Domestic calf mortality and producer detection rates in the Mexican wolf recovery area: Implications for livestock management and carnivore compensation schemes

Abstract

Conserving large carnivores throughout the world will often require that they share the landscape with livestock. Minimizing depredations and increasing tolerance by livestock producers will be critical for conservation efforts. To investigate factors influencing calf mortality and producer detection rates (i.e., number of livestock killed by predators, found by producers, and correctly classified as to cause of death), we monitored radio-tagged domestic calves at two sites in the Mexican wolf recovery area (East Eagle [EE] and Adobe Ranch [AR]). Study areas differed in grazing practices, density of predators (mountain lions, black bears, coyotes, and Mexican wolves), and amount of effort spent monitoring cattle. We radiotagged 618 calves over 3.5 years, and 312 calves over 2 years on the EE and AR, respectively. The overall proportion of radioed calves that died was higher on the EE (6.5%) than on the AR (1.9%). Predators (especially mountain lions) accounted for 85% of mortality on the EE and 0% on the AR. Calves selected by predators were on average 25 days younger than the surviving cohort. Our results indicate that year-round calving, especially in areas with high predator densities, are subject to higher losses primarily because calves are exposed to mortality agents for longer periods of time rather than having higher natural rates of mortality. We found a significant difference in producer detection rates between study sites, likely due to differences in the intensity of monitoring cattle between sites. On the EE, the producer detected 77.5% of mortalities and on the AR, the producer detected 33% of mortalities. Our results support changing husbandry practices to limit calving to a seasonal endeavor and that performance payment may be a better compensation strategy than ex post compensation schemes.

Sheep farming and large carnivores: What are the factors influencing claimed losses?

“…Previous studies have suggested detection rates to be linked to the effort spent by the farmer to monitor livestock (e.g., Breck et al 2011) and detection of carcasses killed by wolves was also related to the patrolling effort in our study (P ¼ 0.02). For sheep killed by lynx, wolverines and eagles, detection rates were very low (ca.…”

“…Livestock grazing pastures are often on extensive rangelands that are isolated and hard to monitor. The number of carcasses found can therefore be small relative to the number of livestock lost and the actual factors causing losses can thus be hard to ascertain (Breck et al 2011). However, a rigorous understanding of the factors influencing losses is necessary to develop management strategies that will reduce human-carnivore conflicts (Graham et al 2005) and mitigate the economic impacts of large carnivores.…”

Troublemaking carnivores: conflicts with humans in a diverse assemblage of large carnivores

“…Full wolf pack removal can reduce future livestock depredation events in a local area (Bradley et al 2015), but lethal control is not always socially acceptable (Bruskotter et al 2009). Nonlethal options including increased human presence (e.g., range-riding: horseback riders monitoring livestock), livestock guardian dogs, changes in cattle age classes, electric fencing and fladry (a string of flags hung along a fence), and changing calving dates have helped reduce livestock depredation in certain situations (Shivik and Martin 2000, Smith et al 2000, Bradley and Pletscher 2005, Shivik 2006, Muhly et al 2010b, Breck et al 2011, Barnes 2015. Such methods, however, often are only successful for short, e.g., 60 days, durations (Musiani et al 2003, Shivik 2006, and wolf predation of livestock remains a challenging problem wherever wolves and livestock overlap.…”

Compensation Payments for Downsides Generated by Protected Areas

“…The effectiveness of tropical-protected areas was indeed found to be correlated inter alia with direct compensation to local communities (Bruner et al 2001). Performance-based payments are also believed to be more effective than traditional compensation because they help to relieve social costs (Schwerdtner and Gruber 2007;Breck et al 2011). For example, local farmers might be AMBIO 2013, 42:90-99free of sleepless nights resulting from their efforts to ward off damage causing animals when they know they will receive financial reward for living with such animals (Jackson et al 2008).…”