton, Canada.)