Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment

for the Use of Wildlife Damage Management Methods

by USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services

Chapter XV

The Use of Dogs and Other Animals in

Wildlife Damage Management

DECEMBER 2017

Peer Reviewed Final 

February 2021
i

THE USE OF DOGS AND OTHER ANIMALS IN WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Trained dogs and other animals play a vital role in many USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services (WS) 

programs. Dogs are used to track or trail animals, detect particular species or their sign, retrieve 

animals taken with another method such as firearms, haze animals from an area where they are 

not wanted such as birds in an aircraft operating area at an airport, and decoy or attract other 

species such as coyotes. Additionally, dogs are used to guard resources such as livestock from 

other predators. WS uses these working dogs trained for specific functions. WS also uses or 

recommends the use of other animals including raptors for hazing and burros and llamas for 

guarding livestock, but to a much lesser extent. Between FY11 and FY15, WS annually averaged 

the capture of about 2,300 animals using dogs. Following capture, WS killed or freed (typically for 

collaring individual animals) those animals. In addition, WS used dogs to haze about 40,000

animals per year from areas where damage was occurring or likely to occur.

Potential human health and environmental risks from the proposed use of dogs and other animals 

have been evaluated by APHIS and determined that the risks to human health and the 

environment are negligible. Dogs and other animals can take nontarget species, but take rates 

are low compared to overall take. Dogs and other animals have minimal risks to people, pets, and 

nontarget species. WS will continue to support and conduct research and education that supports 

more humane and effective use of dogs and other animals and will implement these measures in 

programs, where appropriate, to further reduce risk to nontarget animals.

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Wildlife Damage Management with Working Dogs and Other Animals ...........................................1

1.2 Use Pattern.......................................................................................................................................5

2 HAZARDS..................................................................................................................................................7

2.1 Human Health and Safety ................................................................................................................7

2.2 Environmental...................................................................................................................................7

3 RISKS.........................................................................................................................................................9

3.1 Human Health and Safety ................................................................................................................9

3.2 Environmental...................................................................................................................................9

4 UNCERTAINTIES AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS..................................................................................10

5 SUMMARY...............................................................................................................................................10

6 LITERATURE CITED...............................................................................................................................11

7 PREPARERS...........................................................................................................................................13

7.1 APHIS-WS Methods Risk Assessment Committee........................................................................13

7.2 Internal Reviewers..........................................................................................................................15

7.3 Peer Review ...................................................................................................................................16

7.3.1 Peer Reviewers Selected by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies........................16

7.3.2 Comments.............................................................................................................................16

Appendix 1. “Other Species” Included in Tables ........................................................................................18
1

1 INTRODUCTION

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), 

Wildlife Services (WS) program personnel may use trained dogs1 and other animals to perform 

specific functions to assist with activities associated with wildlife damage management (WDM).

This Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Risk Assessment provides a qualitative 

evaluation of potential risks and hazards to human health and nontarget fish and wildlife as a 

result of exposure to dogs and other animals from their proposed use by WS. Many WS personnel 

use trained dogs and other animals to perform multiple functions individually or in combination 

while aiding the WS personnel with alleviating wildlife damage. Trained dogs perform various 

functions, including tracking or trailing, snake and other animal detection, wildlife hazing, 

decoying, and retrieval. Another use of dogs along with other animals such as donkeys and llamas 

are for livestock protection (guard animals). Finally, raptors may be used for bird hazing at 

airports.

1.1 Wildlife Damage Management with Working Dogs and Other Animals

Dogs have long been used in wildlife management for a variety of activities (Zwickel 1971, 

Dahlgren et al. 2012) and for the last century by WS. To a lesser extent, raptors have been used 

in hazing wildlife and other animals such as donkeys to guard livestock. WS personnel train a 

variety of different dog breeds, but the breed selected is typically associated with the activity it will 

conduct and the species targeted. For example, tracking dogs are often a hound, detector dogs

for snakes are generally terriers, beagles, or German shepherds, and decoy dogs are typically 

small Labradors, border collies, or Australian shepherds. The individual characteristics and 

qualities of each dog such as ability to use their nose and are of a size appropriate to do the 

activity, and the training each dog receives dictate success more than the breed of dog (Rowley 

and Rowley 1987, Coolahan 1990). In general, working dog breeds that have been traditionally 

used for hunting or herding, basically the general activity they will be conducting, are more likely 

to possess the individual characteristics and qualities necessary to perform appropriately than 

other dog breeds (Coolahan 1990). Additional considerations could become a concern depending 

on other factors; for example, WS personnel may prefer to use shorthaired dogs to avoid 

overheating in summer (Rowley and Rowley 1987) and year-round in areas such as Guam (Hall 

1996). However, on the other hand, these characteristics may not be desired in colder climes.

In general, successful dogs must possess the desire to track or trail target animals by sight or 

scent, possess enough intelligence to learn the behavior expected of them, and follow the 

commands of the handler (Coolahan 1990). They must be the appropriate size to complete their 

tasks. For example, guarding dogs must be big enough to repel large predators. Different breeds 

are suited for different purposes and are selected for their general innate abilities. It is always 

strongly encouraged that overly aggressive dog breeds, especially towards people, not be used

(Rowley and Rowley 1987, Coolahan 1990); the exception here is that dogs need nerve strength 

(boldness) and some aggressiveness towards the target animal. Beebe et al. (2016) assessed 

characteristics of dogs used for scent detection and described qualities of dogs needed to 

determine the desirability of a breed and individual dogs within that breed. Beebe et al. (2016) 

looked at morphology (e.g., nose length for scent detection possibly), keen olfactory, visual, or 

auditory systems, good personality characteristics (temperament), nerve strength, motivational 

1 WS Directive 2.445 defines a trained dog as a dog that is proficient in the skills necessary to perform specific functions in a manner that is 

responsive to its handler’s commands. All WS Policy Directives referenced in this document can be found @ 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/aphis/ourfocus/wildlifedamage under Wildlife Damage – WS Program Directives.
2

drive, and social intelligence as the key traits. Thus, depending on the tasks to be performed, 

typically a lot of options are available.

 Tracking/Trailing Dogs: Dogs that track animals from a scent trail are referred to as trailing 

or tracking dogs (often separated by the extent of scent differentiating training with trailing 

dogs getting more) and are used to facilitate the live capture of target animals. Once captured, 

the target animal can be lethally removed or captured with other techniques for research 

depending on the project. These dogs are trained to track the scent trail of the animal they 

are to track and respond audibly (howl, often referred to as a strike) or visually when they 

smell them. They can be very effective at detecting target carnivores (Long et al. 2007, 

McGregor et al. 2016). Tracking dogs are trained to follow the scent of target species and 

avoid tracking nontargets. Typically, several dogs are used to follow large target animals such 

as black bears2 and mountain lions, whereas one or two may be used for smaller species 

such as raccoons. If the track of the target species is not too old, which depends a great deal 

on ambient conditions (cool moist air holds scent much longer than hot dry conditions), the 

dogs follow the trail of the animal until it seeks refuge in a thicket on the ground at bay3, in a 

hole, in a tree, or on a cliff or rock pile. Target animals are typically bayed or confined by the 

dogs until the WS personnel can arrive and are euthanized humanely with a firearm or 

captured by use of immobilizing drugs or mechanical devices (e.g., net gun, catchpole). Once 

immobilized, animals may be euthanized with an appropriate drug, or radio collared/tagged 

and freed.

Dogs trained in trailing animals are controlled as soon as possible to prevent the dogs from 

attacking or otherwise injuring the bayed animal or getting the dogs injured. Tracking dogs 

are the most effective method for tracking an animal from a damage site shortly after an 

incident, such as a freshly killed calf, to ensure that the correct animal is taken. Tracking dogs 

occasionally might switch tracks to the fresher scent of a nontarget animal; for example, a 

tracking dog following a mountain lion could switch to that of a bobcat, but dogs are taken off 

the trail as soon as the WS dog handler has determined that this has occurred. Breeds of 

dogs typically used for trailing are hounds such as black-and-tan or bluetick coonhounds, and 

blackmouth or mountain curs.

 Decoy Dogs: Dogs are trained to search for coyotes, and to a lesser extent red fox, to get 

their attention, and return to their owner when they are being pursued. A coyote or pack of 

coyotes pursue the decoy dog as it returns to its owner where the coyote(s) can be shot. 

Australian shepherds, border and McNab collies, Norwegian elkhounds, and wirehaired 

terriers are common breeds that are suitable as decoy dogs (Rowley and Rowley 1987), as 

well as crosses of those breeds with hounds and curs (Coolahan 1990). Rowley and Rowley 

(1987) stated that color and physical appearance of dogs used as decoys had little or no

relative effect on their ability to induce coyotes to chase the dog. Rowley and Rowley (1987) 

also stated that medium-sized dogs ranging from 25 to 50 pounds were the most appropriate 

when using dogs to decoy coyotes; basically, a size big enough to fend off coyote attacks, but 

not so large as to repel them. Decoy dogs are very effective in assisting with taking coyotes, 

especially when used in conjunction with calling and shooting.

2 Scientific names for species are given in the text only for species not discussed in the Wildlife Damage Management Methods Risk Assessment 

Introduction.

3

The term “bay”, “baying” or “keep at bay” means to keep something away, in check, or under control. In terms of trained dogs, to bay or baying 

involves the dog or dogs trailing or tracking a target animal until the animal seeks a location where the dogs are unable to access (e.g., up a tree, 

in a thicket, in a hole). The presence of the dogs holds the target animal at the location until WS personnel can arrive. In addition, baying can also 

refer to the act of the dog or dogs striking (i.e., barking, howling) as they track or trail the target animal. 
3

 Detector Dogs: WS uses detector dogs to search for the presence of various animals or their 

sign using their senses, but especially smell. They can be very effective at detecting rarely 

encountered animals, invasive species, and diseases and have become increasingly popular 

in the field of wildlife conservation (Long et al. 2007, Cablk et al. 2008, Reed et al. 2011, 

Vynne et al. 2011, Beckmann et al. 2015, Oh et al. 2015). Beebe et al (2016) reviewed 

research literature on this topic and discussed uses and research; they made suggestions for 

the qualities to assess in selecting a breed for detection work. Detector dogs can serve as 

aids following a detection by trailing and baying the target species so that WS personnel can 

capture it, which is a task for only some detector dogs. They can also find scat, which can be 

analyzed for DNA to determine the number of individuals using an area, genetic diversity in 

populations (Beckmann et al. 2015), and determine the specific individual responsible for a 

predation event.

One WS program that uses detector dogs is the brown tree snake program on Guam (Hall 

1996) and their effectiveness has been assessed (Engeman et al. 2002). Brown tree snakes 

are not native to Guam and their presence has had adverse effects on native wildlife 

populations that inhabit the island. WS personnel use the dogs to inspect cargo, vessels, 

aircraft, freight, household goods, and associated facilities and environments to detect and 

find brown tree snakes so they do not get shipped elsewhere where they could have similar 

adverse effects on native wildlife such as Hawaii. It was found that the brown treesnake 

detector dogs were good finding snakes in structures and closed areas whereas they were 

ineffective in forested or jungle areas (Savidge et al. 2011). 

Other detector dogs are used by WS to alert personnel to the presence of scent and sign of 

certain target species (e.g., nutria, beavers, feral swine, and bullfrogs) in a search area from 

the animal directly, or its scat, hair, or other sign left behind. These dogs can be very effective 

monitoring for sign following an eradication program for invasive pests such as brown rats to 

ensure that none remain (Gsell et al. 2010, Shapira et al. 2011). Knowing that the target 

animal is present allows WS personnel to determine if and where further management 

activities such as trapping are warranted. For example, detector dogs trained to detect animal 

scent from scat, hair, or other sign are used to search for nutria, a South American aquatic 

rodent which is invasive in North America because it causes ecological damage to wetlands, 

in an effort to ensure eradication from particular areas of the United States where their activity 

has impacted the landscape. Nutria have possibly been eradicated from Chesapeake Bay 

since May 2015, and detector dogs have not detected any since, but are still monitoring the 

area to determine if eradication has been met. These same dogs have been cross trained for 

feral swine and have been used to search areas where feral swine eradication has been 

attempted to help determine if the project was a success.

WS detector dogs are specifically trained in detection of a target species and validated by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, National Detector 

Dog Training Center where they adhere to specific training protocols. Some dogs are cross 

trained on more than one species such as nutria and feral swine. The WS dog handlers and 

snake detector dogs are subject to annual proficiency testing and must meet minimal 

standards.

Detector dogs have also been used to find invasive Burmese pythons in the Florida 

Everglades (Avery et al. 2014). Dogs were found to be 92% successful compared to people 

at 64%; an additional benefit was that dogs could complete searches 2.5 times faster. The 

only drawback was that dogs could only be used for a five-mile trek as overheating occurred. 

Overheating causes dogs to pant and when dogs are panting, they do not use their nose and 
4

become poor at detection. However, it is possible that dogs could be used over water

operations, similar to water cadaver detector dogs where they could be stationary in the shade 

on a skiff detecting snakes in water.

Detector dogs are trained to gather monitoring data and generally provide reliable surveys, 

especially for cryptic species (Smith et al. 2003, Browne 2005, 2006, Stevenson et al. 2010,

Duggan et al. 2011, Reed et al. 2011, Leigh 2015, Beckmann et al. 2015). However, a

drawback of detector dogs, especially for rarely encountered species, is the potential for them

to strike when no animal is present, a false positive (Duggan et al. 2011). In those situations, 

two teams using detector dogs may be a good idea. Several strategies exist which are 

possible to use to remedy problems with false positives.

Detector dogs can also be trained to find disease and other maladies in animals and their scat 

(Richards et al. 2007) and insect vectors (Rolón et al. 2011). Scat detection dogs were much 

more successful than hair snares and remote cameras, other non-invasive methods (Long et 

al. 2007). However, costs were higher to use detector dogs.

Finally, other detector dogs are used to facilitate effective trap and other capture device 

placement by detecting scent marks. These dogs, often referred to as trapline dogs, typically 

accompany WS personnel while investigating damage or setting and checking methods. They 

are especially effective in finding sites to set equipment by alerting their owners to areas where 

a target animal has traveled, urinated, or defecated, which are often good sites to place 

methods such as foothold traps to capture them. In the range of the grizzly bear, many 

personnel from WS and other agencies have their dogs accompany them to alert them to the 

presence of the bears for personal safety. Detection dogs stay with personnel and most 

always have no effect on nontarget animals as the handler is with them. Detection dogs may 

also increase the selectivity towards target animals by identifying activities with high target 

animal activity.

 Wildlife Hazing: Trained dogs, and, to a lesser extent, raptors (falconry) are used to disperse 

birds and mammals away from sites where the target animals are or can damage property or 

other resources, where they pose threats to human health and safety, or where the target 

wildlife could be harmed (e.g., due to oil or other contaminant spills, industrial operations).

They are most frequently used at airports and parks to alleviate damage primarily by birds 

such as waterfowl. Dogs and raptors are allowed to chase the target animals as soon as they 

are observed but return to their handler as they are called. Hazing dogs and raptors may

infrequently capture the target animal when they are chasing them. Due to their herding 

instinct and ability, border collies are a common dog breed that people use to disperse birds 

such as Canada geese and other birds at damage sites such as golf courses, airports, and 

natural areas (Smith et al. 1999, Castelli and Sleggs 2000, Preusser et al. 2008). When 

Canada geese had access to water, hazing dogs were only effective when combined with a 

method to harass them from the water (Preusser et al. 2008). Hazing dogs in combination 

with other treatment such as use of rubber bullets or pepper spray, were used to haze bears

from an urban area (Beckmann et al 2004); in their study, Beckman et al. (2004) found that 

70% of the bears returned to urban areas in less than 40 days while 10% took 6 months or 

more to return. Thus, for many situation additional methods may be needed to reduce use of 

an area by a damaging species such as habitat modification and refuse management along 

with traditional hazing methods for a long-term effect. Falconry was successfully used to 

reduce the presence of Egyptian geese (Alopochen aegyptiaca) at parks by 76% and the 

remaining geese remained vigilant (Atkins 2015). However, falconry at airports and other 

areas has drawbacks associated with it such as unforeseen animal behavior (e.g., not 
5

returning to handler and becoming strike threat), limited use for all day because the raptors 

must rest and typically cannot be used at night, biological needs (i.e., food and water), and 

dependency on the falconer for use (Battistoni et al. 2008).

 Guard Dogs and Other Guard Animals: Guard animals, including dogs, burros, and llamas,

are used to protect a wide variety of resources from damage. They are usually bonded to the

particular resource intended to be protected, especially sheep and goats from predators, but 

also other livestock, crops, and property (Woodruff and Green 1995). They are used primarily 

as a repellent and can be quite effective. Livestock protection dog use and research is 

reviewed by Gehring et al. (2010) and can be a successful technique to protect livestock, 

including livestock protection from large predators. Guard dogs can sometimes be a risk to 

nontarget animals if not properly trained. Finally, large predators can kill livestock protection 

animals (Gehring et al. 2010, Urbigkit and Urbigkit 2010). WS personnel have not used guard 

animals but conduct research and provide information and recommendations to livestock 

producers regarding the use of guarding animals.

 Animal Retrieval: WS personnel can train dogs to retrieve birds and other small animals 

where they are targeted with lethal methods, such as shooting or toxicants, but difficult to 

retrieve such as in tall grass or aquatic environments (Homan et al. 2001); they were found to 

be significantly more effective at finding downed animals than a person searching, even when 

people searched for longer time periods than dogs. Retrieval dogs are trained to be “softmouthed” (i.e., do not deliver a crushing bite to the retrieved animal) so that, where a retrieved 

target animal is still alive, WS personnel can humanely euthanize the animal. The MIS does 

not track the use of retrieval dogs rather the method that was used to take the animal such as 

a firearm is the method tracked. 

1.2 Use Pattern

Dogs are used by WS in several program areas. WS did not record the use of other animals 

between FY11 and FY15. Trailing dogs and decoy dogs are mostly used to capture predators 

predating livestock, detector dogs for invasive species management, and hazing dogs for 

protection of airplanes from wildlife strikes (Table 1). As discussed previously, dogs and other 

animals can aid WS personnel with locating, detecting, and identifying target animals but are not 

used to intentionally kill target animals. WS personnel use dogs or other animals to locate and 

bay target animals before the target animal is euthanized or killed using other appropriate 

methods, such as shooting or euthanasia chemicals. From FY11 to FY15, APHIS-WS lethally 

took an average annual total of 2,253 target animals and captured and freed 6 target animals per 

year with the aid of dogs; this take consisted of 13 different species4. In addition, WS hazed an 

annual average of 40,088 target animals that involved 112 species, 1 group (mixed blackbirds5), 

and unidentified birds. The only unintentional targets taken were 2 American Coots from FY11 to 

FY15. Dogs actually caught the coots, which were euthanized as a result; the coots likely had a 

malady that predisposed them to capture. Considering these as nontarget species, the nontarget 

take for animals hazed was negligible (.0001%). Most animals (95%) were hazed from a damage 

situation and comparatively few (5%) were captured with the use of dogs by WS from FY11 to 

FY15.

4 This is less than the cumulative total in Table 1 because coyote and red fox were taken with trailing dogs and decoy dogs.

5 The WS Management Information System (MIS), a computer system to track WS work effort, does not track all species individually, but may 

lump some species together such as blackbirds and starlings in mixed blackbirds, and unidentified birds (used for hazing when birds get up in flocks 

and birds are not identified to species). It should also be noted that several activities and incidences such as dog injuries are not documented in the 

MIS. The platform tracks the most common information 
6

Table 1. The annual average number of target animals taken with an approved method in conjunction with 

trailing, decoy, and detector dogs or hazed with hazing dogs in WDM from FY11 to FY15 throughout the 

United States. No nontargets were recorded to be taken. Individual species are given only for those species 

that were taken with detector dogs, had a total average of 10 or more taken annually, 200 or more hazed, 

threatened and endangered (T&E) species, or the only species in that category.

SPECIES TARGET

Killed Freed Hazed

Trailing Dogs

Bobcat 14 0 0

Mountain Lion 205 5 8

Black Bear 138 0.6 7

Raccoon 48 0 0

Other Predator (4 spp.) 6 0 0

Feral Swine* 155 0.2 0

Total Trailing Dogs (9 spp.) 566 6 15

Decoy Dogs

Coyote 1,673 0 0

Red Fox 2 0 0

Total Decoy Dogs (2 spp.) 1,675 0 0

Detector Dogs

Beaver 7 0 0

Nutria* 2 0 0

Yellow-bellied Marmot 0.4 0 0

Brown Tree Snakes* 3 0 0

Total Detector Dogs (4 sp.) 12 0 0

Hazing Dogs

Grizzly BearT&E 0 0 0.2

Other Mammal (10 sp.) 0 0 133

Heermann’s Gull 0 0 562

Western Gull 0 0 411

California Least TernT&E 0 0 51

Canada Goose 0 0 18,331

NeneT&E (Hawaiian Goose) 0 0 11

Mallard (includes domestic*) 0 0 391

Northern Shoveler 0 0 207

Brown Pelican 0 0 332

American Coot 0.4# 0 1,185

Great Blue Heron 0 0 279

White-faced Ibis 0 0 221

Pacific Golden-Plover 0 0 3,999

Long-billed Curlew 0 0 669

Ruddy Turnstone 0 0 310

Other Birds Associated with Water (46 sp.) 0 0 1,558

Zebra Dove* 0 0 247

Mourning Dove 0 0 1,028

Bald Eagle 0 0 0.8

Hawaiian HawkT&E 0 0 0.4

European Starling* 0 0 292

Horned Lark 0 0 3,111

Western Meadowlark 0 0 708

Common Myna* 0 0 2,559

Nutmeg Mannikin* 0 0 2,827

Other Birds Associated with Land (31 sp. + unid. birds) 0 0 650

Total Hazing Dogs (111 sp. + Unidentified Birds) 0.4# 0 40,073

TOTAL FOR WORKING DOGS (120 sp.1 + Unidentified 

Birds) 2,253 (0.4#)

6 40,088

* Introduced Species # Unintentional Target 1 – Some species in more than one category, so this is not same sum 

of the above lists.
7

Of the animals killed or captured, most were associated with the use of decoy dogs, followed by 

trailing dogs, and then detector dogs. It should be noted that detector dogs are often used daily 

in most programs that use them. Hazing dogs are primarily used at airports and parks. 

2 HAZARDS

2.1 Human Health and Safety

Human health and safety hazards that could be associated with the use of dogs or other animals 

in WS programs are minimal. Concerns are varied and include the possibility that working dogs 

could bite a member of the public or a WS dog handler, and possibly transmitting a disease in the 

process, the potential for a handler to be injured by an animal that is at bay, or that WS working 

dogs or animals they are pursuing could hit a vehicle if they cross a highway during the chase. 

Handlers often use radio collars to follow their tracking dogs and find them quickly. This along 

with the remoteness of the sites where tracking dogs are typically used, minimizes potential 

problems with dogs crossing roads. Finally, a dog or falcon being used at an airport may not return 

to their handler and could pose a strike risk to aircraft. WS personnel use dogs that are proficient 

in the skills necessary to perform specific functions in a manner that are responsive to its handler’s 

commands. Pursuant to WS Directive 2.445, “WS personnel shall control and monitor their trained 

dogs at all times. A trained dog is considered controlled when the dog responds to the 

command(s) of WS personnel by exhibiting the desired or intended behavior as directed. WS 

personnel shall ensure trained dogs do not pose a threat to humans or domestic animals, or cause 

damage to property.” To ensure proper monitoring and control, WS personnel use various 

methods and equipment, such as muzzles, electronic training collars, harnesses, and leashes. 

In addition to being able to control dogs, WS personnel are required to obtain appropriate licenses 

and vaccinations for their trained dogs in accordance with applicable state and local laws. When 

in appropriate settings such as an urban area, WS dog handlers follow applicable leash laws 

when using trained dogs. Thus, these policies tend to minimize problems with dogs and potential 

risks to human health and safety.

2.2 Environmental

Dogs tend to focus on the wildlife or their scent that they are trained to target. However, nontarget 

wildlife could unintentionally be captured or harassed as dogs pursue the target species. This 

could happen especially if a nontarget animal was injured, unhealthy, or surprised and easily 

caught or scared by a dog. Wildlife hazed or chased are in a “flight” response, which could cause 

stress to the nontarget animals as they attempt to avoid the dogs. However, this is temporary for 

most nontarget wildlife as the trailing dog is generally focused on the target species. Another 

problem can occur when trailing dogs switch tracks, usually to a fresher scent, and nontarget 

wildlife may be pursued This may include the same species when trailing dogs are tracking directly 

from a livestock predation incident or discreet event. For example, dogs pursuing a target 

mountain lion might begin tracking a bobcat (usually they switch tracks to an animal similar to the 

target) instead. This occurs infrequently but does happen periodically. Dogs in training or 

improperly trained could pursue or harass nontarget wildlife such as a mule deer when they are 

trained to trail black bear. However, dog handlers monitor for this and continually train their dogs 

to ensure only the target animal is pursued. On rare occasions, dogs could possibly transmit 

diseases to wildlife but maintaining dog vaccines can reduce this risk significantly. One additional

suggested issue associated with the use of detector dogs was that their use could lure more 

predators into an area, increase predation of species being detected, or modify movement 
8

patterns of the species being detected; however, research did not find this claim true with dogs 

searching for desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) (Heaton et al. 2008).

WS personnel ensure trained dogs have all the necessary care including appropriate housing, 

food, and all required licenses and vaccinations per applicable state and local laws. WS handlers 

attempt to keep trained dogs from having physical contact with other animals and do not allow 

them to attack, bite, or kill animals restrained in any device or animals that were free roaming that 

are not targeted. If a trained dog makes contact with any animal, WS handlers are required to 

intervene as soon as this is seen and practical. When training dogs, WS handlers muzzle or 

control their dog on a leash, as necessary, especially when it is near a restrained animal or 

nontarget wildlife. If dogs that WS personnel are training repeatedly attempt to contact restrained 

animals physically, WS personnel must discontinue use of those dogs. Pursuant to the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act, a dog handler cannot allow their dog to catch or harm protected migratory birds 

unless they are targeted and being harassed or retrieved by working dogs under the appropriate 

permit. In some cases, a state permit may be required to harass wildlife using dogs. WS handlers 

consider the flightless period for birds that have a primary molt, which typically occurs in early 

summer when using dogs to harass Canada Geese and other birds that cannot fly. During those 

periods, WS personnel may leash dogs to prevent them from harming flightless geese; most 

Canada geese flee to water where they are safe from hazing dogs and make them fairly ineffective 

unless coupled with hazing devices to get them to leave the water (Holevinski et al. 2007). In 

addition, WS personnel follow applicable leash laws when using dogs to alleviate wildlife damage.

As part of the requirement of controlling trained dogs, WS personnel must ensure dogs do not 

pose a threat to domestic animals or cause damage to property. To ensure monitoring and control, 

WS personnel use various methods and equipment, including, but not limited to muzzles, 

electronic training collars, harnesses, leashes, voice commands, global positioning system 

collars, and telemetry collars. WS handlers understand that the presence of dogs around animals 

restrained in traps or other restraining devices can cause the restrained animal to sustain injuries 

associated with struggling to avoid the dog. At a minimum, the restrained animal is likely to 

experience an increase in stress. Injuries to a restrained animal in the presence of a dog are likely 

the same as those injuries addressed in the assessments associated with those methods, 

including lacerations, bruises, abrasions, and broken bones or teeth. By WS policy, WS handlers 

exhibit a high level of respect and professionalism in those situations and would address animals 

restrained in traps or other restraining devices quickly and would minimize the exposure of those 

animals to the presence of a dog while restrained.

On the other hand, dogs can suffer injuries including bites, scrapes, lacerations, and even death 

during encounters with other animals during WDM activities. This is especially true when the 

target animal is larger than the dogs in use. For example, bears and mountain lions may kill a 

dog, and if a decoy dog is caught, it could be injured by coyotes. People may also shoot trailing 

dogs when in pursuit of a target animal, especially if they cross private lands and are perceived

to be chasing nontarget wildlife6 (e.g., laws in most states allow to shoot dogs chasing nontarget 

wildlife such as deer). Interaction with wildlife also increase the theoretical risk of disease 

transmission from wildlife to dogs.

6 Many states allowed the public to shoot dogs in the past if seen chasing and killing nontarget wildlife, particularly deer and elk. Most states, if

not all, have changed their laws in the last 30 years to allow only authorized personnel such as peace or animal control officers to shoot dogs 

killing wildlife. Many states have hunting seasons that allow for the use of hunting dogs such as tracking, trailing, and pointing dogs.
9

3 RISKS

3.1 Human Health and Safety 

Due to the requirements of training and the use of monitoring and control equipment by WS 

personnel, hazards to the health and safety of people, including WS personnel, associated with 

trained dogs has been minimal and not much different from those associated with normal pet 

ownership. From FY13 through FY157, members of the public and WS handlers were not bit by 

trained dogs, nor were any bit by bayed animals when using trained dogs. No documented 

occurrences of bites from trained dogs or bayed animals are known for the past ten years.

Although bites could occur, they would be fairly rare. The last documented bite by an animal when 

using dogs occurred in FY98 when a dog handler was injured by a feral swine being chased by 

trailing dogs; the feral swine attacked the WS dog handler and injured his patella. WS personnel 

were injured by an annual average of 4 animals per year from FY13 to FY15 (1.3 dog bites per 

year with 0.67 from feral dogs and 0.67 from ranch dogs), but none of these injuries were 

associated with the use of trained dogs in WDM. Thus, it is possible for personnel to be injured 

by animals while in the field. No known diseases or illnesses or vehicle collisions were associated 

with the use of trained dogs from FY13 to FY15. Thus, it is believed that the use of trained dogs 

in WDM presents minimal risks to public and employee safety.

WS did not use other animals for hazing such as falcons or guard animals from FY11 to FY15.

Thus, WS did not have issues from hazing animals escaping the control of their owner and posing 

a risk to people, such as at airports where they could cause an animal aircraft strike or having 

guard animals attack members of the public. WS personnel did report being chased by a few 

guard dogs used by livestock owners from FY11 through FY15, but no attack incidences were 

reported. Thus, these issues could occur, but are anticipated to be low should WS personnel be 

involved with them.

3.2 Environmental

As stated previously, WS handlers are required to control and monitor their trained dogs at all 

times. WS policies define control of a trained dog when the dog exhibits the desired or intended 

behavior as directed by WS handlers’ commands. Dogs can get out of the handlers control 

especially when training dogs, but handlers attempt to minimize such occurrences and their dogs 

chasing or harassing nontarget wildlife animals; dogs, especially free-roaming dogs not in control, 

can be a disturbance (Weston and Stankowich 2013). From FY11 to FY15, WS supervisors did 

not receive reports of nontarget animals or wildlife that were injured or killed by working dogs 

being used in WDM, except for 2 targeted American Coots accidentally caught during hazing 

operations in California at airports; the coots were likely injured or suffering another malady

allowing their capture. The coots were subsequently euthanized as a result of their capture by 

hazing dogs. No other known nontarget wildlife or animals were taken.

Guard animals, especially livestock protection dogs, could injure or kill wildlife, target and 

nontarget. However, WS did not use these from FY11 to FY15, and therefore did not have any 

incidents. WS role, primarily with guard animals, is in recommending their use.

Some WS dogs used in WDM were injured by the target animals being pursued. However, WS

does not have a system in place to track the number of dogs injured or killed while they were 

7 Workman’s compensation claims for injuries or other maladies was collected nationally beginning in FY13. Thus, data was only available for

three years.
10

being used in WDM. However, it is believed that these occurrences are rare and the number is 

minimal. WS personnel can No damage to the environment was documented. Thus, overall 

environmental risks were determined to be low.

WS dog handlers were as humane as conditions allowed with target animals taken with tracking 

dogs. Once the tracking dogs “treed” animals, those slated for lethal removal were euthanized 

mostly with firearms as soon as conditions were safe (usually dogs rounded up and public safely 

out of the way). No negative incidents with dogs were documented to occur. Many people have 

the perception that dogs kill target or nontarget animals commonly, but this rarely occurs (Elowe 

1990). Trespass by the dogs was minimal as well. Most dogs were run on public lands or on 

leashes on small acreage of private lands. Dogs in many states can be shot by authorized 

personnel only (e.g., animal control or peace officers, under state law if seen chasing and killing 

nontarget wildlife such as deer, but no WS dog was known to go after nontarget wildlife (this can 

happen when dogs are not properly trained for target wildlife and switch tracks while in pursuit of 

the target animal); this has occurred in the past, primarily where people believe they are harassing 

nontarget wildlife, but this has been a rarity. WS personnel that use tracking and trailing dogs are 

knowledgeable about state laws and consider this issue when using dogs. Typically, WS 

personnel try not to use tracking and trailing dogs during hunting seasons where people are afield 

or in high recreational use and residential areas.

4 UNCERTAINTIES AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Uncertainty in this risk assessment is negligible as WS has over 100 years using dogs for WDM 

activities and understands potential risks of using dogs for tracking, trailing, detecting, wildlife 

hazing and retrieval. The knowledge gained from this experience has helped reduce uncertainties

associated with the use of dogs especially in regard to human safety and limiting the number of 

incidents to nontarget animals. 

Cumulative impacts could occur to target and nontarget animals. However, cumulative impacts

are addressed in National Environmental Policy Act documents such as WS (2017) and found not 

to be significant to any native species population. Additionally, the “Introduction to Risk 

Assessments for Methods Used in Wildlife Damage Management” looks at all take from all WDM 

activities by WS and none shows a significant level of take for any native species. WS use of dogs 

poses very little risk to humans because policy and associated precautions are in place to 

minimize risk and no known reports of injuries has occurred.

5 SUMMARY

Trained dogs and other animals perform various functions to assist WS personnel with 

accomplishing various activities. Training and maintaining suitable dogs require considerable skill, 

effort, and expense. WS personnel used trained dogs to track (566) and locate wildlife species

such as black bears and mountain lions after they had killed livestock or threatened or injured 

people, and feral swine that had caused agricultural or natural resource damage, to decoy (1,675) 

mostly coyotes into close range to assist in taking them with a firearm mostly where livestock had 

been predated, to detect animals to determine their presence (e.g., beaver and yellow-bellied 

marmots) or slated for eradication from an area (e.g., brown tree snakes and nutria), and to haze 

animals (40,088) such as Canada Geese, Pacific Golden-Plovers, and European Starlings from

airport environments. Other uses such as retrieving are not tracked. From FY11 to FY15 WS dog 

handlers lethally took an annual average of 2,253 target wildlife with authorized methods in 

conjunction with dogs, captured and released 6 target wildlife mostly for research, and hazed 

40,088 wildlife. These dogs are highly effective at tracking and hazing the wildlife species they 
11

are trained to seek. From FY11 to FY15, only 2 target American Coots were accidentally captured 

with hazing dogs. Animals that were slated for removal were removed as humanely and quickly 

as possible for the given situation. WS was unaware of any issues that arose while carrying out 

this goal. No problems were reported to have occurred with WS dogs from FY11 to FY15 but have 

occurred very infrequently. Therefore, it has been determined that risks associated with the use 

of trained dogs for WDM to human health and safety and the environment are minimal.

Dogs and other animals provide versatile methods for WDM. Additional uses of WS dogs and 

other animals may be identified through WS personnel including research or others and, if so, a

determination would be made regarding its use as a WDM technique for WS, along with the 

appropriate policy. Risks at that time would be analyzed and determined if it falls within the scope 

of this risk assessment. If not, this risk assessment may be amended. 

6 LITERATURE CITED

Atkins, A. 2015. An experimental assessment of the efficacy of falconry to mitigate human-wildlife conflict: 

Egyptian Geese Alopochen aegyptiaca at golf courses. PhD Dissertation, Univ. Cape Town, S Africa.

Avery, M.L., J.S. Humphrey, K.L. Keacher, and W.E. Bruce. 2014. Detection and removal of invasive 

Burmese pythons: methods development update. Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf. 26:145-148.

Battistoni, V. A. Montemaggiori, and P. Iori. 2008. Beyond falconry between tradition and modernity: A new 

device for bird strike hazard prevention at airports. 28th Proc. Int’l Bird Strike Comm. 13pp.

Beckmann, J.P, C.W. Lackey, and J. Berger. 2004. Evaluation of deterrent techniques and dogs to alter 

behavior of “nuisance” black bears. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 32(4):1141-1146.

Beckmann, J.P., L.P Waits, A. Hurt, A. Whitelaw, and S. Bergen. 2015. Using detection dogs and RSPF 

models to assess habitat suitability for bears in Greater Yellowstone. Western North American 

Naturalist 75(4):396-405. 

Beebe, S.C., T.J. Howell, and P.C. Bennett. 2016. Using scent detection dogs in conservation settings: A 

review of scientific literature regarding their selection. Frontiers Vet. Sci. 3: Article 96. 13pp. DOI

10.3389/fvets.2016.00096

Browne, C. M. 2005. The use of dogs to detect New Zealand reptile scents. Massey Univ. PhD/M.S. Thesis, 

Palmerston North, NZ.

Browne, C., K. Stafford, and R. Fordham. 2006. The use of scent detection dogs. Irish Veterinary J. 

59(2):97-104.

Cablk, M.E., J.C. Sagebiel, J.S. Heaton, C. Valentin. 2008. Olfaction-based detection distance: A 

quantitative analysis of how far away dogs recognize tortoise odor and follow its source. Sensors 

8(4):2208-2222.

Castelli, P. M., and S. E. Sleggs. 2000. The efficacy of border collies for nuisance goose control. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 28:385–293.

Coolahan, C. 1990. The use of dogs and calls to take coyotes around dens and resting areas. Proc. Vertebr. 

Pest Conf. 14:260-262.

Dahlgren, D.K., R.D. Elmore, D.A. Smith, A. Hurt, E.B. Arnett, and J. Connelly. 2012. Use of dogs in wildlife 

research and management. Pp. 140-153. In N.J. Silvy, ed. Wildlife Management Techniques. Wildl. 

Soc., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Wash., DC. 7th ed., Vol. I.
12

Duggan, J.M., E.J. Heske, R.L. Schooley, A. Hurt, and A. Whitelaw. 2011. Comparing detection dog and 

live trapping surveys for a cryptic rodent. J. Wildl. Manage. 75(5):1209-1217.

Elowe, K. D. 1990. Bear hunting with hounds: Techniques and effects on bears and the public. East. 

Workshop Black Bear Res & Manage. 10:101-109.

Engeman, R., D. Vice, D. York, and K. Gruver. 2002. Sustained evaluation of the effectiveness of detector 

dogs for locating brown tree snakes in cargo outbound from Guam. Internet. Biodeterioration and 

Biodegradation 49(2002):101-106.

Gehring, T.M., K.C. VerCauteren, J-M. Landry. 2010. Livestock protection dogs in the 21st century: Is an 

ancient tool relevant to modern conservation challenges? Bioscience 60(4):299-308. DOI: 

10.1525/bio.2010.60.4.8

Gsell, A., J. Innes, P. de Monchy, and D. Brunton. 2010. The success of using trained dogs to locate sparse 

rodents in pest-free sanctuaries. Wildl. Research 37(1):39-46.

Hall, T. C. 1996. Operational control of the brown tree snake in Guam. Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf. 17:234-

240.

Heaton, J.S., M.E. Cablk, K.E. Nussear, T.C. Esque, P.A. Medica, J.C. Sagebiel, and S.S. Francis. 2008. 

Comparison of effects of humans versus wildlife-detector dogs. Southwestern Naturalist 53(4):472-479.

Holevinski, R.A., P.D. Curtis, and R.A. Malecki. 2007. Hazing of Canada geese is unlikely to reduce 

nuisance populations in urban and suburban communities. Human-Wildlife Interactions 1(2):257-264.

Homan, H. J., G. Linz, B.D. Peer. 2001. Dogs increase recovery of passerine carcasses in dense 

vegetation. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29:292-296.

Leigh KA, Dominick M. 2015. An assessment of the effects of habitat structure on the scat finding 

performance of a wildlife detection dog. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6(7):745–754. DOI:10.1111/2041-

210X.12374

Long, R. A., T. M. Donovan, P. Mackay, W. J. Zielinski, and J. S. Buzas. 2007. Effectiveness of scat 

detection dogs for detecting forest carnivores. J. Wildl. Manage. 71(6):2007-2017. DOI: 10.2193/2006-

230

McGregor, H.W., D. Lisle, S. Legge, and J.O. Hampton. 2016. Live-capture of feral cats using tracking dogs 

and darting, with comparisons to leg-hold trapping. Wildl. Research 43(4):313-322.

Oh, Y., Y. Lee, J. Heath, and M. Kim. 2015. Applications of animal biosensors: A review. Sensors Journal, 

IEEE. 15(2): 637-645. DOI: 10.1109/JSEN.2014.2358261

Preusser, S., T. Seamans, A. Gosser, and R. Chipman. 2008. Evaluation of an integrated non-lethal 

Canada goose management program in New York (2004-2006). Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf. 23:66-73.

Reed, S. E., A. L. Bidlack, A. Hurt, and W. M. Getz. 2011. Detection dogs and environmental factors in 

conservation detection dog surveys. J. Wildl. Manage. 75(1):243-251.

Richards, K.M., S.J. Cotton, and R.M. Sandeman. 2007. The use of detector dogs in the diagnosis of 

nematode infections in sheep feces. J. Vet. Behav. Clinical Applic. And Res. 3(1):25-31.

Rolón, M., M.C. Vega, F. Román, A, Gómez, and A.R. De Arias. 2011. First report of colonies of sylvatic 

Triatoma infestans (Hemiptera: Reduviidae) in the Paraguayan Chaco, using a trained dog. PLoS Negl 

Trop Dis, 5(5), e1026. DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001026
13

Rowley, G. J. and D. Rowley. 1987. Decoying coyotes with dogs. Proc. Great Plains Wildl. Damage Cont. 

Work. 8:179-181.

Savidge, J.A., J.W. Stanford, R.N. Reed, G.R. Haddock, and A.A. Yackel Adams. 2011. Canine detection 

of free-ranging brown treesnakes on Guam. New Zealand J. Ecology 35(2):174-181.

Shapira, I., F. Buchanan, and D.H. Brunton. 2011. Detection of caged and free-ranging Norway rats (Rattus 

norvegicus) by a rodent sniffing dog on Browns Island, New Zealand. Conserv. Evidence 8:38-42.

Smith, A. E., S. R. Craven, and P. D. Curtis. 1999. Managing Canada geese in urban environments, a 

technical guide. Jack Berryman Institute, Publication 16, Logan, Utah, USA and Cornell University 

Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, New York, USA.

Smith, D.A., K. Ralls, A. Hurt, B. Adams, M. Parker, B. Davenport, and J.E. Maldonado. 2003. Detection 

and accuracy rates of dogs trained to find scats of San Joaquin kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica). 

Animal Conserv. 6(4)339-346.

Stevenson, D.J., K.R. Ravencroft, R.T. Zappalorti, M.D. Ravencroft, S.W. Weigley, and C.L. Jenkins. 2010. 

Using wildlife detector dog for locating eastern indigo snakes (Drymarchon couperi). Herpet. Review 

41(4):437-442.

Urbigkit, C. and J. Urbigkit. 2010. A review: The use of livestock protection dogs in association with large 

carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Sheep & Goat Res. J. 25:1-8.

Vynne, C., J. Skalski, R. Machado, M. Groom, A. Jácomo, J. Marinho-Filho, M. Neto, C. Pomilla, L. Silveira, 

H. Smith, S. Wasser. 2011. Effectiveness of scat-detection dogs in determining species presence in a 

tropical savanna landscape. Cons. Biol. 25:154–162. DOI:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01581

Weston, M.A., and T. Stankowich. 2013. Dogs as agents of disturbance. Pp. 94-113. In M. Gompper, ed. 

Free-ranging Dogs and Wildlife Conservation. Oxford Univ. Press, UK.

Wildlife Services (WS). 2017. Predator damage management in Colorado. Environmental Assessment, 

Finding of No Significant Impact, and Record of Decision. 1/19/2017. USDA-APHIS-WS, 12345 West 

Alameda Pkwy., Suite 210, Lakewood, CO 80228. 334 pp.

Woodruff, R.A., and J.S. Green. 1995. Livestock herding dogs: A unique application for wildlife damage 

management. Proc. Great Plains Wildl. Damage Control 12:43-45. 

Zwickel, F. C. 1971. Use of dogs in wildlife management. Pp. 319-324. In R.H. Giles, ed. Wildlife 

Management Techniques. Wildl. Soc., Wash., DC. 3rd ed. 633 pp.

7 PREPARERS

7.1 APHIS WS Methods Risk Assessment Committee

Writers for “Use of Dogs and Other Animals in Wildlife Damage Management Risk Assessment”:

Writer: Thomas C. Hall

Position: USDA-APHIS-WS, Operational Support Staff, Staff Wildlife Biologist, Fort Collins, CO

Education: BS Biology (Natural History) and BA Psychology – Fort Lewis College; MS Wildlife Ecology –

Oklahoma State University

Experience: Special expertise in wildlife biology, identification, ecology, and damage management. Thirtyfive years of service in APHIS Wildlife Services including operations and research in CO for research 

and OR, GU, CA, OK, and NV for operations conducting a wide variety of programs including bird 
14

damage research and management, livestock protection (predators and birds), invasive species 

management, wildlife hazard management at airports, property and natural resource protection 

including waterfowl, brown tree snake, feral swine, rodent, and beaver damage management. Expert 

in preparing environmental documents for WS programs to comply with the National Environmental 

Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. For the use of dogs specifically, have used all types of 

dogs in WDM and supervised employees that used them in their duties. 

Writer: Ryan Wimberly 

Position: USDA-APHIS-WS, Operational Support Staff, Staff Wildlife Biologist, Madison, TN

Education: BS Wildlife Management and Ecology – Northwest Missouri State University

Experience: Special expertise in wildlife biology, ecology, and damage management. Seventeen years of 

service with APHIS Wildlife Services, including operations and research, conducting a wide variety of 

programs, including bird damage research and management, livestock protection, invasive species 

management, wildlife hazard management at airports, property, and natural resource protection. Expert 

in preparing environmental documents for WS programs to comply with the National Environmental 

Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Editors/Contributors for “The Use of Dogs and Other Animals in Wildlife Damage 

Management Risk Assessment”:

Reviewer: Nikeeya Ali

Position: USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services (WS), Summer Intern 2017

Education: BS in Communications, Journalism, South Carolina State University 

Experience: Three years as a staff writer for The Collegian Newspaper, one year as Editor-in-Chief. Skilled 

in production, video editing. Previously edited two Risk Assessments for USDA-APHIS-WS.

Reviewer: Michael Green 

Position: USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services (WS), Environmental Coordinator, Fredrick, MD

Education: BS Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, University of Tennessee

Experience: Special expertise in wildlife biology, ecology, and damage management. Eleven years of 

work experience with WS in MD and VA. Experienced in a wide range of program activities including 

nutria eradication, airport wildlife management, and wildlife damage management to protect livestock, 

aquaculture, public safety, and natural resources. Served as staff biologist in WS Headquarters for 

two years.

Editor/Contributor: Andrea Lemay 

Position: USDA-APHIS-Policy and Program Development (PPD), Environmental and Risk Analysis 

Services (ERAS), Biological Scientist, Raleigh, NC

Education: BS Plant and Soil Science (Biotechnology) - University of Massachusetts; MS Plant Pathology 

-North Carolina State University 

Experience: Thirteen years of service in APHIS conducting risk analysis. Four years of experience in 

preparing environmental analyses in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Reviewer: Fan Wang-Cahill 

Position: USDA-APHIS-Policy and Program Development (PPD), Environmental and Risk Analysis 

Services (ERAS), Environmental Health Specialist, Riverdale, MD

Education: B.S. Biology and M.S. Hydrobiology - Jinan University, Guangzhou, China; Ph.D. Botany 

(Ultrastructure/Cell Biology) – Miami University

Experience: Joined APHIS in 2012, preparing human health risk assessments and providing assistance 

on environmental compliance. Prior experience before joining APHIS includes 18 years environmental 

consulting experience specializing in human health risk assessments for environmental contaminants 

at Superfund, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and state-regulated contaminated 

facilities.
15

Reviewer: Jim Warren 

Position: USDA-APHIS-Policy and Program Development (PPD), Environmental and Risk Analysis 

Services (ERAS), Environmental Toxicologist, Little Rock, AR 

Education: B.S. Forest Ecology and M.S. Entomology – University of Missouri; Ph.D. Environmental 

Toxicology – Clemson University

Experience: Eight years of experience working for APHIS preparing ecological risk assessments and 

providing assistance on environmental compliance. Prior experience before joining APHIS includes 

other government and private sector work regarding ecological risk assessments related to various 

environmental regulations.

Data Contributor: Joey Millison

Position: USDA-APHIS-WS Information and Technology (IT), Junior Applications Developer

Education: Information and Technology coursework from various sources

Experience: Eleven years of experience in APHIS, WS Management Information System (MIS) Group. 

Retrieves WS field data from the MIS for writers, reviewers, and editors.

7.2 Internal Reviewers

USDA APHIS Wildlife Services

Reviewer: Kevin Christensen

Position: USDA-APHIS-WS Assistant State Director, Portland, OR

Education: BS Fisheries and Wildlife Management (emphasis on wildlife damage management) – Utah 

State University

Experience: Special expertise in wildlife biology and damage management. Worked 20 years as wildlife 

technician and biologist, district supervisor and assistant state director for WS. Have worked with and 

supervised the use of dogs in WDM.

Reviewer: Glen J. Golden, PhD

Position: USDA-APHIS-WS-NWRC- Research Scientist, Canine Disease Detection Program, Fort Collins, 

CO

Education: BS 

Experience: Special expertise in detector dogs. ...

Reviewer: Michael Marlow

Position: USDA-APHIS-WS Wildlife Biologist – APHIS National Feral Swine Program, Fort Collins, CO

Education: BS Wildlife and Fisheries Ecology and MA International Agriculture – Oklahoma State 

University

Experience: Special expertise in wildlife damage management. Twenty-one years of service with APHIS 

Wildlife Services including field work with dogs and resource development focused upon use of 

livestock protection dogs and other guarding animals.

Reviewer: Alan May

Position: USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services (WS), State Director, New Mexico

Education: BS Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University

Experience: Special expertise in wildlife biology, ecology, and damage management. Thirty-three years of 

field work and supervisory experience with WS in TX, NH, VT, MS, and NM in a wide range of program 

activities including predator damage management and the use of guarding animals and dogs.

Reviewer: Margaret A. Pepper

Position: USDA-APHIS-WS District Supervisor (MD/DE/DC), Annapolis, MD

Education: BS and MS Wildlife Conservation – University of Delaware

Experience: Special expertise in wildlife damage management. APHIS canine handler, field trainer and 

supervisor for detector dogs on the Chesapeake Bay nutria eradication project.
16

Reviewer: Kevin J. Sullivan

Position: USDA-APHIS-WS State Director - Maryland, Delaware and District of Columbia, Annapolis, MD

Education: BS and MS Wildlife Biology – West Virginia University and Mississippi State University

Experience: Special expertise in wildlife damage management. Supervised use of dogs in WDM including 

the Chesapeake Bay nutria eradication project.

Reviewer: Julie K. Young, PhD

Position: USDA-APHIS-WS-NWRC- Superv. Research Wildlife Biologist/Field Station Leader, Millville, UT

Education: PhD Utah State University

Experience: Special expertise in wildlife damage management and research, including us of livestock 

protection dogs.

7.3 Peer Review

The Office of Management and Budget requires agencies to have peer review guidelines for 

scientific documents. The APHIS guidelines were followed to have “Use of Dogs and Other 

Animals in Wildlife Damage Management” peer reviewed. WS worked with the Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies to have experts review the documents.

7.3.1 Peer Reviewers Selected by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

New Mexico Department of Fish and Game

Nevada Department of Wildlife

Ohio Division of Wildlife

7.3.2 Comments

Peer reviewers provided editorial comments on the manuscript. These were appreciated and 

incorporated into the final document. Following are the comments regarding concerns with the 

risk assessment and a response:

1. Comments: In the method risk assessment it mentioned that there is no system in place to track 

the number of dogs injured or killed while they are being used in WDM. This needs to be addressed 

so injuries or deaths of dogs being used in active WDM activities can be tracked. If the number is 

low as described this would only serve to support the continued use of dogs and further identify 

where potential hazards may exist for dogs being used. 

Section 3.2 notes “WS does not have a system in place to track the number of dogs injured or killed 

while they were being used in WDM”. If dogs are to be used, I would expect it responsible to track 

those incidents just as the agency would track injuries to employees. Many would perceive a WS 

dog to be equitable to an employee in this regard. I would expect this document to do a better job 

in noting this.

Response: Currently, no system is in place to track dog injuries. It should be noted that WS 

personnel can put in claims for reimbursement of veterinary bills for injured dogs, but these have 

been relatively few and are kept at the state level with no national system to gather this information. 

Not all injuries require veterinary assistance, though. Thus, more injuries likely occur than just 

veterinary assisted. This happens so infrequently that other issues are much more important to 

monitor, like personnel injuries, which became a national database in FY14. This will be noted to 

the National Injury Tracking system. Additionally, the MIS is being upgraded to a new system. This 

will be mentioned to the MIS Working Group. We are unsure if the new platform could or could not 

track this information, but the current platform does not. However, this is a great suggestion and 

will be relayed through the appropriate channels.
17

2. Comment: One correction, regarding the citation for Beckmann et al. (2004) in the section on 

wildlife hazing. The MRA states that “all bears returned within 40 days.” This is incorrect. Less than 

three-quarters of the bears (70%) in that study returned to an urban area in less than 40 days and 

over 10% took more than 6 months to return

Response: This statement was corrected.

3. Comment: There is a statement in the risk assessment that suggests that in most States dogs can 

be shot if seen chasing wildlife. This statement needs to be further researched and clarified. In 

most states it is illegal to shoot a dog unless it is chasing or damaging livestock. Some states do 

allow dogs to be shot chasing “nontarget” wildlife but not for chasing wildlife that is allowed by law.

Response: This was pointed out as a risk because it is a possibility and a concern, but further 

clarification was added to the Sections 2.2 and 3.2 because it is only legally allowed by authorized 

personnel such as a peace officer, animal control official, or WS personnel under agreement with 

state and county officials. This has been corrected to note that legally most states have laws that 

allow authorized personnel from agencies with jurisdiction can take dogs that kill wildlife. However, 

dogs are more likely to be killed illegally by people who may feel that dogs are chasing wildlife. 

Laws, including citations for dog owners that have dogs that kill wildlife vary by state and we are 

unaware of any state that currently allows the public to kill dogs chasing wildlife. Thirty years ago, 

many states had such laws, but these have been changed with New York one of the last to change 

this. WS dog handlers are aware of the risk that they could be shot illegally and try to minimize this 

by not using trailing and tracking dogs, primarily, in areas where hunters or the public are expected. 

This has occurred rarely and mostly because people think they are chasing nontarget wildlife. A 

common scenario would be for a pack of hounds to be trailing a bear that killed livestock the night 

before, a deer wanders onto the trail, gets into the path of the dogs, and is spooked. A hunter sees 

the deer, which appears to be chased by the hounds, and shoots a dog.

4. Comment: Within the Summary section, should a note be made that in the future, additional uses 

of WS dogs may be identified and if so the policy for determining its use as a management 

technique. This probably falls under the researching side of dog use, but little is mentioned in the 

research component of dog use by WS.

Response: Section 5, the Summary, has been amended to include this statement. Thank you for 

the comment.

Comments received not requiring a response. We appreciate these comments.

1. Comment: All procedures for the safety, training, handling and use of dogs for specific purposes 

seemed appropriate as described in the method risk assessment.

2. Comment: Overall the method risk assessment was complete and thorough in describing methods, 

consequences and successes.

3. Comment: All uncertainties and assumptions were adequately considered and described.

4. Comment: The list of references presented in the MRA seemed appropriate.

5. Comments: The MRA does a good job of covering the wide array of usages for trained dogs by 

WS personnel. It appears to be a complete list of the various methods, and it is written with 

satisfactory detail. The pros and cons of each method are discussed in a thoughtful way, and the 

authors adequately explained the inherent hazards and risks associated with each use, along with 

giving some basic scenarios.
18

Appendix 1. “Other Species” Included in Tables

Table 1

TRAILING DOG

Other predator = feral cat*, coyote, red fox^ and gray fox, 

HAZING DOG

Other mammal = feral cat*, bobcat, small Asian mongoose*, coyote, feral dog*, feral swine*, mule deer, 

white-tailed deer, pronghorn, and eastern cottontail

Other bird associated with water = Bonaparte’s gull, laughing gull, mew gull, ring-billed gull, California 

gull, glaucous-winged gull, American herring gull, greater white-fronted goose, snow goose, brant, 

cackling goose, wood duck, gadwall, American wigeon, blue-winged teal, cinnamon teal, northern 

pintail, green-winged teal, canvasback, redhead, lesser scaup, bufflehead, common goldeneye, 

hooded merganser, common merganser, ruddy duck, pied-billed grebe, double-crested cormorant, 

American bittern, black-crowned night-heron, green heron, western cattle egret, great egret, snowy 

egret, black-necked stilt, American avocet, gray plover, killdeer, Wilson’s snipe, marbled godwit, 

whimbrel, greater yellowlegs, lesser yellowlegs, willet, spotted sandpiper, and western sandpiper

Other bird associated with land = red-winged blackbird, Brewer’s blackbird, common grackle, [mixed 

blackbirds], rock pigeon*, Eurasian collared-dove*, spotted dove*, black-billed magpie, American crow, 

northwestern crow, fish crow, common raven, turkey vulture, western osprey, sharp-shinned hawk, 

northern harrier, Swainson’s hawk, red-tailed hawk, ferruginous hawk, American kestrel, burrowing owl, 

short-eared owl, scaled quail, wild turkey, barn swallow, eastern kingbird, American pipit, savannah 

sparrow, northern mockingbird, house finch^, saffron finch*, house sparrow*, and [unidentified bird]

* Introduced species ^ Introduced populations