Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
