Overview of the Marin County Livestock Protection Program Stephanie Larson, Ph.D. UC Cooperative...

Overview of the Marin County Livestock Protection Program

Stephanie Larson, Ph.D.UC Cooperative Extension Livestock & Range Management AdvisorSonoma & Marin Counties

Program ChangeContentious debate:

Marin County – Ag commissioner, UC personnel, animal welfare

proponents & organizations, local ranchers

Marin County –Affluent, urban population

Livestock Protection Program:Wildlife Services vacated December 1999

LPP Implemented July 2001Often referred to as the “non-lethal” program

Program Requirements

Four categories of eligibility• Fencing• Guard animals• Scare devices• Animal husbandry

Fencing• Maximization of fencing

– Need to be 5.5 feet high to hinder jumpers– Charge wire at tops– Mend any gaps, digs, etc.

• Net-Wire Fencing– Horizontal spacing 6” x Vertical 2-4”

• Electric Fencing– 7-8 wire best but high cost– To maintain effectiveness

• Maintain wire tension• Remove excess vegetation to prevent grounding• Charger checked regularly

Guard Dogs• Instinctively Protective– 14% of dogs kill/injure sheep

• Number to use dependent on– Range size– Topography– Habitat

• Trains pups independently– Place with sheep at 7-8 weeks– Run with sheep at 16 weeks

• Feed with sheep or self feeder

Komondor

Pyrenees

Anatolian Shepard

Akbask

Komondor

Llamas

• Defenses– Use stomping to scare predator– Screaming

• Disadvantage – Can be expensive – Need to be sheared

• Advantage – Eat the same diet as sheep

Donkeys• Defenses– Loudly brays– Chase predators– Kicks

• Advantage– Less prone to accidental death

• Disadvantage: – Farrier must trim hooves– Might kill lambs

• Recommendations– Use jenny or gelded jack– 1 donkey per band of sheep– Allow 4-6 weeks for bond to develop– Remove donkey at lambing

Scare Tactics• Temporary• Requires variation of

– Position– Appearance– Duration– Frequency

• Methods– Lights– Bells– Radios

• Dark to Dusk

Livestock Husbandry Practices• Pasture selection-place sheep closer to your home – Lambing time

• Remove dead sheep immediately• Keep sheep in a corral at night• Fall lambing• Higher maintenance• Reduced gains

Program Validation

Sheep Producers:Once confirmed on 2/4 criteria

> 500 sheep, $2,000

< 500 sheep, $500

Indemnification program:

2001 Payments made based on number of losses; market value

2003 5% of losses, paid

~ 2009, indemnification program terminated, funds reallocated to practices

,

Program Acceptance

• Ranchers had a good relationship with Wildlife Specialists

• Over the years, implemented all practices available for reducing predation

• ---------------• Met regularly to adopt the program, attend

trainings, receive funds, etc.

Oversight of ProgramNon-lethal tools:• Ag Commissioner & UCCE staff oversite• Review practices• Confirmed kills• 2002 - Submitted cards• 2005 – 3rd party oversighted removedLethal tools:• Shooting still allowed • Number of coyotes taken increased• Non selectivity of takes

Control Considerations• With Assistance– USDA Animal Damage Control (ADC)

• Nondomestic predators– Agreements with land owners

• Without Assistance:– Private Trappers– Humane element– Selectivity• Run risk of killing non target species

– Toxicity

Number of Coyotes TakenWith agreements:

• WS working agreements with 25-45 ranchers, 73,000 acres (Carlsen 1999)

• Wildlife Specialist (WS) documented 40 coyotes taken (1999)With no agreements:

• Without WS, no records on losses of sheep or coyotes • Personal communications – at least 100 coyotes were taken

(2001)• Numbers maintain high, but no official documentation (2015)• “Privatizing predator control would eliminate the ability to …

maintain public records of control activities…(and) would make reporting of livestock and wildlife losses and damage, speculative a best” (Carlsen 2000)

Coyotes and Non-Target Animal

Wildlife specialists more selective in removing offending animals• “privatizing predator control could increase use of lethal

devices…(which) could result in indiscriminate taking of non-target animals...” or in “…the likelihood that unskilled citizens will resort to home remedies that could adversely affect the animals, environment, and non-target species.” (Carlsen 1999, 2000)

Program Review 1999 2005 2015

Coyotes Taken

14 100+ 100+

Total Sheep Numbers

7,500 10,320 10,111

Total losses 180 165 ?

Non Target Taken

5 ? ?

Producers in Program

17 15 5

# of sheep in Program

4,693 TBD 3,782

Other animals

NA NA 10,800 chickens40 calves

The Marin County Predator Management Program: Will it save the Sheep Industry?

Proc. 22nd Vertebr. Pest Conf. (2006)

Review of current program

15 Years into the Program

• Fewer sheep producers• More poultry & beef/dairy producers• Producers dissatisfied with the program• Costs don’t cover expenses of non lethal tools• Producers want Wildlife Specialists back

• More coyotes taken• Non targets taken is unknown

QUESTIONS

Stephanie Larson

slarson@ucdavis.edu