1. Overview of the Marin County Livestock Protection Program Stephanie Larson, Ph.D. UC Cooperative Extension Livestock & Range Management Advisor Sonoma & Marin Counties

2. Program Change Contentious debate: Marin County – Ag commissioner, UC personnel, animal welfare proponents & organizations, local ranchers Marin County – Affluent, urban population

3. Livestock Protection Program: Wildlife Services vacated December 1999 LPP Implemented July 2001 Often referred to as the “non-lethal” program

4. Program Requirements Four categories of eligibility Fencing Guard animals Scare devices Animal husbandry

5. Fencing Maximization of fencing – Need to be 5.5 feet high to hinder jumpers – Charge wire at tops – Mend any gaps, digs, etc. Net-Wire Fencing – Horizontal spacing 6” x Vertical 2-4” Electric Fencing – 7-8 wire best but high cost – To maintain effectiveness Maintain wire tension Remove excess vegetation to prevent grounding Charger checked regularly

6. Guard Dogs Instinctively Protective – 14% of dogs kill/injure sheep Number to use dependent on – Range size – Topography – Habitat Trains pups independently – Place with sheep at 7-8 weeks – Run with sheep at 16 weeks Feed with sheep or self feeder Komondor Pyrenees Anatolian Shepard Akbask Komondor

7. Llamas Defenses – Use stomping to scare predator – Screaming Disadvantage – Can be expensive – Need to be sheared Advantage – Eat the same diet as sheep

8. Donkeys Defenses – Loudly brays – Chase predators – Kicks Advantage – Less prone to accidental death Disadvantage: – Farrier must trim hooves – Might kill lambs Recommendations – Use jenny or gelded jack – 1 donkey per band of sheep – Allow 4-6 weeks for bond to develop – Remove donkey at lambing

9. Scare Tactics Temporary Requires variation of – Position – Appearance – Duration – Frequency Methods – Lights – Bells – Radios Dark to Dusk

10. Livestock Husbandry Practices Pasture selection-place sheep closer to your home – Lambing time Remove dead sheep immediately Keep sheep in a corral at night Fall lambing Higher maintenance Reduced gains

11. Program Validation Sheep Producers: Once confirmed on 2/4 criteria > 500 sheep, $2,000 < 500 sheep, $500 Indemnification program : 2001 Payments made based on number of losses; market value 2003 5% of losses, paid ~ 2009, indemnification program terminated, funds reallocated to practices,

12. Program Acceptance Ranchers had a good relationship with Wildlife Specialists Over the years, implemented all practices available for reducing predation --------------- Met regularly to adopt the program, attend trainings, receive funds, etc.

13. Oversight of Program Non-lethal tools: Ag Commissioner & UCCE staff oversite Review practices Confirmed kills 2002 - Submitted cards 2005 – 3 rd party oversighted removed Lethal tools: Shooting still allowed Number of coyotes taken increased Non selectivity of takes

14. Control Considerations With Assistance – USDA Animal Damage Control (ADC) Nondomestic predators – Agreements with land owners Without Assistance: – Private Trappers – Humane element – Selectivity Run risk of killing non target species – Toxicity

15. Number of Coyotes Taken With agreements: WS working agreements with 25-45 ranchers, 73,000 acres (Carlsen 1999) Wildlife Specialist (WS) documented 40 coyotes taken (1999) With no agreements: Without WS, no records on losses of sheep or coyotes Personal communications – at least 100 coyotes were taken (2001) Numbers maintain high, but no official documentation (2015) “Privatizing predator control would eliminate the ability to …maintain public records of control activities…(and) would make reporting of livestock and wildlife losses and damage, speculative a best” (Carlsen 2000)

16. Coyotes and Non-Target Animal Wildlife specialists more selective in removing offending animals “privatizing predator control could increase use of lethal devices…(which) could result in indiscriminate taking of non- target animals...” or in “…the likelihood that unskilled citizens will resort to home remedies that could adversely affect the animals, environment, and non-target species.” (Carlsen 1999, 2000)

17. Program Review 199920052015 Coyotes Taken 14100+ Total Sheep Numbers 7,50010,32010,111 Total losses180165? Non Target Taken 5?? Producers in Program 17155 # of sheep in Program 4,693TBD3,782 Other animals NA 10,800 chickens 40 calves The Marin County Predator Management Program: Will it save the Sheep Industry? Proc. 22 nd Vertebr. Pest Conf. (2006) Review of current program

18. 15 Years into the Program Fewer sheep producers More poultry & beef/dairy producers Producers dissatisfied with the program Costs don’t cover expenses of non lethal tools Producers want Wildlife Specialists back More coyotes taken Non targets taken is unknown

19. QUESTIONS Stephanie Larson slarson@ucdavis.eduslarson@ucdavis.edu