Current and Future Approaches to Mitigate Conflict between Humans and Asian Elephants: The Potential Use of Aversive Geofencing Devices

Asian elephants are a principal cause of human-wildlife conflict. This results in the death/injury of elephants and humans and large-scale crop and property damage. Most current human-elephant conflict (HEC) mitigation tools lack the flexibility to accommodate the ecological needs of elephants and are ineffective at reducing HEC in the long-term. Here we review common HEC mitigation tools used in Asia and the potential of Aversive Geofencing Devices (AGDs) to manage problem elephants. AGDs can be configured to monitor animal movements in real-time and deliver auditory warnings followed by electric stimuli whenever animals attempt to move across user-specified virtual boundaries. Thus, AGDs are expected to condition elephants to avoid receiving shocks and keep them away from virtually fenced areas, while providing alternative routes that can be modified if required. Studies conducted using AGDs with other species provide an overview of their potential in conditioning wild animals. We recommend that the efficacy and welfare impact of AGDs be evaluated using captive elephants along with public perception of using AGDs on elephants as a means of addressing the inherent deficiencies of common HEC mitigation tools. If elephants could be successfully conditioned to avoid virtual fences, then AGDs could resolve many HEC incidents throughout Asia.

Dairy Cattle Response to a Virtual Fence When Pasture on Offer Is Restricted to the Post-grazing Residual

Pasture-based dairy systems rely on the accurate allocation of pasture to both meet livestock requirements and maintain the growth of herbage. Currently, physical fences are used to contain livestock however they can be labor-intensive to shift and maintain. Alternatively, virtual fence (VF) systems offer flexibility and real-time control of livestock location. Pre-commercial neckbands (eShepherd®, Agersens, Melbourne, VIC) emit a warning audio tone (AT) when a cow approaches a VF boundary, paired with an electrical pulse (EP) if the cow continues forward into the exclusion zone (EZ). However, the ability of VF technology to control animal location when pasture is restricted to the previous day's residual, remains unknown. Ten non-lactating Holstein-Friesian dairy cows were trained to use a VF system for 6 days before strip grazing a 1.2 ha paddock of annual ryegrass. Over 10 days the cows grazed eight pasture allocations at a pre-grazing pasture mass of 2,324 ± 81 kg DM/ha (mean ± SE) and post-grazing pasture-mass (post-grazing residual) of 1,649 ± 48 kg/DM/ha with a front VF. The allocations had a physical backing fence that included the fresh allocation and a small area of residual to cater for any GPS drift of the front VF. On each day, with the exception of days 5 and 10, the VF was moved forward, and the cows were provided a new pasture allocation. On days 5 and 10, the VF was not shifted, and cows were only offered the previous allocation's residual pasture. The location of each animal (inclusion, buffer, and exclusion zones) and number of stimuli (AT and EP) delivered were recorded. The number of stimuli delivered between the grazing and hold-off days was similar. Cows spent 89% of time within the inclusion zone (IZ), with significant peaks observed on day 5 and 10. Distance that cows traveled into the EZ reduced across time. There was also evidence of individual variation in the number of stimuli and thus time spent in each zone. Overall, the VF system was successful in containing the dairy cows during strip grazing even when only offered the previous days post-grazing residual.