Keeping predators out 469


TABLE 1 Mean number of self-reported losses of herded livestock (goats and sheep) per family and year to snow leopards Panthera uncia and wolves Canis lupus at night-time corrals and pastures in the Tost Mountains, Mongolia, before fences were built. The range of losses is provided in parentheses and the information is based on self-reported losses by 60 herder families.


Predator


Snow leopard Wolf


Both predators


Mean number (and range) of herded livestock losses during spring 2013–spring 2014 Night-time losses at camps 0.7 (0–10)


Daytime losses in pastures 0.7 (0–10)


3.2 (0–20) 3.9 (0–20)


further examined whether losses of herded livestock prior to building the fences in 2014 differed by predator species (snow leopard vs wolf), time of day (night vs day), and sea- son (winter vs rest of the year) by using χ2 tests, whereby we performed the comparisons for time of day and season separately for snow leopards and wolves (n = 512 losses; reduced to 460 losses for the seasonal analyses because information on time of year was missing for some losses in the pastures). We examined whether the attitudes of the herder com-


munity (i.e. all 60 herder families interviewed) towards snow leopards and towards wolves differed before building the fences. We examined whether the fences affected the herder community’s attitudes towards snow leopards and wolves, also with an ANOVA, comparing herder attitudes before and after the fences were built, with separate analy- ses for snow leopards and wolves (60 families interviewed before and 20 after the fences were built). Similarly, we examined whether the fences affected the attitudes of the herders that received fences, using a paired t test to com- pare herder attitudes before and after the fences were built, whereby we performed the analyses separately for snow leopards and wolves (seven families interviewed before and after the fences were built). We performed all analy- ses in the statistical software R 3.5.1 (R Development Core Team, 2014).


Results


Livestock losses prior to building fences Mean livestock holding per family in the herder commu- nity in the spring of 2014 was 401 livestock (range = 95–934), which included 368 goats (range = 90–820), 21 sheep (range = 0–80), five horses (range = 0–50) and seven camels per family (range = 0–60). All but one of the 60 families interviewed in the spring of 2014 had at least one dog, with a mean of 2.1 dogs per family (range = 0–5). Most families (43 out of 60; 72%) had a corral at their winter camp. The mean annual loss of herded livestock to predation by


snow leopards and wolves during spring 2013–spring 2014 was 8.5 goats and sheep per family and year (range = 0–50;


3.9 (0–30) 4.6 (0–30)


Total losses 1.4 (0–17)


7.1 (0–50) 8.5 (0–50)


Table 1), which corresponds to a mean annual loss of c. 3% of the herded livestock holding per family and year (range = 0–19%). More herded livestock were lost to wolves than to snow leopards in the year prior to the study (χ2


(1) = 228,P,0.001; Table 1), with a mean annual loss of


7.1 goats and sheep per family and year to wolves (range = 0–50)vs 1.4 goats and sheep per family and year to snow leopards (range = 0–17). Night-time losses of goats and sheep at herder camps were similar to daytime losses of goats and sheep in the pastures for both snow leopards (χ2


(1) = 0.106,P = 0.74) and wolves (χ2 (1) = 3.56,P = 0.059)in


the year prior to the study: mean livestock losses to snow leopards at night-time camps and on the pastures were 0.7 and 0.7 goats and sheep per family and year, respectively, and mean livestock losses to wolves at night-time camps and on the pastures were 3.2 and 3.9 goats and sheep per family and year, respectively (Table 1). Losses of herded live- stock to snow leopards occurred almost exclusively in win- ter (94%) when herders were in the mountains (χ2


(1) = 55.9,


P,0.001), whereas losses of herded livestock to wolves in winter (46%) were similar to the losses during the rest of the year (54%) when most herders were out on the steppe (χ2


(1) = 2.16,P = 0.14). Livestock losses after building fences


There were no losses of herded livestock at any of the 10 fenced corrals in either of the two winters of this study: the mean loss of herded livestock for the families that re- ceived fences decreased from3.9 goats and sheep per family in thewinter prior to the study (range = 0–13) to zero losses of goats and sheep in the twowinters of the study (χ2


(2) = 54,


P,0.001; Table 2). The mean loss of herded livestock when in pastures in winter and when at the summer camps during the rest of the year for these families, in contrast, was greater in the last year of the study than during the year prior to the study (χ2


(1) = 5.17,P = 0.023; Table 3).


Specifically, the mean loss of herded livestock when in the pastures in winter and when at the summer camps during the rest of the year for these families was 6.9 (range = 0–23) and 10.4 (range = 4–21) goats and sheep per family and year in the year prior to the study and in the last year of the study, respectively.


Oryx, 2021, 55(3), 466–472 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319000565


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164