Transcript Larson Overview of the Marin County Livestock Protection Program

Overview of the Marin County
Livestock Protection Program
Stephanie Larson, Ph.D.
UC Cooperative Extension
Livestock & Range Management Advisor
Sonoma & Marin Counties
Program Change
Contentious 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 2001
Often 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
Komondor
Komondor
• Number to use dependent on
– Range size
– Topography
– Habitat
• Trains pups independently
Pyrenees
Akbask
– Place with sheep at 7-8 weeks
– Run with sheep at 16 weeks
• Feed with sheep or self feeder
Anatolian Shepard
Llamas
• Defenses
– Use stomping to scare predator
– Screaming
• Disadvantage
– Can be expensive
– Need to be sheared
• Advantage
– Eat the same diet as sheep
• Defenses
Donkeys
– 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 Program
Non-lethal tools:
• Ag Commissioner & UCCE staff oversite
• Review practices
• Confirmed kills
• 2002 - Submitted cards
• 2005 – 3rd party oversighted removed
Lethal 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 Taken
With 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 nontarget 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
The Marin County
Predator Management
Program: Will it save
the Sheep Industry?
Proc. 22nd Vertebr.
Pest Conf. (2006)
Review of current
program
1999
2005
2015
14
100+
100+
Total Sheep 7,500
Numbers
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
chickens
40 calves
Coyotes
Taken
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
[email protected]