Wildlife can potentially interfere with human activity. Raccoons empty trash cans, deer raid gardens, and birds nest in chimneys.
Coexistence begins with the understanding of how to share our communities with wild animals. In order to do this, everyone needs to be educated about the animals in their environment and provide solutions to existing problems, such as helping a neighborhood discourage a prowling coyote.
When people learn about the hardships animals face each day, they are more willing to take an active approach by protecting the natural environment and the habitats of our wild neighbors.
Monday, 12 May 2014
Non lethal measures to protect livestock turns out to be cheaper than lethal control
A 3 year study conducted on South African livestock farms, found that non lethal control to mitigate conflict with wild life was cheaper than traditional lethal control.
Dead or alive? Comparing costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal human–wildlife conflict mitigation on livestock farms
J . S . MCMA N U S, A. J. DI C K M A N, D. GA Y N O R, B. H. SM U T S and D. W. MA C D O N A L D
Abstract: Livestock depredation has implications for conservation and agronomy; it can be costly for farmers and can prompt retaliatory killing of carnivores. Lethal control measures are readily available and are reportedly perceived to be cheaper, more practical and more effective than nonlethal methods. However, the costs and efficacy of lethal vs non-lethal approaches have rarely been compared formally.
We conducted a 3-year study on 11 South African livestock farms, examining costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal conflict mitigation methods. Farmers used existing lethal control in the first year and switched to guardian animals (dogs Canis familiaris and alpacas Lama pacos) or livestock protection collars for the following 2 years. During the first year the mean cost of livestock protection was USD 3.30 per head of stock and the mean cost of depredation was USD 20.11 per head of stock. In the first year of non-lethal
control the combined implementation and running costs were similar to those of lethal control (USD 3.08 per head). However, the mean cost of depredation decreased by 69.3%, to USD 6.52 per head. In the second year of non-lethal control the running costs (USD 0.43 per head) were significantly lower than in previous years and depredation costs decreased further, to USD 5.49 per head. Our results suggest that non-lethal methods of human–wildlife conflict mitigation can reduce depredation and can be economically advantageous compared to lethal methods of predator control.