Abstract
While the re-establishment of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and wolves (Canis lupus) in the American West marks a success for conservation, it has been contentious among pastoralists. Coincidentally, livestock guarding dogs (LGDs; Canis familiaris) have been widely adopted by producers of domestic sheep (Ovis aries) in the United States to mitigate livestock depredation by wild carnivores. We surveyed pastoralists to measure how experience with and attitudes towards LGDs related to attitudes towards livestock predators, and found positive responses regarding LGDs and negative responses regarding wolves and grizzly bears. The more respondents agreed that LGDs reduce the need for lethal management (p < 0.01) and prevent the spread of disease (p < 0.05), the more positive their opinion of wolves in the wild. Regarding wolves and livestock, respondents who disagreed with the statements that “LGDs do more harm than good” (p < 0.05) or “reduce the need for lethal management” (p < 0.001), were more likely to express more negative opinions of wolves. While results pertaining to a reduced need for lethal management may suggest LGDs have some ability to increase tolerance for wolves, the causal order of these effects is difficult to discern. A more positive attitude for wolves to begin with may predict more optimistic attitudes about the capacity of LGDs to reduce human–wildlife conflict. We found almost no support for the opinion that LGDs do more harm than good, even though attitudes towards wolves were generally negative. Respondents with up to 10 years’ experience using LGDs had more negative attitudes towards grizzly bears (p < 0.01) and respondents with more than 10 years’ experience using LGDs had the most negative attitudes towards grizzly bears (p < 0.001). Thus, while experience was the greatest predictor of attitudes towards grizzly bears, attitudes towards wolves were most correlated with the belief that LGDs offset the need for lethal management of carnivores. These results suggest that LGD use in the United States does not seem to have resulted in more positive attitudes about livestock predators amongst pastoralists.
Highlights
Large carnivores are unique among other animals in terms of their ability to elicit strong emotions; they can be a contentious socioecological issue (Shivik, 2006; Gehring et al, 2010)
While the reintroduction of gray wolves (Canis lupus) and the re-establishment of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in the Northern Rocky Mountains of the United States (US) marked a success for conservationists, it raised real and perceived concerns of risk among many pastoralists who cope with livestock depredation by wolves and grizzly bears (USDA, 2015)
livestock guarding dogs (LGDs) enjoy a rich tradition in European history that dates back at least 5000 years (Smith et al, 2000; Rigg, 2001; Coppinger and Coppinger, 2002; Gehring et al, 2010) but were first imported to the US in the 1970s as a substitute for lethal predator control outlawed by the Endangered Species Act (Feldman, 2007)
Summary
Large carnivores are unique among other animals in terms of their ability to elicit strong emotions; they can be a contentious socioecological issue (Shivik, 2006; Gehring et al, 2010). Managing carnivores to reduce livestock depredations is commonly used (Fritts et al, 2003; Bradley et al, 2015) but socially unpopular (Bergstrom, 2017; Slagle et al, 2017), questionable in its effectiveness (Berger, 2006), and not as broadly applicable for species of concern like wolves and grizzly bears due to Federal endangered species protections These factors may partially explain the rapid adoption of non-lethal tools, such as livestock guarding dogs (LGDs; known as livestock guardian dog, livestock guard dog, and livestock protection dog), as a means of reducing livestock depredations in North America (Gehring et al, 2010). With the reintroduction of wolves to the Rocky Mountains and the recovery of other large carnivore populations, new breeds of LGDs are being introduced in the US for use deterring large predators as well (Kinka and Young, 2018)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
