The first experience of livestock guarding dogs preventing large carnivore damages in Finland

Challenges for recovery of large carnivores in humanized countries: attitudes and knowledge of sheep farmers towards brown bear in Western Pyrenees, Spain

During 2017, we studied knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes towards brown bears by extensive mountain sheep farmers in the Western Pyrenees, using a structured questionnaire, specifically, whether the scarce bear presence, or the administrative region, was influential. Livestock raising practices are mainly family properties and have suffered a strong decline in the last decades. Despite its low abundance (only 2 bear individuals during the study period in the area), there was a generalized negative attitude towards the presence of bears. Farmers considered bear presence as incompatible with sheep mountain herding. One third of them have experienced bear damages, although this was not the main difficulty for the viability of farming practices. They were able to change husbandry practices after wildlife and dog’s damages, increasing vigilance, hiring shepherds, and using livestock guarding dogs, whose work is perceived as satisfactory. Farmers considered that information available about bear and compensation systems for damages was insufficient, and should be improved.

Olfactory communication to protect livestock: dingo response to urine marks of livestock guardian dogs

The behavioural mechanisms by which livestock guardian dogs (LGDs) protect livestock from wild predators are not yet fully understood. LGD urine could play a part, as scent-marking the boundaries of a territory could signal occupation of the area to predators. Past selection for dogs that were most effective in deterring predators could have resulted in LGDs that produce urine with predator-deterrent properties. In this research, 28 captive dingoes (14 male and 14 female) were tested for their response to urine marks of LGDs (Maremma sheepdogs), herding dogs (Border Collies) and other dingoes, with distilled water used as a control. The response of the dingoes to the scents was measured using eight variables. For most variables, the response to the test scents was not statistically different from the response to the control. Test minus control was calculated for each test scent category, and used to compare responses between different test scents. The response to Maremma urine was similar to the response to Border Collie urine, and resembled a reaction to a conspecific. We found no evidence of predator-repellent properties of LGD urine. Our results suggest that dingoes readily engage in olfactory communication with Maremmas. It therefore seems likely that they would recognise territorial boundaries created by working Maremmas.

Where do livestock guardian dogs go? Movement patterns of free-ranging Maremma sheepdogs

In many parts of the world, livestock guardian dogs (LGDs) are a relatively new and increasingly popular method for controlling the impact of wild predators on livestock. On large grazing properties in Australia, LGDs are often allowed to range freely over large areas, with minimal supervision by their owners. How they behave in this situation is mostly unknown. We fitted free-ranging Maremma sheepdogs with GPS tracking collars on three properties in Victoria, Australia; on two properties, four sheep were also fitted with GPS collars. We investigated how much time the Maremmas spent with their livestock, how far they moved outside the ranges of their stock, and tested whether they use their ranges sequentially, which is an effective way of maintaining a presence over a large area. The 95% kernel isopleth of the Maremmas ranged between 31 and 1161 ha, the 50% kernel isopleth ranged between 4 and 252 ha. Maremmas spent on average 90% of their time in sheep paddocks. Movements away from sheep occurred mostly at night, and were characterised by high-speed travel on relatively straight paths, similar to the change in activity at the edge of their range. Maremmas used different parts of their range sequentially, similar to sheep, and had a distinct early morning and late afternoon peak in activity. Our results show that while free-ranging LGDs spend the majority of their time with livestock, movements away from stock do occur. These movements could be important in allowing the dogs to maintain large territories, and could increase the effectiveness of livestock protection. Allowing LGDs to range freely can therefore be a useful management decision, but property size has to be large enough to accommodate the large areas that the dogs use.

Good dog! Using livestock guardian dogs to protect livestock from predators in Australia's extensive grazing systems

Context Wild predators are a serious threat to livestock in Australia. Livestock guardian dogs (LGDs) may be able to reduce or eliminate predation, but their effectiveness in Australian grazing systems has not been systematically evaluated. In particular, little is known about the effectiveness of LGDs in situations where they range freely over large areas in company with large numbers of livestock. Aims We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of LGDs as currently used in Australia and determine the factors influencing effectiveness, in particular in relation to scale of management. We also documented how LGDs are managed in Australia, evaluated their cost effectiveness, and identified factors that influence the number of dogs required in different property situations. Methods We conducted a telephone survey of 150 livestock producers with LGDs in Australia, including all livestock types and property situations, in all States. Ten producers were visited, of which one is detailed as a case study. Key results Effectiveness was apparently high: 65.7% of respondents reported that predation ceased after obtaining LGDs, and a further 30.2% reported a decrease of predation. When the number of stock per dog exceeds 100, LGDs might not be able to eliminate all predation. Dogs are often kept free-ranging on large properties where wild dogs are the main predator, but are usually restricted in their movements on smaller properties or with smaller predators. The cost of obtaining a LGD is returned within 1–3 years after the dog starts working. The number of dogs required for a property mainly depends on the number of livestock needing protection, and the main type of predator in the area. Conclusions Provided a sufficient number of LGDs are used, they can be as effective in protecting livestock from predators in Australia when ranging freely on large properties with large numbers of livestock as they are in small-scale farming systems. Implications LGDs can provide a cost-effective alternative to conventional predator control methods in Australia’s extensive grazing enterprises, potentially reducing or eliminating the need for other forms of control. LGDs could play a major role in securing the viability of livestock businesses and reconciling people–predator conflict in Australia.