A descriptive study of dairy goat predation in Louisiana.
Questionnaires concerning herd size, housing and management, and previous instances of predation were mailed to 124 goat owners in Louisiana. Postcards were mailed over a period of one year on a monthly basis, to the 84 individuals who responded to this questionnaire. Owners were asked to indicate whether they had seen predators on their property and whether any goats were injured or killed by the predators. Upon receipt of any postcard with a "yes" answer to either of these questions, a telephone interview was conducted to determine the exact circumstances of predator experience. The interview format included time, physical circumstances, and detailed questions about the actions of the predator and the goats. In 85% of the cases, the predators sighted were reported as dogs, and most of these were thought to be pets, rather than wild. Instances of attacks occurred most frequently during periods of reduced light. No clear seasonal pattern of attacks emerged. Four management factors were associated with a reduction in number of attacks; penning the goats at night, use of a night light, proximity of the herd to an occupied residence, and presence of a dog.
Domestic Animal Losses to Coyotes and Dogs in Iowa
Losses of domestic livestock to coyotes (Canis latrans) and dogs were investigated from claims filed at county courthouses in Iowa between 1960 and 1974. A total of 5,800 claims was examined, representing losses of 18,309 sheep, 826 cattle, 2,257 swine, and 6,839 chickens, turkeys, geese, and ducks. For all reported sheep losses, 49 percent were attributed to dogs and 36 percent to coyotes. The proportions of cattle, swine, and poultry killed by dogs also were greater than those attributed to coyotes. Since 1960, the proportion of the predator loss attributed to coyotes has increased, although there has been no change in the total magnitude of predation losses. Overall, predators killed a mean of 1.5 percent of the lambs born and a maximum of 3.5 percent of the total sheep production on the 14-county area. Sheep, swine, and poultry losses were greatest in the summer or early fall and cattle losses were greatest in the spring. The magnitude of depredations appeared to be more a function of livestock availability than of predator density. Traditional management tools that result in the taking of coyotes primarily in the fall and winter (hunting, trapping and bounties) have little effect on coyotes during the season when the greatest livestock losses are occurring. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 42(2):362-372 In recent years, wildlife managers have recognized the need for factual data on predator-livestock relationships if predators are to be managed intelligently. To date, studies concerned with livestock losses to predators have centered on the western sheep-raising industry in areas where coyote densities are high and human populations are relatively sparse. Presnall (1948) first concluded that a large proportion of livestock depredations in the West are attributable to coyotes. Balser (1974), however, pointed out that total sheep losses in the West do not differ much from those in the eastern United States where, he speculated, losses to dogs and heavy parasite loads may offset coyote losses. The relationship between livestock predation by native versus domestic or feral predators is poorly understood in areas where both types occur. Wildlife management agencies commonly are presented with conflicting, and often extreme, viewpoints concerning the relative severity and magnitude of depredations by domestic versus native predators. The major sources of data on livestock depredations in the western United States have been reviewed by Leopold (1964), Wagner (1972), Cain et al. (1972), Balser (1974), Nesse et al. (1976), and Gee et al. (1977). These include the records of government agencies (most of these data were collected incidental to other activities), data obtained from mail questionnaires and personal interviews, and data collected in field assessment studies designed to locate and necropsy dead sheep. All these studies have been concerned primarily with coyote predation on sheep and have been conducted almost exclusively in areas where some predator control was in effect. Denny (1974) pointed out that few data, or even rational estimates, have been available on the scope and magnitude of property losses attributed to dogs. This is despite the fact that domestic dogs number about 34,100,000 in the United States 'Journal Paper No. J-8718 of the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Ames. Project No. 2031. 2 Present Address: Kansas State University, Southwest Area Extension Office, 1501 Fulton Terrace, Garden City 67846. 362 J. Wildl. Manage. 42(2):1978 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.183 on Thu, 26 May 2016 05:20:55 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms LIVESTOCK LOSSES TO COYOTES AND DOGS" Boggess et al. 363 (American Humane Association 1972, cited by Denny 1974). Feral and free-ranging dogs, as well as coyote-dog hybrids, also exist in many areas of the United States (Young and Jackson 1951, Gipson 1972, Scott and Causey 1973, and Nesbitt 1975). Denny (1974) also conducted a nationwide survey of damage caused by dogs and found that, from an economic standpoint, state agricultural and wildlife agencies ranked livestock damages as the most important problem posed by dogs. This paper represents the results of an investigation into the magnitude and timing of depredations by coyotes and dogs on domestic livestock. The study was conducted in an area where no organized predator control program was in effect. Domestic animal loss claims filed by the producer at county courthouses in Iowa provided a unique opportunity to compile data on livestock losses incurred over a period of several years in a wide area. From these data we were able to determine not only the relative magnitude of reported losses, but also the yearly and monthly loss trends, factors of great potential significance to any applied predator management program. This paper is a portion of a M.S. study (Boggess 1975) financed by the Iowa Conservation Commission, Federal Aid Project W-115-R-2 and by the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station. M. K. Petersen, J. F. Heer, L. D. Wing, and A. Farris gave valuable criticism of this manuscript. K. Augustine aided in collection of the data and D. F. Cox and T. Bubolz provided much help in statistical analysis of the data.
Lamb predation in Australia: incidence, predisposing conditions, and the identification of wounds
Surveys of neonatal lamb mortality show that neither disease nor predation is reponsible for most of the losses, although in certain flocks these factors may cause severe damage. Nearly half of the lambs are starving at death and this suggests a breakdown in the mother-offspring relationship. The pertinent aspects of ewe and lamb behaviour and physiology are discussed and the predisposing conditions for predation are defined as: (1) faulty nutrition of the ewe during pregnancy, resulting in prolonged labour; (2) climatic stress during and after parturition. The species involved in lamb predation and carrion feeding are discussed in relation to the role played by these animals in neonatal lamb mortality. The need to distinguish between the predation of healthy lambs, the predation of sick and weakly lambs, and the eating of carrion is emphasized. Wounds made by Australian carnivorous animals, on both live and dead lambs, are described and a key to lamb-wound identification included. Appendix I describes the technique of lamb autopsy and the assessment of lamb viability. Appendix II gives an example of the use of this method in the analysis of predation in two flocks. Appendix III discusses the terminology relevant to predators and predation.