The Limitations of Livestock

Canine Predation as a Driving Force in the Collapse of tHE FIBER INDUSTRY IN SOUTHERN APPALACHIA

By Callie Deines

Sheep farming and the fiber industry in the United States during the 18th through the 20th century faced major physical and economic losses from feral dog and coyote predation. In hopes of saving the dwindling fiber industry, canine maintenance practices have shifted between conservation and elimination of these species.  However, as farmers and wildlife agencies adapted their practices, canine species persistently found ways to keep up and take over farms across Southern Appalachia.  The decline in sheep farming and fiber production in Southern Appalachia has been driven by various factors including globalization, cost of upkeep, and climate changes.  However, R.S. Curtis found that the U. S. department of agriculture stated that “sheep-killing dogs are not only recognized as the worst enemy of eastern flock masters at the present time, - but are known to be the principal cause of a marked decrease in the numbers of sheep kept on farms.”[i]  Due to the ruthless and unpredictable nature of predation, I posit that the consequences farmers faced through coyotes and feral dogs were major factors that need to be understood before reintroducing the industry.

Sheep farming in Southern Appalachia thrived due to the high demands for both wool and lamb from farmer’s sheep as well as their compatibility with the region. Journalist Joe Minor explains that this particular species was successful in Appalachia due to its ability to live on rough terrain and eat grasses that other livestock were unable to.[ii]  Since the Appalachian environment is similar to the European environment they’re native to, their adaptation to the land was simple.  Additionally, they got along well with farmer’s other animals, making them desirable to own alongside other stock to increase profit.  Wayne Franklin explains that for many farmers, sheep made back the entirety of the investment farmers put into them through wool, meat, and lamb, making them the most profitable livestock for farmers to keep.[iii]  The benefits that sheep provided to both people and land made them a desirable asset for many farmers. Furthermore, sheep provided farmers with income diversification through crops, natural resources, and off-farm jobs, often sharing the necessary resources with family members.  Tracy Turner Jarrell further describes that community support enabled profitable transactions in sheep markets, giving farmers negotiation power.[iv]  Close-knit markets in many counties allowed for quick sales from farmers. In North Carolina specifically, the peak of this industry lasted until around the 1940s, with approximately 214,473 head in the 1910s, plummeting to 41,373 head in 1945.[v],[vi]  While it is argued that this downfall was driven by globalization, it seems that sheep farming grew increasingly harder for farmers to maintain due to increasing canine predation.

Feral dogs began predating on sheep before farmers had time to act.  F.S. Blair of Guilford College states that “Dogs have been killing sheep from time immemorial.”[vii]  Also known as “yaller dogs”, these were dogs without owners or domesticated dogs who still wandered freely across the land.  USDA wildlife biologist David L. Bergman and his peers explain that feral dogs (Canis familiaris) date back far before the domestication of sheep, with the earliest signs of dog’s interaction with humans dating between 8,000 and 7,000 B.C.E.[viii]  However, because it is hard to differentiate feral and domestic dogs there have been no formal calculation of feral dog populations. Curtis explains that feral dogs were catastrophic killers of various farm animals including sheep, chicken, goats, and swine. Farmers also noted that they were worried about themselves or their own dogs contracting rabies from the feral dogs, who were even known to spread disease like cholera to hogs.[ix]  Because of this, many farmers sought ways to get rid of the yaller dog. 

Blair further explains that many farmers had intentions to farm sheep in North Carolina but decided against it upon learning about dog predation and the lack of laws to protect sheep from them.[x]  Without laws to secure their income, it became hard to justify farming sheep.  Bergman and his peers found that State agriculture and wildlife agencies named “livestock damage to be the most important agricultural problem caused by feral dogs” with North Carolina being the top of the five states with 100 percent of sheep depredation resulting from feral dogs in 1994 alone.[xi]  Dogs were consistently referred to as worthless menaces to the industry and were blamed for a majority of the losses that farmers faced. Curtis believed that many even viewed the dog as the primary reason that the sheep industry failed to emerge in Western North Carolina.[xii]  Farmers have wavered on if dogs should be controlled, but this only allows for the problem to persist.  Curtis explains that only three states in the union had laws in place to control dogs by 1918.[xiii] As sheep populations continued to drop, farmers concern for their depleted income began to grow. 

This concern was not only driven by the farmers’ desire to prosper, but also the growing needs of soldiers during World War I.  Curtis explains that for the equipment of one soldier, 20 sheep are needed, meaning that in order to accommodate every soldier each of the 220,000 farms would need to have at least 20 sheep.[xiv]  However, the diminishing sheep populations and the attendant rise in wool prices made this target difficult to reach.  F.H. Jeter stated in The Birmingham Age-Herald in 1918 that “the price of mutton and wool has been increasing almost daily, and the destructive nature of the present world conflict will tend to aggravate this condition.”[xv]  Many believed that dogs should be controlled just like any other animal, and that it was because of their lack of control that so many suffered.  As a result, on January 2nd of 1918, the North Carolina Sheep and Dog Control Committee was established with R.W. Scott as chairman in order to control yaller dogs’ livestock predation.[xvi]  The committee sought to spread awareness about the growing problems canines presented to their farms in hopes of saving the wool industry. To accomplish this, the Asheville Citizen Times explains that Curtis aimed to carry this out alongside the North Carolina Sheep Breeders’ and Wool Growers’ Association and the office of beef cattle and sheep.[xvii]  With the help of this committee and other associations, on March 8th, 1918, the committee agreed to petition the Legislature for the implementation of a $5 to $10 dollar tax on dog ownership in hopes of weeding out dog owners who let them run freely.[xviii]  However, as farmers would soon learn, this was only the beginning of their issues, as the growing population of coyotes in the east only exacerbated this problem.

The coyote’s (Canis latrans) colonization of North America heavily relies on human urbanization patterns.  Dan Flores explains that coyotes began to make their way throughout the United States starting in the 1520s.[xix]  Due to their ability to easily adapt to virtually any climate and cross breed with other canine species along the way, coyotes quickly became a threat to farmers all throughout the United States.  Starting in the western United States, Flores explains that by the 1970s coyotes began to migrate to the southeast.[xx]  As time went on, the species then made its way through out the northeastern and southern regions, covering almost the entirety of the country.  Roland W. Kays and his peers assert that since their migration to the eastern U.S. they have become the area’s top predator since the extinction of the wolf in the 1800s.[xxi]  Because of the low amount of predator species in North Carolina, coyotes had the opportunity to thrive on vulnerable species. Clarence Hawkes describes that coyotes are often smart enough to outwit the traps set by man and grow suspicious if they remember previous encounters.[xxii]  Despite this, coyotes still tended to venture towards urbanized areas to hunt and were smart enough to know when farmers are not watching to make their attack.  Hawkes states that the sheep industry “has greatly languished because of their depredations. They are present throughout the year and prove a steady drain on the resources of the flock owner.”[xxiii]  The coyotes’ ability to outsmart farmers and feast upon their flocks led to the loss of thousands of sheep across the United States, causing leaders to take action. 

Before organized attempts at removal, farmers would use guard dogs, which have proven to be a strong prevention method as they typically will cause the coyotes to refuse to approach the farm without ever having a direct encounter.[xxiv]  However, guard dogs work better in fenced pastures, must be introduced to the herds as puppies, and require consistent training and work to ensure their effectiveness.  However, Susan Loth explains that this was not always successful, as occasionally the guard dogs would attack their own sheep.[xxv]  In the early 1960s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began mass killings of coyotes due to the powerful emergence of sheepmen in lobbies.[xxvi]  While coyote populations continued to effect sheep farmers, people tried various methods to reduce their impact. Zoologist Penny Skillman explains that coyote populations were controlled in various ways including the M-44 “coyote-getter” gun which was planted in the ground and shot cyanide cartridges or placing animal carcasses as bait sprinkled with the deadly “1080” knowing that one ounce of the compound had the power to kill 20,000 coyotes.[xxvii]  However, due to the rise of the environmental movement happening at the same time, this did not last for long.  The coyote getter raised the most controversy between environmentalists due to the belief that this was inhumane.  Environmentalists heavily argued against their removal due to the imbalance that removing a predator from an ecosystem creates and the cruel removal methods, eventually resulting in the ban of these practices in 1972.[xxviii]  However, this did not end the mass hatred of the coyote. 

Coyote predation continues to be the “leading cause of sheep and lamb mortality” across the United States.[xxix]  Naturally vulnerable, sheep are an easy target as a larger prey option for coyotes.  Although they typically prey upon lambs, devastation has been evident throughout entire populations.  Kim Murray Berger found that since reaching a peak of 56.2 million animals in 1942, the U.S. sheep industry has declined by more than 85%, predominantly from coyote predation.[xxx]  While the number of sheep farms continue to dwindle, coyotes remain as the most widespread large carnivore in the United States.

Canine predation remains an issue for both farmers and common civilians alike. Despite the importance of carnivores, there comes a point where they cause more harm than good. Canine predation in correlation to the fall of the fiber industry brought upon a much larger issue than farmers had ever suspected. While not the only cause for the industry’s collapse, the frustrations that farmers faced through constant losses from dogs and coyotes alike likely began to cause holes in fiber production. North Carolina initially saw major losses from feral dogs but then was able to install laws that protected sheep and indirectly aided in humanity.  By learning the impacts that these dogs have across the United States, we are not only able to aid in the production of farmers, but also the livelihood of canine species.  Practices such as guard dogs, strong fencing, and good husbandry allow for the success of herds—despite this, the issue of predation continues.  To maintain both the sheep industry and proper wildlife management, we must assist farmers through this setback.[xxxi]  By recognizing the relationships between predators and prey, we can better understand the practices needed to prevent the levels of predation seen in the past.

My name is Callie Deines and I studied Environmental Science and International Studies at Western Carolina University. After growing up in the mountains of WNC just outside of Asheville, I have grown fond of understanding the history and benefiting the future of this region for all to enjoy at its fullest. Focusing primarily on regenerative agriculture, I hope to give back to the mountains that made me who I am someday.

[i] R. S. Curtis, “Economic Waste - Dogs and North Carolina Sheep” essay, in The Wilmington Morning Star. (Wilmington, N.C.), 1st ed., 1918, 15, https://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn sn78002169/1918-03-03/ed-1/seq-15#words=Dog+dog+Dogs+dogs+Sheep+sheep.

[ii] Joe Minor, “Watauga Sheep Growers Sell Wool For $48.25 Cwt.” Watauga Democrat (Boone, N.C.), June 1, 1967,1 edition. https://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn82007642/1967-06-01/ed-1/seq-6/#words=Watauga+Sheep+Growers+Sell+Wool+For+%2448.25+Cwt.

[iii] Wayne Franklin, “Franklin Urges Big Increase In Haywood Sheep Flocks.” The Waynesville Mountaineer (Waynesville, N.C.), March 1, 1954, Edition 1 edition. https://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn92074106/1954-03-01/ed-1/seq-10#words=dog+dogs+Sheep+sheep.

[iv] Tracy Turner Jarrell, " Sheep!" Sheep Production in Watauga and Ashe Counties in North Carolina from the 1930s to Now." Appalachian Journal 38, no. 4 (2011): 362-407.

[v] USDA Census of Agriculture, United States Census of Agriculture 1925, 1925, pg. 293-305, “North Carolina. County Table III.-Livestock on Farms, January 1, 1925; and Livestock Products, 1924 and 1919.” Collected using https://agcensus.library.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/1925-North_Carolina-State_Tables-Table-02.pdf

[vi] USDA Census of Agriculture, United States Census of Agriculture; 1945. Volume 1 Part 16. North Carolina and South Carolina. Statistics for Counties, 1945, pg. 106-125, “Census of Agriculture: 1945. County Table III. – Livestock and Livestock Products.” Collected using https://agcensus.library.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/1945-North_Carolina-STATE_TABLES-1170-Table-03.pdf

[vii] Blair, F.S. “Sheep and Dogs Again.” The Progressive Farmer (Raleigh, N.C.), September 9,1911, 1 edition. https://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn92073052/1911-09-09/ed-1/seq-13/#words=dog+Dogs+dogs+DOGS+SHeep+sheep.

[viii] David L. Bergman, Stewart W. Breck, and Scott C. Bender, "Dogs gone wild: feral dog damage in the United States." (2009): 177.

[ix] Curtis, “Economic Waste - Dogs and North Carolina Sheep”

[x] Blair, F.S. “Sheep and Dogs Again.”

[xi] Bergman, Breck, and Bender, "Dogs gone wild: feral dog damage in the United States." 178.

[xii] R.S. Curtis, “Dogs vs. Sheep,” The Carolina Mountaineer and Waynesville Courier. (Waynesville, N.C.), April 18, 1918, 1 edition, https://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn92074082/1918-04-18/ed-1/seq-8/#words=dog+dogs+DOGS+SHEEP+Sheep+sheep.

[xiii] Curtis, “Dogs vs. Sheep”

[xiv] Curtis, “Dogs vs. Sheep”

[xv] “Sheep Farmers to Begin a Campaign to Control By Law the Worthless Dogs.” The Birmingham Age-Herald. May 27, 1918. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85038485/1918-05-27/ed-1/seq-6/.

[xvi] Efforts Being Made to Control the Dogs.” Asheville Citizen (Asheville, N.C.), January 28, 1918, 1 edition. https://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn91068077/1918-01-28/ed-1/seq-3/.

[xvii] “Efforts Being Made to Control the Dogs”

[xviii] “Dog Control.” The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, North Carolina), March 11, 1918. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/616192023/.

[xix] Dan Flores, Coyote America: a natural and supernatural history. Basic Books, 2016. 5.

[xx] Flores, Coyote America: a natural and supernatural history. 7.

[xxi] Roland W. Kays,, Matthew E. Gompper, and Justina C. Ray, "Landscape ecology of eastern coyotes based on large‐scale estimates of abundance." Ecological Applications 18, no. 4 (2008): 1024.

[xxii] Clarence Hawkes, “Studies of the Coyote.” The Franklin Press and the Highlands Maconian (Franklin, NC), July 19, 1905, 1 edition. https://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn92074069/1905-07-19/ed-1/seq-1/

[xxiii] Hawkes, “Studies of the Coyote.”

[xxiv] Susan Loth, “Livestock- Guarding Dogs Help Keep Coyotes Away.” The News Journal. July 9, 1981, 1 edition. https://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn93064776/1981-07-09/ed-1/seq-10/#pageinformation.

[xxv] Loth, “Livestock- Guarding Dogs Help Keep Coyotes Away.”

[xxvi] Penny Skillman, “Wily Coyote Battles for His Life.” North Carolina Anvil (Durham, N.C.), December 23, 1976, 1 edition. https://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn78001353/1976-12-23/ed-1/seq-7/#pageinformation. 

[xxvii] Skillman, “Wily Coyote Battles for His Life.”

[xxviii] Skillman, “Wily Coyote Battles for His Life.”

[xxix] John M Houben, "Status and management of coyote depredations in the eastern United States." Sheep & goat research journal (2004): 7.

[xxx] Kim Murray Berger, "Carnivore‐livestock conflicts: effects of subsidized predator control and economic correlates on the sheep industry." Conservation Biology 20, no. 3 (2006): 753.

[xxxi] Berger, "Carnivore‐livestock conflicts: effects of subsidized predator control and economic correlates on the sheep industry." 759.