Successfully raising goats is a challenging enough endeavor in the absence of problems caused by predators. When predators are added to the mix it can become overwhelming and costly. Predators such as coyotes, bobcats, mountain lions, red foxes, feral hogs, and domestic or feral dogs are among the suspects when mortalities occur.
It is hoped that with this curriculum a sufficient level of awareness of the challenges and opportunities of predator management will be introduced to allow goat producers to successfully operate in the face of predation threats. This module will concentrate on instilling in the student the practice of objectively evaluating the physical evidence of predation in order to 1) accurately assign responsibility and 2) proceed with an integrated pest management approach which includes, in part, choosing the proper tools for a response if warranted. Possessing the critical thinking skills to enable one to know when and how to respond to suspected predation is paramount in the intention of this educational effort.
If the student finishes this module with the ability to analyze situations that may require corrective action, develop a strategy for predator management, and then implement it wisely, economically, and humanely, the module will have accomplished its most important objectives.
The Problem
Predation on small livestock such as goats is a serious problem in many areas. The National Agricultural Statistics Service reported that in Texas in 2003, 110,000 sheep and goats, with a value of $10.9 million, were lost to predation. And these estimates are conservative since: 1) they are derived only from reported losses made at initial counts of lambs and kids; 2) losses have been shown to be 2 to 3 times higher in the absence of control programs like USDA/APHIS Wildlife Services (see http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/) which are in place; and 3) they only take into account direct losses to producers, not future value of animals and animal products, nor the multiplier effect on local economies.
Some predators such as coyotes are becoming increasingly a matter of concern because of their remarkable ability to adapt to the presence of humans-even to the point of entering back yards to kill pets. Dogs, both feral and domestic, are also a major source of loss especially in goat producing areas which are on the edge of cities or suburbs. Such un-restrained dogs are a major threat in some rural areas also.
In years past goat production was centered in regions such as the Edwards Plateau of Texas in which ranchers shared the burden of predator management and were successful on a large scale, practically ridding the region of livestock killing predators. When predation occurred, the reaction on the part of ranchers was swift and effective. Populations were maintained at a level which allowed survival of livestock operations. The trend in the past few decades has been smaller scale goat production in these and other areas and a corresponding reduction in the shared effort to control predators. The producers that remain find themselves with basically no community or region wide support in the battle against livestock losses to predators. The situation warrants increased awareness of all aspects of predator management so that the struggle to maintain meat goat production enterprise viability can be successful.
Though challenging, predator management can be effective if adequate awareness, knowledge, and some essential skills are acquired. Of utmost importance is a thorough understanding of Integrated Pest Management which will be detailed later.
Evolution of Expectation and Terminology
The evolution of thought regarding how we approach the reduction of losses by predators to livestock, in this case goats, has in some ways mirrored the changes in mindset relative to handling the problem of invasive brush on rangelands. As with efforts to address brush encroachment, there was a time when “predator eradication” was the terminology associated with dealing with livestock losses to predators. With the passage of time, it was realized that “eradication” might have been a rather overly ambitious objective. Individual predators were being removed, population levels were being reduced, but the goal of eradication was not achieved. Though much lessened at times, predation continued at some level even under the most motivated strategies.
Next, “predator control” became the order of the day. At least, it was thought, predators can be “controlled”. Again, an unacceptable level of predation remained in many instances, even after concerted control efforts.
“Predator management” has become a more accurate portrayal of current efforts at reducing predation. The concept of “coping with” predators has emerged as an even more suitable moniker for the situation in which producers often find themselves today. Embodied in the idea is acknowledgement that 1) predators have a positive role in the ecosystem, 2) some reduction in predator numbers may be necessary for livestock producers to co-exist with them, and 3) an integrated pest management approach is essential. A variety of practices might be implemented including non-lethal and lethal means to accomplish the objective of reducing predator-related losses to a level that can be tolerated. The ideal aim would be the selective removal of only the offending animal(s) when feasible. Texas Cooperative Extension has utilized the idea in the production of several educational products dealing with predation: Coping with Bobcats, Coping with Coyotes, and Coping with Feral Hogs (visit http://tcebookstore.org for details). Heretofore in this module the term predator management will be utilized with the intention that it includes the spirit of “coping”.
Development of Strategies
Much like the changes in the way we have come to refer to predator management activities the methods that have been used have changed. Early on, toxicant-laced baits were utilized to effectively remove problem predators. However, collateral damage in the form of non-target wildlife mortalities was extensive. Public disfavor eventually culminated in a presidential executive order in 1972 which banned the use of the most commonly used poison, sodium monofluoroacetate (Compound 1080), in such practices. Today there are only two toxicants available for predator management, none for indiscriminate placement.
Available to predator managers today is an array of tools and techniques, some non-lethal, some lethal, from which the proper ones for a given situation can be selected. Non-target mortalities have been greatly reduced, even in some instances to the point of removing only the offending individual animal.
Next
Module Home
Certification Table of Contents
Browsing Table of Contents