Table of Contents

Proceeding

Use of Livestock Guarding Animals to Reduce Predation on Livestock

Predation by coyotes (Canis latrans), domestic dogs, mountain lions (Felis concolor), black bears (Ursus americanus), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), and bobcats (Felis rufus) has been a major problem faced by domestic sheep, goat (NASS, 2000), and cattle (NASS, 2001) producers. Predators were reported to kill 273,000 sheep and lambs (NASS, 2000) and 147,000 cattle and calves (NASS, 2001) in the United States, and 61,000 goats in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas (NASS, 2000) during either 1999 or 2000. Several methods, including the use of livestock guarding dogs, llamas, and donkeys, have been used to reduce these mortalities (Andelt, 1996, 2001). In this paper, I summarize use and effectiveness of livestock guarding animals for reducing predation on domestic sheep and goats. Recent reviews of livestock guarding animals are provided by Smith et al. (2000) and Rigg (2001)

Nebraska Trapping

Fur bearers and trapping played an important role in the exploration and development of Nebraska. The harvest of our fur-bearer resource is part of every Nebraskan\u27s heritage. Wise use of the resource and consideration for other people\u27s property and personal rights can insure that trapping will remain a part of the heritage of future generations. The purpose of this publication is to help insure this heritage ... through the educational process. Knowledge of and respect for the resource, as well as consideration for other people, are the keys to perpetuating trapping as an outdoor activity. While primarily designed to assist the young or novice trapper, this manual should benefit veterans as well. Contrary to popular belief, you can teach an old dog new tricks. Trapping is a biologically sound and legitimate use of a renewable natural resource. In fact, it is our primary means of managing fur-bearer populations, and management is essential to the health and well-being of all wildlife species. Significant problems develop for both the wildlife and man when management is not practiced and numbers are allowed to exceed what the habitat or environment will support. An Open Letter to Trappers • Trapping ... Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow • Pre-Season Preparation • Muskrat • Mink • Beaver • Raccoon • Opossum • Coyote • Fox • Skunk • Badger • Weasel • Releasing an Unwanted Catch • After the Catch • Trapping Summary • Trapper\u27s Cree

A comparison of coyote ecology after 25 years: 1978 versus 2003

Most ecological studies of coyotes are of short duration and studies are generally never repeated, thus the opportunity to compare changes in coyote (Canis latrans Say, 1823) ecology over time is rare. We compared coyote home ranges, activity patterns, age, and diet at the Welder Wildlife Refuge in south Texas between 1978-1979 and 2003-2004 (25 years later). The Minta index of overlap between 1978 and 2003 home ranges was 51.7 ± 7.0 (n = 7), much greater than the Minta index value based on randomized tests (28.7 ± 8.6), indicating similar spatial patterns between time periods. The Minta index was 12.3 ± 6.2 (n = 7) for core areas, whereas the Minta index value based on randomized tests was 4.0 ± 3.0. Although overall diets were similar between 1978 and 2003, we detected some differences in prey species consumed. Activity patterns were similar between the two study periods, with peaks in movement occurring around sunrise and sunset. There was no difference in the mean age between the two populations (P = 0.44, n = 68, t [66] = 2.00). Our findings suggest that population features, such as home-range position and age structure, are similar between extended time periods, while individual-level patterns, such as the prey species consumed and distribution of locations within a home range, are dynamic and may reflect changes in the local environment

Incorporating Experimental Design in Education on Managing Human-Wildlife Conflicts at Colorado State University

Knowledge about how to design research experiments is important when evaluating the extent of damage caused by wildlife, the effectiveness of damage management interventions, as well as evaluating if the design, conclusions, and inferences of research conducted by others is appropriate. I emphasize experimental design in FW565: Managing Human-Wildlife Conflicts, a 3 credit senior/graduate level class that I teach at Colorado State University. I provide a 1-hour lecture on the basics of experimental design. I then provide an example of an elk (Cervus elaphus) repellent experiment and request students to indicate what were the treatments, dependent variables, etc. The students then independently write a 1-page manuscript on designing an experiment that evaluates the effectiveness of 1 of 2 wildlife damage management techniques. We follow with an on-site field trip to discuss and critique the students\u27 experimental designs. Then, students are requested to write a 3-page manuscript and give a 6 to 8 minute presentation on designing an experiment that evaluates a new and unique method for reducing conflicts with wildlife in Colorado. Although we emphasize quantitative skills in our undergraduate program, a fair amount of repetition is required for students to grasp experimental design

A comparison of coyote ecology after 25 years: 1978 versus 2003

Most ecological studies of coyotes are of short duration and studies are generally never repeated, thus the opportunity to compare changes in coyote (Canis latrans Say, 1823) ecology over time is rare. We compared coyote home ranges, activity patterns, age, and diet at the Welder Wildlife Refuge in south Texas between 1978-1979 and 2003-2004 (25 years later). The Minta index of overlap between 1978 and 2003 home ranges was 51.7 ± 7.0 (n = 7), much greater than the Minta index value based on randomized tests (28.7 ± 8.6), indicating similar spatial patterns between time periods. The Minta index was 12.3 ± 6.2 (n = 7) for core areas, whereas the Minta index value based on randomized tests was 4.0 ± 3.0. Although overall diets were similar between 1978 and 2003, we detected some differences in prey species consumed. Activity patterns were similar between the two study periods, with peaks in movement occurring around sunrise and sunset. There was no difference in the mean age between the two populations (P = 0.44, n = 68, t [66] = 2.00). Our findings suggest that population features, such as home-range position and age structure, are similar between extended time periods, while individual-level patterns, such as the prey species consumed and distribution of locations within a home range, are dynamic and may reflect changes in the local environment

DO LIVESTOCK GUARDING DOGS LOSE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS OVER TIME?

Information about the effectiveness of livestock guarding dogs for reducing coyote predation on sheep was gathered from livestock producers in the Animal Damage Control Livestock Guarding Dog Program and in Colorado. Eighty-two percent of the producers contacted reported that the performance of their dogs remained the same or improved during 1993 compared with previous years. Eighteen percent of the producers reported a decrease in their dog\u27s effectiveness, but most still felt the dogs were a benefit to their livestock operation. Most producers who noted a decrease in effectiveness attributed it to an apparent increase in the number of coyotes and/or an increase in their predatory activities on livestock

Island Fox Spatial Ecology and Implications for Management of Disease

Disease, predation, and genetic isolation resulted in 4 of 6 island fox (Urocyon littoralis) subspecies being listed as endangered in 2004. Potential for disease outbreaks continues to pose a major threat to the persistence of these isolated, endemic populations. We examined how roads influence the spatial ecology of San Clemente Island foxes (U. l. clementae), particularly in regard to spread of disease, to provide management recommendations for preventing or minimizing a disease outbreak on San Clemente Island, California, USA. Home range areas (x=0.75 km2) and core areas (x=0.19 km2) of foxes on San Clemente Island were 0.36–1.23 and 2.17 times larger, respectively, than estimates from Santa Cruz Island foxes (U. l. santacruzae). Home ranges and core areas were 78% larger and 73% larger, respectively, for foxes near roads than for foxes away from roads. Home ranges were also largest when foxes were not caring for offspring (i.e., seasons of pup-independence and breeding). We did not detect any dispersal movements, but foxes living near roads moved 33% farther in 2-hour periods than foxes not living near roads. Foxes near roads move faster, range more widely, and could more rapidly spread a pathogen throughout the island; therefore, roads might serve as transmission corridors.We recommend reducing this risk by increasing widths of vaccination firewalls (areas where vaccination is used to induce a disease-resistant or immune population of foxes), ensuring these areas deliberately intersect roads, and vaccinating a higher proportion of foxes living near roads. Disease risk models incorporating these strategies could inform the lowest risk scenarios

Evaluation of an Electronic Device for Reducing Damage by Pileated Woodpeckers to Wooden Utility Poles

Woodpecker damage to utility poles results in significant economic losses to utility companies. Pileated woodpeckers (Dryocopus pileatus), one of the largest woodpeckers in North America, can severely damage utility poles. Many types of repellent techniques have been evaluated for managing pileated woodpecker damage to utility poles. However, each technique has short-comings including cost, difficulty of installation, longevity of the product, or defeat by the woodpeckers. The Sonic Dissuader, a deterrent device, has shown some promise in field testing. We further evaluated the effectiveness of the device for deterring pileated woodpeckers from damaging utility poles in controlled flight pens at the National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado. Birds spent similar time (F1.7 = 0.00, P = 0.9621) on poles with Sonic Dissuaders (6956.3 ± 1421.4 sec), and poles with the control device (8358.6 ± 1004.2 sec). Woodpeckers spent less time pecking on poles with the Sonic Dissuader (385.9 ± 69.1 sec) compared to control poles (1877.6 ± 494.2 sec) although the difference was not significant (F1.7 = 1.40, P = 0.2751). Weight of woodchips removed did not vary (t = -0.89, df= 14, P = 0.3887) between poles equipped with the Sonic Dissuader (54.7 ± 21.3 g) and poles equipped with the control device (101.0 ± 47.4 g), but weight of woodchips removed varied considerably by bird. We were also unable to detect a difference among times to departure after the 7 types of calls were emitted by the Sonic Dissuader (F6.8 = 1.14, P = 0.4216). Efficacy of the Sonic Dissuader might be improved by programming to broadcast whenever pecking occurs and by utilizing calls or sounds which have been evaluated for deterring woodpeckers from utility poles