Livestock farmers should be informed about the available non-lethal predator control techniques, under what circumstances they work, and which are a waste of time and money. So says a paper by Dr John A Shivik of the US Department of Agriculture National Wildlife Research Centre. One possible solution, he suggest, is zoning land. “This acknowledges the need for different management goals and priorities in different use areas,” he says. “Some areas would be managed to be predator-free and designated for livestock, while in others predators could roam with minimal human disturbance.”
A common misconception is that increasing biodiversity on a farm will cut livestock losses because predators will have more “natural” prey. Dr Shivik warns that diversionary feeding or altering prey populations may be ineffective over the long-term.
“It may also be useful to place carcasses or other food in areas near livestock so predators eat these instead, but even well-fed predators may harass and kill livestock, and diversionary feeding may increase their numbers,” he says. Other researchers have already shot down the notion that predators only go for sick or weak lambs.
Here is a summary of Dr Shivik’s list of non-lethal predator control methods and their drawbacks:
Timing breeding
Predators are more likely to kill livestock at specific times of the year, such as when they have young to feed. If livestock are bred earlier in the season, they grow larger earlier and may be less vulnerable. However, market and range conditions may be more economically important than predator damage, making the altering of the breeding season unfeasible. There may also be increased husbandry and veterinary costs and biological limits on changing breeding seasons.
Selective pasturing, lambing and calving
Certain pastures and range areas may have a record of high predation. It may be possible not to use them for livestock. Of course, the best grazing areas for livestock may also be most attractive to predators, so altering timing or use of land may not be economically or logistically feasible. Moving livestock around repeatedly can also cause stress and affect weight gain.
Altering herd composition
Mixing cattle with sheep (forming a “flerd”) may improve landscape use. Cattle may also be more aggressive toward small predators, although they’re still susceptible to larger ones. However, cattle and sheep operations differ in market conditions, timing and land use, and running a “flerd” may be difficult or impossible. Cattle and sheep don’t stay together naturally and must be bonded by raising young heifers with lambs for 30 to 60 days.
Carcass removal
Finding and destroying carcasses of animals that have died in the veld may help limit food supplies for predators, limiting their attraction to an area where livestock are kept. However, in large livestock operations there may be logistic constraints.
Altering predator behaviour — Simple visual stimuli
The scarecrow concept can be extended to almost anything out of the ordinary placed in a pasture or area which startles or frightens predators away. A light in a small field may work. Because predators are likely to get used to this quickly, other methods will probably be needed for any significant degree of protection.
Noise
Sounds can frighten or startle a predator. Radios, ultrasonic devices, and other noises played loudly in a pasture or pen at night will likely frighten intruders for a limited time.
These are randomly activating light and siren devices. At least one unit is needed for every 5ha. They appear to be beneficial in small areas but Dr Shivik’s research found coyotes get used to them in about 90 days.
Chemical repellents
Applying chemicals over a wide area can be less expensive and easier than other methods, but there are no selective repellents that only affect individual species.
In Dr Shivik’s research, bone-tar oil was claimed to repel coyotes when painted on fence-lines and posts. It could be applied in small to large pastures, but is costly and messy and its effectiveness was limited by habituation.
The Vichos anti-predator collar incorporates a chemical repellent released when it’s punctured. In one study, researchers found the collar was ineffective as a predator deterrent because it didn’t prevent a second attack, usually launched at the hindquarters instead of the neck.
Biological odour repellents
Predators such as jackals use scent marking to delimit territories, and it may be possible to surround pastures with artificial scent marks that could repel intruders. However, other behavioural cues, such as howling, may be necessary to effectively prevent intrusions and scent stations around the area’s perimeter may need daily maintenance. Individual scent marks may also attract predators.
Secondary repellents:
— Aversive stimuli
Conditioned taste aversion
Conditioned taste aversion (CTA) is a powerful training technique which feeds a non-lethal poison to a predator after it has consumed a type of food. The subsequent illness causes an intense aversion to that food. CTA is excellent for deterring predators from eating certain meat, but this doesn’t necessarily translate into a strong aversion to killing live prey.
Electronic training collars
Researchers have used electronic collars normally used to train domestic dogs to keep coyotes from attacking sheep and reported promising results. Others were unable to overcome logistical difficulties and show an effective way to use the collars in real ranching situations.
More common methods
Translocation
Cage-trapping and translocating problem animals is sometimes advocated, but translocated predators often attempt to return, cause similar or worse conflicts, or die. South African research has shown they could also cause huge social upheaval in their new surroundings.
Animal armour
The novelty of protective collars may deter predators for a while, but the animals are very adaptable and quick to learn alternative killing methods. This makes it difficult to develop animal armour that’s practical and effective in the long term.
Fencing
Fences can be very effective, but due to construction and maintenance costs are most practical for small night-time enclosures.
Livestock farmers should be informed about the available non-lethal predator control techniques, under what circumstances they work, and which are a waste of time and money. So says a paper by Dr John A Shivik of the US Department of Agriculture National Wildlife Research Centre. One possible solution, he suggest, is zoning land. “This acknowledges the need for different management goals and priorities in different use areas,” he says. “Some areas would be managed to be predator-free and designated for livestock, while in others predators could roam with minimal human disturbance.”
A common misconception is that increasing biodiversity on a farm will cut livestock losses because predators will have more “natural” prey. Dr Shivik warns that diversionary feeding or altering prey populations may be ineffective over the long-term.
“It may also be useful to place carcasses or other food in areas near livestock so predators eat these instead, but even well-fed predators may harass and kill livestock, and diversionary feeding may increase their numbers,” he says. Other researchers have already shot down the notion that predators only go for sick or weak lambs.
Here is a summary of Dr Shivik’s list of non-lethal predator control methods and their drawbacks:
Timing breeding
Predators are more likely to kill livestock at specific times of the year, such as when they have young to feed. If livestock are bred earlier in the season, they grow larger earlier and may be less vulnerable. However, market and range conditions may be more economically important than predator damage, making the altering of the breeding season unfeasible. There may also be increased husbandry and veterinary costs and biological limits on changing breeding seasons.
Selective pasturing, lambing and calving
Certain pastures and range areas may have a record of high predation. It may be possible not to use them for livestock. Of course, the best grazing areas for livestock may also be most attractive to predators, so altering timing or use of land may not be economically or logistically feasible. Moving livestock around repeatedly can also cause stress and affect weight gain.
Altering herd composition
Mixing cattle with sheep (forming a “flerd”) may improve landscape use. Cattle may also be more aggressive toward small predators, although they’re still susceptible to larger ones. However, cattle and sheep operations differ in market conditions, timing and land use, and running a “flerd” may be difficult or impossible. Cattle and sheep don’t stay together naturally and must be bonded by raising young heifers with lambs for 30 to 60 days.
Carcass removal
Finding and destroying carcasses of animals that have died in the veld may help limit food supplies for predators, limiting their attraction to an area where livestock are kept. However, in large livestock operations there may be logistic constraints. |fw
