Understanding encounters between recreationists and livestock guardian dogs as a basis for conflict management

Livestock guarding dogs (LGDs) have been used for centuries to reduce depredation on livestock and, more recently, to facilitate the conservation of threatened carnivores. Conservation organisations in southern Africa promote the use of Anatolian shepherds as LGDs. However, livestock farmers in Botswana use a variety of breeds for this purpose, including local landrace “Tswana” dogs. Our study sought to test the overall effectiveness of these local breeds as LGDs. Irrespective of breed, all LGDs reduced livestock losses, with 47.9% of farmers experiencing no losses after obtaining a guarding dog. Owners with more LGDs, and LGDs of a single sex, had greater reductions in livestock losses. Anatolian shepherds displayed more behavioural problems than other breeds in our study. The health of LGDs was reliant on them receiving a balanced diet, and owners with fewer dogs reported fewer health issues. Moreover, Tswana guarding dogs were cheaper to purchase and feed than their purebred counterparts. Our results show that local landrace dogs can be considered a cheaper and more practical alternative to purebred LGDs for reducing livestock losses and for mitigating human-wildlife conflict in Botswana.

The success of livestock guarding dogs (LGDs) in mitigating farmer–predator conflict relies on the perceptions of farmers that use them. Purebred LGDs are provided to Namibian farmers by the Cheetah Conservation Fund as a farmer–predator conflict mitigation measure. We examined the perceptions of farmers using 164 of these LGDs by analyzing data collected during face-to-face interviews from 2000–2010. Although most respondents reported reduced livestock losses since LGD introduction, satisfaction with LGD performance was more strongly linked to their observations of LGD behavior. The most commonly reported negative behaviors were staying home (29 LGDs, 18%) and chasing wildlife (25 LGDs, 15%). On subsistence farms, care provided was negatively correlated with LGD age (r = −.34, n = 35, p = .04) and LGDs reportedly staying home were provided with less care than other LGDs. Overall, LGDs performed satisfactorily on commercial and subsistence farms, and thus contributed to farmer–predator conflict mitigation.

Livestock guarding dogs enable human-carnivore coexistence: First evidence of equivalent carnivore occupancy on guarded and unguarded farms

Livestock guarding dogs shape activity patterns of sympatric mesocarnivores in sheep ranches of the Patagonia region

Domestic Sheep Behavior and Habitat Selection in Presence of Livestock Guardian Dogs

Context Wild predators are a serious threat to livestock in Australia. Livestock guardian dogs (LGDs) may be able to reduce or eliminate predation, but their effectiveness in Australian grazing systems has not been systematically evaluated. In particular, little is known about the effectiveness of LGDs in situations where they range freely over large areas in company with large numbers of livestock. Aims We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of LGDs as currently used in Australia and determine the factors influencing effectiveness, in particular in relation to scale of management. We also documented how LGDs are managed in Australia, evaluated their cost effectiveness, and identified factors that influence the number of dogs required in different property situations. Methods We conducted a telephone survey of 150 livestock producers with LGDs in Australia, including all livestock types and property situations, in all States. Ten producers were visited, of which one is detailed as a case study. Key results Effectiveness was apparently high: 65.7% of respondents reported that predation ceased after obtaining LGDs, and a further 30.2% reported a decrease of predation. When the number of stock per dog exceeds 100, LGDs might not be able to eliminate all predation. Dogs are often kept free-ranging on large properties where wild dogs are the main predator, but are usually restricted in their movements on smaller properties or with smaller predators. The cost of obtaining a LGD is returned within 1–3 years after the dog starts working. The number of dogs required for a property mainly depends on the number of livestock needing protection, and the main type of predator in the area. Conclusions Provided a sufficient number of LGDs are used, they can be as effective in protecting livestock from predators in Australia when ranging freely on large properties with large numbers of livestock as they are in small-scale farming systems. Implications LGDs can provide a cost-effective alternative to conventional predator control methods in Australia’s extensive grazing enterprises, potentially reducing or eliminating the need for other forms of control. LGDs could play a major role in securing the viability of livestock businesses and reconciling people–predator conflict in Australia.

Mitigating Human Conflicts with Livestock Guardian Dogs in Extensive Sheep Grazing Systems

Preventing human-wildlife conflict is key to maintaining viable predator populations. In Namibia, over 90% of cheetahs are found outside of protected areas, therefore risk of conflict with farmers is high. Since 1994, the Cheetah Conservation Fund has implemented a programme to prevent livestock depredation using livestock guarding dogs (LGDs). Long-term (25-year period) monitoring efforts in Namibia have provided insights on the efficiency and performance of LGDs and farmers‘ perceptions. LGDs reduced livestock losses for 91% of respondents and farmers were highly satisfied with their LGD. Poor performance from behavioural issues, such as “staying at home” and “chasing game”, was linked to the LGDs receiving less care and being found in poorer body condition. Unwanted ecological impacts of wildlife killings by LGDs merit further investigation, but occurrence of behavioural issues reduced over time, suggesting a targeted and adaptive management approach to increase performance. Addressing behavioural issues, increasing LGD lifespans and understanding LGD performance under different conditions will be crucial for optimising LGD management leading to better performance. Our long-term study provides unique insights into a highly successful programme and is recommended to be replicated and adapted where imminent human-predator conflicts threaten coexistence.

Context Livestock predation is a significant problem for livestock producers all over the world. Livestock guardian dogs (LGDs) can protect livestock from predators, but little is known about the factors that affect their use over long periods of time. Aims Our aims were to investigate the long-term use of LGDs in Australia and determine whether their effectiveness remained high over time, and to establish the reasons for discontinued use. We also wanted to collect data on the fate of LGDs, and how using LGDs affected the use of other methods for predation control. Last, we wanted to estimate the rate at which the use of LGDs is spreading through word-of-mouth. Methods We re-contacted participants from a previous survey of LGD users in Australia and interviewed them about their long-term experience. We were able to include 82% (112) of the original participants, a mean of 8.9 (±0.08) years after the first survey. Key results Half of all original participants were still using LGDs, and in most cases the effectiveness of LGDs had not changed since the first survey. The main reason for ceasing use of LGDs was a change in business that made the dogs unnecessary, followed by unwanted behaviour of dogs, and problems with neighbours. Most LGDs that died prior to old age were euthanised, fell victim to lethal predator control, or were killed by wildlife. Farmers with LGDs reduced other forms of predation control. Informal information transfer among farmers is leading to a net increase in the use of LGDs in Australia. Conclusions LGDs can remain an effective predator control method in Australia with long-term use, and their use is spreading. However, a substantial number of livestock producers experience difficulties in properly training and managing LGDs, leading to failure of the method in some cases and presumably limiting uptake. Implications Given the effectiveness of LGDs for predation management and the many advantages gained by their use, Australia could greatly benefit from programs by government or management agencies both to promote uptake of LGDs and to reduce the incidence of problems by providing farmers with advice and information on best-practice management.

Can an old dog learn a new trick? Efficacy of livestock guardian dogs at keeping an apex predator away from people

Use of livestock guardian dogs (LGDs) to reduce predation on livestock is increasing. However, how these dogs influence the activity of wildlife, including predators, is not well understood. We used pellet counts and remote cameras to investigate the effects of free ranging LGDs on four large herbivores (eastern gray kangaroo, common wombat, swamp wallaby, and sambar deer) and one mesopredator (red fox) in Victoria, Australia. Generalized mixed models and one‐ and two‐species detection models were used to assess the influence of the presence of LGDs on detection of the other species. We found avoidance of LGDs in four species. Swamp wallabies and sambar deer were excluded from areas occupied by LGDs; gray kangaroos showed strong spatial and temporal avoidance of LGD areas; foxes showed moderately strong spatial and temporal avoidance of LGD areas. The effect of LGDs on wombats was unclear. Avoidance of areas with LGDs by large herbivores can benefit livestock production by reducing competition for pasture and disease transmission from wildlife to livestock, and providing managers with better control over grazing pressure. Suppression of mesopredators could benefit the small prey of those species. Synthesis and applications: In pastoral areas, LGDs can function as a surrogate top‐order predator, controlling the local distribution and affecting behavior of large herbivores and mesopredators. LGDs may provide similar ecological functions to those that in many areas have been lost with the extirpation of native large carnivores.

Livestock guarding dogs (LGDs) are used across the world to reduce livestock depredation by free-ranging predatory wildlife. In doing so, they reduce the need for lethal predator control and are considered beneficial for conservation. However, LGDs might be perceived as predators by wildlife and induce a multitude of both positive and negative ecological effects. We conducted a literature review to evaluate the ecological effects of LGDs and found 56 publications reporting LGDs interacting with or affecting wildlife. Featuring in 77% of the publications, LGDs were widely reported to chase and kill wildlife, leading to species43 specific behavioural responses. A total of 80 species were affected by LGDs; 11 of which are listed as Near Threatened or higher on the IUCN Red List. Of the affected species, 78% were non-target species, suggesting that any benefits arising from the use of LGDs likely occur simultaneously with unintended ecological effects. However, the frequency of LGD-wildlife interactions and the magnitude of any resulting ecological effects have rarely been quantified. More empirical studies are therefore needed to determine the net ecological outcome of LGD use, thus ensuring that negative outcomes are minimised while benefiting both farmers and wildlife.

Livestock guarding dogs are increasingly used to reduce carnivore-livestock conflicts, but no information is available to determine any adverse effects that these dogs may have on the health of wild carnivores. We assessed differences in prevalence, richness and severity of parasites in chilla fox (Lycalopex griseus) populations associated with livestock guarding dogs, which were routinely dewormed. We also evaluated whether the parasite assemblages of herding dogs, which were not dewormed, and chilla foxes were more similar in the presence of livestock guarding dogs. Scats of L. griseus and herding dogs were collected and screened for parasite eggs in areas with and without livestock guarding dogs to determine differences in prevalence, richness, intensity and parasite aggregation. We did not find any association between livestock guarding dogs and differences in parasite richness or prevalence of parasites. The intensity of parasites was higher among foxes positive to parasites when LGDs were present. A lower proportion of foxes with low parasite burdens occurred in areas with LGDs compared to areas without LGDs, but this difference was not significant at the population level. Our findings show the need to continue studying the effects of livestock guarding dogs on the health of wildlife with larger sample sizes and more locations.

The expansion of wolves in Poland, a conservation success, simultaneously poses a challenge for livestock farmers due to an increase in attacks on flocks. In response to this threat, livestock guardian dogs (LGDs) are increasingly used, effectively protecting sheep from predators, reducing losses, and improving animal welfare. The presence of LGDs influences sheep behavior by enhancing their sense of security, promoting calmer behavior, and increasing time spent grazing and resting. Herding dogs, on the other hand, serve a different function – they assist in managing flock movement and maintaining cohesion, working directly with humans. Their presence may cause a temporary increase in stress levels in sheep due to active flock management; however, properly trained herding dogs mini- mize negative effects and facilitate daily husbandry tasks. Introducing LGDs to flocks requires careful planning and knowledge of livestock management principles. Early socialization is crucial – LGD puppies should be intro- duced to the flock at 6–8 weeks of age to recognize sheep as part of their social group and form a protective bond. Maintaining an appropriate number of LGDs in the flock is also important – generally, one dog per 50–100 sheep is recommended, though higher numbers may be necessary in areas with high predator activity. Optimizing pasture conditions includes providing sheep with safe zones that allow them to move freely and escape when feeling threat- ened. Understanding the different roles of herding and guardian dogs, as well as the individual responses of sheep, is essential for the effective work of dogs and for improving animal welfare under conditions of coexistence with predators.

Context Predation of layer chickens is a major issue for free-range egg producers. Using livestock guardian dogs (LGD) to protect free-ranging poultry is a possible option for producers, although there is little published literature regarding how the dogs protect chickens. Aims This case study was conducted at a free-range egg production farm in Western Australia, where red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) were a common predator of chickens prior to introducing Maremma LGD. We investigated LGD responses to experimental cues that might indicate fox incursion (fox urine and calls). Methods Four dogs were GPS tracked and monitored using camera traps. Over the first week, experimental fox cues were set out around the paddock boundaries, alternating with ‘non-cue’ experimental control nights. We recorded whether the LGD altered (1) their space use, (2) activity patterns (movement speed), or (3) behaviour in response to these cues. We also recorded (4) distances between LGD from known sightings of foxes. Key results The Maremmas appeared to work independently of each other, covering separate areas. There was no significant difference in overnight home range area by experimental fox cue treatment, but there was a significant (P < 0.001) treatment × dog interaction term for distance moved. Three dogs spent most of their time at night around the chicken shelters and generally increased distances moved on experimental fox cue nights. The fourth dog was more bonded to people and did not alter its movements. Paradoxically, dogs rested more and barked less on experimental fox cue nights; however, we recorded foxes on camera traps placed around the chicken shelters on 17 of the 23 nights of monitoring, and the high background activity level of foxes on this property compromised our experimental control (nights without experimental fox cues). The dogs did not move towards known fox sightings. Conclusions The Maremmas in this trial closely guarded the chicken shelters rather than maintaining the entire paddock as a predator-exclusion zone. Implications Understanding how guardian dogs behave when challenged by potential predators will help increase producers’ confidence in the efficacy of these dogs as a viable method to protect livestock from predation threat.