There are many non-lethal, preventive measures that can be effectively implemented in order to protect livestock from large predators.
As I have been reading through publications on different predator life history issues, it appears that there is a similarity among these species – strong avoidance of human presence.
In fact, studies of trapping efficiency in North America show that the trapping success itself is of lower influence than human presence in the trapping area (perhaps in combination of novel objects).
Accordingly, it is not the lethal measure that (at least temporarily) deters wolves but it is the presence of the human and human-made objects that keeps wolves away (and these objects as well as this presence does not have to be hostile to serve its function).
Recently I read the Isle Royale Annual Report of 1975 – 76 where it was indicated that touristic trail use by humans (hikers) reduced wolf use of these same trails by 37% during the tourism season.
These estimates were derived in an area where wolves do not have great choice over where they travel and where they do not travel.
In other areas where human trail use might be marginal to wolf range or otherwise avoidable, the rate of avoidance might even exceed 37%.
Usually, these estimates serve the purpose of demonstrating negative impacts on wildlife by humans (e.g., tourism and its interference with wildlife).
However, I was wondering if in certain rural areas the introduction of hiking/biking trails around livestock ranges might help mitigate wildlife-livestock conflicts through the mechanism of human presence.
In these situations, humans might serve as ‘range riders’ in North American livestock farming systems where people on horse-back or in ATV are hired to patrol the livestock range and to monitor the situation (including the presence of large predators).
Here it is important to understand that I am not suggesting hiking trails would be beneficial in every situation.
For example, in places where livestock is being grazed in already vulnerable, wild ecosystem, hiking might further increase disturbance to wildlife.
Also, hiking trails might not be advisable in situations where the livestock ranges freely and the tourism activity might harm or bother the livestock.
However, in some places, for example, in Europe where range riding is not viable due to the comparatively small scale of operations, hiking trails might be introduced around the general livestock farming area and these trails would serve as additional boundaries (invisible fence where the deterring mechanism is regular human presence) between the wilderness and the farming environment.
In some cases, this might even boost the rural economy as well as offer people from the more urban areas a recreational opportunity.
The scheme would be suitable for settlements that are surrounded by pastures.
Beyond the pastures, there might be arable fields or transitional semi-wild landscape elements that attract wildlife.
Around the pastures, a hiking trail ‘loop’ might be established on terms that:
- It does not interfere with the wild and semi-wild habitats and the respective native wildlife species (i.e., the tourism activity does not pass through the wilderness but only along the farming boundary and there would be little impact through, e.g., noise and littering from the human presence) on wildlife;
- It does not interfere with the livestock causing stress and unwanted approach to the domestic animals as well as introducing harmful food items;
- It does not pose danger to human safety.
If the trails were not illuminated and if any resting posts (recreation areas of more sedentary nature) were only built in areas closer to human settlement and farther from wilderness, the disturbance level could be kept low.
In such systems, the hiking trail might serve as an additional ‘fence’ between the livestock area and the wilderness area, especially, in places where there are several pastures adjacent to one another.
On another note, if human presence and novel objects deter large predators, a volunteer (or a hired worker) might be engaged to walk around the pasture on daily basis (perhaps preferably in the afternoon to keep the scent fresh during the twilight and night hours) and any type of object might be moved around and placed in different positions (to avoid habituation) in order to awaken caution in predators.
This object might serve an additional purpose, e.g., wildlife conservation area (for example, if supplementary feeding or drinking treys are offered to wildlife around the farm).
The routine patrolling might also be combined with, for example, population monitoring of wildlife species or any other objective that would make it cost-effective (the sole purpose would not be ‘scent-marking against predators’).
Notes by Ieva 