Dead or alive? Comparing costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal human-wildlife conflict mitigation on livestock farms

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author McManus, J.S.
dc.contributor.author Dickman, A.J.
dc.contributor.author Gaynor, David
dc.contributor.author Smuts, B.H.
dc.contributor.author Macdonald, David W.
dc.date.accessioned 2016-08-11T07:05:56Z
dc.date.available 2016-08-11T07:05:56Z
dc.date.issued 2015-11
dc.description.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. en_ZA
dc.description.department Mammal Research Institute en_ZA
dc.description.librarian hb2016 en_ZA
dc.description.sponsorship ABAX Foundation (previously the Polaris Foundation), Pick'n Pay, Woolworths, the Henry and Iris Englund Foundation, the National Lotteries Distribution Trust Fund, Arne Hanson, the Mones Michaels Trust and Royal Canin. Wits–Carnegie fellowship and Kaplan Senior Research Fellow at Pembroke College. Recanati–Kaplan Foundation, the Peoples' Trust for Endangered Species and the Swift family. en_ZA
dc.description.uri http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=ORX en_ZA
dc.identifier.citation McManus, JS, Dickman, AJ, Gaynor D, Smuts BH & Macdonald, DW 2015, 'Dead or alive? Comparing costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal human-wildlife conflict mitigation on livestock farms', Oryx, vol. 49, pp. 687-695. en_ZA
dc.identifier.issn 0030-6053 (print)
dc.identifier.issn 1365-3008 (online)
dc.identifier.other 10.1017/S0030605313001610
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2263/56263
dc.language.iso en en_ZA
dc.publisher Cambridge University Press en_ZA
dc.rights © 2014 Fauna & Flora International en_ZA
dc.subject Carnivore conservation en_ZA
dc.subject Conflict mitigation en_ZA
dc.subject Human–wildlife conflict en_ZA
dc.subject Lethal control en_ZA
dc.subject Livestock depredation en_ZA
dc.subject Non-lethal mitigation techniques en_ZA
dc.subject Profit/loss ratio en_ZA
dc.title Dead or alive? Comparing costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal human-wildlife conflict mitigation on livestock farms en_ZA
dc.type Postprint Article en_ZA


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record