Investigating the hidden costs of livestock guarding dogs: a case study in Namaqualand, South Africa

Abstract

The use of livestock guarding dogs (LGDs) has been widely advocated as a responsible tool for reducing livestock predation and conserving wildlife. However, their hidden ecological costs have rarely been investigated. We analysed scats (n = 183) from six LGDs and visited Global Positioning System (GPS) location clusters (n = 352) from nine GPS-collared LGDs to reconstruct their diet and assess impacts on wildlife and livestock in Namaqualand, South Africa. Wild mammals, including 10 native species, and small-livestock were the main secondary foods (i.e. besides dog food pellets). A total of 90% of scats and one third of GPS clusters investigated had associated animal remains. When accompanied by a human attendant, fewer LGD scats contained animal matter (39.9%; of which 32.3% wild mammals and 4.6% livestock), in contrast to scats of LGDs on their own (93.2%; 14.4% wild mammals, 75.4% livestock). Similarly, few clusters of accompanied LGDs included animal remains (5.7%; of which 43.8% wild mammals and 31.3% livestock), whereas unaccompanied dogs clustered frequently at carcasses (92.4%; 16% wild mammals, 74% livestock). While sample sizes were relatively small and some dogs might have scavenged, we emphasize the importance of rigorous training and intensive monitoring of LGDs to correct unwanted predation behaviour and to maximize their ecological and protective benefits.

Reducing livestock-carnivore conflict on rural farms using local livestock guarding dogs

“…LGDs were sometimes prone to chasing wildlife, additional monitoring as part of the program may include spatial monitoring of LGDs movements and predation risk to wildlife, which has been employed to monitor their effectiveness and impact elsewhere (Bromen et al 2019, Young et al 2019, Drouilly et al 2020.…”

Interactions between livestock guarding dogs and wolves in the southern French Alps

“…LGDs and wild predators have relied on indirect information such as farmers' memory, reports and anecdotes (Green et al 1984, Marker et al 2005a, b, Potgieter et al 2013, Leijenaar et al 2015, Whitehouse-Tedd et al 2020 or, recently, on the analysis of LGDs diet (Drouilly et al 2020, this special issue).…”

The ecological effects of livestock guarding dogs (LGDs) on target and non-target wildlife

“…The remaining estimates originated from direct researcher observations and farmer reports, so are subject to human error and biases. For example, LGDs might behave differently whilst being observed or accompanied by humans (Drouilly et al 2020) and are often out of sight of farmers, meaning farmer reports may underestimate the occurrence of these behaviours (Whitehouse-Tedd et al 2020). Furthermore, the percentage of LGDs involved does not provide insight into the frequency of the interactions per dog over a defined time period.…”

“…In addition to the 43 publications reporting LGDs to chase and kill wildlife, we found two publications investigating LGD diet via morphological identification of prey remains in LGD scats. One revealed the consumption of ten wild mammal species by LGDs, as well as small quantities of invertebrates, reptiles and birds (Drouilly et al 2020), and the other reported the rare occurrence of scrub hare (Lepus saxatilis), common duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia) and rodent remains in LGD scats (van Vliet 2011). However, it is not possible to confidently distinguish between remains in the scats that were actively hunted or scavenged by LGDs.…”