Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-6 DEER HERD COMMITTEE 11 OF 33r � r EXECUTIVE SubMNRY This study- evaluating the feral, dog problem in the State of California was undertaken as a result of AH 1763 (Wornum) AB 1763 required the Department of ,rish and Game to determine the degree of depredation on livestock and wildliwe in the State and to recommend legislative and other measures to reduce the problem. As,a means of establishing the relative levels of depre- dation two questionnaires were formulated and mailed to each county animal coritrOl agency and to each Department of Fish and Game field biologist and: warden: Additional data and information were gathered by contacting a variety of relevant state and federal agencies and private organizations (i.e.? livestock associations and humane associations) and by ,,'viewing pertinent published and unpublished literature. In addition, letters requesting information were sent to thirteen other states knon to have had problems with livestock and wildlife depredation by dogs. of 58 questionnaires sent to the counties, 45 counties (78 percent) responded. Ouestionnaixe responses from Fish and Game field biologists and wardens were su£ficietit to provide an analysis of depredation on wildlife for all counties in, the state, Wildlife Depredation According to the 45 questionnaires returned from coil ty animal contxal officerst dor7 depredation on wildlife way judged to be "'serious" in S counties (ll percent), "mticlerate" in 21 counties (47 percent) and "minor or r'onexistent" in 19 counties (42 percent) + Wildlife field biolo fists and wardeno judged more counties to have a "serious" problem (15 counties' - 33 percent) and fewer to have. .a "mi,:tor or nonexistent" problem (13 counties -- 22 percent). Those cotinties with moderate wil.dlift depredation problems were comparable (26 counties,- 47 ounties -47 percent) + Specific data from 9 of those counties having a were reviewedand analyze��redatin E serious de redation problems Por the most part, documentationp g Wildlife is poor or nonexistent- of, 'estlimate8 indicate an annual lass of apptoximatel,y 1,300 deer to dogs. Annual losses of other wildlife species Are unknown The incursion of human dev4Ylopment .into deer winter range has apparentlY increased the incidences of depredation on deur. In general, dog attacks on Wildlife are oppor'tuni.s�:ic and often ,i. 1 ` as used as,soci.ated witha) increased e oncentrationan lase of eof a wildlife sively by wildlife and b) the Cbirds) in an area. species �l» �' • r colonic] nesting Livest� eoxedation e redation on livestock was ��determinednt�ese(53 percent) Dog d P in 9 counties (.?0 percent), , rnoc3erate percent) ed on more specifi c F and "minor or none:�istent in 12 (b P ather n livestOCk information and documentation has beenand Masses, clue to the economic iyeeevidencerest in lafecepxedat oni0 The e r, adily observable and 'tangible throughout the �trxt+� a.na 5�everity of dp,redation is variable usua'Lly coat than nsists of sporao 95rpercent of all dog chronic damage��t�o xt is estimated that 50 to p livestock is caused by unlicensed dogs. Laws and Control Programs s regarding the protection of livestock hedprir,m dog under L<iw 5 are established dation and dog owner liability eti (Sof it if e the Aga i.cultaral Code (0o50 -1 -31508) -and CaTtke employees e '.on 960 from digs i. litni.ted to Fish Such laws apply unifar�nly fi�t�rbugh^ of the Fish and Game code) a� the counties resnonding to out thrs state. darty P pertaining the to dog the questi�ontaire have adopted ordinances leash laws or Voice p Gant 1. Mast of those have iestab� is�xdleashed but must be cot�ttcl. laws (a dog does not have to be under voice con.rol o o�riner) - . Gets and wardens felt P, ma,ority of the animal control officers laws were ,adequate but that better enforcement -.hat t that improvements were needed in was nf:cessary• Many, fele violations, ��ublic education, audxcaal cations pertainit to dog matpo,wer and funding fob' the counties and in the enact -Tent and/ox enoroement of county leash Laws, The Basic Problems ertd kill it g Wildlife and live problems of dugs attacking rtob'.ems , that of pet over- stock are the symptoms of two basic P Duri�rg 19'75 nearly 5500000 opulati.o; and owner irrespcinsa bid its?» 10 of the P dugs had to be destroyed .in go n :a alae. In. only counties responding to the questionnaire did the county u o�.t, 'lr�w�oost pe,t�r�eute�»�a,�aq old i'a,nr�i.catede�ha.t 45 s have prova•de or Pr ��cent conducted in urban counties of Cal famal�.adog$ and 5 P , approti,kate�y Al percent- nt OW female undoubtedly og male dog s a' e neute 'rid• These percentages are law'er i � turas ocuntiao, a w 4 � Study Findings _ 1. The basic problem of dog depredation is rel aabl: to two factors: overpopulation of dogs and lack of respon- sbil.ity by owners. 2. The use of the term "feral'" (born and raised in the to ` ild) when describing dogs depredating wildlife or liverstock xst for the most part, a misnomer:. 3. Depredation by true feral dogs a ppears to constitute only a fraction of losses t0 wildlife and livestock. The majotity I�f depredation is Caused by unlidens a and laicensed t:omcaticated dogs,, A. Depredation on wildlife and livestock Occurs in both rural and urban, counties 04 California. S. Dors attacks on wildlife are opportunistic and associated Frith: (a) conflicts in areas used ehtens%vely b y both humans and `wildlife, and (b) the concentration of a wildlife $peCie,s in an area, 6 Depredation on Wildlife is generally sporadic and localized, Some cauiities reported apvery,minor problem while other s con..-idered the r countie be serious, 7. Depredation on wildlife is considered most cercus in 1. Nevada Plumas; Santa Cruz,, Siskiyou and Tuolumne Counties. 8. Santa Grin County has es da#ablished the most eom;rehensive ta on dog attacks On deer. County officials and ns've dents have actively trl.od to reduce; the problern of dogs killing deer. 9. Doti depredation can have a serious impact on a local deer herd or on a coneontrated nesting bird population. 1.0. Documentation of wildlife losses by dos i such lt�sses'are observed n xe dogs poor because quentl 11. The incursion of human de��elo mento into nto deer wa.ntex C the incidences of depredation Winter range has increased deer. 1. Depredation of wildlife by dots is not an isolated phenOMePOni but rather is .relatable to the "bi. sic Of dog overpopulatx.cn an owner re$ponsib�.l,i� ,x problems l 13 Most problems of dogs: attacking livestock occur When agricultural lands abut urbanized areas. In such areas unlicensed dogs are the biggest problem, 14, Problems with dogs attack-, .livestock in the more rural areas are a sociated with owners allowing their dogs to run fres, usually at night 15. Available livestock loss data may reflect Jess than 40 percent of actual loss. 16. Most ranchers will control dog problems on their own rather than contact the county animal control agency. 17. Depredation on livestock is most serious in Mendocino, ti y in t San ,7oaquin, Tuolumne, San �,usoObispobs 1nd Imper`a.a']; Counties. 1B only l out of 10 incidences of depredation of livestock is tradeable to the owner of .the dog 19, Fifty to 9'5 percent cf the damage to livestock attributed �:o dogs is caused by unlicensed dogs. 20i .,bile present l a'w sallow rancherstocapture or dispatch GT offending dogs, most attacks on livestock occur at night when control is difficult. 21. Although most counties have licensing requirementsfor dugs, it is estimated that only 50 to 70 percent of awned dogs are licensed 2? There may be as many as 9100000 free-roaming dogs in Galifarni.a 23, Funding and 'manpower for animal control is highly variable among counties a 24 While 53 percent of the respondent eo.utiti;es have animal conttoff ag, cias r responsibility fast dog contra. in the i remainder of the counties is under the Sheriffs Departlment County Agricultural Cornmissioner#1�oalth Do.partmentr depart- mein of public Works t and SPCA or' Humana Society. 254 A majority of dog Control measures are punitive (s'hooting, impoundment, finds, ,indemjfication) rather: than prevantat ve. 26in essence, little. "control" of dogs is achieved through enforcement of the Fiah, and Game Code or the Agricultural Code because 4 t depredation an livestock Occurs at night, a. Most s ontaneous and tin wildlife is P wardens little Of- 10. Depredation thereby affcJ:dinc Ofyendinc opportunistic, tura or dispatch the opportunity to cap Is and control. affica wardens dogs'.'. Reluctance a� animal dogs, c, titch depredating to a_sp a lxlations and en,force- et pelement of the c.og raved control o P create with snp . al.waYF be a car 4a� ill 27: even w continue to thexe w�11. 1'k whioh Bicultural and ment, homelessI fexa Aq to deal populat3.on i-, estocr, and 'wild »ife . necessary problems ��tth �- will cgntirju:e to be wine codes erl Fish and With this element• s have adapt he ondin� countie-� r� rar t�' percent of �de �•� Gr�ntral i W dad e.8. ► oxainaric :s established counts of tht counties haall of those 10 perc,e�t 4 cs. �'xtu�.11y ,� Approximately 4 ,..'ng clin•. low-cost b'e't n�=ute:� 5 �al.i� urban counties" Indcounties in are two urban of the " cs fax ane rural Y1 percent are, ghat app dog popu7 at�aan 30» fornia ineirate 4 of the made ale and 5 p etcent erect depredationtot lasses documenting 31»' resent' procedure�tsnt ar' ,,,,3,y establishe8 are thcr. Wane=��» Stud Etecottenria`t ans an s h a a�,Q a523U" ait "� k'1 X � 0" w - �: " � b l e m is amr 5 =y t4 Q0Ti8j tt T��"+�3 re K 7 5 01 ." tr tL . ! a� a n, �t b?l bet, 1+iU Uk3ti.S` rX7Y 4 to a w'kti k`r 4I rts " Y� aC �<i�t and am 11 y, j t� un as v e� ; .' r� a'cad � N pN } q dated C1�Z"Y'r nv yIa,Inj 5��tt1.L "%18, +ps(,�1�'v�t� . awa,v,dnO08 Of rii Ut: *ad tO 01. W y t t isa aro"tdol V01st qq rtemo a 11 4, the .gym .. ofda��t.one Ji.th �z a r Q t{t{, *�"wCf s . ��C0'C1MIA- 1— �itsr�far�,. t „Y r t .+ da. ar�.s be ntensiveubZic education program, 1, Fumd a statewideownership responsibl,Dtios vel dealing with p unconfvotlea problems created by overpopulat^+on, p ' s,, and License and rabies be special ZY ,oriented rams- dog shouZd be sp .� The education program . is to 0 City and/or toward identl.f�vng Zoca'✓- (specific tock depredation, t iZc - county) prob.Zems (i•e., Lives it e depredation) and information, licensing 2. in roduce a statewide uniform taw far dog li This shduZd require the and identificatznn• ro ram r .e., deveZo Ment of an identificatruon p g� • et Iwnertlhip and •, tattooing) aimed at establishing p liability. et food gales to provide fundixg Estabttish.a tax on p f or Y uterin; cZzn c t a LOW-COst pet spay✓nL E'txbZirs education programs. ep o Sit p f a state-latlgZ man �gemenw unit. par`t p ,Tn order to acnieVO Ouceesv in the above rograms and dog corttrol �1rt��,�'rdF?i �t,�tetJ'*µde., to as7,ttt'itJ2't"isure a more f „o.vUZ functional unit be. y+ecommended that an overallstateea9encg' ,Such a unit would �astabZished in an e«ist'ng .mn'tiored aa well as, the oversee those prngrams prevoitsZ fc�lZcr�ingt providetxaining for animal coritroZ off. es for the tirnpA�aveme7lt a provide funding ram coy artpot er neods and fadi%i*A s• of control ' ° g fico, i rn ;' g .control taws d Ensure itcna:fo m a p, at ate an=; ons�»stertcy between s,,nte and Zot+aZ 3egu"atiattions Recommend area r Menta neeecs'ar, td i o re ulmYn x,ove state dog control. taws, dor. ��dertti.rtiott program with o �o�or474.na�t��,, on of �' 6a a: r y µ y I"K VGi'J control Z TM co y - na i9 on 1r .N �/ 6 �'Nh(Yi.f.�� * ,;`� �t GZ r r t„n a3y ta`k 1J DdveZop r' Ca � or�ra r; tt ' c menu an for dopa dat onj �tnirla , ide r programs• 6 tt 1 is L MtRODUC:' ION The Problem Predation and .harassment of livestock and wildife byparts uncontrolled dogs has become a rapidly growing problem classify all.. of California. Historically; the :tendency was to olass sally when observed away front human uncontrolled dogs, especially C1.9'l4) defines feral. as habi':ationr as feral dogs ri - » in a state of nature, having escaped zxomK dom��z�t�.- a„iStng and not cat on or having been born inithe oiindirectly for :us depe,»der. on mann ether da�rea�1Y ten,ance . wi k.,. the encroachment of ur a. developments into what i al. land and the increasing wa .s c t e tutdevelopod or agriculture has become difficult to popul. t ,Xn of companion animals r det�:�zni,rc whether damae�e caused bV dogs is due to true feral dogs, free.,.:xangi�ug ..pets: or strays.. Decease of this intrinsic in determining damage caused by true feral dogsr the tern! "uncontrolled dogso will (unowned sniinals) re port and ebs l herein defined to include Y dos (coyote dog hybrids) and true f�;ra1 dogs. hunting dogst coy -dos Most uncontxol~lesd dog activity occurs at .night or early dog morning. Beck (1973) observed. the periods of maximumods. when activity from S to a,Ttt. and from 7 to are 't and County animal control c±�Eicers are usenexalnwarinessty city These activity patterns and the g. and active ,' a� uncontrolled dogs make obser;rat �arisedatiaz attributeddto�on acelatvely ur�cammon. March of the eprattern » uncontrolled dogs a s based nt othea�r�trces �.n��he attack p ori sredators or from necrops�.ed of dogs as distinguished F, 1973 described attack animals found.. by a�.�.ma1, cantrol Wades (�� o� other .canservac)Cs agencies. Renderson (1969)Tjf by dogs on sheep as characterizeata,onytheufreguency and number of much of the ahiimal s bo ' wildlife are often diff icul.t to led dogs attaoing law enfarcement �ncantrol _ Many obtain even when Stich data e:Xist» t... � taut ,,o re1eS se d asst�ciate them with dispatching de�re� � off�.cers and .censer ration officers are re uc information which WbUla F s in� the t�;bl� c SectOr clogs b a.au dating ;ecause of pas�a.ble repex�cra.�sic�r,s fLom individual dog owners O canine ��iterest groups rodent due to �. other-ditfarcement and. oor'servtentnoffthe edog �p� reluctant to ; rebase information on the est fear of allegstians bf non-P.nforoetlent• y Present social attitudes and laws have also contributed f to the uncontrolled dog problem,. peck (1974) states that nearly 38 percent of all families in the United State's own one dog: A survey conducted in Davis, Galif'ornia revealed that, over 42 percent of urban households and 59 percent of rural households owned dogs (rranti and Kraus, 1574). Beck (1974) states that the status of ownership and the aur>a, of freedom and patriotism associated with ownership have thus made the dog America's "sacred cow" Within California, several regulatory and cat,-servati. n, agencies have established regulations which encompaoa the pro-- cedire for depredating dog control. Generally the f, -aunty animal control. office is responsible fax dog contvOl,t under the auspices of the agricultural comi,;iissioner or a aeparabe animal control Officer, In a felt counties these duties are contracted to the local humane society, the sheriff's office or, are limited to control programs initiated by incorporated cities. The California Department of Vish and Game appoints wardens to enforce. state,l.aws rel eting to the protection of fish and wildl.i.fe resources in the. state. These wardens are authorized by the Fish and Game Cocke to capture or dispatch dogs injuring or threatening any big game mammal during the closed season or a fully protected., rare Oz endangered mammal at any time. The. U. S. Fish and Wildlife service, Animal Oamage Control Division, is the admini6trative aconcy for the major predator management effort in California. This agency has responsibility for control. of depredation by predators in 35 counties but they have no authority to control, depredating dogs observed attacking wildlife or livestock, herrislative*Acctr .can in art effort to substantiate the u cohtroll.ed clog problem in 'Californie, Assembly till Now 1163 was approved, by the Governor on September 19, 1576. This bill requires the Cali- forma 17epartment of Vish and, Game to study the problems created by uncontrolled drags in the state, analyze e... ng regulations, consult with the appropriate, regulatory and resources agencies and report its findings to the Legislature no later than Zanuary 3t 108 (see AS 1763, followi,ng page.) . in Juno 1577t the Department of 'Fish and Game retained hones JS,ociates to prepare that study. Lys Assembly Bill No. 1763 CHAPTER 1.020 An act relating to animals, and m. aping an appropriation therefor, Filed with CAPPrnved by �,overt,ar September 19Z0,�19i�i jr secretory of `State SSep am LECISL,, ',r,Vp COUNSEL'S MCEST e AB The NVOMumm . Animals'- dogs; damage; stud)** of the state (1) There is no existing, lawwhich requires any agency to study problems created by feral dogs in the state. arne to This bill would require the peps c eat d bent of y feral d ish and G th s stake, the extent and vanetY of problem . Tedation on wrildlife and includ ,g the problems of fern dog dap theserole• domestic livestock, and presently availableenc_Solizesnd to report its to consult with other appropriate ag - of later than lams, tslatttre, is findings ails recommendations to the Ag. January 3, 1977. This bill would also appropriate S20,000 to the department for purposes cf carrying out such provisions. Appropriation: yes. eo le of the State 61,W�vrriww+ ; do load as t`ollowsr � Phe p P SECTION 1. 'The Legislature hereby f"Ids tend declares aJ follows: .n to botli the wildlife (a) Depredation by . state. fetal dugs is dam � g resource and, the livestock industry in this (b) The population- of, and the problems associated with, feral at a rapid rate, dogs, is increastnedtensive statewide dysts on feral dogs has been laked amp to date.of the completed rehens:ve assessment of the status lattxre d) An immediate, comp ( problem in this state is necessary to assist the Leg' feral dog p in deterrtnining :.:what measures should, be undertaken to protect native Adlt£e and domestic 'livestool. frons feral dogs* e fOr"I SEC. 2- The Department of Vi and Game study not Unit Cited dog problem in this state. "Che study shall to: description, and documentation of feral dog (a) "Cite assessment, de depredation atn native` Wildlifehcadettuacy a£ �ristir g laws and control (b) The examinatdor<of t progzartts; t available; and (c) The suggestion of the solutions pre c n o jriate, and control (d) 'Reconnrrtendatinns of legislation, if a.pp v programs. ur'ment of l!ood and b The departrnen zi-hall tat 1 Wildlifa Ervire, and ether gricultuse, the Liand appropriate agertciesk and report itariuttfindings l9 recnnymnnrdations p Legislature, not later than y to the L+egi rc riatetd from the C�ctteral Fund in SP -0. 3, There is' hereby �rC+p In LI sum of trvonky thousand. doilttrs ($�O,�) to the State Treasury carrying out the the 'pepart-men* of Fish azul Came for Purposes' of provisions of this '.�Gtn - 9 - ASSESSMI E,YT Qk' TSE p�p$LEM �p� ash and'rra^ed=e' t2A ex derive a comprehensive determine whatide �measilres In Order to Pro and to de of: the un.contolled dog p mailed to the appro�- to i livestoc!c and wildlife .n Calif oxn a, rwere ulate I are necessarytodere formenvies in each of tYa,c .two questionnairesand conservation a5 priate r,gtYlatorY 5g counties. animal, control" the ountY one q Hated represe:�tative �unconhrolled county to f uestionnaire Baas sent to l of:ficeza o= their designated ent losses ref 1 "estt�ck and Wildlife _do documu questionnaire was m'�A to those follow P ondecl tea the initial question w r�u�nt�.cA ` s which haa� deti,e5p in the cover letter. In dd t r�nr ire b� the date �Pontrol off dpd t were later te the contacted O n` na to comle several of the animaln oration needed telephone and the ins .. mire was obtained• unit biologists and second q ire was sent to '� The rationale A vihe Donna sts and wardens of the department of Fish and :game. 29,7 uationnaixe was that unit boloc�. for sending or- this q Dyfed dlifermaY no ,ants of work. �n Wild az t �e r�.p arden'a frl cB ueritly cularl.y to wxl s Whey y w * attacksf Pare feral og to county animal Control. officers a anCies were, also col tatted f:or ed clbnataoi atcontro Several. othernal sis bt Cal,f:orn:.a� s 'Fish ancl�Y�ildl--ife pertinent 'to thethoseYagencies were 5. d„, en's �,ssoca.at�on� problem rkey Cxow'ers p aseciat.:"��a , ttlem r�,Cul 1 w r artm Rpt of l'opd and g and � h6 Service Step the I�u1�►ane Society Sheepgrower'S A sociati.onO Department- of Par 'S arid.. �ecreatie�n r ,Anfmal. Cotirol, w:i:rectorss5pciation. - ch of the liter;a.ture r1 with�theauncontroll-ed An �rirtYal sear stoicsealfor en of these ere contacte� eca�fic staves had recogni�zerl and atte`�P 1.o Thirteen t� do problems and P. -onaes dog problem• aiding uncontrol.l.ed 5 infozn►at on res �. radticed i- their state Step control mea5t%res that were p Were recsiverl f<x10M twelve of those states: the fc�rtnul.a,t�.r�r� of both... - feral. dog was used in h fined to include al.l Lyricontrol.l.ed The germ was de robl.ems with questionnaires and Which create p' dogs both 'eMeta,C and wild r T and W&jalwfe l.l. RFS1:W1,S OF �Y1tr +CSd'tk�`t:��Xl Depredation aA, d , :qzt c livestock and wildlife raOOurce.s by dov has not g%acne unnoticed iz� tie stocutitd epre a + n o nationwide sur�,ev of wildlife and 1 ��restoa� depredation con- nationwide � ted R. Cw e a a� in ► 3 vert of all stat" cot$er- vation department returning questionna� res indicated unoati trolled dogs to b a roblem. The .American Humane ASSOC .�lt1a (Mq4 , cix nark (.1��r ; , whe sc�tyex �t� Car,as (1.973) and others have resp y dog jopradatiov . rx %mfty of t1jo states« a virvially, � z� tae states �d,o �, mrwlldl i0a delM)f',f 6eer stands out as atio t by 47;iw;.rd: ha.l, ss el"t Z'i Ii a a n nrt ,)y sal ;� ja me and 'nongaaie o:^ the most ocudtax. rod ,x jx, _ to w ld ife depredation Researohers in does exo1st, m1,1oh' of it' 'E; the. northeastern ands�ut�,��s��Y�:� '�,.tey,, �:wtes that ot�x�cl4te�<'„� 3 to 3 pO�'•�en o araxkue , m<)�:tbo ,m” OlY �4,.�.t ted to dogs t 1 arn; that ,Wn 5knOwn p,.�'.ae 1� axe d t w Wither a e rel.a•te6 to hams ,�ment G w' 1969) Az1 initial tasl� a : this �,tuci ��aw�1 aas oser� uat�r� b �meo� of states where past to Oxis had sserious wildli�a depredatio'�� t t +� � ��,rur tlr1* t t rt p t1CLilarl"�, dtr»eTt qLk l u1<.s.at �= °xc�1mkt; xYrtx z� x rn *a� 1p'the, r ,s.�a. ► Cnlc aio h a a :� had i ori ,and .�e2'k�xes.;.0 ., du .pm 7 1fF. � the e GeGrgia surve w an exapa► The estimat el proble-M14 dog-inflicted cheer mgrs; a ` ling lja6 etan�3.m� als Additional oonfirmed dog-ve_Aated to 6cou xrdt small gant raL it, quail, hurkeyr a Macs �dd RR 2p,� A tx t n y t 1, 1v C.W '�ror� : anci, RAt�wd '&�k �i� $ # is ' ' ;a�' .@� ;� i��W1k s r bc71 +we y.rc�#�i.1..1.ih tai , .l say dog cotf nestle a. , k� Y_� }� r <4� a �; q it � w �r ds e to .t+ .del y♦ xdhayT_ rnrn dogs, PartiC1% lkrLi,atirJ 4«j aoj o '�,�1ier M r. ,e yV e, %» (a ,ha1"�� i� ft1 � dad .s.I"i 1 ' act, of pursuing or killing deer. During tines of the co Ifil merit order, any dog deemed to be at large may be captured or dispatched The American Humane Association (1974) summarized depre- dation of wildlife by dogs thuslyi It is apparent, though not w -ll do=nented, that the am~` pact of dogs (and cats) care be detrirmntal to wildlife under stecific circunstances, depends on the wildlife species in- VC n- valved, the relative populations of predatory and prey a�ecies r other mortal%ty factors, habitat factors iguaZa tl' ph Sgraphy r graphic location) and land use (the incursion of davt.-Jopt;ents into wildlife habitats) . These may be those who feel. that Adlis ingaact: is not significant, an C that if the dogs didnri; take Otcxs wi,idlife the natural predat:orr> would. It is our OP4xdM that any such dcg doge is unftec essay, and a loss and �we vaul.d Much prefer that they taken by wildlife predators and s r avengers According to Denney''s nationwide survey, damage to live` � stork from dog atttrcks is substantial in many stat,�,Rs. �thil.e these J'esses w"ire rated second in importance to damage to wi.ldlif et from ars economic standpoint they were highest. f Targets of dog attacks mere sheep# poultryt goats, pigs, rabbits, cattle and horses in that order of importance. dor the most part, Majority of these lasses occurred where livestock were' P as"tut d close to populated or urbanizing areas. In several 6 states, dogs represent: the only "predators to livestock which are reported. Denney (1974) estimated these livestock lraSses to be in excess of a million annually w doa—related wildlife In California past documentation o;�, and livostc)ck losses hats beet limited to two #,~alar sources; 1) the aninmal damage control program of the U. S. Fish and .3. A. Sorvice t acid 2) pre r�.ous independent tudI .s conducted throughout the state., in the p t , the California Stat L' eclisl.ature has reg�. as y g Wildlife nixed the need to analyze tdlae relationship o�shrp o� dogs to and livestock. ' o Tri 1913t the Senate Committee on 'Natural Resources at i Wildli4e conducted interim hearitgs portai.n=q to drag damage to Iail:dli e and livest0c)" c In 1974, House Aosol.utsicns 42 and 58 requested the Vl,aiver.sl,ty of CallforniLk at Davis to initiator a k statewide animal damage a.s..essmoftt survey aimed prima,ra.l.y at dacum,onting' predator losses to the tk sheep industry* P 3.4 NOW studies Providad omul atio:� of those hearings andivestock and ;�iLd"' sicinificant inform The pr g ation relative to dogs, life. , gar more specific informationsesd due ton tation has the econom�,oein- produced relative to livestock ► observable and tangible terest in Livestock and d the moreic�aniznals contained withindeR evidence of depredati siopportunity to obs r va pastures or pens present ,a greater. dat sn and to record losses, ::hado wildlife being persued Pre expans of habitat. For this reason, 'r dogs through open exp " . documented accounts, stoc}��. estimates much of the a.nformat.�on on Destock lasses presentedn this other report is ac;compan�ed b dock oultr loss. on the and economic values of livestock and P y hand r much ch of the infc.�rmation, pertaining to wildlife rol,-`eS to personal observations and fev� documented accounts P Descr tion and Doc mentation of Docs Deoredat'iOn Wildlife ne redation set forth, in the The Department of Fish and Gamer as ti State Constitution on of This responsible for the Preserva Fish and Game wardens fish and game resources in the state to the �. czo 4ec- to enforesou resources (Fish andtate laws tGame Code, Sec are authorized d Sec tion of f�.sh and game or thxeatening s are observed injAir'ing 878). then dog game or rare or enddnPartn nt are authorized_ cause ,injury to big g to ees of the sources in the state l e►P S <, not under the reasonabYe control to capture or dispatch any dog Section 3560). " Game Codee of, lis owner, (Fish. and ,� , to wildlwife depredation by nn'" Information ,per.:aininq oorly ontrolled dogs ar the .state is sparse andr at best, p " c one season for this apparent lack of information ddcumefttea* oxtun3.stiG► making` the. chance o Observing: is that dogs are cpp dogs relatively uncommon attacks on Wildlife by ses to ,questionnaires set" toogishty ,Animal The �cespon is and " Control. of��.cers and pish and Game unit biol, g Wardens Frere used to �;valu�.te the impact of uncontro�l.leci a dogs, on t4ilcil,xfe in the Mate w 1 al Of tib (78 percent) of the �oa�r�.��msummarYal tro f A tot uesti,o n (CAC) offices responded to the � wildlife, dep�edata�nicts the levels depredatione the level o�.i u..e 1. p _11, appears in Table I- EU their Uro w�l dlife judged by the CAC Officers est��+eseu�ucl��.�nent� dere ota�te � adunt3,n;. • In the ma0ora,t o the ca based tin; personal. evaluations by the offic!e� s ratho: +:han oti U. 5. Fish mid wildlife sor�.00 socfrpty for PxeVPntion 0f Lesel.ty to Afti—Mla MCA) Averaged Values, t? UnknOVA Livestock Wildlife Cause of Depredation County* Ordinances pet Neutering Clinit . -i 4 yy sf C >0 � y Rtl u' Q 1+1 W +1 0 p C' 144 W tOj U V o w -° v 0 iu t . 4 0 o ;o w c D+ c `h u w 4U m':. 0 a C " 0 1.4 0 ro 0 0 C «r 0 H C, C 0 u m "40 0 L'7 41 N m � w, U- m � P V .1 Alameda x x 5g 953 x x' 12 361,500 Yes� Alpine x x 40% 608 x x 10 UK Yes Butte x at 503 50 ,f x x 5 130, 000 . Yes Colusa x x 608 404 x x 2 35 000 1vasi Contra Costa x x UK UK x k 52 11039,890 «40 Del Norte- x 20W 80% x x 5 45,66S t10 Glenn x x 90% 10% x x 4 54, 000 Yes, " Humboldt x x 603 4o$ x x 5 900000 'Yea Imperial X k 15% 858 x x 10 200 Cob Yes 1 K er n X { x 803 2C8 x x 50 375,000 Yes Kings x i x vx UX x x 6 M fl04 Yem � .Las Angeles x x Ux 14x x x.. 221 2A21,017 01.7 �ft & Mendocino x x UK V9 x 8 180,000 N, t Merced sc x 50t Std% x 6 89,000 n Yes i Modoc x x° 70'8 308 Mono x 3r 50% $08 st x 4 46,630 JNO Monterey ' x x ux UK x x 17 250,000 ] NO Nevada x x UK tit x x 7 1361000 Orange x x sot 108 x x 49 Ores 1,70,",934 No { !Placer x x 80 20 x 10 13 3&8' Yes f Flumas x x $08 508 x 2 21 34$ No I Sacramento x x UF. Cit x X 26 795,169 Yes y San Benito x x UK UK x x 1 1, 100 i San Bernardino ,; x X 9D8 108 x x - 43 w 000 w No 3 , San Diego x x 908 lot k x 106 lt:,Qa,088 No San Fxanci:sao x x Uig UK x s SO 5.00,000 ed San aoaquih x x UK U1t x x 9 246,728 Yes San Luis Obispo x x 908 10� x x 6 23.6,000 No San Mateo x x 708 308 x x 19 330,000 'Yes Santa Barbara It x 15% 258 x at` 23. 337,000 Yes Santa Clara # x 15a 253 x st 50 11660,000 Yes Banta Cru; x, k 758 25% x t 5 2820000 Yes Biskiyou x x 258 758 x x 1.9 lix Yes' Sonoma x x sot 508 x x 47 114P480 Yes Stanislaun x x ttx Ult c, x 40 213;0oo No Tuolumne x x 458 58 x x i 55.,568 yes Y010 x x sot sot fit; 11 171,000 Yea Amds or x x UK UK x' x 1 16,000 Yea El ' -1-, x x UK ux ?t x 7 130#000 ' 103 r .... x :SSS .�'. .5- .K pl Qliti No r 'Lake; x x sat 508 xk 4 ux Yes Marl C Xx UK UK x C 20' UK NO X 858 UiCx UK Yes 801ano x x ,Sod sow � l8 32 6,700 1408 OR idle x �, 3 50o000 No 'DOTAL 9 24 12 2119 27 �.8 39 8 z 22, 387,55152 � U. 5. Fish mid wildlife sor�.00 socfrpty for PxeVPntion 0f Lesel.ty to Afti—Mla MCA) Averaged Values, t? UnknOVA •p;n �' ` FIGURE i COUNTY ANIMAL. CONTROL EVALUATION OF WI LbLiFE DEPREDATION ThOy J ShoFFa Y egQA ntv If .�r y Slarra a� s f •ETUONda ty M.0 '? + ^y yAlln sk onane�C smn "�a ICSH ip 6i��Clf� tn f. �iCes CCYtf7a a1 Qtitin t', u u Son Frdh co Sort Mat RY7'"'t, 1.w... `. a,S"'y'� + ,,fit �. a j,wur« rp �` lnka �ter�erar .�K�Rai � � fen UN - Qb•4•ff' 1, � Kbhs , �� drylSf�(N r; � t >,� _. , r / y� t Santa 6�ir6aCa �+ l.,owrN��jz. d,�qd• fr » Veniuro 4 W � 5 - �, uy ' � i'^+►y4y...wrY�"MLLwaaa.ar "'_- r.r.ry.»f""»"Y'Y°aYy" Level afi D� red2flo » Vf • A �m �aokal Minor Counties of unitnawn stotus (No response) Nonexistent f a 0 } Ba on �;?C of f iced resp ons.es, unlicensed Qn wildlife in �,he comp'led data. on depredationof stray dog: Which dogs are responsible for m on the number 2 Shows datap. during 1975 and the res ul+tiri� state. Viable the stat and/Or the, �udiciai ounded in. ope-tations�potndod ► Were imp the CAC dregs were ba en ng this period • 8'0 2 cases were brt�ug ht O action 561,3$9 system. Waxe i5sued rCOXI�TJ.0 �1 t7rt S 41 792 warnings 22, 665 resul.tea in umber court► butOing s in the state is numb ueiget for AC rtax$2►21►q77» A mean The mean bthe state, ranging from $16V000 f the CAC Operations in $387►551► per county atafy of 22 petsons p onraires ma led to biologTheirand ro-9pon essc of the 338 guests yeted and returned. deprodata,n by ercent? were comp belie' d wil.dlrife erce:xtl 6"� (40 pexcent�' c,cnsiderea p showed that robl ellk, fcit �7 (29 p ercent) �ri.caus P dugs zepxesented a rObl.em.► i2 pbel»ie�ted that to be a moder to kid ,6 (.. porcent state* d.predation as mi nra.� , that depredaticn w them; area of the depreciation was ncne.'ti.stent in to present the f 3 - the results of those resp ol*sus tla�+Ye �,s dati.cn .5hQwn in eyaI ataon �Of w� �o�ered by �"ish and Chme county cistdicts ortions of Ono or mo r� countY�by�. Because the to dtern�irie picture 2, ardens O, ten Include p onse� b36. . 01 gists and s to crambiraeach county- 3. was necessary a,tion 4 -or e counties, . Level. pf deoreedati.on an ovexaii e severit'Y of Depas:meric should be noted herrnaersonal. Judgements of serious+, r at the It Ls based designations Of 't on_ Figure 2 the bona eiesi9n should best be shown robl.ems, _ ba,c,l.ogists an yens-. ��none,:istent an entire county• timodezate" ► " a rather exists unxfoxmly sppl.iea to a 1°�r -a rat " problem rarer' � ,rob em areas, r► or mgnste a ` acents tom a 5 Terra foothi:'l.l. 11sera.ol18 t , but throughout a county, area wintering shdul.d ther;fars be the deer n,ati.ons are areas the mapping desig ,, -there a 4 p to be Serious corountity. tYaat �-th }ogs i s Sue g ex reted to mean tioh fay Count. ,� Int p depr'eda where wil.dlitc ,aarderia -;showed that most matierate r •fists and i tensed and onees from b.olsog to pe percentage of true ke resp s and a small p acts of " ".fife losses could b .ldl , d by sty �bu�.ud ob'sOtVled in p ori W� l orae comm unl.a.ceztsed r s were most o tenaog s These dog ere p Were agbserved Tri s K Pal Ot te6l.y' feral dog bub sin+8 arks of 8 u three or more tonden- C � s has bee rep, of dc�g This packing s snd in the redart�od p a,nta. h beach parj tl1�t 1oc �gradahaw1917) County IA`s F:IGURS A SSESSMENT OF WILDLIFE 0 DEPREDATION AS ESTIMATED Sy CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH a GAME WARDENS a UNIT BIOLOGISTS Od tt T m m a� a 7� 04 - ," isolanrss�w 00R 40 60 EO WOWItt scA__ tdo Ffonrig 5. Sant ol 1A 05 AA J< xl� 0 L Sam vp An 010 V "Z4 Level of Den RdlOrl sovious I MOO 41: Moderate 0— Minor NortaxiSteht Estimated Wildlife losses reported by Fish and, Game biow- logists and wardens for 5-975 se eddthe7mostwere commo'nlyand observed respectively. Deer represent small. game, and nongame prey species in both years, followed by large mammals species. Most depredation season�•thFigre 3 shoWS the occurs during the ;lea Y areas of acute wildlife Game wardens and redation as rfield biologists, Department of Fish a The. encroachment Many of these are within main deer areashabitahas led to a decliT of subdivisions into deer winter ng s are concentrateonto �:n the amount of suitable deer winteringd ering a'habitat. Dozing heat/y snowfall, deer and other large mammals areas wixers dogs limited winter range andlQr Hoar populated found. mY.ese adverse conditions providc m�imum are commonly predation- opportunities for dog p � d the increasinf,� Severity ral counties have: reconiwe u cantrol_e' problem in their county and have of thed dos pµ -rt the matter.,. Four of these counties attempted to rectif aragraphs are discussed in the following ta Cruz County Animal. Control Santa Crus Cour�,ty • roximatel-y 34 000 dogs in The San officer estimates that there are hf are licensed. The the county. Of this number only of CAC officers to ent-orce the county dog present inability dih,ance has resulted in considerable lr��ses of wildl.i:fe r or particularly deer. crtedl.y 1,, ll.ed by uncontrolled An estimated 10 deer are rep Similar losses to other dogs each year in Santa Crux County« records ofion un�-is species are also suspected«, howeicl wildlife late c�ounty� lacking.', The absence of camp Affected efforts to deal with the controlled dog attacks has a�f - problem (van Tassel, 1977« During fiscal year 1573-1974 Animal fromttoa� er n� orad Onses in Du _ g Inncom Santa crus totaled $l'41,467�• 2�f8�7.40), revenues from oitatiox�s ($2rg$500) impounding ($22,8270-401 tvtnl.ed $104 X119.90. Tf the .county and licenses i in response to the level of citizen concern'to the un- controlled dog problem in the area, the county .Fish and Came Advisory Commission directed Commission staff to work with the Santa Cruz City Museum and Fish and. Game to collect information on the incidence of dogs attacking wildlife: With the assistance of the Santa Cruz City ;Museum and -the Department of Fish and Game, a phone line was set tip for reporting dog attacks on wildlife Between January, 29, 1977 and April 15, 1977, 28 clog re. laced calls were logged. Eleven of the calls concerned deer killed il attacked dogs; 'l0 involved incidents of deer being chased o.r by dogs; 2 calls reported waterfowl killed by dogs and 2 galls reported livestock killed by dugs The temaining calls were concerned with attacks by dugs on humans and accidental deer kills by cars. Waterfowl and shorebirds are the most commonly observed small game species affected. bar uncontre�lled does. Loose dogs have often been observed chasing shorebirds along beaches in Santa Cruz County (Bradsh:awr 1977): This action by dogs has resulted in disrupting, the feeding habits and potentially the nesting/breeding habits of these birds as wells: Marin Counter. Since 1974r the U. S. Park police (National Park Service) have maintained an "Animal, and Wildlife" file for the Golden Gate National lRecreation Area in Marin County. This the contains a record of all wildlife—related incidents in which a park officer was involved. The log of these, cases des- cribes the area in which the incident occurred and what actions were necessary, if any, to control wildlife loss W in, 19761 23 deer -dog related incidents were reported by U. S. Park police personnel. The 'Tennessee Val,l.ey-Tennessee. Beach areas and the Gerbode Preserve were frequently observed ' locations for attacks on wildlife by clogs. Most of the doge attacks ofthe dogs occur to urban or park areas, havecollars; however, much o f the problem is caused, by 'Iferal" or semi -wild dogs (Gilil,lana o pens « comm. At Mt. pa1 problem's loose dogs formin packs and chasing deeri Visitorstohe park report as many as 6 to 10 deer kills each year. G;ililland (pets, comm.) estimates that 50 percent, of the fawn population in the .Mt. Tamalpais area, is Lost each year to clogs: Because of the general wariness of these dogs, they are difficult to approach. The County Humane 80ciLty is respoftsikle for dog control in Marin County, however, it is understaffed and cannot cope with the depredation problem 2 ^gyres: FIGURE 3 $TATE%gDE ACCOUNTS OFACIJTE DOG DEPREDATION GN WILDLIFE IFE FA LIVESTOCX AS REPORTED By BleMiyou Modaa CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 1 FISH GAME WARDENS UNIT BIOLOGISTS ACI 1'Y'�'Inlfy 1J A5hasrn La Humboldt✓a`.. +— /. 1 " P)Uin£'! M�neoafno rnn `� I!J El Dow :`i Stet r SanalnG 4 n� + fwd' �� t�;'o�'�-�.�t' • "`• '� fi 40 fO 100 miles San Prangioao s� ,,F't 1 a" .t' •..'�5� . SCALE Son ldcfrs MCI `ora Y� 1, `soot rri tier' •`'...i"" "" tnga i n L}¢ nfG � aara � 4 1 * Lax Moatr<a 'VEarwr4 tci �, FiiNekd<C!A ` 00 a beer'Depredatiort ..,' Leost TRr'n Itnper�al Son Cine � 'IN —. Hdraor $-01/806 Orlon wowfowl a Othrer ` Ground Nesting Sirde y 1 The uncontrolled dog problem in Modoc Modoc County. ranges add acutt to County ze largely confined to deer wznterzncy. Most of the dogs towns and the Modoc National Wi].d2ife Refuge. e oring ranches and towns come from neighboring affected primarily by" ' for deer has 'been affec.. The winter range t., ated on I m, ted r� concentrated ted range - � a. � c Subda-vz bey of he construction of the ee,.�00 ac..e Cal --pine num t snowfalls d During heavy the increasing _ and are subjected. to h,arassmentowx Cases of attacks by from near, game in this ares. have uncontrolled dogs als and small g �ortedly dogs to other Large mammalsand incident, a pack of dogs red also been observed- er of antelope near the tela efwoul.dobe able to killed a numb In most instances arts revun.ted the heavy nowfall. int Callfornia Senate outrun �'degs r but in this case snow and fences P from, escaping (Fuller tour ante,'OPO 1973) y _ Committee, of Alturas borders t trolled dogs Constitute he �Iodoo National tt�ildli e The City March and April., ur Canada geese. Refuge, luring artwcularly for nesting ated 5Q' p�:rcent a' con huous problem P stroyad an estimated h�: eggs uncontrolled dogs da e 5 . comm•) During 197, the female Of these waterfowl (H1oom.t p a ever, of the nests o Primarily affected, R w our`' and young bards are P lied 'while attempting to protect the nest or Y 5 may be killed limits There is no l.icens.� hg requirement outside the 'City limits as LIMited funds areavailable btainedcthisoserv? ued o Altur the pasts A in Modoc County• In b%jt the se.:V ce has been da soon from the xumane Society, in Bassen County ,In _ In a study conducte5 ,ercan" of the Lassen County Dyfed by 1'973, wila,i fe losses were rep Coyi t� s accounted for the dndents to a gtestiannaire dogs were second inpUeerhnce resp , g :roe It of the total. losses. Land hawevert major wa.ldlife lassesY waterfowl grid up redators, causing P' fa110,vted by � similar as p principal prey a.tem► 1974)y were,the 1971., Rimbey and Wade, et al saes was conducted in 1576 (see Ta�ile 3)• game {Rimbey� carted lasses of wild stue' R' of wildlife to ondents rep :• of Gl percent of resp ether �nc'idents of uncontrolled to.'and Wade t 1,97 6) . life kxlintbey 'have been observed near the lSu ttributed Doyle 1 e dogs chasing deer ha s larg ass and �`anesv�,lle areas. ��te..e losses ora ^j s and c can r opulatious zn areas w� .era recent subdivision y _. dense dee P 1k structio�i has led to an influx, of dog k )�,e redation L3vestou 31 the ti . S � Vish and Wil dlife Servide has rtairt species of wl" wife to protest Since l� t � S•C, �7,�wtl'26b) been controlling t1 interests (4,6 stat. l.A 6� agr - N , Rthe Piste The intent of the Animal. Damage Control Protram of and Wildlife Service is "to reduce animal depredations as selectively as possible, and to direct control at the depre dating individual or local depredating population." in California, this program is being conducted under cooperative agreements with participating counties and the Cal fornia Departments of Agriculture and Public Iealth. During fiscal year 1977, 36 counties are participating: in this program, At the request of private landowners in the counties, Fish and Wildlife Service personnel carry out a program of control by 1) investigating omplaants made; by ranchers, 2) evaluating the n(,ed for animal damage control, and 3) removing 4 g animal damage e the offending anirCal or animals (Nesse, et al., 197 6) Ai though depredating dogs tare not considered as "wildlife" and therefore ante not handled through the animal, damage control program, date. M livestock losses by dogs are typiv-111Y tom, control agents in conjunction with thsi.r other piled by the responsibilities. Table 4 shows the number and va W6 of live- stock and poultry losses from dogs in, those counties part cip those in the U. S. :Fish and Wildlife Service cooperative program, estimates reflect losses from 30 to 4o of the 98 counties in the state. Because the number of counties participating :in the con- trot program has 'varied from one year to the next; these losses cannot 'be considered as "swate'wi,cle" totals, but rather as "indi- cators" of depredation le',Mls According to Wackman of the California Farm Bureau Federation (Senate Committee on Natural: Resources and. Wildlife, livestock losses made by the V. S- Fish)anthe' Wildlife�SerVicrepresent "less than, 40 percent of the actual loss to dogs,,.I Many of the, unreported losses are related to harassment by dog y tock s that result later in the death of the l.a.wes i A comp^`ehensive statewide study Of coyote predation conduc- t :d by Gary �+tesse (1979) for the Assembly Rules Com-�ittee (HR 42) indicated that losses of sheets :to dogs constitute a substantial. percent of all prationab in the 6 sheep raising depredation by dogs ranged from 4 to rggions of California, Table $ depicts 29 percent of losses of sheep to predators* � the percent losses caused... by dogs in each of the reg,ion of thiLk state According to Nesse (19,74) ; dog pradat on on sheep is an intermittent problem which exists throughout the year and Is wherever producers pasture ghaep near populated or greatest recreation °areas, Most atuacks are sporadic in nature and are cwased, by ipacks of 2 or u0q' s 23. �1 P-. •9L6[-L9GT '& u�i" Tm"W 'T'o-PUM aC d ' VMTUV - VOTE op'l Ttt 1 5 t TV i I T3 '8 t] .�,yT� 03TIMIR �icT . : ,X+33 5aSt1% �� `S `f1 ""�t 1014 # � a qsa �'" Rj sTs stciu irr, t:�r � Td tru `9=61; STT TV4M t p�V'�9 ig�'a5 - SMOOT 'Iii' . AV'ttOP 'IP44, 91:�tzC tb9` VCa°t� U096t' 96V'Sl LEVO t►� soor Axi� 4ZG 96L"E_E; 8609 Mist 65SOt 9,10L 85t �C ontr1 n'[top VAW, sBot �xa1�nT 655164 9TS"65 L9tt'SE E'afr�6C Volts i+ 0az'er gnjvA �XZ'CV V�aL i66" �Itt'z VLb"t C9E"£ b8'� BLit"t Z66° 6EVC Ei 4'£ 6Lr�''Y volss�►'T'i "C�41, ►`05 69['6 6886 V 89� t 7 6E n bVL"L US it:.�t g WIT i3Z W at5`T I$C3' VZtl' 516, sit to ?I sa,1, tv 'UT IRS 06E 005 L6 5tb m� 658 GLV 85 kVV ZBg'I Ott' pt T4 esau:� 9V 66 r� 5� r :��� � _eV ZL �>�5 �SXt�it L L � tt OTm 91 tt LS L5 Bt CC ;�C �u �� 9 at 5t 6t 45t B� CL �t�a[*J EZT BZ LY 9E G0' `a�, 9b o� i ?x LID ZV6 L 6t t. MIT �t f1 � 56 X55 686 909 OleeSL �.,,. bL6t 6L6'C ZLb"C TOTOL6't 6hG'C pSbT L66�L 1$�t ,4t Z cx�96T XosaNO *9L61 SLOT w. g� uT bi4a Bvitm�co UTr?��t>5.t:5ul�at#1 r 9Lt-4961 sow ATA3Juvm 10-u mw zW� Table 5 PERCENT OF DEPREDATION LOSSES ON SHEEP CAUSED BY DOGS Regions and Counties Percent Sacramento Valley - (Tehama, Glenn,, 11.f3 Butte, Colusa, Yubaf Sutter, Yolo, Soiano, Sacramento) San loaqui,n - (San Joaquin, 12.7 Stanislaus, Merced, Mariposa, Madera, Vresno, Kings, Tulare, Kern) North Coast - (Dei Norte.Humboldt, 26.5 Trinity, Mendocino, Lake,, Sonoma, Napa, Marin) Mountain - (siskiyou, Mdexocy 4:1 Shasta, Lassen, P Umar, Sierra, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Amadora Alpine, Calaveras, Tuolumne) South Coast - (Contra Costar 7.2 Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo Santa Clara, San Benito, Monterey,, San Luis Obispo,_Santa Batbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego) Southern California - (Mono, 25.0 Ynyo, San Bernardino, Riverside., Imperial) From: Nesse, G. H. 1974. Statewide Predation Studies. HR- 4 2 a 25 In addition to they statewide survey of 1.974, flesse, et al., (1974) investigated predator losses to the sheep industry in Glenn and Col.usa Counties ;During 1973 and 1974 ColUsa, County sheep killed by dogs amounted to nearly 16 percent of the total, kill by .predators (second only to coyotes at 84percent) While in Glenn County, dogs accounted for 45 percent,;, (vs., 45 percent by coyotes) or sheep lost to predators (Messer et al,t 1978). The substantial losses in Glenn County prompted the county b'card of supervisors to establish stringent ordin ane;es related tee dog licensing, dogs running at large and impoundment of animals (Glenn County Code, Chapter 8.04..010 to 8.04.470)• A discussion of the effectiveness of those or, dinances plus those in othea- counties throughout the state appears in the section of this rePo' antitled ADEQUACY Op EXISTING LAWS AND CON- TROL PROGT_jAMw xn this study of the. $8 questionnaires sera, to Animal, Control rin each. of the couanties, 32 (55 percent) ,were, initially completed feted and returned. rol.lowup requests e counties ot ng ielded onal maXingsa total return irn :!rom 45('78ypercent) Sof iurns< thecountiee{ Figure 4 depicts the level, o4u depredation of livestock judged by the Animal Control Cf'fi0erO to occur within their � counties. of the 45 counties, 9 (201 percent) considered dog depredat qn to be serious,: 24 (53 percent) determined that a moderate problem existed, while 1.2 counties (27 percent) considered depredation to be minor or nonexiWItt. Table l summarizes the questlonna ,re resul.tz from the county Animal a Control. Officers. A$ with the reports on wildlife dopredatir xt, the dersignatioz of livestock depredation in a county as a serious, moderate, minor or nonexistent problem, was, in most oases, )cased on subjective rather than quantitative analysis although; CAC officers itx leve tal counties have: maintained to� r )a 5god accounts Of livestock depredation incidences. r Specific discussion of livestock depredatl,on 3,n, several counties is warra.ny�terd here# Five of the counties responding to the quastionnairs: are discussed in detail in the .following p a�rap.� `hese 00unwtie9 have e ben chose. for two majorreaona �the Present seriousness of the de redation problemaridhe success of t�c�nto t p.ogrxrts. Presno Sheep and turkeys are two major domestic animal regmi 'ces in Fresllo County p yet during recent years ptoblems, Of clog depredation on livestock have been, cohsideread to be minor $; (Sesssa, pens, COMM-)* Nesse (1974) e.,sta:blis ed that, Eor the, , mast, part, sheep host to docs throu hout the San aoa uin Val.l.e y re presented about 13 perCent of the total. Predator kills Yet depredation reports co.r�pil.ed "n Fresno Count dor y 1.97.7 indicated a rel,at vol. i minor problemwith dogs � r�AWII During the one-year period, 4.1 turkeys, 12 rams, 57 chickensf , I steer and 1 calf were reported killed or Injured by dogs (Schilling, Pers. comm-)- These reports were made by ranchers to the county trappers. Since 1551, the County and city of Fresno have contracted. with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) to handle dog control and impoundment. The County does have a 11, . * censinq requirement ($4oOO - unaltered dbg7 $2.00 I altered do;) and a.lea8h law within a 65-square mile area of the Coutty surrounding the city of Fresno. No leash law exists for the remainder of the County and only, recently, has a low cost spay/neuter clinic opened (Rambo, pers. comm.). While the SPCA has an active program,of imp-dutdinq free- roaming dogs (specifically those dogs without licenses In the County and -those hot under owner control and/or without a .license. the City and adjacent'. county) r there arta no other, i aspe'cts of the animal control program which would account for the low inoidetce, of depredation. In, all likelihood ranchers themselves deal with many of the dog problems they might have (Schilling, Sessa? Rambot pel:So COMM-). San Luis 2tLspo - redation of livestock by dogs is .Depredation considered to be a serious problem in San tui8 Obispo County. Dag control in the CountY is the responsibility of the Depart- ment of Animal . Howevert the exi3etiftg staff size (6 field d off icers) is considered to be insufficient for the size of the county (Dollahite, pers. comm-1. As in most sheep and Cattle CbUnti0s-i the ranchers of San comm.'). Obispo county depredation tend to attempt to control problems on their own property, however, according to Dollahite: some ra . nchers are working with the County Department Of Animal Regulation in reducing the problam- A county ordinance now allows the county to control dogs On private property when given the rjermiszic I n, Of the rancho~. In an attempt to better deal with the Problem the County is embark,j.nq On a program of trapping (box traps) offending animals. Although ttAPPitq dogs is a relatively time dOt8Umjngf e.,tpensiv e procedure, sLtdh a program has been deemed a necessary measure in San 1,uis Obiopo County (Dollahite#, pers, comm') industry 41, y Imperial Court. The sheep n Imperial. Count st*7er'o 108869 by dogs entering conf�nod quite, often sheep grazing meas. Insortie instances as MAftY As 9 to 15 sheep are ihjure'ei it & 5iyjgle attack (Pers. COMM10 '55 percent o� attack6, on sheep, are caused esti�ates that oVet by owned dogs and. 4PPtbXimately 5 percent by Owherles,a strays and feral dogs. Hird furtherstates about half of these dogs, - .re licensed; hoWevort vets fencer wear IiOensa taqq- 27 � 4 i During the 1979-75 and 1975-76 crazing season, shoal) 100.3es were so severe that local sheepmen, ant, other concerrllfld ci't. zolis leash law. to December supported the enactment of a stronger 1975 an ordinance was passed that required dogs be andat cOnttcl at all times. This ordinance was desk tined to prevent problems with uncontrolled dogs before they occurred. The ordinance stipulated that it was not necessary to Wait for a dog to leave the owner's property, before the owner was cited After passage of the ordinance sheep losses Caused by declined during the 1.976-�77 Noyp el season. data pdata dogs y + �O { exist to supra rt r rgrefute c;a+ sgra yq .{. L W+ �n.4�li�►.J. 7 h'4J YM Y e i . -. ly - I4�.rc� feels that the ordinance: was partially espozxsi.ble for the decline. During 1976, the State Leq slat.u"G passed S-'8 - 11.15 (Hor%mdahl) � effective January 10 1977 as Section 5307'� of the CoVernment stags on pr3,vat Code. trefly, the law states that Wht property fawned by the dog owner or the. I n who has a right to control the dog, it shall not be selzea or impounded, for requiring a dog too be leashed and a viol at on of an Ordinance erne s to be issued CI ations for violation of such ordinance, According to Ti rd (pets. Conn.) x the passage of this law con- and effectiveness of siderably wee gifted the enforceability the previous County dog control. ordinance, Glenn Cosnty. During 19740 Nesse, et al., surveyed 44 ranches in Glenn County. The survey predator losses on showed that where ranchers pasturedsheep net to wooded or caused by coyotes; brushy terrain, extensive lasses of ,sheep were those sheep pastured 'neat to populated areas encountered w'herrrasr e r dogs. om g a great threat f Cayotes 'were Chown to be the principal predator to sheep. A total of 873 (66 petcaftt=., of totel. l.osse:�) ekes, newborns The of heaviost pradation and :feeder lambs Wdre hast, pericd by coyotes occurred during: the lambing season (November to - '. qry1p1.r,9fn' t PtEl -a WO yOty the ranches Do ,r4 were he second11ki V s t A of 380 sheep or 25.5 percent Of total slarveyed in 1974. total losses were caused by ` drags, The highest deI L ;by does occurred during the summer months when ewes ware pastured close galley (assr Pt al,., 1976). Mable 6, to u s in the ast to Fredat�t.� �nClenn County showpt stheseasonal shdep during fiscal. year 1974. County ordinance. Natber 646, of f :tilte ulYl t 1576t dogs In Clerih Count�be licensed and prahabit a provides that all uni,icenped dogs from running at large wte' in tho 'alz incorporated areas of the county. since the ordinance booaMe r�ttectl�e 1 TABLE 6 SHEEP LOST TO PAEOATOSS ON a?, SANP."•t-1l:S IN OLENt4 COUNTY t)UfIING F'SOALYEAA id74 Bobcats Coyotc Earie Ong Omer 5�:;�. F pecnt -Qncd PFCent of Sheep Pament 01 Sheep Sheet* t*ar� Sheet/ .�erCfsrrt c,t total Shwo Re c za. µ;y lotai ti;Y`t Id1 It killed, total k�lierl total kAler.d tdt3l kill ktllt+t itiil Yllled kill predll: is kilts kill kill _ _ "r-fail 1.00.31 68 115 68 115 res 27,6 21 1'S 2:5 42' " 1 nibs 7112 43 72 eders 5 08 5 0.8 .ms for otanett 0 0 d 27 ,1'6 131 22.0 0 0 155 266 tall 0 �1 1=Feb.28i 02 85 11 0 - 6ls 11 a 0.7 i82 39.7 00 50 58 98 2 03 Vb 46.5 its ezo s a 9 15 . g 15 ms atal for 0.7' 183 109 30 5 0 13w 225 2 3 351 59 i 9 une 15) 4 07 2 03 B 10 a3 - , 70 118 0 3 76 132 - nbs sdet is „ ilat'Lor, 0 0 74 12 5 6 10 4 06 0 0 84 14 � L FibRY8AS 4 • _ 0'7 257 43 4. _ 63 10 & 267 ad g z 0:1 53.1 99 J rcei .lesae.r G. E, at ai. 1916. P.red,at:ios ami the Sh Ind stry in Cali�arzia� h�i2-xli4. some compliance has been achieved, however, the are stl.l]. problems with a lack of enforcement. Several citatlOns have been issued but there have been, no warrants served for lack of compliance. Currentlyan annual doom -td -door survey i5 being conducted in the county to determine if cogs have ,been licensed. 'his Procedure was started two years ago and will be oeontinued for each licensing period ('Xel,ly, pers. comm.). In WillOWS alone there are an estimated 1,000 dogs but only 700 are, licensed. No similar data have been obtained for either areas In the ccountvr however, this trend; probably occurs county -wine. Mendocino Ccutt . The problem of lives,oc1: cl s redation exist a ,q in •�enaoc no Co,=ty was addressed in an EnVironmental Impact Report pret111red for the Mendocino planning tie �a, (Sullivan and Xun, 1975) . The following statE rAn.tS1 Fere sum-, -marized from that report. ,. Mendocino is One o Co�xntiea that maintain and Inde-� pendentl administer an a�i.lmal� d y t lQ damage control um - • Program. � The primary purpose oA. their pro ram as to remove oftending animalscausing livestock danzage, Most of theroble� c p is oaUsed by and dugs. Acccording to county trappers approximate'Ly 75 percent cf damage�caI ing animals taken aro coyotes, prigs account for 72 percent of predat tor. incidents; ho about *,aever, only 1. d percent 0, the county trappers time i s spent an dog-- _ control activities In fitical year 1,9"� 3- 74' the. total,. dollar value of livestock lossesWaS $49p302, the l,ot al nionetary lass caused by clogs was $24,042 or _49 percent of the total dollar value of , live-' stock losses (see Table In 193 x.74 Mendocino allocated for predator ��" pr control. activ. t ies more money that any oiler county with an independent oolitrol program. Approximately 31.1. coyote, s and 66 bobcats were rem ,,ed z�tzring that � , � , 1975) . year (sullivan and Run, The disproportionato aost of p4rodator control is, to a,. large extont, attributable to the difficulty of removing offending animals from the ragged terrain ,present in Mendocino Cb=ty� The relative inaccessibility' Of Some of theta areas has resulted in a greater eX e--nditur0 Of Money a.nd manpower in Order to apprehend cflending predators. 30 t Table 7 REPC)= Liti'ESTOCKLOSSES IN MENJOCM COUNTY' DUPOG FISCAL YEAR 1.973-19741 Responsible ,,r*egp 1,ambs Cocas Calves. Poultry Hogs Coats DcNet , redators Coyotes 77 188 12 64 Bobcats 1. 4 9 Bears 3 3 Eagles r Raccoons 2 Total Dollar Value = $25,260.00 Dogs 360 164' 1 12 285 5 10 Total. Dollar Value = $24,042.50 Gtand, Total =X49, 342 54 Source: Sullivan and Xun 1975. 2 Figure fused on estimate by th County Ahzmal. Gontr l Office 31 ADEQ0ACY OF EXISTING LAWS AND CONTROL, PROGRAMS State Laws Numerous laws relating to the control of dogs have been established In California. Relevant dog laws appear under four State Codes - Government Code (Section 53072) ; Civil Code (section 3341) Fish and Game Code (Seotion 3960),- Agricultural Code U 30502; 30651.-•30655; 30501-30606; 30951--30955; 31006r 31101-31105,f .31151-31153, 31251-312.54, 31.401.1 31501.-X31500? These laws az written relate to four major areas of l,n teresto 1) depredation by dogs on wildlife, 2} killing and worrying livestock; 3) civil liability, and 4) impoundment: licensing, spaying and tagging. In addition to those state codes, provisions are made in the Agricultural Code allowinq for county establishment of ordinances pertaining to dogs killing and worrying livestocko and impoundment, licensing and spaying. Depredation an Wildlife protection of -�ril.dli.fo from dogs is limited to Depax tment or Fish and Game employees and in. part under federal. law. Section 3960. of the Nish and Game Code reads as follows.- 3960. ol,lowsa3960. It is unl._�tjul to permit, or al1w ary dog to pursue any big gam nxMmal. during the closed meson W such nwmlalo to, p=", . any fully protacte, rare, or endangered ma wal at any time, or to pur%ae any mil in a game ref�.,ge or ecology, cal resp if hunting witrin sum refuge or ecological rete is ' unlawful. Employees of the- depar�nt WY CaPture any dog not under, � the reasonable control, of its cxm .!r of 'handl er; w`on such u i controlled dog is ,pur. r I inviolation, of this section# any big game fully protectedr rarer or endangered m=r 1. fytVloyeet0 &part:p_nt may capture or dispat:r% any Miryflicting J_1-4Jy or iinediately threatening to inflict ary to any big game mal during the closed season on much ma 1,, and they, may Capture or dispatch any dog intlictiriq, injury or iar ti�taly tlreateni.ncr to inflict Wu y On any „ fully proms: x rare, or endangered mamrm]. at array t1 re. By ployees of the department may capture or dispatch any dog inflictitq inj. uzy or threatening to inflict injury to any mwmal in a g �i refuge or ecological resf%rV0 33 . - C ting within s�xah refuge cr cOlcgical reserve is ' ,awful• if hun accrued any shall _ No criminal oz, c�vi1 liabil.itl r t of this section, F09 the runt or ck e. as a resalt of p,31,u �loyee pursue, purpose of this section, �� ticn, that hay been..captured owners of dais with Ide.yta.fic pture ifiee wi:t yin 72 hours after capture or d.istchd shall be - or dispatch, this law does exist, it is somewhat It is clear that while ineffectual, and seldom. used because: ec � dogs on big gaitlE: Is ]. Much of the depredation by affording ti, the c spontaneous and o eomanag little oPPOttunl ty wilcll warden,? or ` to capture or dispatch dots. atizxg ixrcidences depred t 2 • only M small percen►tage of and Game employ ees. are observed by W Is and fully game mamma is ite��sh 3. The law d to big, g NO cpz��- e��oargered. mauls protected, rare or side anon a given tis at1jer, vertebrate species or o'the'r' rare or endangered fauna. are to, dispatch a dog and m4.any pew +gardens wish concerned about legal liab� la tY usually in groups of two or Dogs chasinc deer are teary and di'ffi'cult to entrap« mors. and are se `e al« game wardens and Ves.tionnairs eulac to depth_ - relating xn the .laws biologistLS made note of the lacka. e z 'harbor ducks and g arine mammals ( dation on nesting colony)► and. share birds ( •'e• least tern nesting when dogs } e Warden ih .t seals) th. �.es other than those men- e law) no recourse is afforded Under. Will fe sped destroy or texas any tioneid under lection 550. ix bn waterfowl has been dog de tedata.c 1 xri t�aodoc County r Vt: ri.ng the 1576 .nesti3ag in the p ast, ed near lir 50 ps r ceht of Mater a particuil ar problem dogs desirca Bloom$ Refugex (Thayer/ se span, marauding eats t Modoc ,Nata*.onal. S�iildl fe fats l h ttack*,.`ng wa•terffowl Cr other of dogs a under pers. ct MM O ) , control. t3.n bi�:�.� is all on �nati.anai �vildl.l,fe refuges B, ��� ��'�t, 1 w76� Subpart�i nes atiana1, Wildlife 'Refuge Act side the t4 however, no GtIch law app 30 ll.) � applies out E`eral inial.,, .. of r,E:fuge bundarcq �.s.11inor Warr ince laivetockvestock b' l to or ha'aslilkt Of a Californiar �.titr� cu ltli rat boder Cita l bode and Agri d� s 3 s covered under the 1 c Civil Code. Sectivn1341 of the Civil Code relates to - . the owner of a drag involve thed in killing ox liability, of lnvring rather animals: 3341. biIity of �, assessor, er cr harbor of �ams:7 ki l +rq or injuring �otre� accidental killing or ixij�Y► found C mitt �,ajury dog Car other The owners assessor, or I=boa;er of anyes- sof ��n� pers= ot� tran tl�o � r that shall, on the P or rather' anal r kid.]. r �Si r Or Possessor, or harborer �� such d� sheep, angora wt i any bovine anx-iZalr swine, borse, MI let �w��:lr goat, or cask :e goats or tltr� r shAyl be 1,i.sYale to the cw��er of the s for .the c odes and ccsts rs� ��*:it, to i� re �sd in aril court of Ment ju'risdict on:the provisions of 1. In the prosectitaon of actions this chapter, it .shall not be nccessavi for tae plai ti�f to SA)cW that the owners ssesr=, or h=bor�: of such h eic or � d kill e ctf tha fact at such dog or otter animal ,d kill � . ltz^.rz edg - sw e r horses r =1:es, kxu"�`os # atheept W=,,A or uo bm'me ar�as��s � goats r or trY- on find xzg X17" d Ir dogs, or other �MbMl# 2. MY per -� #�as�e:�ser of such or dogs, not on t P- p " tlz- c=er o � bovine ice ► r�.s�� ear w�az r or killing any' ar ether anjztlal r wDYX, rarhe goats, xnar swine, horses.) des, ��tltrros, shwa-pd a sg orza a ori" a�:�ist e r Xj" the ; at the time of finding sur—h deg Or � r thereof $,vl sustain no action for sz M4► and the owl or �xr.er a sueh dc4 or� dogs oar other' d 5 ag t any ler k, .a ",g analo this section s Nath hall rMaer an Vy0nert possessort or hsxbrarr�:r' of a doh die for the'.. acr�aaental. or uxkavoidab�.e killing uSatj ilB ► horse r, X5"0 gip, or i3�jux''x' of any bovine anin, p�ltr which occurs connection �,.xa.gaatt case rOr } the with or as an incident %0 the dravinq or herding pr�ni SeS of the e, r pcssessor, or harborer of ' t og r whet = such kill or inJ ors opo: such prn%ses or orf of such premses Ar icultural P ode Provisions for protection of lirvestock fAs a rom ogs under the Agr�,rrnitura� Code is ba,siompo,int what parallel elIatvito 80dtion 1341 of the Civil Coco* is utlawful to alIOW any deg to run at large on a n areal harboring liv` ttoek or d►�ntesti f aw1R at e art, fam pacc�hi t � e�cpt3.oris: 3Q955, Irat `,son to pmt any d Whish %s Its uniawul for to rxza at: large on any farm owed h ed r or �P.�!txOl e. :1 " hiz on Which ch live -t k or domestic fc�wl e kept, WitbOrlt t c01�1 nb of the owner of the fa=n, except for herding livestock, hunt;hg or Ot sporting purposes, or any competitive trials when the dog is Fit within reasonable control or call of his owner or tl-41 agent of his owner. Chapter 5 he Agricultural Code p of (Sections 31102--31104; and 31.151-31153) relates specifically to the State and optional` County provision regarding ing dogs killing or worrying livestock. 31102. Killing dog WOrCyin<I etc., livestock or poultry Exch : in an area. ;4n whish the crpvisions of Axticle 2 (cam-enci.ng with Section 31.151) of this chapter apply or as other. wise provided in Sect on 31104, any person may kill any dog in any `e all cF+iaiic,� cars: (a) The dog is fain an the act of killing . wounding t or Persistently cursui or worryinglivestock or ter on land or pz� ses which re ch aowned or possess ' by the owner of the. dog. (b) The pat.}son, has such proof as conclusively :shown t*ha the dog has be --n recently engaged its killix* or wottndiiig livestock or poultry cert land or premises which are not OVPossessedthe �oql�s owner. No actio or�crxztu�`nal, l be maint,.ainea for the killing of any Stich dog. (Stats.19671c.15. 5 31103. Seizure or k lli.ng drag entering place where live- stock or poultry confined accept in an area an wb4 ch the provisions of ,article 2 (c icing with, Section 31151) of this chapter apply or as other- wise prow i. d in Section 311.04 r any dc entering any enclosed or unenclosed property 'upon which live-estock live-stockor poultry are confined may be seized or ,killed by the omaer or tenant of the property or by any e.ployee of the owner or tenant. No action, civil or criminals shall be wintai.ned against. the cx�mer, tenant, or em- ployee for the seizure or killAry of any such dog. (StAts,1967,c.15.) 5 31.104. Restrictions on. killing dog in Cite The provisions of Sections 31102 and 3110 shall not apply to any dog Ouch is inside the corporate limits of any city, or city and =Mty, or to any dog which is ander the reasonable control of his a�merr or keeper, unless the dog it, actually caught in the act of worryimis, vrounding, chaaing, or killing any livestock-. or poultry, (Stats.1967,c.15.) Several' optional provisions for dog control: are Avai.l - able .at: the discretion of the oounties. 1 311.51, Applic4bil i ty of article Zhe provisions of Sections 31102 and 31103 shall tot apply a,n any area oA a county in which the board of supervi.soxs has prary.daj i 36 �resolution, that: the rc.-v? cions of this article apple. (Sthlt��.1967,, 15) p § 311.52. Killing doer wcarryLng, etc. t litiesstock or poulttyg res- trictions Any es..trictions 1' Person may kill any c%x in any mea of a oounty in which t o provisions at his a:.ticle apply y z any of the follcwircr cases: (a) lane dcg is tourA in the act of killing, wounding, or persistently pursuing livestock or poultry on lard or premises not cA med. or J_'Cssessed by tho cwr:er of t� dog, (b) The dog las to readily visible identi ftoation tare iii:ense tag prescrikel by Section 30951 and is wfor4yjrq livestock or poultry on lard Or preftu,sLs not, owned ar possess*�d by the- owner of the dog. 1f the dcq Ims on h m any readily visible identx,!icatxan tag or, i,ir tag prescribed by Sect --an 30951, and the dcq is in thv; act of wo l i *twk or poultry on: land or w anises =t; wed or, s e the comer o� dog, the doq may only 'b-- killed if the dog has, orld tip Owner has bee -n notified that tha dog has, previously so worried livestock or poultry. (c) Th' _, person has such proof: as ccrclusively shy that the dog bas been recently err4,a , in killing or wour�li ng' i itis- stock or pwlticy on lan-i or premises not &&med or pcs- zsod by the clog's owaor. No action, civil or criziinal, sha 1 ba iraintaized for killing a dog as authorize, by this secUon. 5 31,153. ei ;ure of dog entering place i e' livestock or poultry confined Any do; enteritq any enclosed or unendlo ci Property upon which livestac.�k or pcult:yy ire ooh inod mak be sei=4 by the ompar or tenant of the property or an�r loy o the owner or tenant. action; civil or critmi:na1, shl'All,.. be ma t . a ainst the owner, terAnt r or Vloyee for the sole ire al imy suc+i dog. (Stats.1967r C.150 Irz ord-oz to provide compensation for li vest6ck damages by dogs, ,any county having a, &3q licensing requirement must provide An. indemnification !! rUnd for claims - 9 30651 M used irr t1 -ds u.., er, =ludLs ds,tiic falls and rabbits. (Stato V . a i } 5 30552. Disposition of: f=ees and fines All fees for the issuance of dog license tags and all fines ` p pursuant to this division Shall be. paid into the county, collected city or city and county treasury as t -a case may be, axed s?,all be t used r fps for tt^.e issuance of dog li. !Mse j {a) Fx.str to pay tags. (b) Second, to pay fees, salariesr costs expenses, or any for the enforcement nf° this division and: or all of thin all. Ordinances which are made pursuant to this division. 4 (c) fid, to PWI &mages to timers o:E livestock which are f killed by dogs. (d) Fa=th� to Lay costs of any hospitalization or c p..rgenty' Dare of ana,-nals pU rs att.to Sects n 597 ofd ho .Penal Code. f�`� by p § 30653'. Claims for damagest law apolicablep affids�v is for ages as governed by Pam. 3 (cxxatusncir Bch such claim 1 With Section 900) and Pant 4 Fencing with mora °40i r D;Lv%- ' Sion 3 6, Title I of the G"+�7�t:T�itE?Y1t t",sder except that the olaimr acc=Varai;ed bY the affidavits of tw disc t as presented; shall. ,be interested witnesses e% ecut~ed V whin four; days after the f g' of the carcass of the a;al . fstats.lc367,c,1.5 30654a Mfidavitsc contents The affidavits shall fi,,c the value of the livestock and ester fish the fact beyond, reasonable dcnabt that the animal was killed by a dog. (Stats.196i,o.15. L 305155, pass^ ent of a ,-MILIC1 CIF4ms If claim is al.lr xz it Shall be paid from the fund which is a provided for =,this chapter in the samemamer as other claims per. rl. tStats.l95 � against t�- countyare " ,. dog licenses one 3,mportan� point is that t�'��• issuance of option f haptcx 3 r bog Ta.gs,, Section 309,01.) by a county rerna .ms an tinder circumstances Where no county licensing or control program be for payment of damages to,, exi.stso there mai= not a provision given- in counties with suoh; a �.rov`a.s ion r livestock owner`s .. reimbirs ng livestock owners for damages 'caused by drags is oftentimes, these, given relatively lora priority fa 30653,. for other reasons {i. e. , salaries and frimnds are exhausted other are exha that take PrP, over: remunoration to • 'rases livestock ot �n. S1�t`.l1 r im theers o. wners of 'damage,d livestock to ownership of the dog �a may attempt establish oss of livestock under their insurance, if: they have that prote=ction, 33 Civil. L3 abl.lity The, Agricultural. Cade Chapter 8 � (Section 31501-31$04) killed Orallows gin Injureal dttrse Ilv� � stank owner for livestc�rsk owzY�d oq -, .31501,501, Double damages amag w5 q%O a -of any .PCLL w7h +eh is t4woA killed by any deg may recover as licAudat da;tagQ.s frCm the Owner of the doq ttdce the aptualr value of lLhe an roLgs killed o twice the value ofd the c�Miagessus'tiit ed » ea,.L- � of the injuriesr as V.z y+ase 11 ay 3�.J�e.+,. (Stats -1967,c:.15.) !._. 9 31.502. abint =4 sevean. 1 liabill t v Ts ttyo or Mrerydogs two or rm ce ow e s or keepers ya),—Y p�kept in W 4 V1 {� injurekill axq li Y'Gari4o 1 or �=116.iw W: Wn 7Gtll dory keep rs cif' the dons az c J.olnt�� end s_ me t: � ,, abs for the doge, (Stats,1.967,c, l5 w y 31503, C=,plaint by pe;:3ojj dr. ged6 filing if any person sustalts any loss or damage to atr�" 1 �vestr�ok c or poultry which i8$ cause -d by a d p or i any 11vY `J Va person is necessarily de tro @ �u oaf having been bitten; by a�dog, the person may file a exal.aLI-- �rjth any fudge of the Justice or umticipal co=t of the ocA r" I withiA t hi. the &cage occurred. (Stats.1967,c»15.) § 31504,. Czrrpl.aintfo i t es: contents "be C=Plaaxat !ik4l l S: itivil y aU of the follMdzq r t` ire— ments; (a) Be an writita tb) Signed so"` that majtes it,. ' (c) StatebyZe when, w�xe, what, hCw �h dame was done � (d States :1 if MOMIr the t=e of the person that o6,fts the dog cr Vrasin charge of it when the lass or dwa,ge was sustains« (Stat$.1967,0.1.5.) The establishment of liAbility for damages caused by a � dog under most oircumstances 4,s difficult to califirm, i firstnecessaryfor the livestock- owner to either Capture Cir , c cqj Because 1TtfrJSt tlepred,a,t«iCa:i k7CCurS at night and often by more than one dog, this rarely o0curs However it may bo possible for the Stockman to esta.bl. ah , liability even if the dog has left the promises, assumiftq, the stockman Observed the dog sand knows the owner, or wa"I able' to track the dog (Nalson v. Nugent, 106 is 477, 82 NW 281) Tf a stockman is able to successfully. capture or dispa.toh a depredatit a0go that dog may %e without: any form Of ident;i- � ficatith (3, +e- r license tag or ownership tag) from wbidh to race the owner. Results, O-AO4 the questionnaire sur�,ey of County � 39 t i in Animal, Control officersindicatedndicated tr4at nearly 55 percent of depredation on livestock s caused �y unl.Qensea or Untagged p Because of this difficulty in establishing Ownerships most dog kills of livestock are either claimed under insurance or county indemnification (Dollahite, R., DalPorto, N. / pers. COMM.), Licensing,S2ayin5 and im sem; 'lent Although 'the regulations for Licensing, jMpouttdl.�tg and spaying of dogs is not directly applicable to wildlife and livestock depredation, they will be discussed brieEly here because of their general importance with regard,n to the overall control of dogs. ' Y1 � UnderChapter 3 of Division 14 of the Agricul,tur:a L. Gode,, counL.ies within Calij:orni.a may adopt ordinances re- girding dog licensing and fees. Relevant sections ojf the y 71 Agricul.tural Code are discussed here: provision 30801 Petition, rova.sx on for xssuartce rat of tacos �; 25 el�eyctors whose narries, appear upon the lest precedizg assesst � t it O' the o�my as, cwne s of &M-S16.iC 1 �'ettCCj' file a petition with the board ofperV"3 sora of .e coanty which requests- the board tc ,qo soj the board of4:eerC :`tors shall, pro- � r vide for the annual issuance of serially nunbered ttc- ll:ic dog a { license tags. The dog license tags shall be (A) Stwvr4 with, the ifta* of the county an4 tyle year of issue. (h) Unless the board of supervisors designates the: anima . control depart tient , to issue the tags, issued by tate county clerk directly or through judges of just, -Ce or municipal o,urts, to ,yrs Of dogs, that:ymake application, (Amended )Sq .stats a9o, y 9 80804, Pee The fee" for the issuance of the doq l ioertse tag is fifty cents ($0.5O) . The bard Of supervisors may, however+ increase the fee. (Stats.,1967 c.1$ ) 9 30804.5. Spayed or neutered slogs, reduction In fee Whenever dog license tags. are issued pursuant to this divi slbnt any such tag shall be issue for one -hall or less of the fee ,rOgUtOd 'for a dog, if a certificate is presented frr.M licenseinsrian that the dog has beenn spayed or -neutered, (laded by9t<s�,9�ljtc«j�1 yp.902rl� w � Cities within the counties may also adapt ordinance ,for licensing and control of dogs: § 30501.. Application to cities; Ordinance of , request 1f thle provisions of Sc ions 30801, 30802, 30803, 30004, 3080;=, 30952, 311.05, 311.06, 31107, 31108, 31152,. 31153, 31,2.51., „ 31252, and 31254 have � adopt=_ by -,e boa of supervisrx8 of any county, and the goverrdrq kl=dy of any city which is locate within the county requests, by orcliz,a,-,.cer the application of Provisions within the confines of such city such sections sba'Ll also apply within the city. (Stats .1967, c w 15 . ) § 30502. City dog license tags: carpl aims with division Any dog l.ice*zse tag which is iss",r by am, city ar4 qty or city Constitutes C01pliance with this IfvisIM4 if it is issued pursuant to an ordinance which des ,all of the fol.lowu' (a) Substantially ca*lies with this division. (b) Provides for the waarlrq of the license tach tpcn tlle collar of the dog; (c) prides for the keep:14q of a record which shall es- tablish the identity of the person that � or harks the dog. (Stats.1567,o«15.) Under the Agricultural Code it is not unlawful for tagged dogs to 'run at large. 3.0951.. Collar aza,<' tag Z or keep any It ,�.s WaW41u 1. fo a. s" tI *rS n tO ' +�, herµ b.r, clog over the Age of four months, or to znit such a doe; which is, owned t harbored, or controlled by him to = at larclet unless the cloy has-attachei to its n lk- or leg a su. stantial Coll-IX on which one of the follaAng, is fastened:: (a} Atr taili�, tag which gives the rLma and post office address of the owner. (c) A metal license tare wUch is issued by the authority of a county, city and Ct5t. nty, or ani ;r %ice pal corpora- ti�,ccn ,fo�rt� the y,MP=Poe y�off iden�t XyiN' thhe dog y�yand d+{e�s�ig- i a4iAn5 t e� CK-mer, l (Y.ta4.l.1r"li C!7t�.15. as w4Jr.r4ed S at8. 1.96i"1tc.553, �i4a 6 31101, Seizure ar:d =ming My dog wku, h is found x nn% at lane without t the identiE cation tag or doq lie°;tee tag which is Irequiroj r=guant to Section 30351 my, be seizod arid i. rimed 'gyp �7 y F � +�!;;Y'' i��C" F yr�a"� C��:�J,t�'w �w�T.��:Sk�9sw7t Any more specific regulations regarding rings running at large are establ °fished by County and city gover:ments. of the 45 trots t i.es retpording to the questionnaire, 60 percent had no county ordinances relatinq to dog control. Of the 40; Pdtoent haVing co+untlt tequl atitns, marry did rot prohibit -AgCjed dogst runAihq At large. However, More stringont regu- la.tions. ganoally apply to areas of the cor rt i .s;. 41 i A, recently enacted law in the Government Code hdo made it _illegal for employees o£ animal control agencies to � enter upon the property of a clog owner to enforce looal dog leash ordinances � 5307-2. Notwithstanding any other pro% inions of la or t�ti} local ordinance, an officer or employee of any animal control agency shall u p not seize or impound a dogfor violation of an ordinance requiring a dog to be le;tshed or issue citations for violution of such ordinance �a•ltctt the dog has not strayed from ,Ind is upon private property Owned by the dog owner or the person %vho has a right to control the dog, ortspon private property tot%-hich the dog ow;ier or person who It;ts right to control the doh has a right of posaLssiot, A dog that has strayed from bulk' then r - rned to the private property of his owner o► the person who has a right to control Cktc`'j dog shall not be seizeor d hopoon e6, bu�ftixa$s; h t s►case a itatiOn ' t -ay be issued; provided, un the R owner or person ti� ho has a right to control the Clog is not home, the do* may be ,mpounded, but the officer or � r,plo �Y of any �tiim:tlMID control ageoev Shull nost a ;;oti^Ru. of sucP tcitpous d`ang rte the ht to ! floor of the lir-tng unit of th(t �3tvner or per -ion Nvho his �t right to h control the dog, mach notice shall sty tc the faa�lo�vttt�;: that the flog h:ts been impounded, wliere the doh is befit held, the name, tid�l�cs, and trtcphone. number of the agenc1' or person to be can bcted regarding release of the dog, and an indication of thy: Ultimate? ;r disposition of the dog if no action to regain. it is taken within a Specified period of time by its owner orb the perstitr who has a right to c{ontrol the deg. This section shall riot otheravise affect etisting authority to seize or citatidttis, as a result of tt doe"s being nrt p g s e or the person who has impound a dog or issue property offer than that owned by �at� otisn r a right to control the dog, , This section shell. not be construed. os pro ibiting anr• person :rom killing a dost' it! the situations authorized by Sections 31102, 31104, and L11 i 31152 of the Food and .-kgricultural Code, Many respondents to the questionnaire sed the opinion that+, this law has greatly reduced the ef: reOti.veness of their contxo�. p c�g�"ams. While this law may have reduced p running[INA R he 1tJgS generally aw pertaining _to the killing the eiwLectiveness of programs for at �.arge, �.t has not affected t cad livestock. ,. a County -0 di.nantes _ Forty percent of the respondent counties have 4dopted ordinances pertaining to the requlat'iot of dogs. Such orcin- .� antes haV in luded prohibition of any dogs. (other than working do5s) from rut`tni,ng at la,rget establishment of or Sport:.�Xtg g' ) . ot5untxy license fees, Obligating utl ora ty to county Control personnel r vaccinati.oh requirements f etc, 4 Some examplescounty dog, ordinances include: of coon ante 554: Section 54600 1 togs Runner Iiperial-county ordinance r at e ra a_t t or allowhis at No dog owner sha11 cause, � onfined by a buil.ningr �c-R: l.ar?e (i.e., be neit�.er effectively ' stxap► chain or other tore or enclosure ;nor res::rar�ed by a xc» r enclosure rtion of the =incorporated area of the county► material) in y PO rcav a d� . except as hereinafter Section 54601. On prcma.ses un:' erect arra effective control and within n sight of awr er • . large on premises of its A doaq may be Witted to run he co o ner, or on private prOPertY pyy�,j, ��}�y with the consent of the � of ' property, SO long a5 ��` such � 1,S = der the &M -Mt and L" ff4 W 4RdaY W d Or gesture control or % thu s"41't at its Domer. k ge&-ion 3.60 Violation: pl4tce:. toiler Chapter 3 v ote it . rtlr e of any � r t of t11LS chapter here fore t •. ea naf any of the provisionsto set out or to cc mt':t ally of tZ fr llc�ra a o alloy aria mal to =I at l ar.e» l isProperty (a) animalto trespass upon pub (b) To allow any�-o ,,,�.thc�ut the consent of or upon any private property c riz x�f t+ fzz any doa ani' 'rl.l a or c) ` harness Gn: Other device to tal�a.ch a. license tag is attached, for the Current: Year r or to remove License tag the- I n Or cause or pelt to be fid) attach top or keep po r attaoahc to or kept upon any d anylicense tag pravaled I the chapter r wept a taa sstaed for such dog under provisions of this article, cat to attach tO o keel tiv,pozn3. be attached to Or kept. upon fb r tar cause Or t any dam, nr to ntialce� or. to cause or perzna t toman r Cai ssession r any imitation.of, to have in po counterfeit cr any ta5 Provided forby this chap` countyr Or to main fie) sses0 any unlicensed dock iii be co nduc t Or or�+xate r or to cause 'or .rnv t to. maintaited orr o rated in the county, any unlicensed 1109 kennel se or resist t� Chief of n'Mal t) To interfere with, oppose SN lVje he is engaged az the rfa ncc e Of ay Contra,. - eiby tiis chapter. � act rut at large, tbile in 1010 Or fi 4 jg) TO, allow MY feMie old to run breedL'Ig Cond aor, cz to allow such foie to resin accessible to Ot r dogs runna.t at lame whi 1e said female is in heats o±- breeding cend�t%gin �' 43 q - l T (h) To pe=it any clog to trespass on any faun whex,,,i livestock or danesti.c fowl are kept. To abandon any sniMal in Plaiwer Caunty, (j) To possess any dog over, rca,ir (4) montt-.s of age which does mt have a current vac--ination for rabies as evi- denced by an, official certi.f tate thereof, except as otherwise provided in this ordinance. (k) To allow any anitrai to 'go without adegmte food, water, FIN shelter or proper -are. (1') To allow any dog kncwn to be dangerous or vici0U,$ to run at large upon any street or other public lace wa:t?iixa p the county Glean Cotity axdi narce 6464 xl,nzanalst barge ArdvAls at e Prohibited F�andoned Ard als arra it si]al.? beMaw ul witi�.n tt; e uninccrporated areal of ttiSC' c:cxxnty for any person craning, harboring, or control.li anvr anima (a) Rnow .ngly a LIoln said an•iJ48cJ.,`li+ LY 3: aftY 1rrd=0..ii.rP.+sr.G tcd area of this county-, (b) PeLnit said anirral to trespass on public-, Or L rival property so as to damage or destroy anything of value thereon, or to ca mit a nuisance thereon - to rm at largi when he knows or � (c) Permit said animals should knOW that said animl is vicious tb safety of any personyYor a nal. y� y.}y w� (d) TA he case o5 a fetale, dole penait such dcxJ 4Ro/ run Lit 1: / large or accessible to dads. r m4l%5 at rrata3.n is s- large whil�e+y� sµa�iA fye 7 e cl,y, �,,.ys in heat or esi + g �og �.ty ��y • (e) P#:r� y C"''�i3)4I - any d� t�..�. trespass on any 1C��7 e'/,�rL'+".,�k livestock or dare-ic, fowl are kept, or to knaa n ly pmt any dock to wormy or 'harass tivestoclL orlai�st►= furl. 1 ` e� s c;zuesti�sn Nine respondents -�o thin County Control. Office -'s' 1' t�redation of 1�.vr�stocic by naa re �.ndxcated that. de, � dogs was a serious problem in their dounti, s. Of those 9 Bounties only RIM 4 have comprehensive county dog control. ordinances, As is the ger:eral rule, the more stringent ordi-narices 'to -ate to , 3.ricor orated areasof the countieq, with only 40 percent of P all the zountios having ordinances for t nillcorporated.. areas.. 44 DISGUSSTO inuring this study it became clear that these remains a substantia3 divergence of o,Anior* throughout C;alifornl.a and other states as to the causer degree of damage and means of control. uncontrolled dogs. +brae tact is clear: v:�tu- states in the ally ail. �inited States � ax;d all co�antera within the Mate of California experience Nome level of dog damage to wildlife and/Or livestock. The American Humane Society (1974) indicated thein in ,its nationwide survey's deer mortals y ix� 32 statestotaled over , 20,000 animals per year, In Cali fort a, estimates fto,. wardens and biologists indi6ated deer lasses ofltract on 300 alo ann ally.r in all likelihood.,this figure is only a annual. kill. These ares at bests estimates of mortal.ltty, and when'viewed as a total, number may appear significantb The _ p wildlife � effects ax this de redat,ican on dear and other wa,l.dly actual are subject to a great dealt' �sf d�sagi�e:�ent and controversy among biologists. mc,sby (1973) feels that positive data on the influence of dogs on all: form$ of wildlife are all but impoasibl4 to obtain, } re- Several Studies in southeastern ah6 �n�.d-�Gima�ted Mates a. veal.ed that chasing and harassing deer by dogs in -those ;ireas was not alimiting factor on deer population. (Marchint��n, et &J.0 1.970; Prozu1ske and Baskett, 1,9,58; Gavit:ur 1.973; Sweeney, et ply , 1971)* inthe nnrt;heasteM states, dogs represer,�t seions threats for deer during certain tames of the year, g. Vermont has a particularly acute :problem Of dog depredatitt on deer, yet the deer m' lift' clue to dogs is but a fraction ,.. orfs of the mortality caused by automobiles (Tripp) 1977). At least one ,author in that state is convinced that %Duch deer , basses to dogs are insignificatt -, that Winter starvat'on would take the toil: Otherwise, In C4,iforni&l' approximately :mately 5 t 800 deer were reported taken by huntets in 1977..mother unknown number die of, stardatit5nr cc►i1. lisious with autoAWb�l.es and other frtctors. From. sbiological and management Standpoint, the lw's of ,300 deer annually cy dogs eanrla be considered $ingly to be a signi . ficatt fa tot in inn-lUe°facing deer population statewide (5ifipsunr ! `. comm.) r,r the influence of dogs on, I al ixed deer perMopulations may represent a serious or moderato mortality fact0t- The continued enoroadhment c urban developn ::rt:3 Eoothlll and mountain home dc:vol_opments and the% increase in ska..nc and cattier rec eational areas ha ,*e increased the o�►Por`- de ,.ed�ati � . In counties siloh as tunrtle9 for dog p San Mateo, Alameda and Contra Costa, the deer populations in open lands peripheral to urban centers are under tocreasing pressure from dogs (Hornbeck, In: Senate Committoo on Natural deerhabitata Resourcespopu- +x : lations�nthose areas ate depredationbydo s lations can be considered of greater consequence. In more aural areas, patticularl.y in he foothills on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada Range, the ancursion of de- velopment into deer winter range has increased the incidences of depredation on: deer. Many of the people settling in these area allow their dogs to run at will, thus providing the+ opportunity for harassment of the deer concentrated on their winter range. Such harassment by dogs may constitute a more chronic problem than the actual killing of the deer. Continued harassment duriig critical tries of the year (i.ear during witter and fawning period) may ul.t$trately lead to higher deer Mottality L or an overall reduction Ila ,,he vigor of the animals. Depredation of wildlife species either than deer appears to be relatable to ttgo rain factors: 1) high human use of areas used extensively by wilLUifa, and 2) the conc° titration of a , wildlife species in a small area. Dogs are opportunistic in their attacks on wildlife. wildlife using areas ^.:Lose to urban centers or high human use areas are therefore highly susceptible to problems roblems (1*e.-t coastal beaches,- state parks_, ., ted or colonial testiiig birds (waterfowl., shorebirds) on wil,d� life refuges and coastal heawhes are particularly susceptible to a high magnitude of Loss by oarauding dogs. A recent, concern among many wildlife biologists has been the apparent increase in hybridization between dogs and wild canids (particuarly -coyotes). The resulting offspring between a dog and wild canid have been appropriately called coy -dogs. These hybrids are genetally larger° in size than either coyotes or dogs and because of their larger sizes ccywdogs pose a greater threat to wildlifa, livestock and hurnan8 . i instrumental S���'al factC"��'S appear to� be xnstruental inttthea parent t� r increasea coy- tip o ulationar however4 , the numbor or free �' p p - domestic dogs and the expansion of the ooyote's original. running range .havebeen significant factors in the documented cases of PIPI coy -dogs. Accotd4ag to a, report published by the Amer].CAA Humane A800ciation (1974): "The California Pish and GaV4 partnent reported that cosy -dogs are raptured quite frequently. Division qcolorado of Wildlife reported that a ooh °,deq teas frilled near Camas:ton in 1972 ash the Utah DepyartZeYnt t�f,Nir�4ildlifegq(i��7{s�`o�uyx±�+ys�.,�i�d al i ty a �' a observed a bitty -dog 1 i • ""_'y�S mortality that a gam' wai.tien hacx 4 6 During 1975, appro.Nimately 22 coy -dogs wert.: reportedly I taken in California. Three years earlier, 7 coy -dogs were taken on. the P. esidio, Monterey County (Thompson, pers. comm.). Whether these numbersreflect the general level of Californias � coy --dog population or a random increase in occurrence is not known. i Fein of the,10j,espondents to the questionnaires sent to i Fish and Game wardens and Animal Control officers indicated that coy -dogs posed,a serious problem in their county. Unless the depredating animal is observed, it is quite difficult to ascertain whether coy -dogs are responsi`rle- As With wildlife, the depredation of Livestock by does is a generally an opportunistic act. The concentration of sheep, turkeys, chickens or other domestic animals prpvi.des an oppor- tunity for dogs to lci.l1 or in a Large number of animals at � One time. Problems with dogs range f-;om no.nexisLent to ,serious throughout the state. if given the opportunity, most rancher's will dispatch or capture a dog rather than contact the County Animal Control Agency. As a result, the livestock loss data that are available g`Lr�eral ly reflect only a shall percent Of the actual losses-- Livebtock depredation i:s most serious in a Mendocino, idumboldt, Sisltiyou, 114arin, San Joaquin, Vuolumne, San Luis Obispo and imperial Cttutxti.es. in virtually all of thet cot.nti.es of the Sacramento Valley, the ars Ft cisco Bay Area I and. the south coast,; damage to livestock by dogs is zoderate. surprisingly, most counties in the San aoaq It Valley (an area of substantial livestock use) have minor problems vi.th logs,► This may in part be due to the recognition by the public of the i led dogs may create (Wader pers. comm.,)*. In a;;oblems uncontrolm ' ranchersf control - addition that property (Sdhilll ng,opeta- C0=0 i.ing dogs ,� According to NesSe, et alo (1974) clog predation on sheep in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys is of greatest its;-� portance during' the summer when ewes are pastured close to po,p"o, elated areas and in the winter during lambing time in the more rural areasr predation problems are oftentimes caused by dogs owned by local residents l"tesponses by county Animal Con officers indicate that ' unlicensed dogs create by far the greatest problems with jive- ock6 tilhty-�thrde percent of the respondenta estimate thatst unlLcensed dogs ca115e fMm 50to 95 pOcerit,of the damage to livestock. y One.. indication ref the dioproportionate rItImbor of unlicensed vs,' licensed dogs is ;in the number Of OM98 i.mPOUnded daily. in xesno County, the SpC i.r.1pounds approximately 150 dogs per day, 'These d049 are pl.cked up :.n b6th, the Citi of Vtesno and the un noe*o &ted county. Both the oity ahs county* have l requirements (only the city and a small. Pinion of req only 5 (3 percent) of every the et county the county have a leash law) y a tag] dogs :impounded, are.. �*isbl,y licensed--[carry�-ng is not tagged does 150 The fact that a dog : fail to (Ramboi pers. comm.) the dog nwn nmayWnot saffix not mean that it to oris purchase a license, if ot o doa.they made by the the collar of the dog. According to estimates Society (1974)f 30 to 50 percent of owned American humane When lags in the United States are allowea to run fx:-e. applied to the dog population estimates these percentages are for California (based on number of clogs known to have valid that rabies vaccination certificates) , it can be, estimated in .� 550►0bQ and 910, b0 974; Califor ags there are between pepart-� California (American Humane Society► 1, c-:�a�te ligure be meet of Health, 19,76). This is a conservative not requirad in all wyourtties ro rams are (1) rabies vaccination p g included since they aro not considered (7' of 58 counties are not and (2) these estimates do not consiOer unv, areas ^- , The, un°�'acca,nated rabies i ci.nated: estray dUqs r feral. dogs or ravened dogs. ktigh as 20 to 30 percent of the dog PoP "" element could be as la°twion (bollahita t per8 - Comm.; Xelley i Pers* COMM.)., The lack of proper identification and licensing �)f many in California. Since few dogs is a significant problen, Qta s have any 4�isa.ble identification, it has been to establ+i ss dog gl.a ctepredat..6 Y difficult if net, L-1possibl.e for ranchers if ]tosses they might 'incur. * rifer llt t� for any OwerProblem whenever enever ani�►a1 rreiitrol. officers 'Pick UP dogs- in ; occurs ia6ntification, The effectiveness earth county has County conducts a without variable. Glenn licensing dogs is highly et 30 percett of the for tiac li cense. g ► house�-to-rth� use canvas in that dOUnty may be unla,censed (bel-lyf dog o u�.atiaes, owned Population n placer and Sl boradnercent� (Wilson ton P ets. comm.] p than 35 p ' be less of licensed dogs may 19, 1977), The Sacramento See, becember Int .r.r. The tattooing bf a' dog with an dentificaticail nu-nber ha , been advocaership ted as a means of estasl,oesnccomrn+awFuzlerk.,n► (0aipor'to t pers* COMM « , r�cl:tUrite r s and 11ild"f t 1573) irty Senate Committee on 'Natural *Resnuxcef hay"ing a dog ,. � requirement o It is felt that a mandatary 'with an owner' identification shortly after birth are:. administered) tattooed (perhaps at the time the fiat babies shots og owners of respansib t:y by down would result a res teetr se nse a f.f� Officials r�ancherso� in aaoition to providing of establ sh°Lt15 doh arshapaancicJ�iabil liability- * with a means is that there exists a An important finding of steal through6Ut the g co Wide variability of county dcg control programs out of necessity have established stat+ 4 Alt�iaL�'h most counties tamy several have none, , a nor eia they have dW control prop the cau►ties ut.> luxe. l,e�ea�,aa.�g require�ent� The majority of 48 p ELI t ccnti :s) as their leg I dog r ct�l;,�;ral Codi ted adds t3.or�a�, only th . Ag 1.8 have kXop robs.(Ms - ,.nly e and related Q r:ountie's ,�ontral f raxnework • dogs a lar5 of those icense fees, 11 of 18 counties) ? 33 co..xntjes t© dandle �- a mai os: ty (drareda-� j Ironicall�trdinances are amon5 the ►'`ost roof iivestock n adopting a- oderatc - obl ant County Ord indicating a sar'iatts or ore strn5 ercent had adopteo . tions only 45 p o . ,roic�p-control lsw) aaces (i.a., leash law r ' te that, for the A,Yimal Contr��l Cffi ;ers as provided nder the County state 1 nate so ion as the ext the existing �..ws ci atx o97 4) stated most p and Civil C�,des are cdaq pgs wcuiwura7. rican Humana Esso The Ame Law's is,ate 3.n most enforced. of cx.st.n5 ove,00me tkaxlou5h t_-zT- ack of enforcementofmeat oe igiadue public apa ,hy, realization �Mn cases the undarstanding► a pati Many of Owning education irkvolving related to what. t:heY . ref the respansj C. of�'icer v' olx-. ons acCeptanc. >nt:S b comm,. actin rawer the C the inadequat's �,udici.uof a.nsuff�cient maze considered to be ,al control iestion p use their. and i adequate enforcatkent b��eses�t�d to � � .,ta was, �l�at and/or funds. Cine � with the deg Game � srdens and b' jC►loq , _r, ve jsthe Fish and G oases to that real need �.,sx deay,a,n;� �� summarizes the responses Office rs and Fie do Yo'� perceive Tab le � sum damage problem?" r »ular county s chat ,,rg The ,success or failure or a p arti�a ossib�.e to, Pro ilem is Complex and virtuall' �p with the dog p sevara . cau',lt es have few-w-ildlife or find;. those For example r av others that da have source areas of de reser a+ `off-ins livestock resources wh pxedatacn P do rant have mayor Durban areas wlich rep roblems� of the Counties that er�cauni'hadle such, p days Many not oe orient6d. toward or equipped c problem Of livestock may a serjous p a size of the anal control � l tlo s t I In those counties indicating the sveraq large bean' arae rural depredatorinn►,. People le. only Twta cf had staffsa'Ofn d p � ' . 12 'people- x�aria _) staff of 1!9 people (4 (Santa Barbara, ad a Ce,ira� lame Ix�•i,rtua lY .a7.1 county �sskaYaua hietY personnel) • ,� o dad to and 1,5 Humane 5oc» artmOtt ere uentlt resp cattrit she �f Iaep o have p ,'oble-ms Vit e rtmerxt c . Uhtles r the s;eeiderrts wh Galls Exosn count ys ondiraq co►ti.es' tks�iorz � s hep arcent) r" cOntr of F i5w. e dapic s tY vw (l n seep°nsible furor dog anYot� the r spond:nt WaS soler' dog COiltro�Ipt?Yl on of countries r izled h. des cr�nt�'tal aut�ot;hat�aP serious It is ;well reco5 geeckf a�'����.a�i�n �, V'et�'xisaariar� rlrrited States (Beaky al humane, 5001 et:ies ase s:oblem exists in they') p , ula um e Aszoc.�.at ion r 7 A l y et ove�p p. � 1 1�'�3 ►' erica,i '1 Table 8 BIOLOGIST + C�AaC OFFICER AND FISH & GAME WARDEN PROBLEMS R REDUCING DOG DAMAGE Pers i RECOMMENDATION'S FOR Number' _ Recommendatiotz _63 33 sett er enforcemexlt of existing laws 49 stricter judicial action 25 98 Publ.c: education 14 Enactment and/or enforcement of county 26 leash laws 25 1.3 ' ` mals or dispatch of ofxending do Capture manpower 22 12 Additional and more qualified 10 Responsible dog ownership LS pet population ,sparneuter. 0Limit program ,. 5tr3.ngett licensing program Stxong er laws ,absolute owner liability for proven oaused by dogs-)- test tutxcan damage for damage Amendment of Socrion S96G` of Fi51 Code :. Game Repeal of Section 53072,'o the - Government Code 'Mote aCtiVe tragpin program 3 Marling or tattooing, XD on dog Legistation to reduce hunting (fa.eld dogs during spring �. pract;i.ce with er mon and su th's cocunlentatai.on of �1et quantitative effect cif drag probl ens GoT�i:ol De partment the Gide AnimalCon' cap dogs not, underoity l authrto control on priiate and plabLa:c owner prr�perty l ' »rpt a .l au,imal control State shcul,d w f loss for ma ndatory ,regulations and � 'viCJ�:at!-Otra areata: A�`tiiii,al. l,at5.t:�l Dei __. studies conducted in recent years have surve.: ed the dory (and estimate by Son in the United States. Becht (1973) Chad an cat) ate, by Schwabe of 24.7 million awned dogs and an undeter- mined number of ownerless strays in the United States in 1966. Djerassi, 'et al., (1973) and the American Humane Association (1972) estimated the population to be 33 million and. 34,100,000, respectivelY6 Morse ,,in �. hearing conducted by the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildlife (1973), stated that nearly l$ million animals pass through animal shelters .in the United States annually. The average handling cast per animal, is x'7..00 or a possible dost of over $1.25 million per year. An estimated 75 percent of that cost is used in capturing ;and hill it1,1 , un- wanted or st,�ay animals given up or abandoned by their oWners. During 1915 the California Department of Health (1976), estimated:that. nearly 550, 000 dogs were destroyed in (,.ali f'ornia. In addition to those studies, many more agoncies and public interest groups. too numerous to mention here, kava analyzed the pet problem in the United States. of 45 coulities responding .in this study, only 10 indi- cated the presenc. of county low-cost pet neutering clinics (? of those ?0' are operated by the SPCA or humane,Sooi,ety) Several reasons for the apparent reluctance of the rouInties to embark on a clinic program are; 1. High cost if establishing and subsidizing the clinio 2. Opposition from the veterinarian profession. For •the Most part, those lata -cost clinics already estab- lished were initially started j�olM public interest groups or private organi;zat_i,ons, only to be taken over later as a county program. Costs for spying (ovariectomy) in private clinics typically range from $30 to $100; whereas county, sponsored neuter clinics charge approXima.tely $25 :tor the same service. Low-cost :spar and neutc­.- clinics have been recently opened in. San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Publ4lo ,response to these clinics has been anoouraging (Senate Commi.j,tee Ueari.ng► 1973)# Some private veterinarians, however,, k,,ave eXprestca opposition. The opinion of some veterinarians is that low-cost clinics represent a potential threat to their vola o of `business. Advocates of l.owo-cost programs claha that the concern of Vaterinarians is unfounded, since the low --cost clinics are primarily used by indiv :duals who find it diff,acult to utilize the services of Private veterinarians because of budget restrictions r During 1973, Senator Aayh (L1--Indiana) introduced Senate Bill 1.032 which wo±id have provided Loans for establishment Or construction, or bothr of municipal low-cost nonprofit' clinics for neutering of dogs and cats. The AVMA charged that such legislation would be in conflict with state vet.. r erinary practice acts (American Humane Assoc?ation, 1.974)' According to surveys conducted in 'Y07,0, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (Schneider and 7aida, 1975; Franti and; Krause 197 4) 41 percent of owned femme dogs and 6 percent of male dogs are neutered. The'porcentage of neutered dogs in the more urban counties of Alameda and Contra Costa was higher (4$ percent of females; 7 percent of males)than in the more rural, Yo10 County (33 percent of females; 4, percent " of males)• The American Humane Association (1974) has constdered surgical, steril.:;,zation, to represent a "tool of pittance" because it touches only a fraction of the pet Population. 'Yet,-At this time, , sterilization represents the onlye means of decreasing the birth rate. Non-surgical methods of sterilization are being tested- however, until they are Placed on the mirket, surgical sterilization ire the only solution to the overpopulation Problem It is,surprisir.,g that such a serious problem as uncon- trolled dogs receives such little public attention. while it is understandable tLat a maJarity of the Papula tion would have J little knowledge of wildlife arir) I' I estock depredation proklems i caused by dogs, most are well aware of the dangers of dog bites, rabies, and the nuisances dogs cause in yards, parks and I walkways: The California Department of Health (1916) re- Potted that duritrg 1975 there were over 60,00 dog bites reported in California.Katz (1573) estimated that there are more than 1.4 million dog-bite victims per Year nation- ally and according to Djerassir et al, (.19'73), the annual: cost in the United States of rabies control., dog-bite care, sanitation and public hes.lth care amounts to nearly $6 million. In Dehv,ert Colorado) public apathy became public ovxtzage � Only after packs of lyase dogs began attacking, fright..ift and angering reit ' 4`eAts f The death of a 6 ear old g... attacked b several large daps,lspurred th gitl, when g die Colorado State g e to p a b�:11 pe, iattjng counties to adopt tau her dbq dontrol. a�rdinandes, tinder the bill l r owners of g bodil in "ter �,ould be dogs who do y 1 y punished by finC�s up to $1,000 and a` jrear; 3;n aril. :Leash l.aw. violations could ,ring owners 90 days ixt ja" and a, $300 :fine' Oenver Po et, M`ay 28, 1977). business._ the. pet business is big s olid �cn the United States, and tray p own With the additi W Nearly 38 percent of all. -families etilies alone., dog as much as $2 billion on p beds, boarding► licortsingr of 'accessory items such as co] larscare.� the financial output •� . 5 bil.ior annul" y {Morse ;n Inoculations and t other e $4.5 erinary l�7 by pet owners ma's senate Committee on .Natural. ktesauxce'`�' and Wilds-i'�e r as Of pet food has revenueeen considered sate endorsed the taxing was ttt*o- as a potential means o programs' Such a program Bi11 No. 10 � NO - low -cost spay or neuter p 9' in 1973 by assemblyman Ansett {assembly, duced the bill would have appropriated $3 million to originally rcati011 to yc'131tur for allhowev� r �t 1e x the Department of Food end nd neuter clinks local governmentbe ondp �terim study by a task force eld'r bill did not go' pers. camp•) * tai: on pet funds generated from a'ro dam has, Thi r�nrcit of use ng- animal control p '� �` f,� �.,� ����G _ SPd y ,,, rood to 8"pp -- r)&rs (1; � , Ors- also b��een advocated by 19731, on Natural Dana, p �esourc�.s and ildlife r �s