Environmental and Societal Impacts of Protecting Traditional Pastoralism from Wolf Predation in Spain

Abstract

Assessing the externalities of nature conservation policies, conceived as unintended socio-economic and ecological effects, is essential for evaluating societal costs and improving conservation strategies. This is particularly relevant in the case of wolf conservation and its interaction with traditional pastoralism, an animal farming system that provides valuable ecosystem services but is rapidly declining across Europe. We used structured questionnaires with Spanish herders to evaluate the environmental and societal impacts of livestock-guarding dogs (LGDs) as a measure to prevent wolf attacks. On average, farms with 750 sheep employed five mastiffs and three sheepdogs, with LGD numbers increasing in wolf-abundant areas. The number of mastiffs rose proportionally with herd size (0.6 mastiffs per 100 sheep), whereas sheepdog numbers plateaued. The estimated annual cost per LGD was €364, with LGDs contributing approximately 7% of a farm’s carbon emissions. Sixty-one percent of herders reported minor societal conflicts involving LGDs, primarily dogs chasing pedestrians or cyclists, while 1% involved minor bites. The likelihood of societal conflict increased with the number of LGDs on a farm. Additionally, each LGD caused an estimated 0.71 wildlife fatalities per year, mostly involving small mammals such as rabbits, hares, and young ungulates. These findings highlight the need for urgent coexistence strategies to balance effective wolf conservation with the sustainability of traditional pastoralism. Without targeted intervention, the continued expansion of Spain’s wolf population may increase costs to herders and foster growing public opposition to wolf conservation efforts.

1. Introduction

Traditional pastoralism involves raising livestock in natural environments, relying primarily on wild plants for feed. It represents a sustainable model of animal production, supporting the livelihoods and economies of numerous rural households worldwide [1]. Recently, pastoralism has received recognition for its social, cultural, and economic contributions, as well as its role in promoting gender equality among herders and in providing valuable ecosystem services [2,3,4,5].

Globally, most pastoralism occurs in developing countries, where it is often overlooked by state policies [6]. In Europe, however, it is subsidized by the EU Common Agricultural Policy, yet remains on the brink of disappearing [7]. EU Common Agriculture Policy has gradually shifted from viewing pastoralism solely as a means of production to acknowledging its role in conserving cultural landscapes. The evolution of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reflects a gradual shift from viewing pastoralism solely as a means of agricultural production to recognizing its broader role in conserving cultural landscapes. The 1992 MacSharry reforms introduced direct payments to farmers, reducing the exclusive emphasis on production. Agenda 2000 further expanded this perspective by establishing a second pillar for rural development and agri-environment schemes. The 2012 review explicitly highlighted the contribution of pastoral systems to sustaining cultural landscapes, while the most recent 2023 reform reinforced environmental conditionality and introduced eco-schemes aimed at supporting biodiversity and climate objectives.

Pastoralism in southern Europe is characterized by medium-sized herds grazing on marginal grasslands, often on public land, agricultural stubble, and fallows across diverse landscapes, from densely cultivated fields to bushland and woodlands [8]. In these areas, herds are either left in large grazing enclosures or guided by herders and dogs near farms or over long distances through seasonal movements (transhumance). This practice helps prevent livestock from damaging crops and property, reduces the risk of traffic accidents, and protects animals from large predators [9,10].

There is a paradox between the decline of pastoralism in Western countries and the increasing availability of grazing land due to the abandonment of agriculture in marginal areas. The primary reasons for this decline include the low profitability of pastoral products, a lack of generational succession, labor shortages, burdensome bureaucracy, excessive regulations, and challenges in coexisting with wildlife, particularly large predators [11,12,13,14].

In recognition of the global significance of pastoralism, the United Nations General Assembly declared 2026 as the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists (Resolution A/RES/76/253). The resolution highlights the role of pastoralists in biodiversity conservation, climate change mitigation, and sustainable livelihoods, particularly in marginal and dryland ecosystems. It calls for greater policy attention and investment in pastoral systems to secure their ecological, cultural, and economic contributions.

Spain presents a unique combination of factors that make it particularly susceptible to human–wildlife conflicts; (i) it leads Europe in various biodiversity indices and protected natural areas and has one of the largest wolf populations among EU member states [15]; (ii) it has experienced the highest agricultural land abandonment in both relative and absolute terms in Europe [16], increasing land availability for pastoralism while also facilitating rewilding processes [17].

Wildlife predation on livestock negatively impacts farmers’ economies and threatens predators, as they may face retaliation [18]. The wolf is classified as a “Species of Community Interest” in Europe (Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC), but this designation does not automatically grant it national-level protection, which is determined by individual EU member states. In Spain, the Iberian wolf is categorized as “vulnerable,” with its annual predation cost to livestock exceeding €2 million (https://wolf.org/wow/europe/spain/ accessed on 15 August 2025). Wolf subpopulations north and south of the Duero River previously faced different management strategies. In northern areas, culling was permitted when (i) wolf predation caused significant damage to extensive livestock, (ii) protective measures proved insufficient, and (iii) culling quotas ensured population sustainability. However, since 22 September 2021 (Spanish Ministerial Order TED/980/2021), all Spanish wolf populations have been protected under the List of Wild Species under Special Protection Regime (LESRPE, Royal Decree 139/2011). Consequently, regional wolf population control programs were canceled to promote population growth and range expansion. This policy is already yielding results. In Castile and León, home to 60% of Spain’s wolves, the number of wolf packs increased by 8% from 2012–2013 to 2022–2023 (193 packs recorded (https://comunicacion.jcyl.es/web/jcyl/Comunicacion/es/Plantilla100Detalle/1281372051501/NotaPrensa/1285460703867/Comunicacion) (https://www.agronewscastillayleon.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Censoregionaldeloboiberico2022-2023.pdf accessed on 15 August 2025)). However, this has led to a rise in livestock predation. In 2023, there were 3558 wolf attacks and 5566 livestock deaths, an increase of 16% and 9%, respectively, from 2022, and a 30% rise compared to 2021, when wolves were granted full protection (https://comunicacion.jcyl.es/web/jcyl/Comunicacion/es/Plantilla100Detalle/1284877983892/NotaPrensa/1285371550379/Comunicacion#:~:text=de%20la%20especie-,Los%20ataques%20del%20lobo%20al%20ganado%20en%20Castilla%20y%20Le%C3%B3n,protecci%C3%B3n%20estricta%20de%20la%20especie (accessed on 17 May 2023)).

A similar trend has been observed in Asturias (northern Spain), another region with a stable wolf presence and high biodiversity (https://actualidad.asturias.es/-/el-principado-constata-ante-la-ue-el-aumento-de-los-da%C3%B1os-causados-por-el-lobo-3.115-casos-y-casi-un-mill%C3%B3n-en-indemnizaciones?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 20 November 2023)), as well as in the French Alps following the wolf’s reappearance [19]. The conservation status of the wolf in Europe and Spain has recently changed (See “Recent European and Spanish policy on wolf protection” in Supplementary Materials); however, it is still too early to observe any significant alterations in the situation described here.

One of the most effective methods worldwide is the use of livestock-guarding dogs (LGDs) [20,21]. In Spain, after a period of limited use, their employment has intensified in response to the recent recovery and expansion of wolf populations. However, LGDs come with economic costs, management challenges, environmental and wildlife impacts, and social conflicts [22,23]. Recognizing these factors is essential to balancing nature conservation with the sustainability of rural livelihoods.

In this study, we surveyed traditional livestock herders in Spain to assess the economic, social, and environmental impacts of LGDs in protecting livestock from wolf predation following the full legal protection of wolves. Our goal is to provide evidence of wildlife conservation externalities and highlight the significant role of traditional herders in nature conservation. The conservation externalities considered include (i) socio-economic impacts (maintenance costs); (ii) ecological and environmental side effects (LGD-related wildlife mortality, carbon footprint [21,24]; and (iii) social conflicts arising from LGD interactions with the public [14,25].

2. Study Area and Methods

Spain is the second-largest country in the European Union and the fourth-most populous, covering 506,000 km² with a population of over 47 million (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat (accessed on 14 March 2023)). It leads in various biodiversity indices among EU member states, including the number of native and endemic species of bryophytes, vascular plants, grasshoppers, birds, and mammals, as well as the largest Natura 2000 network [15]. Spain also has the largest livestock population in Europe, with approximately 30 million pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus), 16 million sheep (Ovis aries), 2.7 million goats (Capra hircus), and 7 million cattle (Bos taurus), distributed across 35,000 pig farms, 61,000 sheep farms, 29,000 goat farms, and 91,000 cattle farms (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20200923-1 (accessed on 5 August 2023)). However, determining how many of these are pastoralist farms remains challenging.

The study focused on the Castile and León region, located in the northern Iberian Peninsula and largely corresponding to the Spanish portion of the Duero hydrographic basin. It is Spain’s largest region (94,226 km², 18.6% of the country) and one of the largest in Europe. With a low population density (26 people/km², four times below the European average), it supports one of Spain’s largest livestock-grazing populations and hosts 60% of the country’s wolves, equivalent to 83% of the Iberian Peninsula’s wolf population.

To better understand the strategies used to protect livestock from wolf predation, we conducted a literature review of published studies [7,8,9,14,18,20,21,22,23,24,26,27,28,29,30] and complemented it with qualitative insights from a focus group that included traditional herders and technicians from farming associations, who provided practical knowledge on livestock management. The focus group was conducted to support the design of the questionnaire on the use and management of LGDs for protecting herds from wolf attacks. The session was structured around open-ended questions that explored participants’ perceptions of LGDs, including their effectiveness, benefits and drawbacks, associated costs, and potential alternatives. Participants were encouraged to contribute additional perspectives; however, the discussion was moderated to maintain thematic focus and to avoid digressions, with a total duration limited to 1.5 h. Based on this information we developed a structured questionnaire to assess the role of LGDs in protecting herds, along with management practices and the economic, environmental, and societal costs involved. The questionnaire targeted traditional herders, defined as those whose livestock graze outdoors and primarily rely on natural pasture [14]. It contained 23 questions (see Supplementary Information) structured as follows: (i) farm characteristics, (ii) livestock protection methods and management, and (iii) economic, management, and societal costs of these protection methods. The questionnaire was designed using LimeSurvey and hosted on a dedicated server of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC).

2.1. Herding and Livestock-Guarding Dogs

Although herding techniques varied according to habitat, season and grazing conditions, herders accompanied livestock during the day, guiding movements with sheepdogs, while mastiffs patrolled the periphery. During hot summer days, herders allowed the flock to ‘sestear’ (rest in the shade) during the hottest midday hours, when grazing activity naturally declines. At night, livestock were either corralled near the homestead or less frequently kept in temporary field shelters guarded by mastiffs to deter wolf incursions. In the past, it was more common for herders to practise transhumance to distant summer pastures, staying overnight in temporary shelters alongside the flock, but this is now becoming increasingly rare due to legal and logistical restrictions on livestock mobility [9].

Sheepdogs used in the study were predominantly Spanish carea (pronounced /kaˈɾea/, like kah-reh-ah) and mastiff (Canis lupus familiaris). The term carea dog comes from the Spanish verb carear, which means “to herd” or “to drive livestock”. Spanish carea is a traditional Iberian herding breed historically developed for guiding and grouping livestock in open rangelands. Careas are medium-sized, agile, and highly intelligent, with a strong herding instinct and excellent responsiveness to voice commands. Their work is characterized by close control of the flock, anticipating movements, and preventing stragglers. A minority of sheepdogs were Border Collies, a British herding breed valued for its speed, precision, and adaptability to structured herding tasks. In this study, most mastiffs were crossbreeds individuals, a large guardian breed adapted to extensive grazing systems, providing perimeter protection against predators. Training practices for both herding and guarding dogs included early socialization with livestock and experienced dogs, gradual exposure to grazing environments, and role-specific reinforcement based on traditional pastoral knowledge.

2.2. Questionnaire Distribution

The questionnaire was made available to traditional herders from early July to mid-August 2023 and was designed for completion on smartphone devices. We targeted livestock farming associations across Castile and León, requesting them to distribute the questionnaire among their members. Respondents were also encouraged to share it with fellow herders using a snowball sampling technique [31].

Potential biases arising from self-selection and the online format, excluding parts of the pastoralist community without digital access [32], have been discussed in Pérez-Barbería et al. [14]. To reduce the risk of participants declining or abandoning the questionnaire due to comprehension difficulties, we provided an alternative option to complete it by telephone. Unfortunately, no official records exist to determine the number of traditional pastoralist holdings in our study area. In this context, we assessed the adequacy of our sample by comparing our response rate with similar regional studies, which suggests it is appropriate for the analyses conducted [14].

2.3. Carbon Footprint Assessment of LGDs

The carbon footprint of LGDs was assessed to quantify one of the potential environmental externalities associated with their use under wolf conservation policies. This approach enables a more comprehensive evaluation of the environmental trade-offs of LGDs, which, while reducing predation losses, also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions through their feeding and maintenance. LGDs were selected for this assessment because they represent a direct management intervention linked to wolf presence, whereas emissions from sheep or wild wolves were beyond the scope of the present study.

Studies on the life-cycle assessment of dogs have identified dog food as the most significant environmental impact category, primarily due to the quantity consumed daily and the high environmental footprint of its ingredients [24,27,33,34]. Consequently, we focused on carbon emissions from feeding LGDs as a proxy for their carbon footprint (https://rsce.es/images/rsce/RREE/Standards/Standard_Perro_Leones_Pastor-ingles.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2024)) (http://elmastindecampoytrabajo.blogspot.com/2012/05/pesos-y-medidas-del-mastin-espanol-de.html (accessed 20 November 2024)).

The average body mass used in this study was 20 kg for a shepherd dog, 63.4 kg for a mastiff, and 42.6 kg as the baseline for a medium-sized LGD. Diet composition was estimated from respondents’ answers. The metabolizable energy (ME) content of dietary components in the reported mixed diet was calculated using published data: pet food ME from National Research Council [35], and bread ME based on its chemical composition from BEDCA (BEDCA Consortium and Spanish Agency for Food Safety and Nutrition. Spanish Food Composition Database. https://www.bedca.net/bdpub/ (accessed on 26 November 2024)) and the FEDIAF [36], using the formula:

ME(kJ) = (16.7 × % crude protein) + (37.6 × % crude fat) + (16.7 × % nitrogen-free extract)

(1)

Meat offal ME was estimated as an equal mix of beef, lamb, and chicken [35]. The “leftovers” category, as reported by respondents, was defined as household food scraps and estimated to consist of vegetables (24%), cereals (20%), oils (20%), pulses (10%), and meat leftovers (16%), based on studies showing these components account for at least 50% of household food waste [37]. Leftovers ME was calculated using Equation (1) and chemical composition data from National Research Council [35] and BEDCA.

The carbon footprint of the dogs’ mixed diet was estimated using published data: dry dog food 3.9 kg CO_2eq kg⁻¹ [38], bread 1.47 kg CO_2eq kg⁻¹ [39], meat offal 3.77 kg CO_2eq kg⁻¹, and leftovers 1.86 kg CO_2eq kg⁻¹ [38]. The latter study applied a conservative estimate of emissions from animal-based by-products in dog food based on their relative economic value, providing a more realistic assessment than assuming all by-products are equivalent to human-grade meat.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

To examine the determinants of herders’ management decisions in the use of LGDs, we employed different statistical models tailored to each research question. First, to predict the likelihood of shepherds owning mastiffs, we fitted logistic regression models (generalized linear models with a binomial family and a logit link function) using wolf presence in the farm area and the number of previous wolf attacks on livestock as explanatory variables. Second, to analyze variation in the number of LGDs per farm, we fitted linear mixed-effects models with herd size and LGD breed as fixed effects and farm identity as a random effect. We included an orthogonal second-degree polynomial term to account for potential nonlinear relationships between herd size and the number of LGDs. Model selection was based on the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) [40]. Finally, to assess the likelihood of herders reporting conflicts with people, we used logistic regression models with the number of LGDs and their breed composition (sheepdog vs. mastiff) as predictors. Models were fitted using the R packages lme4 (v. 1.1.35.3) [41] and lmerTest (v. 3.1.3) [42]. Predictions, standard errors, and plots were generated using SjPlot (v. 2.8.16) [43] and ggplot2 (v. 3.5.2) [44]. Statistical analyses were conducted in R software (v. 4.4.0) [45].

3. Results

All respondents (n = 73) used LGDs to manage their herds, with 85% keeping mastiffs in addition to sheepdogs as a functional combination for livestock guiding and protection. In areas with wolf presence, the percentage of herds with mastiffs increased to 90%. The average number of LGDs per herd was 7, comprising 4 mastiffs and 3 sheepdogs, used to guard sheep, goats, or mixed herds averaging 562 heads (

Table 1. Number of livestock-guarding dogs and breeds, number of wolf attacks and herd size in traditional small ruminant farms in Castile and León (Spain).

	Min–Max	1st–3rd Quartiles	Median	Mean
No. dogs/herd	2–21	4–8	6.0	6.8
No. mastiff dogs/herd	0–16	2–6	3.0	4.0
No. shepherd dogs/herd	1–5	2–3	3	2.8
No. wolf attack in last 5 years	0–10	0–2	1	2.0
Herd size	40–1300	302–708	593	562

).

Herders reported similar lifespans for mastiffs (mean = 10.4 years, se = 0.37) and sheepdogs (mean = 10.9 years, se = 0.35; t = 1.594, d.f. = 53.6, p = 0.117). They also stated that dogs were kept beyond their working age and assigned to these old dogs tasks based on their fitness, primarily guarding livestock and farming equipment in paddocks and sheds.

The predicted probability of herders keeping mastiffs was 0.97 in areas where wolves were present, compared to 0.14 in areas without wolves. This pattern held regardless of whether the herd had previously experienced wolf attacks (

Table 2. Output of a logistic regression model predicting the presence of mastiff dogs for livestock protection. Predictor variables include wolf presence (presence or absence of wolves in the area) and wolf attack (whether the herd had suffered wolf attacks in the past). Estimates are presented as log-odds, with CI indicating confidence intervals.

Predictors	Estimate	CI	p
(Intercept)	−1.83	−5.65–1.01	0.252
Wolf presence	3.38	0.60–7.10	0.028
Wolf attack	1.55	−0.51–4.58	0.189

).

In areas where wolves were present, the number of LGDs increased with herd size, reaching approximately three shepherd dogs and five mastiffs in herds of 750 animals. While the number of shepherd dogs remained constant in larger herds, the number of mastiffs continued to increase linearly with herd size (

Table 3. Output of a linear mixed-effects model predicting the number of LGDs in pastoralist farms based on herd size and dog breed (shepherd/mastiff). The model includes a second-degree orthogonal polynomial response for herd size. Fixed effects include breed and herd size, with sheepdog as the reference level. The AIC of this model (AIC = 237) was lower than that of a first-degree polynomial model (AIC = 243), indicating better fit.

Predictors	Estimates	CI	p
(Intercept)	2.96	2.11–3.82	<0.001
Herd size [1st degree]	2.84	−3.55–9.23	0.376
Herd size [2nd degree]	−1.92	−8.31–4.46	0.547
[mastiff]	1.82	0.92–2.73	<0.001
Herd size [1st degree] × [mastiff]	9.35	2.57–16.13	0.008
Herd size [2nd degree] × [mastiff]	3.55	−3.23–10.33	0.298
Random Effects
σ2	2.84
Marginal R2/Conditional R2	0.316/0.614

, Figure 1).

3.1. Protecting Livestock

Half of the respondents had experienced at least one wolf attack on their herds in the past five years, with an average of two attacks per herd over this period. The maximum number of attacks suffered by a single herd was ten in five years (Table 1).

Eighty-three percent of herders stated that the primary purpose of having mastiffs was to protect their livestock from wolf attacks, increasing to 87% in areas with wolf presence. Thirteen percent of respondents viewed mastiffs primarily as deterrents against theft and attacks from marauding dogs, while 4% kept mastiffs in areas with sporadic wolf presence due to tradition (Chi-squared = 79.3, df = 3, p < 0.001).

When asked about the most effective livestock protection methods, 79% of herders identified dogs as the best defense, while 21% preferred a combination of dogs with wolf-proof fences, enclosed sheds, and shepherd presence. Herders raised several concerns regarding the effectiveness of fences against wolf attacks: high fences are necessary but expensive to construct, frequent relocation of fences for dynamic grazing is logistically challenging, and many herders were strongly opposed to leaving their livestock overnight in fenced enclosures without mastiffs’ protection. Some herders also reported staying overnight in the field to protect their herds following recent wolf attacks.

3.2. Impact on Wild Fauna

The assessment of the impact of LGDs on wild fauna revealed that each dog was responsible for an average of 0.71 wildlife fatalities per year (1st quartile = 0.00, 3rd quartile = 0.73, max = 11). Rabbits were the most common casualties, followed by wild boar piglets, roe deer fawns, hares, and hunting birds such as quail and partridge. Occasionally, LGDs also killed foxes (Vulpes vulpes), European badgers (Meles meles), and stray domestic cats.

3.3. Perceptions of Compensation for Wolf Attacks

Herders perceived the compensation provided by the State for wolf attacks as inadequate. They argue that it fails to cover several critical aspects, including: (i) attacks inside sheds, which often result in the highest number of casualties; (ii) losses due to stress-induced abortions in livestock following an attack; (iii) reduced productivity of injured animals, such as delays in conception; (iv) minimal compensation for animals nearing production, whose loss represents a significant economic setback; (v) stress on herders; (vi) investments in preventive measures, such as fencing, mastiff dogs, and their upkeep (including costs for food, veterinary care, and managing associated social conflicts); (vii) the additional time and effort required for direct supervision of grazing livestock, which detracts from other productive activities; and finally, (viii) delays in receiving compensation, which can exacerbate financial strain on affected farms. Herders emphasize that these omissions leave them shouldering a disproportionate share of the financial and emotional burden of coexistence with wolves.

3.4. Social Conflicts Caused by LGDs

Sixty-one percent of herders reported experiencing societal conflicts involving their LGDs in the past two years. Most incidents were minor, such as dogs chasing pedestrians, motor vehicles, or bicycles, with 1% of cases involving minor dog bites to pedestrians. The number of conflicts per year varied significantly between farms (mean = 3.3, range = 0–17). The number of conflicts was similar between mastiffs (mean = 1.95 per year) and sheepdogs (mean = 1.36 per year; paired t-test: −1.52, p = 0.07). Both the probability of conflict and the total number of conflicts increased significantly with the number of LGDs on a farm, regardless of whether they were mastiffs or sheepdogs (Figure 2 and Figure 3,

Table 4. Output of a logistic regression model examining the likelihood of herders experiencing societal conflicts, predicted by the number of LGDs on the farm and the breed of the dog (mastiff or sheepdog). Confidence intervals (CI) are provided, and the estimates are expressed in log-odds.

Predictors	Estimate	CI	p
(Intercept)	0.00	0.00–0.04	0.021
Number of dogs	5.66	1.21–26.43	0.028
Breed [sheepdog]	0.54	0.00–610.59	0.862
Number of dogs × sheepdog [sheepdog]	7.06	0.58–85.25	0.124
Random Effects
σ2	3.29
Marginal R2/Conditional R2	0.125/0.990

).

3.5. Dogs’ Diet Composition

The average mixed diet fed to dogs by our respondents consisted of 69% dry dog food, 19% meat offal, 10% bread, and 2% leftover human food from the household (

Table 5. Mean composition of the mixed diet used to feed the dogs in the farms of this study and their estimated energy content and carbon footprint.

	Mean ± Se	Metabolizable Energy	Carbon Footprint
Mixed diet intake	903 ± 62.0 g dog−1 d−1	12.17 MJ dog−1 d−1	3.23 kg CO2eq dog−1 d−1
Dog food	68.6% ± 4.91	14.63 MJ kg−1	3.90 kg CO2eq kg−1
Bread	10.3% ± 2.27	9.85 MJ kg−1	1.47 kg CO2eq kg−1
Meat	18.7% ± 4.66	11.19 MJ kg−1	3.77 kg CO2eq kg−1
Human food leftovers	2.3% ± 1.07	13.93 MJ kg−1	1.86 kg CO2eq kg−1

). The intake of this mixed diet for an average-sized dog was reported to be 903 g d⁻¹ (se = 62 g), corresponding to 620 g of pet food, 93 g of bread, 169 g of meat offal, and 21 g of leftovers. Its energy value was 12 MJ d⁻¹ (Table 5).

Dry dog food was used by 84.3% of the farms, generally purchased in sacks of 20 kg from agricultural cooperative businesses or by the pallet directly from the producer, with average rations of 0.40 kg d⁻¹ for sheepdogs and 1.21 kg d⁻¹ for mastiffs. Dry dog food was complemented with bread (in 58.8% of the farms) and meat offal (49.0% of the farms) sourced from local bakeries, butchers, and meat processing factories. Additionally, remains of human food from the household were used in 27.5% of the farms. Farms that exclusively used dry dog food or meat offal to feed their dogs accounted for 15.7% and 5.9%, respectively. On 6% of farms, dead lambs and ewe placentas were sporadically fed to dogs.

3.6. Economic and Environmental Costs of LGDs

According to respondents, intakes of a mixed diet for LGDs ranged from 0.7 to 0.93 € kg⁻¹, resulting in an annual cost between 24 and 720 €. By breeds, the annual cost of feeding a mastiff was 409 € and a shepherd dog 129 €. In addition, there were extra costs for identification microchips, third-party insurance (27 €), medicines, and veterinary expenses, totalling approximately 60 € dog⁻¹ y⁻¹. This brings the total annual expenses to 496 € for a mastiff, 216 € for a shepherd dog, and 364 € dog⁻¹ y⁻¹ for an average-sized LGD.

The average daily metabolizable energy intake per dog was 12.17 MJ, with a corresponding carbon footprint of 3.23 kg CO_2eq dog⁻¹ d⁻¹ (Table 5). Based on allometric equations for canine energy requirements (

Table 6. Metabolizable energy requirements (MER), metabolizable energy intake (MEI), and daily emissions of published data and this study.

	Dog Breed
	Average-Sized	Mastiff	Shepherd
Body mass (BM, kg)	42.6	63.4	20.0
MER (MJ/dog/day) calculated from the literature
1.5 × 0.544 × BM0.75 [35]	13.61	18.33	7.72
0.628 × BM0.75 minimum [36]	10.47	14.11	5.94
0.732 × BM0.75 maximum [36]	12.21	16.45	6.92
Average sized [36]	11.34	15.28	6.43
Average sized [35,36]	12.47	16.81	7.07
MEI (MJ dog−1 day−1) in this study
12.17 MJ (average dog) × BM	12.17	18.11	5.71
12.17 MJ (average dog) × BM0.75	12.17	16.40	6.90
Daily emissions per dog (kg CO2eq dog−1 day−1)
3.23 kg CO2eq (average dog) × BM 1	3.23	4.81	1.52
0.296 × MER 2	4.03	5.43	2.28
0.296 × MEI 2	3.69	4.97	2.09

¹ 3.23 kg CO_2eq is the estimated carbon footprint of the dogs’ mixed diet (Table 5) by using published data: dog dry food = 3.9 kg CO_2eq kg⁻¹ [38], bread = 1.47 kg CO_2eq kg⁻¹ [39], meat offal = 3.77 kg CO_2eq kg⁻¹ and leftovers (vegetables, wheat, vegetable oil, pulses and meat offal) = 1.86 kg CO_2eq kg⁻¹ [38]. ² 0.296 is the average kg CO_2eq MJ⁻¹ across the range of dry dog foods with a US market [38].

), the estimated carbon footprints of maintaining a working sheepdog and a mastiff on the mixed diet reported in our surveys would be 1.52 and 4.81 kg CO_2eq d⁻¹, or 553 and 1755 kg CO_2eq y⁻¹, respectively.

4. Discussion

The results of this study clearly indicate that herders rely primarily on LGDs for livestock protection, which entails economic costs, social conflicts, and, to a lesser extent, impacts on wildlife.

4.1. LGDs Management

LGDs are a well-proven tool for livestock protection, with many studies reporting a reduction in predation rates of livestock through their use [18,28,46]. The results of this study corroborate these findings, as LGDs were the main tool used by herders to protect their livestock. However, it should be noted that this livestock grazed under the combined protection of both the herder and the dogs. The variability in the number of mastiffs within farms, after accounting for herd size, and the greater number of LGDs in areas with wolf presence compared to areas without wolves suggest that shepherds modulate the protection of their herds based on the risk they perceive.

With the decline in wolf populations in past decades, there was a decrease in the use of LGDs. This led to a gradual loss of the knowledge passed down through generations on how to manage LGDs within flocks (i.e., the number of mastiffs and shepherd dogs depending on the number of sheep and terrain, reproductive management of the dogs, number of males, and the dominant males or females needed to defend the flock). As the wolf population has increased, many shepherds have introduced more dogs into the flock, sometimes without any other criteria than just increasing the number. Regardless, it seems there are common patterns in LGD management among our respondents. The numbers of LGDs in the herds of this study (mean = 7) surprisingly coincide with the recommendations of Landry et al. [28] for efficient protection of sheep herds against wolf attacks in the southern French Alps. These authors suggest using at least six LGDs in a radius large enough to cover the main herd and isolated groups of sheep. This similarity in the mean number of dogs between different studies suggests that, despite differences in grazing areas and habitat, around seven dogs may represent a balance point: functionally, this number provides effective predator deterrence; from a management perspective, it remains feasible for herders to train, feed, and supervise; and economically, it limits maintenance costs while still ensuring herd protection. Our results indicate that Spanish herders use, on average, between 2 and 3 shepherd dogs, regardless of herd size, while herders increase the number of mastiffs with herd size by a factor of 0.6 mastiffs per 100 sheep. Respondents reported that more than 2 or 3 shepherd dogs did not improve the handling of the herd, but rather the opposite. In contrast, increasing the number of mastiffs was perceived as enhancing herd protection. Shepherds had more LGDs than those used to protect grazing livestock; they were also used to protect the sheds and allow for dog rotation. This finding suggests that the presence of LGDs influences herders’ perceptions of security and their willingness to maintain traditional grazing practices in wolf-occupied areas.

Although the median number of wolf attacks reported over the past five years was low, negative perceptions among herders remain strong. This discrepancy may be explained by factors such as the cumulative effect of sustained vigilance and preventive measures, the disproportionate economic impact of a single attack, the emotional distress caused by livestock injuries or deaths caused to the own herd or to the other herders, and the emotional impact of images of wolf attacks on social media. Additionally, the symbolic and cultural significance of wolves in pastoral communities often amplifies perceived risk, leading to heightened opposition even when attack numbers are modest. Similar patterns of risk perception have been documented in predator-livestock conflicts in other regions [47].

It was crucial for herders to be able to breed and exchange their dogs with other herders, as this was cost-effective, provided flexibility in managing their dogs, and ensured their dogs were fit for purpose. Herders were grateful that the new animal welfare law (Law 7/2023, of March 28, on the protection of animal rights and welfare) made this possible by implementing exceptions for working dogs in the breeding regulations that apply, as only licensed breeders can breed and sell dogs.

Our observations of the herds in the study area indicate that, in general, neither the careas nor the mastiffs employed are purebred. Comments from the survey revealed that herders consistently prioritize the dogs’ functional value, with mastiffs valued for reliable flock protection and careas and Border Collies for effective herding guidance, over pedigree or breed purity. If herders were not legally able to obtain their dogs through inter-herder gifts, the cost of using LGDs would increase significantly, as purebred Spanish Mastiff puppies from registered breeders can cost over €700, and careas and Border Collies around €500.

4.2. Fencing

Fencing is a contentious issue due to its impact on conservation [48]. The larger the fenced area, the greater the negative impact on wildlife, and the less effective it becomes in preventing predation [49]. Fences and keeping livestock in sheds were common methods of protection among our respondents, but they reported that very large, fenced areas impose significant restrictions on grazing movement. Herders were happy to have small, fenced plots that allowed them to leave the livestock out for short periods while attending to farming tasks. However, the cost of fencing and the need for land ownership were serious constraints to erecting fences. In the south of Spain, large private estates are fenced, which has a negative repercussion on the movement of wild fauna and selective hunting that affects body size and secondary sexual traits of hunting species [50]. Fortunately, fenced estates are not common in the grazing grounds used by our respondents. A few herders left their livestock in the field overnight inside portable electric fences, but always protected by a large pack of mastiffs. These herders reported that this practice allowed them to rotate and use grazing grounds at longer distances from the sheds, reducing the impact on the habitat, keeping livestock in good health, reducing time spent cleaning the sheds, lowering energy consumption, and minimizing the use of bedding. However, the increase in the wolf population makes the use of this practice more difficult.

4.3. Economic Cost and Carbon Emissions of LGDs

The daily energy requirement of an average-sized LGD, calculated with the information provided by our respondents, was 12.17 MJ, which is within the range calculated using allometric equations from the literature (11.34–13.61 MJ d⁻¹) [35,36] (Table 6). If this dog had to meet its daily energy requirements based on dry dog food with 14.63 MJ ME kg⁻¹ its intake would be 775 g [35]. This amount differs by 128 g (14%) from the 903 g intake reported by the respondents. Nonetheless, it must be noted that almost one third of the reported diet consisted of foods with considerably lower metabolizable energy content than dry dog food (Table 6).

The economic cost to maintain an LGD, as calculated in our study, is similar to that reported for dogs in southern Italy (€575) [51], but significantly lower than the average annual cost of dog maintenance, estimated at €1265 by the Spanish Royal Canine Society (Official Veterinary College of Las Palmas, 13 December 2019: https://lpa.vetcan.org/noticias/tener-un-perro-supone-un-gasto-anual-de-1-250-euros/ (accessed on 27 November 2024)). This difference in feeding costs is due to the use of recycled foodstuffs, such as surplus bread and slaughterhouses by-products that partially offsets the need for commercially produced dog food. This practice reduces both the economic costs and the calculated carbon footprint of maintaining LGDs, although the proportion and type of recycled versus purchased feed varies considerably among herders.

We estimated that the daily maintenance of an average-sized LGD generates 3.23 kg CO_2eq, closely aligning with estimates based on allometric equations (Table 6). Our results are challenging to compare directly with data on companion dogs due to significant differences in body size and physical activity levels [24,27,33,34].

To contextualize the carbon footprint of LGDs in this study relative to the production outputs of the collaborating farms, we compared the carbon footprint of an LGD with that of producing meat and milk. Given that the carbon footprint of producing sheep milk is 3.28 kg CO_2eq kg⁻¹ [52] and lamb meat is 18.2 kg CO_2eq kg⁻¹ live weight [53], the annual environmental cost of one sheepdog would equate to producing 30 kg of lamb or 96 kg of milk, while for a mastiff, it would equate to 169 kg of lamb or 536 kg of milk. For a standard farm in our study, which typically keeps 4.6 mastiffs and 3.3 sheepdogs, the emissions associated with these dogs would be comparable to producing 512 kg of lamb meat or 2844 kg of milk. On average, these farms produce 696 milk-fed lambs (11 kg live weight) and 9 light fattening lambs (25 kg live weight) annually, totaling 7891 kg of lamb live weight per farm. Consequently, the emissions from maintaining LGDs amount to 7.3% of the overall carbon footprint associated with pastoralist farm lamb meat production (mean value using daily emissions per dog, Table 6). It is likely that our estimate of LGDs’ emissions is conservative, as it does not account for emissions from reproduction, breeding, or dog maintenance beyond their working life. Nonetheless, the emissions generated by LGDs are substantial and indicative of the additional environmental and economic costs that farmers must bear to maintain grazing activity and defend their herds from the pressure associated with increased wolf numbers.

4.4. Impact on Wildlife

LGDs can have unintended ecological impacts on wildlife, including predation on non-target species [29]. A review by Smith et al. [21] found that 78% of documented LGD-wildlife interactions involved non-target species, suggesting that while LGDs provide benefits in protecting livestock, they may also cause ecological disturbances. Some research highlights LGDs as a conservation tool that can benefit both human and wildlife populations by promoting human–carnivore coexistence, as the dogs keep large predators away from farms and reduces human retaliation on wildlife predators [54]. LGDs have been reported to deter mesopredators, which can have positive ecological effects, such as increased abundance of ground-nesting birds [30]. Additionally, LGDs have been reported to reduce disease transmission risks between wildlife and livestock by deterring contact [29], although none of the herders in our study were aware of this potential benefit.

When herders were asked about the number of wildlife deaths caused by their LGDs, respondents acknowledged difficulty in providing accurate figures, suggesting that the reported numbers likely underestimate the true extent. Several factors may contribute to this: (i) herders may not witness all predation events, particularly when the preys are of small size or killing occur during the night; and (ii) some respondents may be reluctant to report the true number of incidents, either to avoid potential conflicts with wildlife authorities or due to social desirability bias. Proper training of LGDs can help mitigate predation on non-target species [29]. Some of our respondents actively discourage their dogs from chasing wildlife, as such behavior not only distracts the dogs from their primary role of guarding livestock but also increases their risk of injury or death of the dog, such as in road accidents. This highlights how herders’ efforts to train LGDs for livestock management can also indirectly reduce their impact on wildlife fauna. Determining the broader ecological impact of LGDs, such as how their presence deters non-target species and alters wildlife behavior, remains a significant challenge as these interactions remain poorly quantified [21].

4.5. Societal Conflict

Fear of wolf predation has led many respondents to increase the number of LGDs on their farms, but this approach has brought accompanying social conflicts in dog management. Such conflicts should not be underestimated, as they directly impact the relationship between herders and the wider community [14]. For instance, recent incidents in Spain of human fatalities caused by unsupervised LGDs have sparked significant concern on social media, casting a negative light on extensive livestock farming (https://www.libertaddigital.com/espana/2023-10-24/muere-una-mujer-de-27-anos-tras-el-ataque-de-cinco-perros-de-pastoreo-en-zamora-7062000/ (accessed on 20 November 2024)) (https://www.abc.es/espana/castilla-leon/guardia-civil-localiza-perro-causo-muerte-vecino-20241116094302-nt.html?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F (accessed on 20 November 2024)).

Among the respondents, the frequency of conflicts involving LGDs and walkers or neighbors rose substantially with the number of dogs per farm, though this varied widely between individual farms. Herders identified several factors contributing to these conflicts, including seasonal variation in walker encounters, the level of dog training, and the herder’s visual control over the dogs, which depends on the grazing habitat. In areas perceived as high-risk for wolf attacks, herders tended to increase the number of mastiffs, favoring dogs that are more aggressive and capable of covering a larger protective radius. This approach, however, heightened the likelihood of social conflicts, including traffic accidents involving LGDs, which pose risks to both drivers and dogs. Similar issues have been reported in the French Alps, where attention has been directed toward improving LGD training to reduce personal injuries [19]. A key source of social tension identified by respondents is the interaction between LGDs and walkers accompanied by pet dogs, which can escalate into fights and injuries, as reported in other studies [25]. While no respondents reported severe physical harm to walkers caused by their LGDs, this is likely due to the herders’ active supervision of their dogs.

No significant differences were found in the frequency of conflicts caused by sheepdogs versus mastiffs. However, herders observed that walkers tended to be more fearful of mastiffs due to their large size and also noted behavioral differences between the breeds that may influence conflict dynamics. Namely, (i) mastiffs often guard the herd farther from the herder than sheepdogs, making early interactions with walkers more likely; (ii) mastiffs are less responsive to commands compared to sheepdogs; and (iii) sheepdogs may initiate contact with walkers, which can then draw the attention of mastiffs. To minimize conflicts, herders took preventive measures, such as keeping conflict-prone dogs in sheds during high-traffic seasons like summer, even at the cost of reduced livestock protection, a strategy also documented by Vercauteren et al. [29]. The latter authors have also reported conflicts arising from interactions between LGDs and hunters’ dogs, as well as issues related to roaming LGDs. While our respondents did not report such incidents, it remains evident that unsupervised LGDs pose a significant threat to public safety. Herders emphasized their efforts to avoid social conflicts at all costs, highlighting the delicate balance they must maintain between effective livestock protection and maintaining positive relations with the surrounding community.

4.6. State Recognition of the Role of LGDs in Preventing Wolf Predation on Livestock

The Spanish Supreme Court (Chamber III, in its rulings on 2 December 2019, and 11 February 2020) established that farmers are not obligated to bear the costs of damage to their livestock caused by wildlife species under special protection, such as wolves, which are considered of public environmental interest (i.e., res omnium). Consequently, the state administration is responsible for implementing specific measures to protect the economic interests of the public, including compensating farmers for damages caused by these protected species. As a result, the Spanish State provides compensation for the value of livestock killed by wolves. This includes payments for loss of profit, costs associated with farm operations resulting from the damage, veterinary expenses for injured animals, and expenses related to processing and handling affected livestock.

Additionally, partial subsidies are offered to support the implementation of preventive measures (ORDER MAV/475/2023, as published in the BOCYL (https://www.tramitacastillayleon.jcyl.es/web/jcyl/binarios/749/379/MAV_475_2023,0.pdf?blobheader=application%2Fpdf%3Bcharset%3DUTF-8&blobheadername1=Cache-Control&blobheadername2=Expires&blobheadername3=Site&blobheadervalue1=no-store%2Cno-cache%2Cmust-revalidate&blobheadervalue2=0&blobheadervalue3=Portal_Informador&blobnocache=true) accessed on 15 August 2025). For example, some local administrations have launched compensatory programs to encourage the use of mastiffs for livestock protection. In the province of Palencia, where the number of wolf attacks has doubled compared to the previous three years, grants of up to €200 per mastiff are provided for every 150 sheep or goats (or 1 mastiff per 50 cattle or horses), with a maximum of €600 per farm. To qualify, farms must engage in traditional pastoralism, with preference given to those that have experienced wolf attacks in the past five years (BOP of Palencia, 29/09/2023 No. 117). While this initiative is a step in the right direction, the data presented in this study suggest that both the program’s total budget (€50,000) and the maximum per-farm grant are insufficient to fully offset the economic and social costs associated with maintaining mastiffs. For herders, these costs can be significant, extending beyond the initial purchase to include ongoing care, training, and management. A similar initiative was implemented in the province of León, another region with a significant wolf presence (BOP of León, 20/11/2023 No. 220). In this case, it was mandatory to purchase Spanish mastiffs registered in the breed’s genealogical book from local breeders. However, some of our respondents expressed skepticism, noting that a purebred mastiff is not necessarily a guarantee of a good working dog. This raises concerns about whether form is prioritized over function in some subsidy programs, potentially undermining their effectiveness in supporting herders.

Spain is among the most urbanized countries in the EU, with an estimated 79% of the population living in cities. This could lead to urban dwellers becoming disconnected from the challenges faced in rural areas, potentially increasing social support for environmental policies that negatively impact the rural economy, particularly its traditional activities. It is clear that the State recognizes the value of mastiff dogs as an effective tool for the protection of livestock against wolf attacks and the economic cost involved for herders (https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/publicaciones/pbl-fauna-flora-estrategias-lobo.html accessed on 15 August 2025), but the implementation of these measures and the recognition of their social impact are insufficient.

5. Conclusions

The full protection of Iberian wolf populations and the response of herders by increasing the number of LGDs to protect their herds, which also indirectly contributes to wolf conservation, impose economic, environmental, and social costs on pastoralism. These problems are not sufficiently recognized by local administrations and society, and they impose additional pressure on the already precarious situation that traditional pastoralism faces.

The presence of wolves in grazing land makes it difficult for shepherds to reduce the time they spend watching over their flocks, which is one of the main burdens of the profession. The increasing wolf population in Spain certainly does not contribute to the sustainability of traditional pastoralism.

Mastiffs and sheepdogs play complementary but distinct roles in livestock protection systems. Mastiffs are the primary deterrent against wolf predation, but they entail higher economic and environmental costs and present a higher potential for social conflict due to their size and guarding behavior. Sheepdogs, in contrast, are mainly used for herding control, while also having lower maintenance costs and a smaller environmental footprint, and their numbers are less influenced by wolf presence. Recognizing these differences is essential for designing targeted support schemes within traditional pastoralism protection policies.

For the EU policy of converting pastoralists from producers of consumer goods to managers of the natural environment to be successful, pastoralists should be consulted and compensated for the ecosystem services they provide to society and the environment. Otherwise, pastoralism in Europe, as we know it today, has a bleak future.

It is crucial to implement strategies that promote the coexistence of wolves and traditional livestock farming. Without such measures, wolf populations in Spain will continue to grow, negatively impacting pastoralism and leading to increased social opposition to wolf conservation efforts.

The use of LGDs to protect herds in pastoralist systems and promote sustainable farming practices plays a key role in reducing predator-related conflicts, including retaliatory actions taken against predators.