Guarding dogs as a mitigation tool in human–wildlife conflict n w Case study: o T The Anatolian Shepherd Dog breeding project in Namaqua e National Park p a C Elizabeth Naufdé Binge (le Roux) o y lrxeli004 t i s r e Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree v Master of Philosophy in Environment, Society and Sustainability i n U Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences Faculty of Science University of Cape Town March 2017 Supervised by: Dr Pippin Anderson (UCT) Dr Wendy Annecke (SANParks) i n w The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No o T quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgeement of the source. p The thesis is to be used for private study or non- a C commercial research purposes only. f o Published by the Universit y of Cape Town (UCT) in terms y t of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author. i s r e v i n U Acknowledgement I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr Pippin Anderson and Dr Wendy Annecke for their patience, support, motivation and extremely quick feedback throughout this process. Baie dankie aan al die mense van Namakwaland wat my welkom laat voel het en wat bereid was om my vrae te beantwoord. Spesiale dank aan Mnr Koos Beukes van Tweerivier wat my gewys het waar die verskillende plase en veeposte is. Ek het ongelooflike baie geleer by julle. Baie dankie aan my ouers en skoonouers, vir al die ondersteuning en dat ons terug huis toe kon trek om verder te studeer (en troue te beplan!). En laaste, baie dankie aan Laurie vir al die ondersteuning en dat jy my die geleentheid gegee het om verder te studeer. ii Abstract This study conducted an evaluation of farmer and shepherd perceptions on Anatolian Shepherd dogs, used as livestock guarding dogs to mitigate farmer–wildlife conflict and meet conservation ends. The case study involved Anatolian Shepherd dogs bred at the Anatolian Shepherd Dog Breeding Project in the Namaqua National Park, and placed mostly on farms and at stock posts near the Namaqua National Park in the Northern Cape. The data were collected during structured and semi-structured interviews with livestock farmers and shepherds that received Anatolian Shepherd dogs from the Breeding Project. Anatolian Shepherd dogs were evaluated in terms of their contribution to reduce livestock losses and conservation of wildlife species. In terms of effectiveness in preventing or reducing livestock losses, 84% of the dogs eliminated or reduced livestock losses. Respondent satisfaction with the dogs was high, with 95% of respondents willing to recommend the Breeding Project and the use of Anatolian Shepherd dogs. Of the respondents, 95% perceived their dogs to be economically beneficial. Another 48% of respondents reported some form of behavioural problems at least once during the placement of the dogs. The most common reported problem was resting in the shade rather than accompanying the livestock. However, corrective training was effective in all cases where training was undertaken immediately. In terms of conservation, fewer respondents used lethal predator control methods in the years after placement of the dogs than before their placement. The overall perception regarding the use of lethal control methods (e.g. gin traps, shooting and poison) was that such control is cruel and that it is better to use non-lethal control methods only. However, a few respondents reported that lethal control measures were occasionally necessary to make a living when no other control measures were available, especially when the herd was relatively large. The effects of Anatolian Shepherd dogs on non-predator species in this study were minimal. The presence of the dogs therefore aided predator conservation and improved farmer tolerance of predators, especially by effectively reducing livestock losses. iii Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................. 1 1.1 General introduction and motivation for research ..................................... 1 1.2 Aim and objectives ....................................................................................... 3 1.3 Outline of the dissertation ........................................................................... 4 Chapter 2: Theoretical and local context ................................................................. 6 2.1 Human–wildlife conflicts .............................................................................. 6 2.2 Farmer perceptions and expectations ........................................................ 8 2.3 Farmer–predator conflict in South Africa and meso-predator release .... 9 2.4 Lethal and non-lethal approaches to farmer–predator conflict .............. 13 2.5 The need for conservation outside protected areas ................................ 15 2.6 Farming practices in Namaqualand .......................................................... 15 2.7 Training and raising livestock guarding dogs.......................................... 16 2.8 Effectiveness of livestock guarding dogs in reducing livestock losses 19 2.9 Effectiveness of livestock guarding dogs for conservation ................... 20 Chapter 3: Background, study area and methodology ......................................... 21 3.1 Background to the Anatolian Shepherd Dog Breeding Project .............. 21 3.2 Study area ................................................................................................... 24 3.3 Research methodology .............................................................................. 26 3.3.1 Sampling ............................................................................................... 27 3.3.2 Data collection: semi-structured interviews ........................................... 29 3.3.3 Data selection and analysis .................................................................. 33 3.3.4 SANParks research agreement ............................................................ 34 3.3.5 Ethical considerations and moral accountability ................................... 34 3.4 Limitations of the study ............................................................................. 35 iv Chapter 4: Results ................................................................................................... 40 4.1 Anatolian Shepherd dogs .......................................................................... 40 4.1.1 Livestock types ..................................................................................... 40 4.1.2 Relationship of the dog with the flock ................................................... 41 4.1.3 Relationship of the dog to other dogs ................................................... 41 4.1.4 Care and health of dog ......................................................................... 42 4.1.5 Mortality ................................................................................................ 44 4.2 Effectiveness of Anatolian Shepherd dogs in preventing livestock losses 44 4.2.1 Livestock losses due to predation ......................................................... 44 4.2.2 Changes in the level of livestock loss due to predation ........................ 45 4.2.3 Effectiveness ........................................................................................ 48 4.2.4 Satisfaction ........................................................................................... 50 4.2.5 Economic benefit, practicality and costs ............................................... 52 4.3 Behavioural problems and removals ........................................................ 53 4.4 Predator conservation ................................................................................ 56 4.4.1 Perceptions of lethal control of livestock predators and non-predator species ............................................................................................................. 60 4.5 Responses related to satisfaction of the Anatolian Shepherd Dog Breeding Project ......................................................................................... 62 4.6 Advice for prospective owners of Anatolian Shepherd dogs ................. 63 4.7 Advice or questions for the Anatolian Breeding Project ......................... 64 Chapter 5: Discussion ............................................................................................. 66 5.1 Effectiveness of Anatolian Shepherd dogs in reducing livestock losses ... 66 5.2 Perceptions of and satisfaction with the Anatolian Shepherd Dog breeding project .......................................................................................... 67 5.3 Behavioural problems and training ........................................................... 68 5.4 Effectiveness of Anatolian Shepherd dogs in predator conservation ... 70 v 5.5 Recommendations ...................................................................................... 71 5.6 Potential future research ............................................................................ 73 Chapter 6: Conclusion ............................................................................................. 74 Reference list ........................................................................................................... 77 vi List of figures Figure 3.1: Estimated locations of the farms and stock posts where the Anatolian Shepherd dogs were placed in Namaqualand, South Africa. Locations of the farm in Zeerust, North West and Riversdal, Western Cape are not indicated on this map. ...................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 4.1: Percentages of respondents reporting different relative levels of losses due to predation since receiving an Anatolian Shepherd dog (n=25). ................... 45 Figure 4.2: Change in the number of livestock losses due to predation reported by respondents, before and after Anatolian Shepherd dog placement with livestock (n=25). .......................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 4.3: Livestock losses before and after receiving the dog, per respondent dog (n=23). ................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 4.4: Protectiveness and effectiveness (n=25). .............................................. 49 Figure 4.5: Relationship between the decrease in livestock losses and the Total Effectiveness Score. ................................................................................................... 50 Figure 4.6: Responses to the question “How well do you think your dog works for you?” ............................................................................................................................ 51 Figure 4.7: Relationship between Total Satisfaction Score and Total Effectiveness Score. ........................................................................................................................... 52 List of tables Table 3.1: Dogs placed by the Breeding Project. ..................................................... 27 Table 3.2: Total Effectiveness Score Calculation. .................................................... 32 Table 3.3: Total satisfaction score calculation. ........................................................ 32 Table 3.4: Respondent details. ................................................................................... 34 Table 4.1: The number of respondents reporting predator species to cause livestock losses before and after receiving Anatolian Shepherd dogs. ................. 57 Table 4.2: Methods used by farmers to protect livestock before and after placement of dogs. ........................................................................................................................ 58 vii Chapter 1: Introduction While staying at this estancia, I was amused with what I saw and heard of the shepherd-dogs of the country. When riding, it is a common thing to meet a large flock of sheep guarded by one or two dogs, at the distance of some miles from any house or man. I often wondered how so firm a friendship had been established (Darwin, The Voyage of the Beagle, New York: P.F. Collier and Son, 1909, p.163 as cited in Coppinger & Coppinger, 2014). 1.1 General introduction and motivation for research The conflict between farmers and predators has been found to be the most widespread form of human–wildlife conflict worldwide (Graham, Beckerman & Thirgood, 2005; Thirgood, Woodroffe & Rabinowitz, 2005). With more and more land being converted to agriculture land, human-occupied areas are increasingly overlapping with home ranges of wild animals. As a consequence, wildlife is forced to live within close proximity to humans. These circumstances have a negative effect on the functionality of ecosystems and result in increased competition between humans and wildlife for food and space (Treves & Karanth, 2003). This presents major challenges to the improvement of ecological and economic sustainability (Aryal, Brunton, Barraclough & Raubenheimer, 2014). The conservation of wild animals, particularly carnivores, is challenging because it often places those who wish to conserve and restore carnivore populations in conflict with people who may be experiencing severe economic losses due to predation of livestock (Rust, Whitehouse-Tedd & MacMillan, 2013). It is difficult to place the responsibility for human–wildlife conflict on the predators, as these animals are simply following their instincts. On the other hand, if humans continue to view wildlife as the problem, predators will continue to face deaths at the hands of farmers. Farmers have tried to reduce livestock losses to carnivores using both lethal and non- lethal methods. However, these methods are often expensive to use in terms of labour and equipment, and can be impractical, especially in developing countries, such as South Africa. Furthermore, many of the traditional approaches to reducing livestock losses depend on removing or excluding predators from the system concerned (Treves & Karanth, 2003), and this has conservation implications in areas where predators themselves are threatened. The challenge for conservation biologists is to change 1 attitudes by identifying, evaluating and presenting practical, cost-effective solutions and alternative methods, which facilitate the co-existence of people and carnivores outside protected areas. In South Africa, predators are often killed to limit livestock losses due to predation. This has resulted in many of the large apex predators, such as leopard (Panthera pardus) and cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus), to be eliminated from large portions of unprotected areas. The consequence has been an explosion of meso-predators, such as caracal (Caracal caracal) and black-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas), which has created significant problems on small stock farming operations (Rust & Marker, 2013). The real and perceived costs of these predators to livestock farmers have led to the use of lethal control methods in South Africa. Lethal methods often provide short-term solutions for controlling predators. However, the widespread application of these solutions does not encourage sustainable management of threatened carnivore species (Breitenmoser, 1998), while non-targeted species may also be trapped or killed. In this study, non- targeted species refers those that have not been reported as killers of livestock. Given the limited number of predators, it is vital that conservation efforts include effective mitigation of human–wildlife conflict and the use of potentially non-lethal methods to limit livestock depredation. Livestock guarding dogs (Canis familiaris) are potentially one such method. It combines the advantages of requiring no technological expertise and being relatively inexpensive, with allowing predators to remain part of the natural system. Dogs have been used by herders in Europe and Asia for millennia to protect domesticated animals such as sheep, against wild predators and stray dogs. Over the centuries, a distinct set of dogs, known as livestock guarding dogs, has been developed throughout Eurasia (Rigg, 2001). They are large, have a threatening bark, and show attentive, trust. worthy and protective behaviour toward the livestock with which they are raised. They are not bred to herd stock, but deter predators by placing themselves between the herd and the threat and barking loudly (Rigg, 2001). South African National Parks (SANParks) established an Anatolian Shepherd Dog Breeding Project in the Namaqua National Park (also known as the Anatolian Breeding Project), situated in the Northern Cape Province in 2005 (see Section 3.1). This initiative started in response to the success of the Cheetah Conservation Fund’s Livestock 2