UW Extension offers economic analysis of predation, information on available resources
The University of Wyoming (UW) Extension Sheep Task Force wrapped up its three-part Predator Management Webinar Mini Series on March 11 with a third installment focused on the economics of predation and available resources for producers at the state and county levels.
The seminar was moderated by UW Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator Jedidiah Hewlett and featured three guest speakers including UW Extension Agriculture Systems Specialist Chance Marshall, UW Extension Livestock Production and Marketing Specialist Rob Ziegler and Wyoming Wool Growers Association (WWGA) Executive Director Alison Borcher.
Economic analysis
During his portion of the presentation, Ziegler provided an analysis of the economic impacts of predators on Wyoming’s sheep industry.
To start, he noted direct loss, such as death loss or loss of future revenue, may be some of the more obvious impacts.
He cited U.S. Department of Agriculture data showing about 1,100 head of sheep attributed to predator loss in the state of Wyoming alone, with coyotes causing the most trouble.
On the other hand, indirect costs may be more challenging to quantify and, in some cases, may outweigh direct losses.
He said this includes things like reproductive failure, increased labor, extended grazing distribution, loss of home-raised genetics and peace of mind.
Another indirect cost may include on-ranch predator management strategies, such as livestock guardian animals.
Ziegler presented a cost analysis he put together on livestock guardian dogs (LGD) and burros.
He found an LGD with a purchase price of $473, annual feed costs of $139 and a rough veterinary medicine estimate of $100 per year totals an estimated $712.
“I’ve heard some mixed reviews about purchasing or adopting burros. I’ve heard the Bureau of Land Management will actually pay individuals, in some instances, to adopt a burro, so in this case, I called the purchase price negligible,” he explained. “I may be a bit critical on how much a burro will eat, but I have horses here at 1.25 animal unit months so, annually, I am figuring $375 in feed.”
Ziegler also included an annual veterinary medicine cost of $113, which includes a five-way vaccine and biennial teeth floating, therefore totaling $488.
He then compared this to the number of lambs a livestock guardian animal would need to save every year to cover their annual cost and found it would take three and three-quarters lambs to cover the cost of a LGD and two and a half lambs to cover the cost of a burro.
On this note, Ziegler referred to data shared in an earlier webinar of the series, which found predator loss reduced by more than half at the UW Laramie Research and Extension Center’s (LREC) Sheep Unit after implementing burros into their flocks.
“I will say, this was not a controlled research experiment. It was just anecdotal evidence we collected, and there are a lot of variables that went in to this,” he stated. “During the first two years, LREC did not have burros and saw losses of about 62 head, but when they added the burros, losses went down to 27 head over another two-year period.”
“Relatively speaking, they ran on an average of 200 acres with 350 sheep, so they saved, annually, about 17.5 ewes. Divided across four burros, this comes to just over four ewes per burro,” he continued. “If we assume ewes weighed 120 pounds at $2.20 a pound, it equates to $265 per ewe, and if we multiply this by about 4.375 ewes per burro, we see an estimated savings of around $1,150. Then, if we take those savings and subtract our costs, it brings us to an annual net of around $671.”
Ziegler concluded, “Predator impact appears to be increasing over time at about 1,100 head per year in losses attributed to predators in Wyoming. However, it appears as though current management practices are effective – whether it is wildlife services or some kind of anecdotal evidence – and finally, predator management goes beyond death loss when we consider some of the indirect costs like peace of mind.”
County resources
As a long-time member of the Fremont County Predator Board, Marshall highlighted work done by county boards and how they benefit livestock producers.
“The goal of a county predator board – at least, the goal of ours – is to manage all predators which adversely affect wildlife, livestock and human health and safety,” Marshall stated.
He noted a lot of time is spent with producers, offering support and compensating losses, especially during crucial times of the year like lambing and calving seasons.
“We also do some work with wildlife – things people wouldn’t think could be a human health and safety issue like bird, raven and crow control,” he added.
County predator boards also work closely with county trappers and oversee an annual budget awarded through state funding by the Wyoming Animal Damage Management Board (ADMB).
Marshall explained this funding is generated through a one-dollar-per-head fee paid by producers who, in return, receive the ADMB and county board’s services.
Additionally, Marshall pointed out, because of Wyoming’s long list of predatory species, the county board utilizes a host of different strategies in the air and on the ground to control coyotes, wolves, bears, mountain lions, foxes, eagles, crows and ravens, among other species.
He continued, “Fremont County is one of the counties that still has a bounty program in place, so if someone in the community takes a coyote, they get paid $25. We just have to have someone from our board confirm the kill. This program has worked really well for us.”
To wrap up, Marshall encouraged any producers experiencing problems with predators – especially as they lamb their ewes and calve their cows – to reach out to their county board.
State resources
At the state level, producers have the support of the Wyoming Association of County Predatory Animal Boards, where Borcher recently assumed the position of executive director in January.
Borcher explained the association was formed in 2004 out of necessity when the state underwent deep budget cuts which threatened ADMB funding.
“There was no one to formally lobby at the state level for counties and their predator boards, so landowners stepped in and banded together, making the argument the state owns the wildlife and they should have some stake at the state level in funding predatory management,” she shared.
Today, the association works closely with WWGA to promote and support the management of predatory animals and wild game across Wyoming, with 19 of the state’s 23 counties paying in to its services.
In account of the other four, Borcher said one doesn’t have an active predator board and the other three pay a reduced per-head fee.
She added, “The association and WWGA have always shared the executive director position because there is a lot of overlap. The lines between wildlife services, predator boards, WWGA and the association get blurred, which is why the shared executive director position is essential for communication’s sake, from the producer all the way to the federal level.”
Hannah Bugas is the managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup. Send comments on this article to roundup@wylr.net.
