Guardian dogs for livestock and protection in Australia

作者: L van Bommel

DOI:

关键词:

摘要: Wild predators can form a threat to livestock production all over the world. Lethal methods are often used control predators, however, lethal has many disadvantages. Livestock Guardian Dogs (LGDs) offer non-lethal alternative predator control. There is increasing evidence that LGDs be highly effective for stock protection, and able protect types of from different predators. In Australia, wild dogs (including dingoes hybrids) cause most damage industry. relatively new method in little research been done on their use. In this PhD project, effectiveness protection Australia was investigated. particular, I examined effects scale management – size property number LGD effectiveness, movements behaviour. A critical evaluation existing literature showed that, methods, likely suitable Australian farm conditions. A telephone survey among 150 users further these apparently with 66% respondents stating had eliminated predation, an additional 30% significantly decreased predation. Scale did not influence effectiveness; main factor influencing per LGD. In order investigate behaviour, GPS collars were deployed Maremma Sheepdogs three properties, where free-ranging large areas livestock. The results show spend between 82% 100% time livestock, but away do occur. On two simulated dog incursions test Maremmas’ response challenge. These experiments exhibit territorial suggest free ranging use exclusion Movements then expected, as need some patrol maintain boundaries. LGDs very both small properties extensive operations, long appropriate situation. free-ranging, set up territories around stock. This because it creates buffer zone which repelled. By reducing or eliminating have great potential conflict producers predators. benefit dingo conservation biodiversity, if reduced when used.

参考文章(285)
Maja Weilenmann, Markus Gusset, David R. Mills, Tefo Gabanapelo, Monika Schiess-Meier, Is translocation of stock-raiding leopards into a protected area with resident conspecifics an effective management tool? Wildlife Research. ,vol. 37, pp. 702- 707 ,(2010) , 10.1071/WR10013
Jay F. Kirkpatrick, Measuring the effects of wildlife contraception: the argument for comparing apples with oranges. Reproduction, Fertility and Development. ,vol. 19, pp. 548- 552 ,(2007) , 10.1071/RD06163
G. Gingold, Y. Yom-Tov, N. Kronfeld-Schor, E. Geffen, Effect of guard dogs on the behavior and reproduction of gazelles in cattle enclosures on the Golan Heights Animal Conservation. ,vol. 12, pp. 155- 162 ,(2009) , 10.1111/J.1469-1795.2009.00235.X
Alan Robley, Andrew Gormley, David M. Forsyth, Alan N. Wilton, Danielle Stephens, Movements and habitat selection by wild dogs in eastern Victoria Australian Mammalogy. ,vol. 32, pp. 23- 32 ,(2010) , 10.1071/AM09030
Katherine E. Moseby, Heather Neilly, John L. Read, Helen A. Crisp, Interactions between a Top Order Predator and Exotic Mesopredators in the Australian Rangelands International Journal of Ecology. ,vol. 2012, pp. 1- 15 ,(2012) , 10.1155/2012/250352
Carl R. Gustavson, Daniel J. Kelly, Michael Sweeney, John Garcia, Prey-lithium aversions. I: coyotes and wolves Behavioral Biology. ,vol. 17, pp. 61- 72 ,(1976) , 10.1016/S0091-6773(76)90272-8
Jason P. Edgar, Rob G. Appleby, Darryl N. Jones, Efficacy of an ultrasonic device as a deterrent to dingoes (Canis lupus dingo): a preliminary investigation Journal of Ethology. ,vol. 25, pp. 209- 213 ,(2007) , 10.1007/S10164-006-0004-1