Relationships between Husbandry Methods and Sheep Losses to Canine Predators

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.Allen Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Wildlife Management. Abstract: In this study we evaluated the efficacy of several husbandry methods in reducing sheep losses to coyotes (Canis latrans) and dogs. Findings are considered applicable to most sheep operations managed under farm-flock conditions. We monitored sheep losses of 109 producers monthly in a 9-county area of south central Kansas to assess husbandry effects. Cooperators reported deaths of 1,362 stock sheep and 2,230 lambs during the 15-month study, 229 (17%) and 278 (12%) of which, respectively, were killed by canine predators. Total annual losses of stock sheep and lambs were 6.7 and 7.9%, respectively; annual loss to predators was <1%. More than 80% of the predator-caused sheep deaths were in flocks of 22% of the producers. Sheep losses were slightly higher where coyote-abundance indices were high. Husbandry techniques that have the potential to significantly reduce sheep losses to canine predators include night confinement, lighting corrals, fall lambing, proper disposal of sheep carcasses, and killing individual predators that cause sheep losses. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 45(4):894-911 STUDY AREA This study was conducted in a 9-county area of south central Kansas. At the time of the study, Kansas had the 3rd highest index of predator abundance of the 17 ' Contribution 80-426-

Carnivore-livestock conflicts: determinants of wolf (Canis lupus) depredation on sheep farms in Finland

“…A negative association has been also reported between carnivore predation on livestock and the density of roads and human settlements (Robel et al 1981;Stahl et al 2001). Our analysis shows that in Finland, wolf attacks on sheep farms are most likely to occur in the mosaic of forest, small wetland, clear cuts and plantations.…”

“…Wolves seem to avoid areas with a large proportion of agricultural and built-up landscapes. In United States, placing pastures around vegetated waterways may promote coyote (Canis latrans) predation on sheep (Robel et al 1981). We found that in Finland, small areas of wetland and water were somewhat attractive to wolves, but when the size of these landscape classes grew they started to have a slight negative impact on the probability of depredation.…”

“…To do this we described the characteristics of sheep farms at the farm level, their geography and surrounding landscape. Following the results of previous wolf depredation studies (Robel et al 1981;Nass et al 1984;Meriggi and Lovari 1996;Mech et al 2000;Bangs and Shivik 2001;Stahl et al 2001;Stahl et al 2002;Bradley and Pletscher 2005), our hypothesis was that affected sheep farms would be those located in forested areas close to the Russian border, which is also the core area of the Finnish wolf population. We also anticipated that sheep farms most likely to be attacked by wolves would have more sheep and have larger pastures than those not depredated.…”

Conflitos causados pela predação de rebanhos domésticos por grandes felinos em comunidades quilombolas na Mata Atlântica

“…As entrevistas vêm sendo freqüentemente utilizadas para avaliar as perdas causadas por predadores e fornecer informações sobre a percepção da população em relação ao conflito (por ex., ver Robel et al 1981, Schaefer et al 1981, Oli et al 1994, Manzatti 1999, Mazzolli et al 2002, Conforti & Azevedo 2003, Palmeira 2004, Zimmermann et al 2005, Michalski et al 2006 Para quantificar a predação por onças e levantar a opinião local em relação ao conflito foram realizadas entrevistas semi-estruturadas em 28 propriedades, representando 87% do total de propriedades existentes nas duas comunidades (Figura 2). As entrevistas foram realizadas apenas com o responsável de cada propriedade selecionada.…”

Tools for the Edge: What's New for Conserving Carnivores

“…For example, husbandry practices such as gathering livestock into protected areas during vulnerable times (e.g., shed lambing or night penning) are tools that owners have used for hundreds of years to protect livestock (Robel et al 1981, Wagner 1988, Ogada et al 2003.…”