Development and Evaluation of Anti-Coyote Electric Fencing

Gates, N.L.; Rich, J.E.; Godtel, D.D.; Hulet, C. V.

doi:10.2307/3897668

Cited by 35 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Electric fencing has been used to contain and protect livestock and agriculture since the 1960s and was initially constructed with smooth steel wire (Cadwallader 1992). Electric fencing is inexpensive, costing approximately $2,000/km (Miller et al 1992) and has been successfully used in the United States to reduce white-tailed deer damage (VerCauteren et al 2006a) and to protect livestock from coyotes (Gates et al 1978). However, steel-wire electric fencing is relatively permanent and cannot be moved or reused easily.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of Electric Fencing to Inhibit Feral Pig Movements

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

: Natural resource managers and agricultural producers are seeking innovative tools to minimize damages caused by rapidly expanding feral pig (Sus scrofa) populations. One tool that has received little scientific inquiry is the use of exclusion fences to protect economically and ecologically sensitive areas. Our objectives were to evaluate the ability of electric fencing to minimize feral pig movements in a captive setting as well as in rangeland and agriculture land. In captivity, we tested a 1‐, 2‐, and 3‐strand electric fence. In our captive trial, we found 65% fewer intrusions (F2,18 = 20.46, P < 0.001) for electric fences (x̄ = 12.4, SE = 2.8) compared with nonelectric fences (x̄ = 35.6, SE = 6.9). We found no difference (F2,9 = 1.85, P = 0.212) for 1‐strand (x̄ = 28.1, SE = 7.8), 2‐strand (x̄ = 14.2, SE = 3.2), and 3‐strand (x̄ = 16.9, SE = 4.3) electric fences. However, we found 50% and 40% fewer crossings for the 2‐ and 3‐strand fences, respectively, compared with the 1‐strand fence. In our rangeland trial, we found 49% fewer intrusions (F2,18 =4.39, P = 0.028) into bait stations with a 2‐strand electric fence (x̄ =4.1, SE = 1.8) compared with no fence (x̄ =8.1, SE = 2.4). Finally, in our agriculture trial, we found 64% less damage (X22 = 5.77, P = 0.016) to sorghum crops with a 2‐strand electric fence (x̄ = 4.48, SE = 0.01%) compared with no electric fence (x̄ = 12.46, SE = 0.03%). Furthermore we found no (X11 = 3.72, P = 0.054) wildlife pathways in areas with an electric fence (x̄ = 0.0, SE =0.0) compared with no fence (x̄ = 2.4, SE= 1.3). No electric fence design we tested was 100% pig‐proof However, we found electric fencing restricted feral pig movements. Combining electric fencing with other damage control methods in an integrated management program may be the best method for alleviating feral pig damages.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the United States, electric fencing has been proven effective for other free-ranging wildlife. For example, electric fencing has effectively excluded or inhibited movements of coyotes (Canis latrans; Gates et al 1978 Karhu and Anderson 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Electric Fencing to Inhibit Feral Pig Movements

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dorrance and Bourne (1980) reported that coyotes still penetrated a 7-strand electric fence they used, even though the bottom wire (15-cm above ground level) was electrified. Gates et al (1978) found that 111-cm-high fencing was not effective at preventing coyotes from entering pastures. Only coyote-proof fencing (150-168-cm high with 12 strands) reduced coyote access to pastures (Gates et al 1978;Linhart et al 1982).…”

Section: Study Sitesmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Gates et al (1978) found that 111-cm-high fencing was not effective at preventing coyotes from entering pastures. Only coyote-proof fencing (150-168-cm high with 12 strands) reduced coyote access to pastures (Gates et al 1978;Linhart et al 1982). VerCauteren et al (2006) reported that common livestock-fencing designs (e.g.…”

Section: Study Sitesmentioning

confidence: 92%

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

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. Livestock producers worldwide are negatively affected by livestock losses because of predators and wildlifetransmitted 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][2006][2007][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.

show abstract

“…The fences were tested with and without electrification under controlled conditions to enable their effectiveness and pig behaviour to be clearly observed. A similar experimental appproach was used to test fences for coyote control (Gates et al 1978;Thompson 1979), and rat control (Shumake et al 1979).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Fencing to Control Feral Pig Movement

Hone¹,

Atkinson²

1983

Wildl. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eight fence designs with and without electrification were tested for their ability to stop feral pigs crossing from one paddock to another.Fences of 8:80: 15 hingejoints were pig-proof, whereas fences of 6:70:30 hingejoint or plain wires allowed some pigs to cross. Electrification of the fences significantly reduced the frequency of pig movement through fences to as little as 6.3% of test pigs. The behaviour offeral pigs relative to the fences and their implications are described.

show abstract

Development and Evaluation of Anti-Coyote Electric Fencing

Abstract: Highlight: An electric fence with alternating ground and charged wires was tested for anti-coyote properties. Under the conditions tested, the fence was coyote proof. The fence may evolve as an effective, nonlethal method of preventing coyote depredation of domestic livestock.

Cited by 35 publications

References 0 publications

Evaluation of Electric Fencing to Inhibit Feral Pig Movements

Evaluation of Electric Fencing to Inhibit Feral Pig Movements

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

Evaluation of Fencing to Control Feral Pig Movement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About