DOCSLIB.ORG

The Use of Guard Llamas to Protect Sheep from Coyote Predation" (1993)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Use of Guard Llamas to Protect Sheep from Coyote Predation Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1-1-1993 The seu of guard llamas to protect sheep from coyote predation Kelly Johnson Powell Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Agriculture Commons Recommended Citation Powell, Kelly Johnson, "The use of guard llamas to protect sheep from coyote predation" (1993). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 17654. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/17654 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The use of guard llamas to protect sheep from coyote predation 'M by / / /. / ^ f 7 Kelly Johnson Powell A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department: Animal Ecology Major: Animal Ecology es have been redacted for privacy Signatures have been redacted for priv Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 1993 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1 PAPER 1: USE AND MANAGEMENT OF GUARD LLAMAS FOR PROTECTING SHEEP AGAINST PREDATION ... 4 ABSTRACT 5 INTRODUCTION 6 METHODS 9 RESULTS 12 DISCUSSION 21 MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 28 LITERATURE CITED 30 PAPER 2. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF GUARD LLAMAS FOR PROTECTING SHEEP AGAINST COYOTE PREDATION 45 ABSTRACT 46 INTRODUCTION 47 METHODS 50 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 55 MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 67 LITERATURE CITED 69 GENERAL SUMMARY 80 LITERATURE CITED 82 APPENDIX A: GUARD LLAMA RESEARCH NEWS RELEASE 84 APPENDIX B: GUARD LLAMA RESEARCH POSTCARD 86 APPENDIX C: 1991/1992 GUARD LLAMA OWNER SURVEY 89 Ill ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Iowa State University Department of Animal Ecology, ISU Graduate College, International Llama Association, and the Rocky Mountain Lama and Alpaca Association provided funding for this research. I thank the sheep producers who responded to this survey, and Glenn Frame and Jim Forseth for providing the names of many ranchers with guard llamas. Special appreciation to D. F. Cox who provided statistical advice and C. R. Youngs who provided sheep information. Many other people provided guidance and support. Dr. Bill Franklin, my major professor, conceived the original ideas for this project and introduced me to the world of llamas. Dr. Jim Pease served on my committee and provided valuable writing assistance. Harold Baker and Toni Genalo, from the ISU Statistics Department, helped design the questionnaire and gave survey advice. Duane Skow and Howard Holden provided assistance in obtaining data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service. Special thanks to Terry Price, a llama enthusiast from Colorado, for his support and encouragement. My assistants Sherri Six, Mario Nall, Anita King, Holly Halsch, and Kelli Neilson, deserve many thanks for their many hours of interviewing and data entry. I am grateful to my parents, Rich and Jody, my brothers, Kent and Kory, and the rest of my family for inspiring me to persevere and attain my goals. Thanks to my "second" family, IV Nancy, Raymond, Noel, and my in-laws for providing encouragement, undying interest in llamas and sheep, and a hefty supply of llama paraphernalia. My husband, Larkin, provided constant support when I thought I could not make another phone call or sit at the computer another minute. Thanks for listening to coyote, sheep, and llama babble for 3 years. We both made it, and new challenges await! Lastly, I thank my friends (Julie, Kris, Anjeanette, Martha, Tom, Sandy, Steve, Bao-sen, Heidi, Wally, Stephanie, Dick, Mike, Warren, Melinda, and Tim) who reminded me that there was more to life than graduate school. Thanks for all the hours of stress relief and movie marathons! 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION Predation is a leading cause of mortality in sheep. U.S. sheep losses due to coyotes and other predators reached over $83 million in 1987, up from $72 million in 1986 and $69 million in 1985. The 1987 losses represented 5.4% of the total U.S. sheep population and 8.8% of the total value of all sheep (Terrill 1988). These losses resulted in higher prices paid by the consumer for lamb and wool products. Canid sheep predators, especially coyotes (Canis latrans), are one of the most serious problems facing the sheep industry today. Predation is a critical issue with serious implications to both animal husbandry and wildlife management. A variety of methods for controlling canid predation have been tried, including lethal and nonlethal techniques (Cadieux 1983, Andelt 1987, Wagner 1988). Methods vary greatly in cost and effectiveness and do not always have the desired outcome. The development of nonlethal predator control methods resulted in the reintroduction of the historically important method of using guard animals (Coppinger et al. 1988). Guard animals currently include dogs (Canis familiaris) (Andelt 1992), donkeys (Eauus asinus) (Strom 1987), ostriches (Struthio camelus) and llamas (Lama spp.) (Botkin and Taylor 1985; Markham 1990, 1992) . Recent research has focused on dogs, while alternative guard animals remain relatively unresearched. 2 This project investigated the use of llamas as guard animals for sheep. Many sheep ranchers were already using llamas to protect their flocks (Markham 1990). The goals of this project were to determine the guarding effectiveness of llamas and to determine the most effective way of utilizing them as guard animals. To reach these goals, I considered the following questions: 1) To what degree are they effective? 2) In what types of situations? 3) How much care do the llamas require? 4) What are the expenses involved with using a guard llama? A nationwide telephone survey of 145 sheep ranchers with 204 guard llamas was conducted from July 1991 to April of 1992 to determine the management and husbandry practices of guard llama programs. I also recorded llama characteristics such as sex, age, and behavior. I compared the reported losses to predators before and after adding a llama to the flock, and the losses to predators among different management situations. The predator losses of guard llama owners were compared with the predator losses of sheep ranchers surveyed by the National Agricultural Statistics Service. Explanation of Thesis Format This thesis contains 2 papers suitable for publication. Paper 1 explains the management and husbandry practices used by ranchers with guard llamas. Paper 2 describes the effectiveness of guard llamas at reducing sheep and lamb 3 predator losses, and also compares the predation losses in different management situations. A General Summary follows Paper 2, and literature cited in the General Introduction and Summary follow the Summary. The 2 papers are written using the format specified by the Wildlife Society Bulletin. 4 PAPER 1: USE AND MANAGEMENT OF GUARD LLAMAS FOR PROTECTING SHEEP AGAINST PREDATION 5 ABSTRACT A 1991/1992 nationwide telephone survey of 145 sheep producers with guard llamas determined how llamas were being used by ranchers. Producers had used guard llamas for an average of 3.2 years. The individual llamas had been used as guard animals for an average of 2.6 years because producers sometimes had owned more than 1 llama. Guarded flock size averaged 283.6 (range 4-2150 sheep and lambs, median = 120) in pastures ranging from 2-3238.6 ha (x = 113.7 ha). Most guard llamas were gelded males with an average initial cost of $570, and they were usually introduced to the flock at 0.5-1 year of age. Most llamas (83%, n = 204) were given the same care as the sheep and required no extra care or training. Problems reported were attempted breeding of ewes by llamas and llama aggressiveness towards the flock. Important benefits were easy maintenance and predator control. Eighty percent of 193 llamas were individually rated as very effective or effective at reducing losses to predators. Eighty-eight percent of the producers were either very satisfied or satisfied with their overall guard llama program, and 86 guard llama owners provided average annual savings estimates (x = $1,034) . Llamas are a low maintenance guard animal with the potential to be a cost effective method of reducing sheep mortality caused by predators. 6 INTRODUCTION Canid predation, especially by coyotes (Canis latrans), is one of the most serious problems facing the sheep industry today. Terrill (1988) reported that sheep losses due to coyotes and other predators reached over $83 million in 1987, representing 5.4% of the total U.S. sheep population and 8.8% of the total value of all sheep. The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported that the United States had 108,940 ranches/farms with 9,470,600 stock sheep and lambs in 1990 (NASS 1992). Also in 1990, a total of 490,000 sheep and lambs (after tail-docking) were lost to animal predators, representing 37% of the losses from all causes (predator and nonpredator) and a total loss of $21,700,000 (NASS 1991) . Sixty-three percent of the total losses were attributed to nonpredator causes such as weather, disease, and poison. Coyotes were the most important predator, accounting for 64% of all predator losses. A variety of lethal methods for controlling canid predation have been tried or tested, including shooting (Wade 1978), poisoning (Wagner 1988), trapping (Gipson 1975), denning (Till and Knowlton 1983) and toxic collars (Connolly et al. 1978). Methods vary greatly in cost and effectiveness and do not always have the desired outcome. Expensive bounties and indiscriminate poisoning programs have been shown to have little effect on the level of predation on sheep 7 (Wagner 1988) . In addition, many of these technological solutions are too expensive or unavailable to the small-scale sheep farmer.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Attra Final Report 2019-2020
    ATTRA FINAL REPORT 2019-2020 SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas Program RB-17-06 Annual Performance Report for Public Distribution April 24, 2019 – May 15, 2020 Submitted to: USDA Rural Business – Cooperative Service 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20250 Submitted by: National Center for Appropriate Technology Background he ATTRA program was created in the New Hampshire; Jackson, Mississippi; and Check, 1985 Farm Bill and has been reauthorized Virginia. Each offi ce covers a region of the U.S.: T in all subsequent Farm Bills. ATTRA is Montana covers the northwestern U.S., Arkansas housed within the USDA’s Rural Business- covers the southeast, California covers the west, Cooperative Service (RBS) and managed by the Texas covers the southwest, New Hampshire National Center for Appropriate Technology covers the northeast, Mississippi covers the (NCAT) through a cooperative agreement with Gulf States region, and Virginia covers the mid- USDA/RD. This national program strives to off er Atlantic region. Additionally, NCAT has remote improved access to scientifi cally sound, under- offi ces in Durango, Colorado, and Dallas, standable, and practical information to commercial Pennsylvania. agriculture producers by responding to client This report covers the performance period of requests received via national toll-free telephone April 24, 2019, through May 15, 2020. lines, postal mail, email, online chat, Facebook, Twitter, other social media, and conferences. Historically, the producers who access the ATTRA’s COVID-19 services most frequently are family-scale, small- Response scale, beginning, limited-resource, and returning veteran farmers. ATTRA’s external evaluator In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the reports that the median age of commercial ATTRA program rapidly pivoted to serve producers accessing ATTRA technical assistance the nation’s farming community with additional and resources is 45, and 40% are women needs resulting from the crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Predator Loss Prevention Best Management Practices for Sheep
    Wild Predator Loss Prevention Best Management Practices for Sheep A guide for sheep producers on how to minimize predation of sheep 1 Wild Predator Loss Prevention Best Management Practices for Sheep Producers _______________________________________ ____________________________________________________ What is a Best Management Practice? A Best Management Practice can be a process, activity, method or technique. These processes, activities, methods and techniques are generally understood to be more effective in reaching a certain outcome or accomplishing a task than other conventional processes, activities, methods or techniques. Best Management Practices are used in many professions such as construction, technology, ecological protection, sustainable development and health care. What is a Best Management Practice for Sheep Producers? A Best Management Practice (BMP) is an approach to livestock production that seeks to minimize predation on a flock while taking into account the surrounding environment, including the wild animals within it. A BMP provides sheep producers with a toolkit of options to assist with the protection of livestock from predation. BMPs go with the idea that it is much easier to take steps to prevent predation than to try to stop it once it has started. These are your “best bets” for keeping your livestock safe. These best management practices fall into 5 categories, and are explained in the following pages. They include: ➡Husbandry Practices ➡Predator Repellants ➡Guardian Animals ➡Fencing ➡Knowing Your Neighbours The intent of this BMP is not to limit sheep producers, but rather, to provide options for them. It should be understood that every farm is different, and due to physical factors and geographic location, some farms do not have the option to adapt to several of the suggestions listed in this document.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Alpacas As New-Born Lamb Protectors to Minimise Fox Predation
    Extension Farming Systems Journal volume 1 number 1 – Industry Forum 65 The use of alpacas as new-born lamb protectors to minimise fox predation Sara Mahoney1 and AA Charry2 1 ‘Windara’ Naracoorte SA 5271 2Charles Sturt University, Faculty of Science and Agriculture, Orange NSW 2800 Australia [email protected] Summary. Canine attacks on newborn lambs are a problem for sheep farmers, causing substantial economic losses to the sheep industry. Anecdotal evidence indicates that alpacas reduce the losses caused by such attacks when placed within sheep flocks. A trial was conducted at two sheep farms in rural NSW where experimental – ewes grazing with alpacas - and control – ewes grazing without alpacas – groups, with replication within and across farms were organised with a total of 6,483 breeding ewes. Overall weaning percentages for each flock of sheep were tabulated at 14 weeks and evaluation of performance between groups was conducted using descriptive statistics. An inferential statistical t test for pairs was conducted to find out the level of significance of the difference in performance between the trial and control groups. Combined weaning percentage for the control groups was 69.8% while the experimental groups showed a combined weaning percentage of 82.6%. Assuming equal mortality rate because of natural causes among the groups, it may be concluded that the presence of alpacas within the lambing paddocks increased lambing weaning percentage by 13% with a = 0.025 (i.e. confidence level = 97.5%). The economic benefit is obvious considering that there is an increase of 13 lambs for each 100 breeding ewes that valued at market prices represent a meaningful marginal farm income.
    [Show full text]
  • Loss of Livestock Including Dairy Animals to Predators – Is It Increasing?
    DAIRY VETERINARY NEWSLETTER March 2011 Loss of Livestock Including Dairy Animals to Predators – Is it Increasing? On March 18, 2011 a settlement was reached between 10 wildlife advocacy groups and the U.S. Department of Interior that would allow hunting for wolves to resume in Montana and Idaho. The settlement still needs approval from U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula, Montana. It would keep wolves under federal protection, for now, in Oregon, Washington, Utah and Wyoming. In that entire 6-state Northern Rockies region there are an estimated 1,651 wolves, a population described as expanding rapidly over the last 10 years. A driving force in the decision was increased concern over wolf predation of livestock, as well as wolf-human interactions, subjects on which different groups have conflicting opinions. The exact number of wolves in Utah is unknown, but according to several accounts, incidents of wolves killing livestock are increasing in Utah. Nevertheless, as will be addressed below, it is still true that the vast majority of livestock losses - including losses of dairy animals - to predators are caused by feral dogs and coyotes. An ABC news story from July 2010 quoted Leonard Blackham, Utah Commissioner for Agriculture and Food as saying, "We're very concerned about the wolves coming to Utah - - it's surely a challenge for livestock and livestock producers. They are very aggressive animals. - - "If [a] wolf is in the area [of livestock], the rancher or his employee are legally allowed to take out that animal." The story also mentions a July 2010 incident where “a wolf was taken out in Summit County after killing thousands of dollars worth of livestock”.
    [Show full text]
  • Guardian Animals for Alberta.Indd
    Alberta Sheep Guardian Animals for Alberta Guardian animals can be very effective along with other appropriate predation control methods. These animals are full-time members of the flock and require patience from livestock owners. Once a guardian animal is able to develop a bond with the livestock they will be able to reach their full protective potential. Guard Dogs The guardian dog is required to protect the flock and is not meant to herd it. A suc- cessful guardian dog is one of genetic quality with an emphasis on proper rearing. Once a puppy has been selected it should be raised among the flock to prevent biting ears, overplaying, and excessive wandering. Quality Characteristics • able to act independently • must be attentive to sheep and not harm them • physically sound and of good conformation • alert, confident, intelligent Selecting the Appropriate Breed Dogs with a history of protecting livestock: • Maremma (Italy) • Shar Planietz (Yugoslavia) • Anatolian shepherd (Turkey) • Komondor (Hungary) • Great Pyrenees (France and Spain) • Akbash (Turkey) How Many Dogs? Experienced dogs may effectively patrol hundreds of sheep within several hundred acres. Younger dogs may not be able to guard as many sheep in such a large area. Topography must also be considered brush, ravines and hills may be too much for one dog. Therefore, once the first dog is well established a second dog may be intro- duced. The established dog can become a role model for an untrained dog. Produc- ers must also be aware of the problems that may arise from introducing more than one dog. If one of the dogs displays inappropriate behaviours, the second dog may also adopt these bad behaviours.
    [Show full text]
  • Find Doc > Camelids
    1DAISTDH5U0A ~ Doc ~ Camelids Camelids Filesize: 7.76 MB Reviews A really amazing pdf with perfect and lucid reasons. This really is for anyone who statte there was not a worth reading through. Your daily life span is going to be transform when you comprehensive looking at this book. (Malachi Braun) DISCLAIMER | DMCA QSDLDMPAALCH ^ eBook ~ Camelids CAMELIDS Reference Series Books LLC Jan 2013, 2013. Taschenbuch. Book Condition: Neu. 315x255x7 mm. Neuware - Source: Wikipedia. Pages: 32. Chapters: Camel, Llama, Australian feral camel, Alpaca, Camel milk, Dromedary, Camelsfoot Range, Vicuña, Camelid, Bactrian Camel, Guanaco, Howdah, Hemiauchenia, Cria, Berserk llama syndrome, Palaeolama, Guard llama, Vicugna, Ashdown Forest Llama Park, Camelinae, Camelini, Camel Research Farm, Bikaner, Allocamelus, Lamoid, Tülu, Camelus moreli, Accoyo Alpacas, Lamini, Camelopini. Excerpt: A camel is an even-toed ungulate within the genus Camelus, bearing distinctive fatty deposits known as humps on its back. There are two species of camels: the dromedary or Arabian camel has a single hump, and the bactrian has two humps. Dromedaries are native to the dry desert areas of West Asia, and Bactrian camels are native to Central and East Asia. Both species are domesticated; they provide milk and meat, and are working animals. The term camel (from the Arabic ¿¿¿, gml, derived from the triconsonantal root signifying 'beauty') is also used more broadly to describe any of the six camel-like creatures in the family camelidae: the two true camels, and the four South American camelids: the llama, alpaca, guanaco, and vicuña. The average life expectancy of a camel is 40 to 50 years. A fully grown adult camel stands 1.85 m (6 1 in) at the shoulder and 2.15 m (7 1 in) at the hump.
    [Show full text]
  • Llamas and Alpacas
    FS917 Fact sheet For a comprehensive list of our publications visit www.rce.rutgers.edu Llamas and Alpacas Bonnie A. Altizio, Program Associate & Michael L. Westendorf, Ph.D., Extension Specialist in Animal Sciences Introduction animals originated on the North American central plains forty million years ago and began migrat- Llamas (Lama glama) and alpacas (Lama ing about three million years ago. Those heading pacos) are members of the Camelid family, west became camels and those moving south are which also includes the vicuna (Lama vicunga) the modern llamas, alpacas, vicunas, and guana- and guanaco (Lama guanicoe). Their inclusion cos (Norwood, 1996). in this family is based upon their characteristic Camelids became extinct in North America traits of being hornless, cud-chewing ruminants at the end of the last Ice Age (10,000–12,000 with an even number of toes and padded feet. years ago). Llamas were domesticated from Their gentle disposition, need for minimal care, guanacos in the Andean highlands of Peru and ability to adapt to a variety of climates 4,000–5,000 years ago and are among the oldest makes them an easy species for which to care. domestic animals in the world (Malouin). The Llamas and alpacas may be collectively referred Incas domesticated the llama in the higher to as “lamas.” Andes mountains. During the Incan reign, breeding and production of this species were Background controlled by state llama herders and all animals were considered government property. Llama Llamas are ungulate (hooved mammals) breeding was closely monitored and hunting natives to the Andes of South America.
    [Show full text]
  • Guard Llamas a Part of Integrated Sheep Protection
    Guard Llamas A part of integrated sheep protection Coyote predation on sheep has been a problem for many years. Several methods are used to reduce this predation. Guard llamas offer a viable, non-lethal alternative for reducing predation, while requiring little specialized training and care. Coyote predation on sheep ake no mistake about it: coyotes kill sheep. M In fact, predation is a leading cause of sheep mortality and represents a serious problem for the sheep industry. Sheep losses due to all types of predation in the United States were more than $83 million in 1987, up from $72 million in 1986 and $69 million in 1985. The losses in 1987 represent 5 percent of the total sheep population in the United States. Lambs are particularly vulnerable. Lamb losses from predation average 9 percent and vary from 3 percent to 14 percent of the lambs. Sheep are found in every state of the union, and Guard llama with sheep gathered at his side. losses due to predation vary. In Iowa, the state with Pm-1527 | Revised | July 1994 Predators of sheep in the United States* Reducing coyote predation Integrated predation management Coyotes ver the last 150 years, many methods for reducing predation of sheep have been Dogs O tried. In general, methods can be divided into Mtn. Lion a) preventive methods and b) control. Eagles Preventive methods are implemented prior to Bears predation problems and are generally non-lethal Foxes to the predators. These include the use of fencing, guard animals, frightening devices, and sheep Bobcats husbandry techniques, such as night penning and Other shed lambing.
    [Show full text]
  • Choosing a Guard Animal
    Guard animals are not a cure-all for all predator problems. Although the use and effectiveness of guard animals has increased, some livestock produc- ers continue to require other animal damage control measures in addition to their livestock guardians. Livestock Guardians Wildlife conflicts are complex. If you need assistance, careful planning and consulta- tion with a qualified wildlife damage-man- agement professional is available by con- tacting USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services. California State office, Sac. (916) 979-2675 North District........................ (530) 336-5623 Sacramento District............. (916) 438-2706 Central District..................... (209) 545-463 San Luis District.................. (805) 237-0912 South District...................... (619) 561-3752 “Choosing a California Department of Food and Agriculture Animal Health Branch 1220 N Street, Room A-107 Guard Animal” Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 654-1447 Animal Health and Food Safety Services Animal Health Branch Developed by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, Animal Health Wildlife Services Branch, 1220 N Street, Room A-107, Sacramento, CA 95814. (916) 654-1447. Alternative formats available upon request. Characteristics that should be looked for in Dogs LIVESTOCK GUARDIANS selecting a guard llama include: independence, Livestock guarding breeds A growing number of livestock pro- curiosity, awareness of surroundings, not fearful originated in Europe and ducers are using guard animals to of unfamiliar things, and not afraid of dogs, but Asia, where they have reduce predation on livestock. Llamas, wary of them. been used for centuries to donkeys, and dogs are animals most protect sheep. Some of the commonly used for this purpose. The most common breeds are best guard animals stay with the Great Pyrenees (France), Komondor (Hun- livestock without harming them and gary), Akbash dog and Anatolian shepherd aggressively repel predators.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting the Flock
    Protecting the Flock By: Linda Coffey, Sustainable Agriculture Specialist – Sheep and Goats, NCAT You walk out to check your sheep, and find the best lamb is missing. Your dairy goats go out to graze with their kids, and come home later without your daughter’s best show prospect. One day you come home to find a dog has ravaged your animals, and the carnage is sickening. How do you make sure this doesn’t happen on your farm? If this is your concern, you are not alone. The American Sheep Industry Association (ASI) notes that predation is the leading cause of death in American sheep flocks. All of the above situations happened in our own flock, before we took actions to prevent predation. A good fence can help and is an essential first step. Having at least some electrified wires that are powerful enough to get attention may deter dogs and coyotes. However, in areas with a lot of predator pressure, savvy predators may figure out how to avoid shocks. Once they do, the fence will not be sufficient protection. Also, a fence cannot protect from avian predators, such as eagles or turkey vultures. Penning the livestock near the house at night can help if predators are wary of humans. That strategy may leave the animals more prone to “little predators,” however, as internal parasites become a serious problem where animals camp and manure builds up. Also, the manure left in the lot is not helping the pastures. It’s much better to keep the animals on pasture when possible, so that their fertility can build soil.
    [Show full text]
  • Alpaca and Llama Show Association Magazine Summer 2015
    Summer 2015 Alpaca and Llama Show Association ShowringMagazine Follow The Yellow Brick Road To Park City, Kansas for the 18th Annual ALSA Grand National Show of Champions October 22 - 25 , 2015 Announcing the new addition of ALPACA HALTER Halter & Performance Judges: Bill Feick Margaret Henry Hank Kauffman Fleece & Alpaca Halter: Deb Yeagle 3 Patti Morgan,KS,,• 620-441-8830 ,• [email protected] Barb Harris, CO, ,• 719-510-0899 ,• [email protected] Handbook Committee: Cheryl Juntilla, CO • Liaison • 606-970-640-8028 • [email protected] TBA Judge’s Committee: Allen Davis, IN,• Liaison • 765-278-7665 • [email protected] A publication of the Alpaca & Llama Show Association TBA Membership Committee: www.ALSAShow.org Debbie Andrews, Liaison, IL BOD • 217-346-2372 • [email protected] Nomination Committee: The new ALSA Committees are being formed now for 2015. Jim Doyle, TX, Liaison,BOD • 940-488-3163 • [email protected] Here is a list and information below of the committee liaisons as of July 14, 2015. TBA Performance Committee: We will post the chairs and committee members very soon. Debbie Andrews, Liaison, IL BOD • 217-346-2372 • [email protected] ALSA Committee members are selected by the Chair of the TBA Committee and serve a one year term starting July 1 of the Policy & Planning Committee: current year. The Committee Chair is selected by the BOD Allen Davis, IN,• Liaison • 765-278-7665 • [email protected] liaison of the Committee and also serves a one year term TBA starting July 1st of the current year. The exception to this is the Protest Committee: Regional, Grand National, and Fiber Committees which serve Cheryl Juntilla, CO • Liaison • 606-970-640-8028 • [email protected] a one year term starting December 1st of the current year - Publications, Promotions, & Marketing Committee: following the conclusion of the Regional and National shows of Susan Leslie, TX, Liaison,BOD • 830-401-0819 • [email protected] that year.
    [Show full text]
  • Predation Management with a Focus on Coyotes
    Predation Management with a Focus on Coyotes This publication is available to view or download online at http://www.ablamb.ca © 2014 Alberta Lamb Producers. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, or by any means Alberta Lamb Producers whatsoever, without the prior written con- Agriculture Centre, sent of Alberta Lamb Producers. No part of 97 East Lake Ramp NE this publication can be used or reproduced Airdrie, AB T4A 0C3 without acknowledging that Alberta Lamb Phone: 403-948-8533 Producers is the author of this publication Fax: 403-912-1455 and is the owner of the copyright. For further Email: [email protected] information contact Alberta Lamb Producers at (403) 948-8533. The Parties further agree that any repro- duction, publication or distribution of the Resource Manual by the Parties or any licen- see of the Parties shall contain the following legal disclaimer: This document is provided by Alberta Lamb Producers and may be used for informational and resource purposes only. In developing this document Alberta Lamb Producers has compiled the information in good faith, has used the most current information available and has taken reasonable efforts to ensure that the contents are accurate and reliable. Alberta Lamb Producers does not, however, warrant the quality, timeliness, adequacy, accuracy, suitability or completeness of the contents of this document. Alberta Lamb Producers shall not be liable or responsible for any claim or damage, direct or indirect, Author: arising out of the interpretation, reliance upon Anita O"Brien or other use of this information. This docu- Lansdowne, New Brunswick ment is not intended to be a definitive state- Sheep and Goat Specialist with OMAFRA, 1987-2013 ment of small ruminant business practices.
    [Show full text]