Why Namibian Farmers Are Satisfied With the Performance of Their Livestock Guarding Dogs
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 15326840 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Gail C Potgieter (0000-0001-5345-088X, Cheetah Conservation Fund, corresponding author), Laurie Marker (0000-0002-1636-2191, Cheetah Conservation Fund), Laurie L Marker, Nico L Avenant (0000-0002-5390-9010, National Museum), Graham I H Kerley (0000-0003-2702-5200, Nelson Mandela University) |
| Year | 2013 |
| Volume | 18 |
| Issue | 6 |
| Pages | 403-415 |
| Publication date | 2013-10-24 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Human Dimensions of Wildlife (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1087-1209 • E-ISSN: 1533-158X |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/10871209.2013.803211 |
| OpenAlex | W2057198732 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 21 |
The success of livestock guarding dogs (LGDs) in mitigating farmer–predator conflict relies on the perceptions of farmers that use them. Purebred LGDs are provided to Namibian farmers by the Cheetah Conservation Fund as a farmer–predator conflict mitigation measure. We examined the perceptions of farmers using 164 of these LGDs by analyzing data collected during face-to-face interviews from 2000–2010. Although most respondents reported reduced livestock losses since LGD introduction, satisfaction with LGD performance was more strongly linked to their observations of LGD behavior. The most commonly reported negative behaviors were staying home (29 LGDs, 18%) and chasing wildlife (25 LGDs, 15%). On subsistence farms, care provided was negatively correlated with LGD age (r = −.34, n = 35, p = .04) and LGDs reportedly staying home were provided with less care than other LGDs. Overall, LGDs performed satisfactorily on commercial and subsistence farms, and thus contributed to farmer–predator conflict mitigation. Keywords: livestock lossesfarmer perceptionshuman–wildlife conflictNamibia Notes Gail C. Potgieter is now at Namibia Nature Foundation, Windhoek, Namibia. The funding for Gail C. Potgieter was provided by the National Research Foundation and the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University Postgraduate Research Scholarship. The Cheetah Conservation Fund provided the logistical support to conduct the surveys. Gail C. Potgieter acknowledges Matti Nghikembua for preparing the map and Gephardt Nikanor for assisting with data collection. The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of this article
Agricultural economics · Agricultural science · Agroforestry · Animal welfare · Biology · Business · Economics · Environmental planning · Environmental resource management · Geography · Livestock · Pet therapy · Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies · Animal Disease Management and Epidemiology · Environmental Science · Wildlife Ecology and Conservation · Ecology · Forestry
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0.09 |
| Citation span | 2015 - 2015 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |