Manitoba’s Livestock and Predation Working Group is about to start a three-year research pilot, which has been in the works for years since the working group formed in 2013.

The province has announced $300,000 to help launch the Livestock Predation Prevention Project, to be administered by the working group.

“That is very positive news for MBP and our producers,” Manitoba Beef Producers president Dianne Riding said.

“We’ve been working very hard to make this materialize.”

MBP will also be pitching in funds to get the pilot up and running, Riding said.

The province, Manitoba Beef Producers, Manitoba Sheep Association, Manitoba Goat Association, Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation (MASC), Manitoba Trappers Association and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada have all signed on with the working group.

The pilot will have three main prongs, the province has said:

• On-farm risk assessments and consultations to help mitigate predation loss;
• Testing the effectiveness of different prevention and predator removal strategies; and
• Sharing information and research results with producers.

“It’s a very tough file and we want to do it properly,” Riding said. “We want to have the best animal welfare for our livestock, but we also want the best welfare for the wild animals as well. I really like that we have now partnered to try and find a solution.”

Manitoba Agriculture and Resource Development Minister Blaine Pedersen announced the funding Feb. 7, during an address to the Manitoba Beef Producers.

“Wildlife predation of commercial livestock is a significant problem for Manitoba producers, with more than 2,000 commercial animals lost each year,” Pedersen said in a later release. “This results in significant economic losses to producers, as well as higher costs to Manitobans through their share of compensation under the Wildlife Damage Compensation Program funded by the federal and provincial governments.”

MASC’s wildlife compensation program has regularly paid out more than $1.8 million a year for predation losses in recent years, the Crown corporation reports.

The program will target high predation risk areas, according to Pedersen.

The Interlake and regions around the Riding Mountain National Park have long been hotbeds for the issue.

Long time coming

Producer groups have long pushed for the pilot project.

Predation has been a consistent leading issue with groups such as MBP and the Manitoba Sheep Association.

In 2018 and 2019, some beef ranchers in the Interlake reported herd losses up to or over 10 per cent, while others complained of herd stress leading to increased abortions and body condition issues.

Producer complaints, likewise, have been often repeated. Producers have argued that business risk management tools in Manitoba need to be revamped. Such ranchers have pointed to the difficulty in proving a loss if the carcass cannot be found or if the carcass is consumed before an adjuster can attend the file.

In 2017, Manitoba Beef Producers released a survey to its members in an effort to collect hard numbers on livestock loss.

In 2018, the Manitoba Beef Producers got federal funding to feed into the Livestock and Predation Working Group and said the first steps towards the pilot project were taking form.

“It takes time to put these proposals together,” Riding said. “It takes time to form these relationships, working groups, and we are now at the point where we are going to move forward. It’s a big story and we’re looking forward to the results that we hope to get from it.”

The Manitoba Beef Producers previously hoped to see the pilot launch last fall, then president Tom Teichroeb said at the time. Failing that, he said in November 2019, he hoped to see definitive action by fall 2020.

“It’s been a long, long advocacy piece and a long initiative that’s finally been approved, so I’m really pleased to see that the province has come out with the announcement,” Teichroeb said, calling the pilot, “a huge win.”

Teichroeb handed over the reins of the Manitoba Beef Producers to Riding earlier this month.

The Manitoba Sheep Association has also welcomed the funding announcement.

“Predation has been an ever-present issue plaguing the Manitoba sheep industry,” chair Morgan Moore said. “Producers have long been aware of our acute vulnerability to predator losses. As such, Manitoba producers have adopted many production standards to mitigate their risk of predation losses.”

Bonded livestock guardian animals and predator-proof fencing — such as nine-strand high-tensile electric fences or page wire — have become regular features of the sheep sector, Moore said, as well as shifting management practices like more strategic lambing periods.

According to provincial data published in the June 2019 Manitoba Sheep Association newsletter, 56 per cent of wildlife compensation paid to sheep producers stem from coyote losses, while wolf losses make up 26 per cent of payments and bear losses rack up 18 per cent of compensation claims.

MASC’s compensation program currently covers up to 90 per cent of the value of a lost animal, assuming there is definitive proof of a wildlife attack. Producers will be paid half of that payment if evidence is inconclusive, but a wildlife loss is probable. Veterinary costs for an injured animal are also covered.

The post Livestock predation pilot given green light appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

They’ve had a long-standing complaint, but it was an agriculture issue that was under the authority of the provincial Conservation Ministry.

Now fish and wildlife management is part of the new provincial Department of Manitoba Agriculture and Resource Development.

Previous agriculture minister, Ralph Eichler, was moved to head up the new Department of Economic Development and Training, while Blaine Pedersen, former minister for growth, enterprise and trade, took over the expanded portfolio, which also covers mining, forestry and watershed management.

Will an expanded department of agriculture and resource development influence predation policy, now that fish and wildlife management has been rolled in?

Premier Brian Pallister cited a need for more synergy between government portfolios when announcing the shuffle.

Pedersen also noted that the expanded department would eliminate many instances where producers were forced to deal with two or more government departments on an issue.

The beef sector has previously expressed frustration with what it describes as a lack of movement on its predation concerns.

The issue has risen in prominence in recent years, with six separate resolutions gaining overwhelming support on hunting and predation changes at the MBP AGM in 2018.

At the time, MBP argued that some producers were seeing herd percentage losses in the double digits, while individual producers noted struggles with herd stress, increased abortions and lack of productivity on top of outright kills.

That year, MBP received federal funding to support the Livestock and Predation Working Group, a multi-stakeholder group that has been occupied with looking at strategies from other provinces and developing a plan for Manitoba.

The group initially hoped to have a pilot in place this fall, MBP president Tom Teichroeb said. Following a stressful year for the beef sector, that’s now likely to come to pass next fall, he said.

“We’ll be taking the first opportunity that we have to… mention how long we’ve worked on this file and that even as an organization, we’ve even invested in the process, that we want to see progress,” Teichroeb said.

Representatives from the province could not say if there would be any new direction on predation policy, given the combined departments.

The province pointed to existing programs over email, such as the Problem Predator Removal Program. The program is operated through the Manitoba Trappers Association and, “allows producers to enlist the services of a problem predator trapper from the MTA at no cost to the producer. Trappers can be requested if a producer has had a claim for a predator attack on livestock (i.e. has submitted a compensation claim to MASC),” a spokesperson said.

According to the province, that program gets about 30 calls and removes about 125 coyotes, wolves or foxes each year.

Last year, the program responded to 39 calls and removed 137 problem predators.

The post Livestock predation losses could gain fresh attention appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The issue of livestock kills is once again high on the agenda of beef producers as they gather at district meetings this fall.

Wolves and other predators repeatedly take out animals, and aggravation is mounting that solutions to a problem as pressing as this gain so little traction year after year.

Why it matters: Manitoba livestock producers have been suffering from rising predation losses for a number of years, but say they can’t get any action on their concerns.

“I’m not going to say I’m as frustrated as producers are because I’d probably get run out of town, but we are certainly frustrated as well,” Brian Lemon, Manitoba Beef Producers general manager, said at District 9’s meeting October 23, attended by Interlake producers who are being especially hard hit from repeat wolf kills and feel a real threat to livelihoods.

Some have reported losses as high as 10 per cent of herds, plus there are other production losses such as from cows aborting pregnancies due to predation stresses.

One faint hope now lies with the Livestock Predator Protection Working Group (LPPWG)’s efforts, however. It is now in the very earliest stages of putting together a pilot program that will demonstrate the kind of supports producers need.

MBP has just received funding approval through the Canadian Agricultural Partnership (CAP) to help this group, which also includes sheep and goat producers, to start designing a pilot project.

Lemon says the group is still in its infancy and the design work lays ahead, but generally there are three main components to such a program.

There will be a way to remove problem predators. There will be a reasonable compensation program for producer losses. And there will be a program of on-farm risk assessments to help producers do what they can to minimize losses. That would include herd management practices such as more regular pasture checks, timely disposal of deadstock so it doesn’t attract predators, and so on, Lemon said.

“One piece of the puzzle is always going to be making sure that producers do the proper risk assessments,” Lemon said.

The term ‘problem predators’ will be key in helping the public understand what livestock producers’ concerns are, and what they’re specifically asking for, Lemon said.

“We’re not trying to remove all predators,” he said. “We’re trying to remove the ones that have developed a taste for beef and threaten our livelihoods.”

These right now predominantly include wolves worrying Interlake producers, but coyotes, bears and even cougars kill cattle, too.

Lemon said the real work ahead lies with convincing the rank and file within the Department of Sustainable Development, whose focus is largely on the protection of wildlife, that even as beef producers ask for protection from these problem predators, they also play a key conservation role on the landscape — and that they value wildlife, too.

“Increasingly, we as beef producers recognize that there is this intersection between the environment and beef production, and what that means is increasingly there’s an intersection between (the) Agriculture and Sustainable Development (ministries),” he said.

What’s needed is a better understanding of that because “that gives us a chance to tell our story differently,” he told the District 9 producers’ meeting.

“It’s a long, slow process, but we’re kind of pulling the Titanic around an iceberg here.”

Manitoba’s beef producers are by no means alone in their predicament. The Manitoba Sheep Association (MSA), representing over 400 sheep and lamb producers in Manitoba is also at the table of the LPPWG.

Its members continuously lose animals to predation, said Kate Basford, MSA executive director of the MSA and a Winnipegosis-area sheep producer.

“It’s definitely something that we talk about all the time,” she said. “As you can well imagine, if cattle are being predated sheep are that much more vulnerable to be taken down by any number of animals. At one time it was just coyotes. There’s an area not far from me that has a bad wolf problem. It seems to come in cycles.”

Basford added that sheep producers do often deploy guard dogs because their flocks are so vulnerable to predation and many have found them an effective deterrent.

“The value of a few dogs goes a long way,” she said.

Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation (MASC) statistics show in 2017 there were 1,878 predation claims covering all types of livestock, including beef, sheep and goats. More than $1.8 million was paid out in compensation to producers for their losses.

So far, halfway through the reporting period for 2018, there have been 1,387 total claims for predation kills across the province. That number also includes 326 wolf claims in 2018 specifically.

But, producers also insist the MASC numbers don’t tell the whole story, due to the fact its Wildlife Damage Compensation Program only compensates those who can provide sufficient evidence of a predator kill. Aside from being unable to provide an accurate account of the situation, that also means lost revenues amounting to tens of thousands of dollars among hardest-hit producers.

Lemon said MBP is continuing its voluntary cattle loss survey asking producers to help their organization better define the scope of the problem.

“We continue to collect the surveys,” he said. “Anecdotally, talking to producers I’ve heard from a couple losing as much as 10 per cent of their herd. Those would be the extremes probably. It’s something we’ll add up when we’re done with our district meetings and we should have numbers towards the middle of November.”

The post Predators taxing livestock ranchers appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

They repeatedly hear about losses and producers now make impassioned pleas to have something done about the pressure on herds, particularly from wolf attacks, general manager Brian Lemon told district meetings which began last week.

“It’s a very serious threat to livestock producers’ livelihoods. I don’t think there’s a bigger file on our board or issue that’s more important or that trumps predation,” he said at the District 9 meeting at Stonewall last week.

The problem is defining the scope of it.

Directors raise the issue at all board meetings, and MBP talks about it at every meeting they get with the provincial ministers of agriculture and sustainable development, Lemon said.

But then they’re asked the question they can’t answer.

“They’re asking us, ‘how big is the problem?” he said. “Our answer right now is, ‘we don’t really know.’”

Directors have gathered plenty of information through phone calls and conversations. “But it still ends up being fairly anecdotal and not statistically valid. That’s the problem we have.”

They’ve tried to work with Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation (MASC) but their data isn’t capturing the full picture either. MASC’s Wildlife Damage Compensation Program only compensates producers who can provide sufficient evidence of a predator kill.

What’s so frustrating for producers is being unable to make claims because wolf kills seldom leave carcasses. There’s no evidence to make the claim.

“It’s not until you go to collect your cows in the fall that you find out you’re missing a bunch,” he said.

The survey MBP is circulating at all district meetings this fall asks producers to provide information on herd size, numbers of cattle lost to wolves, coyotes and other predators, to report maulings and injuries, and document numbers also lost to theft or hunters. There’s also a box to tick off if there are no cattle losses to report.

The aim is to gather the grassroots data together so MBP can make a better case that the provincial beef here is under pressure from predators, Lemon said.

There’s a lot of debate going on as to why predation from wolves is on the rise, but the general feeling is they’re going after cattle as moose and whitetail deer populations decline.

Dealing with the issue is going to be a sensitive subject, however.

Beef producers don’t want to impair their reputation as managers of both Crown and private lands in ways that are beneficial for wildlife. Beef producers are widely recognized by conservation groups and the public as the agricultural sector doing the most to support biodiversity. The dilemma will be finding a way to make it understood that the wildlife their farm systems otherwise support is, at this point in time, creating a threat to people’s livelihoods and it’s a problem that needs a solution,

“It’s going to be a delicate thing to talk about,” Lemon said.

That’s part of the task ahead for the Livestock Predation Working Group which will be looking at what other provinces are doing to deal with problem predators.

Beef producers currently call on professional trappers with the Manitoba Trappers Association (MTA) to remove problem predators, but in actuality few are available to go out anymore because pelt prices are so low.

“We need to inject some incentive into this whole program,” Lemon said.

For now, the main thing producers themselves can do is fill out the survey and give MBP the data it needs to quantify the problem and reinforce the seriousness of the situation.

“The more you can do to help us with that data the better off we’re going to be.”

The post MBP seeks producer data on predation losses appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Kathryn McGarry, Ontario minister of natural resources and forestry, spoke to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s 2016 annual meeting to update farmers on the status of the regulations covering the protection of the Algonquin wolves.

In June, eastern wolves in Ontario were renamed Algonquin wolves and their status was changed to threatened by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario, an arms-length body that classifies species at risk in Ontario.

The threatened status meant that the wolves had to be protected across Ontario, and the government had 90 days to respond.

The challenge is that the only way to differentiate the Algonquin wolf from coyotes is with a DNA test — which, as McGarry admitted, would be difficult.

“Yes, I know they have big teeth. You can’t ‘Just say give me your mouth and I’ll do a swab,’” she said. “This presented a problem for us.”

The government has since set two years to draft a recovery plan for the Algonquin wolves, she said, with input from groups such as the OFA and scientists.

In the meantime, the hunting of the wolves is restricted in Algonquin Park and in the areas around Killarney Provincial Park, Queen Elizabeth II Wildlands and the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site.

The wolves, and the coyotes that look the same, can still be hunted in areas outside the restricted zone.

There is also an exemption for landowners and farmers in restricted areas who can still protect livestock if there is a health and safety risk.

— John Greig is a field editor for Glacier FarmMedia at Ailsa Craig, Ont. Follow him at @JGreig on Twitter.

The post Restricted zone tightens for Algonquin wolf hunting appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Beginning April 1, the maximum value for domestic animals killed or injured by natural predators will increase from $2,000 to $3,000.

“Creating an environment for producers to succeed in Manitoba is vital to building strong rural communities in our province. Financial stability, especially during production shortfalls, provides an important level of support to the people who contribute greatly to Manitoba’s economy,” said Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Ron Kostyshyn during a presentation at Manitoba Ag Days Jan. 19.

The Wildlife Damage Compensation Program is cost shared between the federal and provincial governments and is administered by the Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation.

According to Kostyshyn, the hike in compensation has been made in response to producer feedback and is aimed to better reflect market conditions.

The province will also adjust compensation for young animals, increasing the amount to reflect the estimated value at the animal’s earliest practical weaning weight, rather than at the time of loss.

A welcomed increase

Predation and compensation rates were highly discussed issues at the Manitoba Beef Producers’ (MBP) district meetings, which were held throughout the province this past fall.

“Predation has been a huge issue for us in Manitoba and not just in Manitoba, it is something that is having a global impact,” said Melinda German, general manager of the MBP. “One of the biggest arguments we have always had is that when producers are losing calves to wildlife, they are not being paid for what that animal is actually worth.”

The MBP has been lobbying for better compensation for predator losses for years.

“We have a working group made up of government folks and industry, which has been looking at solutions to this. We have been going forward with different ideas and proposals about what needs to happen because we do have a significant challenge here,” she said.

Losses caused by wildlife are costly and can have major impacts on an operation especially when profit margins are thin.

“Seeing this response from government is very significant and very much appreciated,” said German.

While the increase will be welcomed by the industry, German says that there is still more that could be done.

“One of the things that we have always discussed going forward is maybe looking at ways to tie losses to what is actually happening in the market and having a bit of a fluctuating response,” said German. “We have tools in place now, like the Western Livestock Price Insurance that tracks prices of animals, so it is an option.”

For further information about the Wildlife Damage Compensation Program visit the MASC website.

The post Province addresses wildlife predation appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The furor prompted the Albuquerque gun store owner who originally sponsored the contest to cancel, but a second gun dealer in the southern New Mexico town of Los Lunas, Gunhawk Firearms, stepped in to take over the event on the weekend of Nov. 17-18.

“Coyotes are a direct threat to the cattle industry,” Gunhawk owner Mark Chavez said Nov. 2, accusing environmentalists of trying to stir up sentiment against the contest to further their “hidden agenda.”

“They’re trying to get rid of the hunting industry and the gun industry,” he told Reuters.

According to a New Mexico Cattlegrowers Association, wild predators killed 5,500 sheep and 3,700 lambs in the state in 2009 alone.

Caren Cowen, executive director of the association, said coyotes pose a greater threat to sheep than larger livestock, such as full-grown cows, though calves also are vulnerable.

“A calf today is worth $1,000,” she said. “In today’s market, how many times can you stand to have $1,000 taken from your wallet?”

But Wendy Keefover, director of carnivore protection for the conservation group WildEarth Guardians, said the threat to livestock from coyotes is overblown by the ranching industry.

Citing U.S. Department of Agriculture figures, she said predators such as coyotes and feral dogs accounted for less than a quarter per cent of all cattle losses nationwide in 2010, the most recent year for which data was available.

The overwhelming majority of livestock deaths are due to disease, bad weather and birthing difficulties, she said.

Hardy species

Although the coyote’s natural range has expanded threefold in recent years, Keefover called the premise of a hunting contest a “myth,” insisting that killing coyotes would fail to reduce their population in the long run.

“Coyotes make up for their losses by changing behaviours, such as more females breeding and with larger litters or increasing migration,” she said.

In addition, coyotes play an important role as natural predators in a healthy ecosystem, helping to maintain rabbit and other rodent populations at balanced levels.

Neither side in the debate had any figures on the current size of the coyote population in New Mexico.

Many other states have held similar annual contests, said Mary Ray, wildlife chair for the Rio Grande chapter of the Sierra Club. But heightened publicity in New Mexico, amplified by Facebook and other social media, has generated a greater level of attention than usual, she said.

Nearly 15,000 people responded to an online petition opposing the event as of Nov. 2. Hundreds more wrote on Gunhawk’s Facebook page in support, Chavez said.

Chavez said 25 two-person hunting teams have signed up for the contest so far, and he expects about 100 teams will be registered by the start date. The team that bags the most coyotes will win an automatic rifle, he said.

“We’ve hunted for many years. It’s my heritage and my right to hunt and to teach my kids to hunt,” Chavez said.

Contestants must register with the Los Lunas gun shop and attend an orientation before the contest, but coyote hunting in general is unregulated in New Mexico and requires no licence.

Keefover said a separate coyote-hunting contest in Montana was cancelled on Friday after an article about the event was featured in the Sacramento Bee newspaper. Colorado banned contest hunting in 1997, the only state to do so, she said.

“Contest hunting is not ethical hunting. The point of hunting is not to pile up a bunch of bodies,” Keefover said.

The post New Mexico coyote-hunting contest pits ranchers against wildlife lovers appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

But they do agree on one thing: guardian animals are their best defence against the coyotes, wolves, bears and cougars roaming their sparsely populated farms near Poplarfield.

Both say their preferred guardians have virtually eliminated predation losses.

Before Lorna and Pete Wall brought in a pair of Akbash dogs to protect their flock, lambs would regularly disappear without a trace.

“Pete has watched it happen,” she said.

At about 11 a.m., when the flock was far enough away from the house to be out of rifle range, a coyote would skulk out of the bush and grab a lamb as casually as a shopper lifts a package of meat off a supermarket shelf.

“As long as the coyote comes out nice and quiet, they can just pick that lamb up and nobody pays any attention at all,” said Wall. “Now, they’ve figured out how to get a free dinner.”

In 2007, Pete brought home a pair of dogs that looked like “a ball of Kleenex with short, stubby legs.” They put the pups in with the ewes to bond them to the flock. When a ewe got too aggressive, they would roll onto their backs and “scream like a banshee.”

The first pair grew up into a formidable protection team, and they’ve since begun bonding more pups as replacements and for sale at $500 per dog.

Even though the area is thick with wildlife and bush cover, regular patrols by the Akbash dogs, which stand six feet tall on their hind legs and weigh over 200 pounds, have kept the flock safe from four-legged terrorists, even bears, which they once chased up a tree.

Last winter, however, one of the big male Akbash dogs had to be put down after it got an infection from a “big gash” received after fighting off what they figure was a cougar.

Having at least a pair of dogs — or one for every 50 animals — is the secret to successful flock protection, she said, because the Akbash dogs “hunt” attackers swiftly and silently as a team. Often, while one is lying down in the middle of the flock, the other circles the perimeter.

Try and sneak up on the flock, and within seconds, you’ll feel a silent, formidable furry presence “right on your butt,” said Wall.

That means two-legged predators intent on stealing sheep are also kept at bay.

Once, a visitor ignored warnings to avoid touching the lambs, and Wall said that one of the dogs promptly “knocked his hat off” as a warning.

Like any species, human or otherwise, there are good performers and poor performers. Mixing guardian dog breeds makes the results harder to predict, said Wall.

When the Walls lived in Alberta, they tried donkeys as guardian animals, but found that they attacked the lambs too much.

But Rozanne Nevakshonoff, who uses small standard donkeys as guardian animals to protect her flock of 90 sheep about three miles away from the Walls’ farm, swears by them.

“We live in coyote country, but I’ve never lost a sheep to predators. Not in seven years,” said Nevakshonoff.

She runs two jennies with her flock, and keeps a jack for breeding. The donkeys, which she plans to sell for about $400 per head, offer significantly lower costs than dogs because they eat grass. She believes they are more effective than guardian dogs.

“They’ll attack a coyote or a bear,” she said. “I’ve seen mine come over the fence to chase off a wolf.”

Nevakshonoff, who once had a Great Pyrenees guardian dog but got rid of it after it killed a few of her sheep, said that donkeys are more trustworthy, cheaper to feed, and easier to manage.

“I tried both and I found that I prefer the donkeys,” she said, adding that she’s had no problems with them behaving too aggressively with the flock.

Different farms have different needs, she said, adding that she knows shepherds who have had good success with llamas and alpacas.

She added guard dogs can be unpredictable, especially when visitors come knocking.

“I don’t need anybody getting bit by a dog,” she said. “How do you get somebody to come onto your property to do chores?”

The post Dogs or donkeys? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The predators frequently carry tapeworms in their gut that can infect dogs and possibly humans. Tapeworms passed on by canine species can also result in sheep measles, a costly disease for sheep and goat producers.

One type of tapeworm found in coyotes, Echinococcus multilocularis, is receiving new attention thanks to the research of Alessandro Massolo, a University of Calgary wildlife ecologist with the faculty of veterinary medicine. The expert in canid parasites has been studying the prevalence of this species of tapeworm among Alberta’s urban coyote population, but his research has implications for rural residents.

When the tapeworms reproduce, a part of their body (called a proglottid) detaches and is excreted in the feces. Rodents eating scat can then become hosts, are weakened by fast-growing tapeworm larvae and become easy prey for other coyotes, foxes or worryingly, dogs. That puts humans at risk as the cycle continues and pet owners can inadvertently come into contact with little egg capsules when cleaning up after their dogs, or through petting them. Humans are not proper hosts for this type of tapeworm but can develop cysts on internal organs. The cysts will become a medically significant problem, and after years of incubation, the victim will often present like a liver cancer patient. Surgery will be undertaken to remove the cysts, and two years of chemotherapy follow to ensure the parasite is killed off. If the cysts are inoperable, chemotherapy alone can still be used.

It’s an expensive proposition, and very hard on the patient. Left untreated, the condition can become fatal. Although there has never been a case in Alberta, there has been one incidence in Manitoba and cases are more common in China and other countries.

A recent study found 23 of 91 urban coyotes necropsied had the E. multiocularis tapeworm and Massolo said both urban and rural pet owners need to take precautions.

“Don’t let your dog eat rodents,” said Massolo, adding rural dogs should be dewormed at least twice annually.

Owners must ask for tapeworm-specific deworming medication as common and over-the-counter roundworm medication will not work, he said.

Additionally, dog owners should always wash their hands after being in contact with feces and after grooming or washing their canine companions.

Sheep tapeworm

Another type of tapeworm can cause problems for sheep producers.

Once again, the danger comes from sheep grazing where feces containing tapeworm eggs are present. The eggs penetrate the intestines of sheep and goats, then travel through the bloodstream into muscle tissue. Cysts are then formed in the muscle tissue of the livestock, which can cause severe scarring once the animal’s immune system attacks the invading cysts, leaving marks reminiscent of the spotting rash of measles.

The cysts contain juvenile tapeworms, and are passed to coyotes or dogs feeding on deadstock.

Although humans cannot be infected by this tapeworm, it ruins the meat and with severe infestations, results in the entire carcass being discarded.

Controlling this tapeworm in infested livestock is difficult and it is recommended producers deworm dogs every two or three months if they’ve been exposed to an infected herd. Dogs should never be fed undercooked or raw sheep or goat meat — and proper and quick disposal of carcasses is essential to halting an outbreak.

Reports of “measled” meat by the Alberta Lamb Producers have increased in recent years. If widespread infection is found in an area, the only option may be to limit grazing in the infectious zone.

The post Pet owners and sheep producers warned about tapeworm threat appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The most common reason is fear of coyotes, said Gord Schroeder, executive director of the Saskatchewan Sheep Development Board.

“I’m tired of people saying that coyotes are a problem and that’s why we can’t go ahead,” said Schroeder, in a presentation at a recent Multi-Species Grazing Conference hosted by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture.

“As goat and sheep producers, we’re going to learn to manage the problem. We’re going to grow in spite of coyotes and in spite of predation.”

Totally eliminating predator losses is impossible, but successful livestock operators have figured out ways to manage risk and prevent losses, he said.

When Schroeder ran a 450-ewe operation near Drake, Sask., he said he often spotted coyotes running through his flock and within a quarter-mile of his house.

Not all bad

He generally left them alone because in his experience, not all coyotes are livestock killers, and a chorus of spine-tingling coyote howls in the evening did not always herald the appearance of mass carnage in the morning.

Indiscriminate killing opens up a territorial vacuum that will be filled by new, and potentially worse, coyotes, he added.

Practices such as night penning, so-called coyote-proof fencing, and noise and light deterrents may offer short-term, temporary relief from the four-legged, furry terrorists.

“Coyotes will adapt to anything that you throw at them,” he said.

In one Ontario project he was involved in, a fence was built at enormous cost that was buried two feet in the ground and rose eight feet high, but coyotes still managed to get inside.

“There’s no one tool that you can use to eliminate coyote problems. You’re going to have to combine a number of different ones,” said Schroeder.

No one tool

First, check stock regularly. That means taking extra steps as soon as a problem appears. Keep weak or sick animals closer to the house for protection. Coyotes survive the winter mainly by feeding on carrion, so keeping deadstock out of reach by composting it or burying it in a specially built vessel avoids lending them a helping hand.

Calling and shooting is one of the best ways to get rid of bad actors in the coyote population because the most aggressive, opportunistic predators are the first to respond to the sounds of an animal in distress. But don’t bungle the shot, because they won’t fall for it a second time, he said.

Coyotes are lazy by nature. Their currency is food energy, and they are always looking for ways to conserve it by opting for the cheapest, easiest kills. That means they generally use the same paths, night after night. Setting a power snare on a trail beaten in the grass under the fence will often catch the culprit.

A good guardian dog is the best of all predation control methods, said Schroeder.

Different breeds have different characteristics. Great Pyrenees tend to stay close to the flock, while Akbash dogs tend to roam farther, noisily patrolling the perimeter. Anatolian shepherds are a more aggressive breed that won’t hesitate to pursue attackers, and may get into trouble with neighbours.

Schroeder used three dogs of different breeds with his flock to provide overlapping layers of security.

Getting a dog to work requires patience, especially during the critical bonding period. A balance between the need to provide grooming and worming care must be struck to avoid turning a pup into a “useless” pet.

Dogs provide round-the-clock protection from predators, and the sound of barking at night provides peace of mind because it means they are working hard.

Many shepherds and goatherds are reluctant to pasture their flocks on remote or bushy areas due to fears of predation, but a “good working dog will open all that land up for you,” he said.

Schroeder has heard from some producers that losses of up to 15 per cent per year due to predation must be accepted as the cost of doing business.

“But that’s your cream, your profit. You need to capture that,” he said. “Guardian dogs may not eliminate everything, but they sure will help.”

The post Coyotes no excuse for staying out of the booming sheep and goat sectors appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.