Why we need proper herd management

Proper herd management does not only protect our livestock from predators, but also from extreme weather, diseases and injuries. The practice of herd management is centuries old and a tradition in many mountainous areas in Europe. However, in areas where predators disappeared over time, the knowledge disappeared. Now that the wolf, bear, lynx and golden jackal are returning in many areas, people need to relearn and use proper herd management. To support this, the European Commission decided that Member States can now fully compensate the costs.

Please also read: Herd management is more effective than killing wolves

The multi-functional shepherd

Our partner CHWOLF, a NGO in Switzerland, actively helps to bring back the knowledge on proper herd management. And it is necessary, as approximately 250 000 sheep and goats still graze on the summer alps. Herding is a Swiss tradition that goes back centuries, passed on from generation to generation. Coexistence with the wolf used to be normal, until it was eradicated. Over the last 150 years, wolves were forgotten and the trade of shepherds disappeared almost completely. Still, between 4 000 and 6 000 animals die from diseases, injuries or extreme weather annually, mostly on unprotected alps. Compared to the 200 annual wolf attacks on insufficiently protected herds, the wolf’s impact accounts for about 4% of all livestock deaths.

Proper herd management protects not only sheep from attacks. A shepherd can monitor the animals for diseases, anticipate weather changes and prevent accidents. Consequently, more animals will survive the summer because of this. It helps the equal grazing pressure on the alps by regular rotation, benefiting local flora and insects a lot. Furthermore, controlled grazing management contributes to the economical maintenance and conservation of the alpine landscape.

No easy job

The work of a shepherd is hard, but diverse and rewarding. A shepherd works 7 days a week, of course. From early morning till late in the evening, regardless of the weather. Most of the time the shepherd, or shepherdess for that matter, is alone on the alp and will only get visits or help sporadically. The shepherd will patrol the pastures and let the animals use them in a sustainable way. He or she will patrol the fences, and monitor the guard dogs while assessing the surroundings for any risk.

By the end of the day, a shepherd brings the animals together in a night pen for optimal protection during the night. For all this, a shepherd needs to be competent in handling livestock, guard dogs and other protection measures like fences. They have to know the local area, the wildlife and more. In other words, a shepherd is an allround multi-tasking alp- and herd manager.

Alternative protection can help as well

In some cases, electric fences are difficult to implement when the area is steep for example. A specific assessment of the topography and alp size is thus crucial. The efforts to implement proper herd management are financially supported by CHWOLF in local Swiss areas. Their professional team supports research, development and implementationthrough various ways.

One of the alternative measures that they test in Switzerland are guard lamas. Lamas are successfully protecting livestock from coyotes, dingos and stray dogs in the USA and Australia. Since 2012, CHWOLF supports a project from AGRIDEA to test herd protection with lamas. Lamas have a natural reluctance against wolf-like animals. Just like guard dogs, lamas can bond with livestock and defend them from intruders. Lamas will run after attackers, or even bite or kick them. Especially for small herds, where guards dogs are too expensive, lamas offer a good alternative. Yet, guard lamas cannot replace guard dogs, though they can be a good addition in some places.

If you want to read more about the projects of our partner CHWOLF, visit their website.

Stay up to date on the Wilderness news, subscribe to our Newsletter!

You May Also Like

Please Leave a Comment

Sign the Petition for resilient forests


90 signatures

Open Letter to the German Ministry of Food and Agriculture

Federal Ministry of
Food and Agriculture
Minister Julia Klöckner
11055 Berlin

Dear Minister Klöckner,

The current situation of the forest in Germany is worrying. It is a forest crisis not only driven by climate change. The current crisis management of the forestry industry is backward-looking and harmful to the forest. The declaration announced at the meeting of ministers in Moritzburg can be described as a `Moritzburg declaration of bankruptcy´. We call on the state forestry industry to, instead of expensive rushed actions, finally carry out an expert analysis of its own work and to involve all stakeholders in this process. What is called for is a consistent departure from plantation forestry and a radical shift towards a management that treats the forest as an ecosystem and no longer as a wood factory.

On 1stAugust 2019, five forestry ministers of CDU and CSU-led states adopted a so-called “master plan” for the forest in Germany, which was affected by heat, bark beetles, fire and drought. As of 2020, the federal government is to make 800 million euros available as a reaction to climate change. This money is to be used to repair the damage caused, reforest the damaged areas and carry out `climate-adapted´ forest conversion – including the use of non-native tree species that have not yet been cultivated in the forest. Research should therefore focus on on tree species suitability and forest plant breeding in the future – keyword: `Climate-adapted forest of the future 2100´.

Remarkably, the damage caused primarily by the extreme drought of 2018 is attributed solely to climate change. Climate change is meeting a forest that is systemically ill due to the planting of non-native tree species, species poverty, monocultures, uniform structure, average low age, mechanical soil compaction, drainage etc. A healthy, resistant forest would look differently! The master plan emphasizes: sustainable, multifunctional and `active´ forest management remains indispensable – and thereby means that its unnatural state cannot be changed. Reference is made to the `carbon storage and substitution effects´ of wood products. The use of wood, e.g. in the construction industry, should be increased and thus the demand for wood should be further fueled – while knowing that the forest in Germany already cannot meet this demand. In fact, forest owners are suffering from poor timber prices due to an oversupply of trunk wood on the world market.

All these demands make clear: the current forestry strategy, which has been practiced for decades, should not change in principle. The concept is simple: cut down trees – plant trees. At best, the `design´ of the future artificial forests consisting of perfectly calculated tree species mixtures, that are believed to survive climate change without damages, can be changed. In all seriousness, the intention is to continue selling the public a so-called `future strategy´ to save the forest. This strategy seamlessly follows the model of a wood factory, that is met with general rejection and must be regarded as a failure in view of the coniferous plantations that are currently collapsing on a large scale. An essential part of the forests that have currently died is exactly the part that was reestablished in 1947 as coniferous monocultures on a much larger area than today. There is only one difference to the situation at the time: considerable amounts of money are to be made available from taxes for forest owners this time.

Climate change is progressing, and this, without a doubt, has massive impacts on all terrestrial ecosystems, including forests. To pretend that the last two years of drought alone caused the disaster is too cheap. On closer inspection, the disaster is also the result of decades of a forestry focused on conifers – in a country that was once naturally dominated by mixed deciduous forests. People do not like to admit that for more than 200 years they have relied on the wrong species of commercial tree (spruce) and have also created artificial, ecologically highly unstable and thus high-risk forest ecosystems. A whole branch of business has become dependent on coniferous wood. And now the German coniferous timber industry is on the verge of bankruptcy.

It would only have been honest and also a sign of political greatness if you and the forestry ministers in Moritzburg had declared: Yes, our forestry industry has made mistakes in the past, and yes, we are ready for a relentless analysis that takes into account not only purely silvicultural, but also forest-ecological aspects. Instead, you have confined yourselves to pre-stamped excuses that are already familiar to everyone and that lack any self-critical reflection.

Clear is: We finally need resting periods for the forest in Germany, which has been exploited for centuries. We need a new, ecologically oriented concept for future forest – not a hectic `forest conversion´, but simply forest development closer towards nature. This gives the forest as an ecosystem the necessary leeway to self-regulate and react to the emerging environmental changes. We need a systemic forest management that is no less profitable than the present one, but must be substantially more stable and resistant to foreseeable environmental changes. The aid for forest owners that all citizens are now required to pay through their taxes is only politically justified in the interest of common good, if the forests of the future that are being promoted by it, do not end up in the next disaster, some of which is produced by the forest management itself.

That is why the signatories request from the the Federal Government, and in particular you, Mrs Klöckner, a master plan worthy of the name:

On disaster areas (mainly in public forests!) reestablishment through natural forest development (ecological succession), among other things with pioneer tree species, is to be brought about. In private forests, ecological succession for reestablishment must be purposefully promoted. Larger bare areas should be planted with a maximum of 400 to 600 large plants of native species per hectare in order to permit ecological succession parallelly.
To promote ecological succession, the areas should no longer be completely and mechanically cleared; as much wood as possible should be left in the stand (to promote optimum soil and germ bed formation, soil moisture storage and natural protection against browsing). In private forests, the abandonment of use in disaster areas should be specifically promoted for ecological reasons and in order to relieve the burden on the timber market.

Regarding the promotion of reestablishment plantings in private forests: priority for native tree species (of regional origin); choose wide planting distances in order to leave enough space for the development of pioneer species. For the forests of the future: Minimize thinning (low-input principle), build up stocks through targeted development towards old thick trees, protect the inner forest climate / promote self-cooling function (should have highest priority due to rapidly progressing climate change!), prohibit heavy machinery, refrain from further road construction and expansion, permit and promote natural self-regulatory development processes in the cultivated forest and on (larger) separate areas in the sense of an compound system; drastically reduce the density of ungulate game (reform of hunting laws).

Like in the field of organic agriculture, which has been established since the 1980s, the crisis of our forests should be the reason today to transform at least two existing forestry-related universities. They should be turned into universities for interdisciplinary forest ecosystem management. This is a contribution not only to the further development of forestry science and silviculture in Germany, but also of global importance! The goal must be to produce wood through largely natural forest production and to start with it here in Germany, the birthplace of forestry.


**your signature**

Share this with your friends:

%d bloggers like this: