Nonlethal tools and methods: Livestock guard dogs

USDA-WS-NWRC Predator Research Facility Currently, about 32% of livestock producers use guard dogs to reduce coyote predation

Usually “white” guard dogs Disadvantages of guard dogs 1. Legal issues Disadvantages of guard dogs 1. Legal issues – Creation of signs & brochures Disadvantages of guard dogs 1. Legal issues – Creation of signs & brochures – Use of human-friendly breeds Disadvantages of guard dogs 1. Legal issues – Creation of signs & brochures – Use of human-friendly breeds – Proper training Disadvantages of guard dogs 1. Legal issues 2. Wolves can kill or injure guard dogs Disadvantages of guard dogs 1. Legal issues 2. Wolves kill or injure LGDs – Test different breeds Objective: Identify which breeds of livestock guard dogs are effective at protecting livestock from wolves Kangal

Turkey, mastiff Males 26-32” high 110-150 lbs Karakachan

Ancient breed Males: 25-30” high 90-120 lbs Cão de Gado Transmontano

Mastiff dog of great size Males: 30-34” high 120-150 lbs Methods • Placed 81 guard dogs with 22 sheep producers

Methods • Place dogs with producers – Bond dogs to sheep bands – Train the dogs

Methods • Place dogs with producers – Bond LGDs to sheep bands – Train LGDs – Kangal, Karakachan, Cão de Gado Transmontano, “white” dogs

“White” dogs

Akbash, Anatolian, Pyrenees, Komondor, Maremma, & cross breeds Methods

• Monitor space use – GPS or VHF collars on guard dogs, bears, & wolves – GPS tags on sheep Methods • Monitor space use of guard dogs Methods • Monitor space use relative to sheep Methods • Monitor space use • Monitor guard dog behavior – Focal sampling – Behavioral response to simulation tests Methods – simulation tests Methods – simulation tests 1000 900 Deer 800 Wolf

700 600 500 400 300 Behavior Counts Behavior 200 100 0 not visible investigating barking moving scanning Behavior Methods • Measure – Co-occurrence via occupancy modeling Methods • Measure – Co-occurrence – Sheep survival across treatments via competing risk analysis Methods • Measure – Co-occurrence – Sheep survival across treatments – Human perspectives Methods – human perspectives Methods – human perspectives Methods – human perspectives Expected Results • Efficacy – Behavior & space use of breeds (dogs stay with sheep?) Expected Results • Efficacy – Behavior & space use of breeds (dogs stay with sheep?) – Survival (increased sheep survival?)

Expected Results • Efficacy – Behavior & space use of breeds (dogs stay with sheep?) – Survival (increased sheep survival?) – Carnivore response (do they stay away?) Expected Results • Efficacy – Behavior & space use of breeds (dogs stay with sheep?) – Survival (increased sheep survival?) – Carnivore response (do they stay away?) • Human tolerance & perspectives (do they work?) Acknowledgements Field technicians, guard dog breeders/suppliers, sheep producers & herders, state wildlife agencies

P. Schirf More info: Julie Young, Principal Investigator, Logan Field Station Email: [email protected]

P. Schirf