Quantifying Economic Impacts of Large-Carnivore Depredation on Bovine Calves

Sommers, Albert P.; Price, Charles C.; Urbigkit, Cat D.; Peterson, Eric M.

doi:10.2193/2009-070

Journal of Wildlife Management

2010

DOI: 10.2193/2009-070

|View full text |Cite

Quantifying Economic Impacts of Large-Carnivore Depredation on Bovine Calves

Albert P. Sommers¹,

Charles C. Price²,

Cat D. Urbigkit³

et al.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2013

2024

Publication Types

Select...

Article4

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent4

Authors

Journals

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Livestock depredation studies and historical observations point to riparian areas or other dense vegetative cover as likely areas of livestock‐bear conflict (Murie , Wilson et al , Steyaert et al ). Previous studies demonstrated that livestock depredation in an area is generally limited to a few individual grizzly bears; therefore, management strategies that improve the timeliness of depredation reports (e.g., range riders) and selective removals of depredating bears may be effective tools for the conservation of grizzly bears while maintaining livestock producer tolerance (Anderson et al , Sommers et al ). Other researchers, however, have observed a number of bears in an area will prey on livestock opportunistically when spatially coincident (Knight and Judd ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Grizzly bear depredation on grazing allotments in the Yellowstone Ecosystem

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) conflicts with humans, including livestock depredation on public land grazing allotments, have increased during the last several decades within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) in the western United States as the grizzly bear population has grown in number and occupied range. Minimizing conflicts and improving conservation efficacy requires information on the relationships between livestock depredations, allotment management, grizzly bear habitat conditions, and their interactions. We used generalized linear mixed models to evaluate spatio‐temporal relationships between grizzly bear depredation of livestock and the characteristics of 316 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service and National Park Service grazing allotments in the GYE during 1992–2014. We evaluated relationships at 2 spatial extents, representing daily and annual grizzly bear activity areas. During the study period, more grazing allotments became occupied by grizzly bears and most livestock depredations were associated with these areas of population expansion. Number of livestock (β = 1.15 ± 0.19 [SE]) and grizzly bear density index (β = 1.13 ± 0.10) had the greatest effects on the number of livestock depredation events relative to other allotment attributes. Estimated number of depredation events increased by approximately 20% when cow‐calf pairs increased by 100 pairs and grizzly bear density index increased by 1 bear/196 km2 (the average annual home‐range size of a female grizzly bear in the GYE). Additionally, grazing allotment size was positively related to the number of depredation events (β = 0.56 ± 0.16), whereas the presence of bull cattle or horses was associated with an approximately 50% reduction in depredations (β = −0.71 ± 0.37). Livestock depredation events were greater for allotments with lower road density (β = −0.89 ± 0.28), less rugged terrain (β = −0.57 ± 0.25), higher vegetative primary productivity (β = 0.33 ± 0.16), and more whitebark pine coverage (β = 0.30 ± 0.15). Relationships between depredations and grizzly bear habitat conditions varied across spatial extents. As the grizzly bear population continues to expand, natural resource managers and livestock producers could focus efforts on allotments with a higher density of grizzly bears, fewer roads, and quality grizzly bear habitat, including higher vegetative productivity, when developing cooperative management plans and preventative measures to reduce the likelihood of depredation. The perspectives gained from our analysis provide context for long‐term, landscape‐level planning to accommodate livestock production on public lands while meeting conservation goals for grizzly bears. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Grizzly bear depredation on grazing allotments in the Yellowstone Ecosystem

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Understanding diverse perspectives on grizzly–livestock conflict and conflict‐reduction tools across southwest Montana ranching communities

Smith,

Sundstrom,

Burnham

2024

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) population rebounds in the western United States, conflicts with humans, including livestock depredation, have also increased. What grizzly bear conflict means, for whom, and what it implies for the viability of conflict‐reduction tools on the ground can vary widely. Multiple perspectives on the causes of—and solutions to—grizzly bear conflict present serious challenges for conservation practice. To better understand perceptions of human conflict with grizzly bears, we used a combination of in‐depth interviews (n = 29) followed by a Q‐sort activity with key stakeholders (n = 21; i.e., ranchers, ranch managers, conservation organization members, agency scientists) in ranching communities in southwest Montana, USA, situated between the 2 largest grizzly bear recovery zones. Stakeholders interpreted conflict with grizzly bears as directly and indirectly connected to broader social changes on the landscape, and these changes influence how they make sense of and act on conflict reduction. Specifically, 3 distinct (but not mutually exclusive) perspectives on grizzly–livestock conflict and conflict‐reduction tools emerged: 1) that grizzly–livestock conflict is a symptom of the social divide within ranching communities, 2) that conflict can be attributed to governance structures that currently limit the use of potentially effective tools (e.g., hunting, lethal removal), and 3) there are multiple paths for reducing conflict and holistic, ecosystem‐based management is needed. We provide managers with new insights on grizzly–livestock conflict and conflict reduction, and hope this work helps increase collaboration among ranchers, managers, and other stakeholders engaged in this complex social and ecological challenge.

show abstract

Wolf (Canis lupus) Predation Impacts on Livestock Production: Direct Effects, Indirect Effects, and Implications for Compensation Ratios

Steele

Rashford

Foulke

et al. 2013

Rangeland Ecology & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Growing wolf (Canis lupus L.) populations in the US Rocky Mountain Region have increased conflicts between livestock production and wolf conservation. Given that the costs of large carnivore conservation are disproportionately borne by local livestock producers, the United States uses compensation for wolf damage to reduce conflicts and mediate negative attitudes toward the predators. Current compensation programs, however, only consider the direct effects of wolf predation. Indirect effects, such as wolf effects on weaning weights, and conception rates, may also reduce profitability. By not including indirect wolf effects, compensation programs may systematically undercompensate ranchers. We use a stochastic budget model of a representative cow-calf ranch in northwest Wyoming to estimate the economic impact of both direct (death loss and injured calves) and indirect effects (decreased weaning weights, decreased conception rates, and increased cattle sickness) of wolf predation. Our results suggest that short-run (i.e., year-to-year) financial impacts of wolf indirect effects may be as large as or larger than the direct effects. Including indirect effects implies that the compensation ratio (i.e., number of calves compensated per confirmed depredation) necessary to fully offset the financial impacts of wolves would need to be two to three times larger than current 7:1 compensation ratio used in Wyoming.

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Quantifying Economic Impacts of Large-Carnivore Depredation on Bovine Calves

Cited by 4 publications

References 6 publications

Grizzly bear depredation on grazing allotments in the Yellowstone Ecosystem

Grizzly bear depredation on grazing allotments in the Yellowstone Ecosystem

Understanding diverse perspectives on grizzly–livestock conflict and conflict‐reduction tools across southwest Montana ranching communities

Wolf (Canis lupus) Predation Impacts on Livestock Production: Direct Effects, Indirect Effects, and Implications for Compensation Ratios

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About