Animal Damage Control Program: Efforts to Protect Livestock from
Predators (Letter Report, 10/30/95, GAO/RCED-96-3).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) Animal Damage Control (ADC) Program, focusing on
the extent to which ADC field personnel use nonlethal methods to control
livestock predators.

GAO found that: (1) ADC field personnel in 4 western states use lethal
methods to control livestock predators despite written USDA policies and
procedures giving preference to the use of nonlethal control methods
where practical and effective; (2) ADC officials believe that the
written guidance does not apply to controlling livestock predators,
since nonlethal methods such as fencing and guard dogs are more
appropriately used by livestock operators, have limited effectiveness,
and are not practical for field personnel to use; and (3) although most
of the operators requesting ADC assistance have already implemented
nonlethal control methods, they are still losing livestock.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-96-3
     TITLE:  Animal Damage Control Program: Efforts to Protect Livestock 
             from Predators
      DATE:  10/30/95
   SUBJECT:  Domestic animals
             Agricultural programs
             Animal husbandry
             Losses
             Wildlife management
             Agricultural policies
             Endangered animals
IDENTIFIER:  USDA Animal Damage Control Program
             California
             Nevada
             Texas
             Wyoming
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

October 1995

ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL PROGRAM -
EFFORTS TO PROTECT LIVESTOCK FROM
PREDATORS

GAO/RCED-96-3

Animal Damage Control

(140100)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  ADC - Animal Damage Control
  NASS - National Agricultural Statistics Service

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-261796

October 30, 1995

Congressional Requesters

Under the Animal Damage Control Act of March 2, 1931, as amended, the
U.S.  Department of Agriculture is authorized to control damage to
agricultural interests, including livestock, caused by animals. 
Efforts to protect livestock from predators, primarily coyotes,\1
constitute the major activity of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control
(ADC) program.  In 1994, as a result of the program, over 100,000
predators were killed by the program's field personnel.  Concerned
about the number of predators being killed, you asked us to determine
the extent to which the program's field personnel use nonlethal
methods in controlling livestock predators.  This report provides the
results of our review of the program's activities to control
livestock predators in four western states. 


--------------------
\1 Other livestock predators include bears, bobcats, feral dogs,
feral hogs, foxes, mountain lions, and wolves. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Agriculture field personnel in California, Nevada, Texas, and Wyoming
used lethal methods in essentially all instances to control livestock
predators.  Agriculture's written program policies and procedures for
carrying out animal damage control activities call for field
personnel to give preference to the use of nonlethal methods when
practical and effective.  However, according to program officials,
this aspect of the written program guidance does not apply to the
control of livestock predators.  These officials stated that in
controlling livestock predators, nonlethal methods, such as fencing
and the use of herders and guard dogs, are more appropriately used by
livestock operators, have limited effectiveness, and are not
practical for field personnel to use. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

According to Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS), the value of the sheep, lambs, and goats lost to predators in
calendar year 1994 totaled $23.2 million.  NASS valued the cattle and
calves lost to predators during calendar year 1991 (the year of NASS'
latest estimate for these animals) at $41.5 million.  Under the
Animal Damage Control Act,\2 the Secretary of Agriculture is
authorized and directed to eradicate, suppress, or bring under
control predatory and other wild animals that harm agriculture,
horticulture, forestry, animal husbandry, wild game, and other
interests.  Agriculture is to provide assistance in such efforts when
requested by state governments, private individuals, and other
federal agencies. 

Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is
responsible for carrying out the ADC program.  The Service enters
into state cooperative agreements,\3 which define the operating
procedures for controlling animal damage and specify that actions
taken by program personnel are to comply with state laws on game
management and other federal requirements.  The program within each
state is run by a state director, who is a federal employee
responsible for overseeing animal damage control activities.  These
activities include efforts to reduce the damage done by wildlife to
livestock, agricultural crops, commercial forests and forest
products, aquaculture, natural resources, urban and industrial
property, public health and safety, and threatened and endangered
species. 

During fiscal year 1994, federal funding for the ADC program totaled
almost $36 million.  The ADC program allocated about $9 million for
research and $26.8 million for program operations--about $7.4 million
of which was used for program administration and for headquarters and
regional office operations and about $19.4 million of which was used
for animal damage control activities in the cooperating states.  Of
the $19.4 million provided for animal damage control, a little over
$10 million, or about 51 percent, was used to protect livestock from
predators.  Nonfederal sources--including state governments and
livestock operators--also contributed about $10 million to protect
livestock from predators during 1994. 


--------------------
\2 7 U.S.C.  426-426c. 

\3 The ADC program also enters into cooperative agreements with
federal land management agencies, county governments, livestock
associations, Native American tribes, universities, and individual
ranchers.  The federal land agencies include the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as Agriculture's Forest Service. 
The parties to these agreements contribute funds to carry out the
program's field activities. 


   WRITTEN PROGRAM GUIDANCE AND
   ACTUAL FIELD IMPLEMENTATION
   DIFFER ON THE ROLE OF NONLETHAL
   METHODS IN CONTROLLING
   LIVESTOCK PREDATORS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The ADC program's written policy manual and related procedures state
that in carrying out animal damage control activities, field
personnel are to give preference to nonlethal methods when practical
and effective.  The procedures identify both nonlethal methods, such
as using guard dogs, and lethal methods, such as aerial hunting, that
can be used to control livestock predators.  (App.  I provides
information on both kinds of methods used to control livestock
predators.)

In discussing the applicability of the written guidance to the
control of livestock predators, ADC's Deputy Administrator and other
program officials told us that, in practice, the role of nonlethal
methods in the program's efforts to control livestock predators
differs from that indicated by the guidance.  According to these
officials, field personnel rarely use nonlethal methods when
controlling livestock predators.  These officials stated that
nonlethal methods, which consist primarily of fencing and animal
husbandry techniques (such as using herders and guard dogs), are used
more appropriately by livestock operators than by field personnel. 
The officials also stated that (1) the effectiveness of nonlethal
methods in controlling livestock predators is limited and (2) some
nonlethal techniques, such as installing fencing, would not be
economically feasible or practical for field personnel to undertake. 
Program officials noted, too, that an operator's use of nonlethal
control methods is not a prerequisite for receiving program
assistance. 

Field personnel in California, Nevada, Texas, and Wyoming told us
that they used lethal methods in essentially all instances to control
livestock predators because livestock operators were already using
nonlethal control methods but were still losing livestock.\4
According to these personnel, they provided control assistance when
livestock operators with written agreements\5 notified them that
livestock losses had occurred or were anticipated.  They told us that
when losses had occurred, they conducted on-site inspections to
confirm that the losses had been caused by predators and, if so,
implemented what they determined to be appropriate lethal control
measures.  When field personnel were notified that losses were
expected--operators anticipated losses before the start of the
lambing and calving seasons or when they were relocating livestock to
an area where previous losses had occurred--field personnel told us
that they initiated appropriate lethal methods to control predators
as a preventive action.  Detailed data on the number of predators
killed during fiscal years 1991-94 nationwide and in the four states
we visited are included in appendix II. 


--------------------
\4 At the locations we visited in the four states, we observed that
operators either had fencing in place or had herders and/or dogs
located with their livestock. 

\5 Written agreements are completed when an operator first expresses
interest in receiving program assistance and authorizes the ADC
program to conduct control activities.  The agreements identify the
predators that are to be controlled and list various lethal methods
field personnel can use. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Although written program policies call for field personnel to give
preference to nonlethal control methods when practical and effective,
field personnel use lethal methods to control livestock predators. 
ADC program officials told us that nonlethal methods are more
appropriately used by livestock operators, have limited
effectiveness, and are not practical for field personnel to use. 
Because the control of livestock predators is the program's major
activity, we believe that the written policies and procedures should
be clarified to specify the role and use of nonlethal methods in
controlling livestock predators. 


   RECOMMENDATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

We recommend that the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service revise the Animal Damage Control program's written
guidance to specify the role and use of nonlethal methods in
controlling livestock predators. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

In written comments on a draft of this report, the Administrator of
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service said that efforts
would be made to provide program personnel with further guidance
clarifying the role and use of nonlethal methods in protecting
livestock.  Appendix III contains a more complete discussion of the
agency's comments and our evaluation of them. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

We conducted our review in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.  Our objectives, scope, and
methodology are discussed in appendix IV. 

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 7 days after the date of this letter.  At that time, we will
send copies to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.  We also will make
copies available to others on request. 

Please contact me at (202) 512-8021 if you or your staff have any
questions.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
V. 

Barry T.  Hill
Associate Director, Natural Resources
 Management Issues


List of Requesters

The Honorable George E.  Brown, Jr.
The Honorable Peter A.  DeFazio
The Honorable Sam Farr
The Honorable Maurice D.  Hinchey
The Honorable Tom Lantos
The Honorable John Lewis
The Honorable Carolyn B.  Maloney
The Honorable George Miller
The Honorable Charlie Rose
The Honorable Bruce F.  Vento
House of Representatives


TECHNIQUES FOR CONTROLLING
PREDATORS
=========================================================== Appendix I

A variety of methods--both lethal and nonlethal--can be used to
control livestock predators. 


      AERIAL HUNTING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.1

Hunting target animals by shooting them from helicopters or
fixed-wing aircraft is used primarily in rural areas of the western
states to control livestock losses caused by coyotes. 


      CALLING AND SHOOTING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.2

A device that imitates either a coyote's howl or a rabbit's cry of
distress is used to lure coyotes to open land.  As the coyotes come
out into the open, they are shot. 


      DENNING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.3

The dens of coyotes or red foxes are sought out; the adults are
killed and the young are either removed from the den and shot or are
destroyed by throwing a fumigant cartridge into the den. 


      FENCING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.4

Barrier wire or electrical fences are used in some areas to keep
coyotes out of sheep pastures.  Portable fencing is used on the open
range. 


      GUARD DOGS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.5

Guard dogs, such as the Great Pyrenees, Akbash, and Komondor, have
been selectively bred for use in protecting livestock.  The dogs'
large size is itself intimidating to predators.  The dogs are trained
to stay with sheep and bark at any predators that may approach. 


      HERDERS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.6

Human custodians can protect livestock.  The presence of herders
accompanying bands of sheep on the open range may ward off predators. 


      HUNTING DOGS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.7

Dogs are sometimes used to lure coyotes into the open, where they can
be shot.  Dogs are also used to track mountain lions and black bears. 


      LEG-HOLD TRAPS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.8

Steel leg-hold and padded-jaw traps baited with a scent attractive to
the predator are used to trap the animals, which are generally
killed. 


      M-44
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.9

A device made up of a metal stake, an ejector, and a capsule
containing a poisonous sodium cyanide mixture (called an M-44) is
used to poison coyotes, foxes, and wild dogs.  When an animal bites
and pulls the device, which is baited with scent, the poison is
ejected into the animal's mouth.  Death occurs within seconds. 


      SCARE DEVICES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:0.10

Various scare devices can be used to frighten predators away from
livestock.  These devices include electric lights, portable radios,
sirens, and propane cannons.  Scare devices are effective only for
limited periods of time, however, because predators become used to
the light or noise and are no longer frightened away. 


      SNARES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:0.11

Snares made of wire or cable can be used to either capture or kill
the animals.  The devices are most frequently used for coyotes. 
These snares can be used wherever a predator moves through a
restricted lane of travel, such as through or under fences, on trails
through vegetation, or at den entrances.  As the predator passes
through the loop in the cable, the cable encircles its neck or leg. 
A simple locking device holds the loop closed. 


      SPOTLIGHTING
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:0.12

Spotlights are used at night when shooting predators. 


      TOXIC COLLARS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:0.13

Sheep can be fitted with collars containing a toxic solution. 
Because coyotes most commonly kill sheep by biting their throats, the
collar is designed to rupture when bitten, thereby releasing the
poison and killing the coyote. 


LIVESTOCK PREDATORS KILLED
NATIONWIDE AND IN FOUR SELECTED
STATES, FISCAL YEARS 1991-94
========================================================== Appendix II

Although a small number of predators caught under the Animal Damage
Control (ADC) program are freed or relocated, ADC field personnel
generally kill predators in their efforts to protect livestock in the
four states we visited.  ADC officials told us that bears, bobcats,
coyotes, feral dogs, feral hogs, foxes, mountain lions, and wolves
are the predators responsible for most livestock predation. 
According to data provided by ADC on the results of its efforts to
control livestock predators, over 185,000 predators, mostly coyotes,
were killed during fiscal years 1991-94 in the four states we
reviewed.  Although a variety of lethal methods were used, aerial
hunting was most often used to kill predators in two of the four
states during this 4-year period.  Specifically, during this period,
ADC personnel killed an average of

  7,069 livestock predators in California, mainly by shooting (23.2
     percent) or using poison capsules (21.2 percent);

  5,659 livestock predators in Nevada, mainly by aerial hunting (62.3
     percent) or leg-hold traps (17.3 percent);

  25,676 livestock predators in Texas, mainly by using poison
     capsules (33.8 percent) or neck snares (29.3 percent); and

  7,853 livestock predators in Wyoming, mainly by aerial hunting
     (50.1 percent) or shooting (16.7 percent). 

Table II.1 shows the number of these livestock predators killed and
the technique used by field personnel during fiscal years 1991-94
nationwide and in the four states we visited.\6



                                    Table II.1
                     
                     Number of Livestock Predators Killed by
                       ADC Personnel Nationwide and in Four
                      Selected States, Fiscal Years 1991-94


                                   M-44s
                                 (poison                Leg-
              Aerial      Neck  capsules  Shooting      hold
             hunting    snares         )        \a     traps   Other\b     Total
----------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
Nationwide
1991          29,555    13,135    27,962    13,580    19,322     6,891   110,445
1992          33,844    13,261    28,713    11,881    16,785     8,524   113,008
1993          38,383    13,916    25,904    11,634    12,631     7,385   109,853
1994          30,043    14,721    25,692    11,286    12,250     7,847   101,839
California
1991             100       639     1,926     1,977     2,036     1,179     7,857
1992              76       526     1,323     1,617     1,782     1,058     6,382
1993             231       568     1,090     1,629       867     1,776     6,161
1994           1,392       484     1,665     1,342       577     2,415     7,875
Nevada
1991           3,209       179       5\c       975     1,149       368     5,885
1992           3,706        79         0       932     1,076       390     6,183
1993           4,922        48         0       703       871        97     6,641
1994           2,275        26         0       657       822       147     3,927
Texas
1991           3,517     6,282     8,200     1,486     3,062       648    23,195
1992           4,480     6,769     8,486     1,486     2,589       547    24,357
1993           3,717     7,932     9,166     1,665     2,980       635    26,095
1994           5,002     9,110     8,816     2,320     2,850       958    29,056
Wyoming
1991           2,999       153       969     1,263     1,030       290     6,704
1992           4,552       596       891     1,458     1,420       328     9,245
1993           5,367       342       803     1,513       885       249     9,159
1994           2,820       474       973     1,026       542       470     6,305
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes shooting, calling and shooting, and spotlighting. 

\b Includes the use of techniques such as leg/foot snares and
denning. 

\c Nevada law prohibits the use of M-44s within 15 miles of any town. 



(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III

--------------------
\6 ADC officials told us that most of these predators were killed as
a result of the program's activities to protect livestock.  A very
small number were killed as a result of the program's other
activities. 


COMMENTS FROM THE U.S.  DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
========================================================== Appendix II



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)

can now be found on p.  4. 


The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Agriculture's
letter dated September 13, 1995. 


   GAO'S COMMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

1.  We clarified our final report to recognize this comment. 

2.  Our prior report (GAO/RCED-90-149) focused on the Animal Damage
Control (ADC) program's overall management of predator species and on
whether such management threatened predator populations.  In
contrast, this report focuses on the role and use of nonlethal
methods in controlling livestock predators. 

3.  Although the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service states that the use of nonlethal methods in
livestock protection does have applicability and can be effective
under the right conditions, our work indicated--and ADC's comments
confirm--that ADC substantially relies on lethal methods to control
livestock predators.  We recommended that the Administrator revise
the ADC program's guidance to specify the role and use of nonlethal
methods in livestock protection because the current guidance calls
for the program's field personnel to give preference to nonlethal
techniques and does not reflect ADC's beliefs that the use of
nonlethal methods is limited and that such methods are more
appropriately implemented by livestock operators. 

4.  The Administrator disagrees that the role of nonlethal methods in
ADC's efforts to control livestock predators differs from that
indicated in the program's written guidance.  However, the
Administrator states that nonlethal methods are more appropriately
used by livestock operators and that field personnel substantially
rely upon lethal methods to control livestock predators.  In
contrast, the program's written guidance calls for field personnel to
give preference to using nonlethal methods when practical and
effective and makes no reference to the role of livestock operators
in using nonlethal methods to control livestock predators. 

5.  We could not independently determine whether field personnel are
considering the factors that the Administrator says they consider
before engaging in livestock predator control activities because
field personnel are not required to document their consideration of
such factors and the field personnel we talked to did not prepare
such documentation. 


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix IV

To determine the extent to which ADC field personnel use nonlethal
methods to control livestock predators, we reviewed the written
policies and procedures for the ADC program that guide and direct
actions to control livestock predators, particularly those that deal
with the use of nonlethal control methods.  We also determined how
activities to control livestock predators were being carried out in
four western states.  We interviewed and obtained documents from ADC
officials at the program's headquarters in Washington, D.C., and
Riverdale, Maryland, and the program's Western Regional Office in
Denver, Colorado.  In documenting the program's operations
specifically in controlling livestock predators, we reviewed and
analyzed information from the program's computerized management
information system.  This information included the number of
predators killed and the techniques used as well as the amount of
federal and nonfederal funds expended in the program.  We did not
verify the accuracy of the data from the program's management
information system. 

We selected four states--California, Nevada, Texas, and Wyoming--in
which to review the ADC program's efforts to control livestock
predators.  These states are among the top nine states in overall
expenditures for livestock protection, federal funds expended for
this activity, and the number of livestock predators killed.  In each
of these states, we interviewed and obtained documents from the
state's ADC program director and judgmentally selected district
supervisors and field specialists and other field staff.  We visited
one district within each of the four states and accompanied and
observed ADC field personnel using lethal methods to control
livestock predators in these districts.  We used a judgmental
sampling technique to select written agreements with livestock
operators in each of these districts to determine, among other
things, the length of time the agreements had been in place, the
predators to be controlled, and the techniques allowed. 

In each of the four states, we visited and interviewed several cattle
and sheep ranchers/operators to obtain an understanding of their
operations and working relationships with ADC program personnel. 

We conducted our review between September 1994 and September 1995 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
ISSUES STAFF

Sherry L.  Casas
Denis P.  Dunphy
Brian A.  Ellison
Paul O.  Grace
Ned L.  Smith