To reduce livestock losses and limit conflict between farmers and wildlife, the Cheetah Conservation Fund (CCF) began placing livestock guarding dogs on Namibian farms in 1994. A 2021 review covering the program’s first 25 years found that 91% of surveyed farmers reported reduced livestock losses after receiving the dogs. When cheetahs or jackals kill livestock, farmers can face additional financial strain. Such losses can also put predators at risk of being killed in retaliation.
Led by Laurie Marker, the research team examined placements made between 1994 and 2018. During that period, 634 dogs were placed with farmers. The researchers collected survey data covering 472 dogs through 1,567 farm surveys. Puppies began bonding with small livestock at about 4 weeks old and were placed on farms between 10 and 12 weeks of age, after each farm passed an approval check. In the year before placement, 19% of respondents said they had lost more than 10 livestock animals, while 7% reported losses exceeding 40 animals. In the year after placement, 67% reported no livestock losses, while 2% said they had lost more than 10 animals. Reported losses attributed to jackals fell by 45% in the year after a guarding dog was placed. Losses attributed to cheetahs declined by 16%, while those attributed to caracals fell by 15%.
Survey responses showed a marked change in reported livestock losses after the dogs arrived. The differences suggest that the reported benefits varied by predator species , with the largest reduction associated with jackals. Because more than 90% of Namibia’s cheetahs live outside protected areas, according to the review, where they may come into conflict with livestock farmers, the approach is relevant to cheetah conservation.
The program uses Anatolian shepherds and Kangal dogs, breeds originating in Turkey that have long been used to guard livestock. Early exposure helps the dogs develop an association with the herd and remain with the animals as they mature.
Reported use of lethal predator control also declined after placement. These limitations mean the reported reductions should be interpreted with care. Farmers generally viewed the dogs favorably. The authors described this as a modest reduction that could reflect changing attitudes toward wildlife. However, the survey cannot establish that the dogs alone caused the decline, and the results do not show that the program eliminated retaliatory killings. The dogs also faced considerable risks. Field accidents were the leading cause of death, with snake bites accounting for more than half of those accidents. The program also carried potential costs for wildlife. Some unwanted behaviors became less common over time. The researchers also emphasized the importance of proper care and early supervision in preventing or correcting unwanted behavior. The authors cautioned that the survey results may underestimate livestock losses. Respondents may also have given answers they believed interviewers wanted to hear, potentially affecting the findings. Nevertheless, the researchers concluded that the program had been successful overall and recommended livestock guarding dogs for other areas experiencing similar livestock losses.
About 93% said the dogs met their expectations, and 99% said they would recommend the program to other farmers. Respondents rated 71% of the dogs in good condition and 22% in excellent condition. Before receiving a dog, 13% of farmers said they used lethal control; afterward, the figure fell to 8%. Their average lifespan was 56 months, and 32% of recorded deaths occurred before age 2. Behavioral problems were reported in 28% of surveys, most commonly when dogs stayed at home instead of accompanying the herd. Reports of dogs killing wild animals, mostly jackals, appeared in 41% of surveys. Most incidents involved individual animals, but a small number of surveys recorded 50 or more jackals killed. Dogs surveyed between 2010 and 2018 were 4.47 times less likely to chase game than those surveyed between 1994 and 2001.
The authors said these ecological effects require further investigation, indicating that guarding dogs can reduce some risks to livestock while creating risks for wild animals.
