Carnivores such as leopards, lions, and hyenas have been killing livestock for centuries, causing significant financial losses for farmers. In many regions, farmers respond by killing these predators, which has dramatically reduced populations of top predators like leopards and lions. While lethal control may lower predator numbers in the short term, there is no evidence that it effectively protects livestock over the long term. In South Africa, for example, medium‑sized predators such as caracals and jackals increased in number or moved into areas where lethal control was practiced. Consequently, South African farmers are turning to non‑lethal, wildlife‑friendly methods, one of which is the age‑old practice of herding or shepherding.
Very little data exist on how shepherding compares with lethal methods globally or within South Africa. To fill this gap, we conducted a study in the Northern Cape province, a dry region where livestock farming dominates and where predation losses are the highest in the country—averaging 13 % of herds. We hypothesised that shepherding would reduce predation on small livestock (mainly sheep, also goats) more effectively than other methods. Using two databases—one based on farmer interviews about lethal control and another derived from field observations by shepherds employing mobile technology—we merged the information into a publicly available online resource. Although predator and prey population data were unavailable, we confirmed that livestock types, dominant predators, and environmental conditions were comparable across the datasets.
Statistical analyses examined the influence of predator management (shepherd vs. no shepherd), land tenure (private vs. communal), flock characteristics (herd size, livestock type), and environmental factors (terrain, plant productivity) on livestock losses. As expected, black‑backed jackals and caracals were the primary predators in both management groups. Predation losses were five times lower in shepherded herds than in those without shepherds, and for lambs the reduction was seven‑fold. Direct observations by herders also allowed us to quantify non‑predation deaths; illness accounted for as many losses as predation. This aligns with FAO assessments showing disease (≈30 % of a herd) and exposure (9–52 %) as the main causes of mortality, far exceeding the global average predation rate of 5 %.
All farmers—whether on private or communal land—experienced similar predation pressures, suggesting that shepherding could be scaled to larger commercial farms. Some participants expressed enthusiasm for continuing to use herders, while others cited financial and social barriers. The data proved valuable to the herders themselves; one, Brenda Snyman, noted, “Now we have the numbers. We really value the skills we’ve gained in herding and data collection during the study.” Historically underappreciated and poorly paid, the herding profession may soon gain recognition through specialised training programmes in animal husbandry and farm management, generating rural employment.
Our findings must be interpreted cautiously because we could not account for predator and prey abundances, and interview‑based estimates may have inflated predation figures in the non‑herder group. Nevertheless, given the scarcity of existing information, these results are promising and can inform future research, land‑use decisions, and policy changes. The research was conducted by Graham Kerley, Liaan Minnie, Dave Balfour, H.O. de Waal, and Walter van Niekerk, with thanks to Emma Cummings‑Krueger (Conservation International) for textual assistance.
Comments are closed for this story.