Coyotes

[Karen Daskawicz]

I still haven't seen any coyotes in my neighborhood and the stories about
them have died down. In fact, the reports about coyotes have stopped
altogether. I think it was a fad (alleged sightings) even though I don't
deny that the nearby golf course and adjacent creek probably harbor a few.

Coyote attacks, sightings spark concern
One of Ray and Debbie Miller’s two small dogs was barking excitedly at the
back door one evening only a minute after being let outside.
When Debbie Miller went into her back yard, she saw three coyotes pulling
her other dog across the electronic fence into a neighbor’s yard.
Horrified, she ran down the hill screaming and waving her arms.
The coyotes ran. But Zoe, a 7-year-old Miniature Schnauzer, had sustained
severe internal injuries and had to be euthanized.
This incident in Montgomery in early December and other coyote sightings
and attacks on small pets in the region this year have aroused concerns in
many communities that coyotes pose an increasing threat to safety in
residential areas.
“People need to be aware coyotes are coming into residential areas,”
Miller said. “If I had known there had been coyote sightings in the area,
I wouldn’t have let my dogs outside at night alone.”
In Indian Hill this year, coyotes have killed three small dogs and about
four cats and injured two dogs, Police Chief Chuck Schlie said.
Coyotes have been spotted in Hyde Park, O’Bryonville, California Woods and
Mount Airy Forest, said Jim Godby, district crew leader in charge of land
management.
“I get more and more reported coyote sightings each year,” Godby,
said. “They seem to do very well in the urban areas. They’re very
adaptable.”
They have been seen in every Hamilton County park.
“Over the last 20 years, they’ve really spread out,” said Jerry Lippert, a
naturalist with the Hamilton County Park District.
The Ohio Division of Wildlife has no firm estimate of the state’s coyote
population. But Todd Haines, the division’s district manager, said the
population has grown significantly in the past two decades.
Coyotes migrated to Ohio from the West. They have thrived because Ohio and
bordering states provide abundant food, a good habitat and no natural
predators. Their prime food is rodents and small mammals, such as red
foxes.
“The only things that would kill them are cars and people,” Schlie said.
Because coyotes have a natural fear of human beings, they rarely attack
people. But cats and small dogs are more vulnerable.
One late October day, Jane Rogers was walking her seven-pound dog, Rudy,
in a small park in Mariemont near the village’s pool. With no one else
there, she dropped Rudy’s leash to check cell phone messages.
“All of a sudden, I looked up, and about 20 feet away was a coyote
sneaking up toward my dog,” she said. “He was definitely licking his
chops.”
She quickly picked up Rudy and chased the coyote into the woods.
Mariemont City Council is developing a deer control program that would
permit a limited number of certified hunters to kill deer with bows in an
unpopulated area consisting of woods and fields near the Little Miami
River. Mayor Dan Policastro said it’s likely the village will authorize
hunters to kill coyotes when they see them.
“We’re getting quite a few coyote sightings in the village,” he said. “We
have to do something about it.”
Indian Hill police hunt coyotes when they receive reports of aggressive
behavior, such as attacking a pet or lingering for too long near someone’s
property. Because of a perceived increase in the coyote population, Indian
Hill asked deer hunters this year to kill coyotes when they spot them.
This year, 15 coyotes have been killed in Indian Hill by hunters and
police.
“Development around us has kind of pushed them into our wooded areas,”
Schlie said.
Four coyote sightings have been reported to Montgomery police since the
beginning of November, Police chief Don Simpson said.
The city is keeping a log to monitor how active the coyotes are.
“Right now, we’re primarily trying to educate residents about what to
expect and what to do to keep the coyotes away from their property,”
Schlie said.
Coyote experts offer these tips for protecting pets and property from
-- Don’t place food outside for your pets or other animals. Food attracts
coyotes. Clean up bird food that spills from bird feeders to the ground.
-- Don’t let small pets outside by themselves, especially at night. As a
precaution, keep an eye your small children when they’re outside.
-- Seal trash cans.
-- If you see coyotes in your yard, chase them away. Noise and lights
frighten coyotes.
“It’s important to let coyotes know they’re not welcome in your yard,”
Haines said. “You don’t want them to get comfortable in a human habitat.”
To protect his two Scottish Terriers, Policastro put up a wrought-iron
fence around his yard last year and installed outdoor flood lights.
“Those dogs mean the world to me,” he said.
After Zoe died, the Millers’ remaining dog, Sadie, missed her companion so
much she stopped eating for five days. So they obtained another dog from
the Hamilton County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
They’re taking special precautions to protect their dogs. Debbie Miller
said she always watches her dogs when they’re outside, and they plan to
install lights in the lower part of the yard, where Sadie was attacked.
She wants others to be aware of the coyotes’ presence so they don’t
experience the same heartache she and her husband have.
“I know coyotes are wild creatures that have as much right to be out as
anybody,” she said. “But I want my neighbors to know how dangerous they
can be.”
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20081224/NEWS01/312240031/1055/NEWS

SPRINGDALE, Ohio —A Springdale woman said she was nearly attacked by a
coyote, and her father blames a nearby closed golf course for attracting
the predator.
Stephanie Herman said she has never been more terrified. She was walking
on East Crescentville Road just before dawn near the former GE golf club.
Herman said she was just a half-mile from her home when she encountered the
coyote.
"Once it was up on me, I've never been that scared," she said. "It was
bad. I was really scared at the time."
"He came running up on me like a wolf would," Herman said.
Herman said the predator circled her like a shark going in for the kill,
"As soon as I saw a car, I started motioning to stop, please help me."
Herman said the driver stopped and she jumped into the vehicle with the
complete stranger.
Many people who live near the old golf course said they have seen an
increase in smaller animals since it closed. They said the course has
become overgrown with tall grass and weeds.
"Basically, we're being overrun with possums, raccoons and skunks. All of
my solarium, every screen, was torn out this week," Steve Garity, Herman's
father, said.
Garity said the critters had just been a nuisance until the coyote
incident.
"I think something ought to be done about it," he said.
The park is overgrown because it's in the process of being sold. Two
companies are mired in a legal dispute over who should own it. The next
court hearing isn't set until spring.
While that plays out, the weeds continue to grow. City ordinances only
require mowing for small sections of the 110-acre site.
(Video at site)
http://www.wlwt.com/news/coyote-circles-springdale-
woman-near-longclosed-golf-course/40952704
_______________________________________________
Skeptix mailing list
http://lists.opn.org/mailman/listinfo/skeptix_lists.opn.org

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[Skeptix]

COYOTES

Jeffrey S. Green
Assistant Regional Director
USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services Lakewood, Colorado 80228

F. Robert Henderson
Extension Specialist
Animal Damage Control
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas 66506-1600

Mark D. Collinge
State Director
USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services
Boise, Idaho 83705

Identification

In body form and size, the coyote (Canis latrans) resembles a small
collie dog, with erect pointed ears, slender muzzle, and a bushy tail
(Fig. 1). Coyotes are predominantly brownish gray in color with a light
gray to cream-colored belly. Color varies greatly, however, from nearly
black to red or nearly white in some individuals and local populations.
Most have dark or black guard hairs over their back and tail. In
western states, typical adult males weigh from 25 to 45 pounds (11 to
16 kg) and females from 22 to 35 pounds (10 to 14 kg). In the East,
many coyotes are larger than their western counterparts, with males
averaging about 45 pounds (14 kg) and females about 30 pounds (13 kg).

Coyote-dog and coyote-wolf hybrids exist in some areas and may vary
greatly from typical coyotes in size, color, and appearance. Also,
coyotes in the New England states may differ in color from typical
western coyotes. Many are black, and some are reddish. These
colorations may partially be due to past hybridization with dogs and
wolves. True wolves are also present in some areas of coyote range,
particularly in Canada, Alaska, Montana, northern Minnesota, Wisconsin,
and Michigan. Relatively few wolves remain in the southern United
States and Mexico.

Range

Historically, coyotes were most common on the Great Plains of North
America. They have since extended their range from Central America to
the Arctic, including all of the United States (except Hawaii), Canada,
and Mexico.

Habitat

Many references indicate that coyotes were originally found in
relatively open habitats, particularly the grasslands and sparsely
wooded areas of the western United States. Whether or not this was
true, coyotes have adapted to and now exist in virtually every type of
habitat, arctic to tropic, in North America. Coyotes live in deserts,
swamps, tundra, grasslands, brush, dense forests, from below sea level
to high mountain ranges, and at all intermediate altitudes. High
densities of coyotes also appear in the suburbs of Los Angeles,
Pasadena, Phoenix, and other western cities.

Food Habits

Coyotes often include many items in their diet. Rabbits top the list of
their dietary components. Carrion, rodents, ungulates (usually fawns),
insects (such as grasshoppers), as well as livestock and poultry, are
also consumed. Coyotes readily eat fruits such as watermelons, berries,
and other vegetative matter when they are available. In some areas
coyotes feed on human refuse at dump sites and take pets (cats and
small dogs).

Coyotes are opportunistic and generally take prey that is the easiest
to secure. Among larger wild animals, coyotes tend to kill young,
inexperienced animals, as well as old, sick, or weakened individuals.
With domestic animals, coyotes are capable of catching and killing
healthy, young, and in some instances, adult prey. Prey selection is
based on opportunity and a myriad of behavioral cues. Strong, healthy
lambs are often taken from a flock by a coyote even though smaller,
weaker lambs are also present. Usually, the stronger lamb is on the
periphery and is more active, making it more prone to attack than a
weaker lamb that is at the center of the flock and relatively immobile.

Coyote predation on livestock is generally more severe during early
spring and summer than in winter for two reasons. First, sheep and cows
are usually under more intensive management during winter, either in
feedlots or in pastures that are close to human activity, thus reducing
the opportunity for coyotes to take livestock. Second, predators bear
young in the spring and raise them through the summer, a process that
demands increased nutritional input, for both the whelping and nursing
mother and the growing young. This increased demand corresponds to the
time when young sheep or beef calves are on pastures or rangeland and
are most vulnerable to attack. Coyote predation also may increase
during fall when young coyotes disperse from their home ranges and
establish new territories.

General Biology, Reproduction, and Behavior

Coyotes are most active at night and during early morning hours
(especially where human activity occurs), and during hot summer
weather. Where there is minimal human interference and during cool
weather, they may be active throughout the day.

Coyotes bed in sheltered areas but do not generally use dens except
when raising young. They may seek shelter underground during severe
weather or when closely pursued. Their physical abilities include good
eyesight and hearing and a keen sense of smell. Documented recoveries
from severe injuries are indicative of coyotes' physical endurance.
Although not as fleet as greyhound dogs, coyotes have been measured at
speeds of up to 40 miles per hour (64 km/hr) and can sustain slower
speeds for several miles (km).

Distemper, hepatitis, parvo virus, and mange (caused by parasitic
mites) are among the most common coyote diseases. Rabies and tularemia
also occur and may be transmitted to other animals and humans. Coyotes
harbor numerous parasites including mites, ticks, fleas, worms, and
flukes. Mortality is highest during the first year of life, and few
survive for more than 10 to 12 years in the wild. Human activity is
often the greatest single cause of coyote mortality.

Coyotes usually breed in February and March, producing litters about 9
weeks (60 to 63 days) later in April and May. Females sometimes breed
during the winter following their birth, particularly if food is
plentiful. Average litter size is 5 to 7 pups, although up to 13 in a
litter has been reported. More than one litter may be found in a single
den; at times these may be from females mated to a single male. As
noted earlier, coyotes are capable of hybridizing with dogs and wolves,
but reproductive dysynchrony and behaviors generally make it unlikely.
Hybrids are fertile, although their breeding seasons do not usually
correspond to those of coyotes.

Coyote dens are found in steep banks, rock crevices, sinkholes, and
underbrush, as well as in open areas. Usually their dens are in areas
selected for protective concealment. Den sites are typically located
less than a mile (km) from water, but may occasionally be much farther
away. Coyotes will often dig out and enlarge holes dug by smaller
burrowing animals. Dens vary from a few feet (1 m) to 50 feet (15 m)
and may have several openings.

Both adult male and female coyotes hunt and bring food to their young
for several weeks. Other adults associated with the denning pair may
also help in feeding and caring for the young. Coyotes commonly hunt as
singles or pairs; extensive travel is common in their hunting forays.
They will hunt in the same area regularly, however, if food is
plentiful. They occasionally bury food remains for later use.

Pups begin emerging from their den by 3 weeks of age, and within 2
months they follow adults to large prey or carrion. Pups normally are
weaned by 6 weeks of age and frequently are moved to larger quarters
such as dense brush patches and/or sinkholes along water courses. The
adults and pups usually remain together until late summer or fall when
pups become independent. Occasionally pups are found in groups until
the breeding season begins.

Coyotes are successful at surviving and even flourishing in the
presence of people because of their adaptable behavior and social
system. They typically display increased reproduction and immigration
in response to human-induced population reduction.

Damage and Damage Identification

Coyotes can cause damage to a variety of resources, including
livestock, poultry, and crops such as watermelons. They sometimes prey
on pets and are a threat to public health and safety when they frequent
airport runways and residential areas, and act as carriers of rabies.
Usually, the primary concern regarding coyotes is predation on
livestock, mainly sheep and lambs. Predation will be the focus of the
following discussion.

Since coyotes frequently scavenge on livestock carcasses, the mere
presence of coyote tracks or droppings near a carcass is not sufficient
evidence that predation has taken place. Other evidence around the site
and on the carcass must be carefully examined to aid in determining the
cause of death. Signs of a struggle may be evident. These may include
scrapes or drag marks on the ground, broken vegetation, or blood in
various places around the site. The quantity of sheep or calf remains
left after a kill vary widely depending on how recently the kill was
made, the size of the animal killed, the weather, and the number and
species of predators that fed on the animal.

One key in determining whether a sheep or calf was killed by a predator
is the presence or absence of subcutaneous (just under the skin)
hemorrhage at the point of attack. Bites to a dead animal will not
produce hemorrhage, but bites to a live animal will. If enough of the
sheep carcass remains, carefully skin out the neck and head to observe
tooth punctures and hemorrhage around the punctures. Talon punctures
from large birds of prey will also cause hemorrhage, but the location
of these is usually at the top of the head, neck, or back. This
procedure becomes less indicative of predation as the age of the
carcass increases or if the remains are scanty or scattered.

Coyotes, foxes, mountain lions, and bobcats usually feed on a carcass
at the flanks or behind the ribs and first consume the liver, heart,
lungs, and other viscera. Mountain lions often cover a carcass with
debris after feeding on it. Bears generally prefer meat to viscera and
often eat first the udder from lactating ewes. Eagles skin out
carcasses on larger animals and leave much of the skeleton intact. With
smaller animals such as lambs, eagles may bite off and swallow the
ribs. Feathers and "whitewash" (droppings) are usually present where an
eagle has fed.

Coyotes may kill more than one animal in a single episode, but often
will only feed on one of the animals. Coyotes typically attack sheep at
the throat, but young or inexperienced coyotes may attack any part of
the body. Coyotes usually kill calves by eating into the anus or
abdominal area.

Dogs generally do not kill sheep or calves for food and are relatively
indiscriminate in how and where they attack. Sometimes, however, it is
difficult to differentiate between dog and coyote kills without also
looking at other sign, such as size of tracks (Fig. 2) and spacing and
size of canine tooth punctures. Coyote tracks tend to be more
oval-shaped and compact than those of common dogs. Nail marks are less
prominent and the tracks tend to follow a straight line more closely
than those of dogs. The average coyote's stride at a trot is 16 to 18
inches (41 to 46 cm), which is typically longer than that of a dog of
similar size and weight. Generally, dogs attack and rip the flanks,
hind quarters, and head, and may chew ears. The sheep are sometimes
still alive but may be severely wounded.

Accurately determining whether or not predation occurred and, if so, by
what species, requires a considerable amount of knowledge and
experience. Evidence must be gathered, pieced together, and then
evaluated in light of the predators that are in the area, the time of
day, the season of the year, and numerous other factors. Sometimes even
experts are unable to confirm the cause of death, and it may be
necessary to rely on circumstantial information. For more information
on this subject, refer to the section Procedures for Evaluating
Predation on Livestock and Wildlife, in this book.

Legal Status

The status of coyotes varies depending on state and local laws. In some
states, including most western states, coyotes are classified as
predators and can be taken throughout the year whether or not they are
causing damage to livestock. In other states, coyotes may be taken only
during specific seasons and often only by specific methods, such as
trapping. Night shooting with a spotlight is usually illegal. Some
state laws allow only state or federal agents to use certain methods
(such as snares) to take coyotes. Some states have a provision for
allowing the taking of protected coyotes (usually by special permit)
when it has been documented that they are preying on livestock. In some
instances producers can apply control methods, and in others, control
must be managed by a federal or state agent. Some eastern states
consider the coyote a game animal, a furbearer, or a protected species.
foot prints of canid predators fox, dog and coyote

Fig. 2. Footprints of canid predators

Federal statutes that pertain to wildlife damage control include the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which
deals with using toxicants, and the Airborne Hunting Act, which
regulates aerial hunting.

Laws regulating coyote control are not necessarily uniform among states
or even among counties within a state, and they may change frequently.
A 1989 Supreme Court action established that it was not legal to
circumvent the laws relative to killing predators, even to protect
personal property (livestock) from predation.

Large dog

Damage Prevention and Control Methods

For managing coyote damage, a variety of control methods must be
available since no single method is effective in every situation.
Success usually involves an integrated approach, combining good
husbandry practices with effective control methods for short periods of
time. Regardless of the means used to stop damage, the focus should be
on damage prevention and control rather than elimination of coyotes. It
is neither wise nor practical to kill all coyotes. It is important to
try to prevent coyotes from killing calves or sheep for the first time.
Once a coyote has killed livestock, it will probably continue to do so
if given the opportunity. Equally important is taking action as quickly
as possible to stop coyotes from killing after they start.

Exclusion

Most coyotes readily cross over, under, or through conventional
livestock fences. A coyote's response to a fence is influenced by
various factors, including the coyote's experience and motivation for
crossing the fence. Total exclusion of all coyotes by fencing,
especially from large areas, is highly unlikely since some eventually
learn to either dig deeper or climb higher to defeat a fence. Good
fences, however, can be important in reducing predation, as well as
increasing the effectiveness of other damage control methods (such as
snares, traps, or guarding animals).

Recent developments in fencing equipment and design have made this
technique an effective and economically practical method for protecting
sheep from predation under some grazing conditions. Exclusion fencing
may be impractical in western range sheep ranching operations.

Net-Wire Fencing. Net fences in good repair will deter many coyotes
from entering a pasture. Horizontal spacing of the mesh should be less
than 6 inches (15 cm), and vertical spacing less than 4 inches (10 cm).
Digging under a fence can be discouraged by placing a barbed wire at
ground level or using a buried wire apron (often an expensive option).
The fence should be about 5 1/2 feet (1.6 m) high to discourage coyotes
from jumping over it. Climbing can usually be prevented by adding a
charged wire at the top of the fence or installing a wire overhang.

Barrier fences with wire overhangs and buried wire aprons were tested
in Oregon and found effective in keeping coyotes out of sheep pastures
(Fig. 3). The construction and materials for such fencing are usually
expensive. Therefore, fences of this type are rarely used except around
corrals, feedlots, or areas of temporary sheep confinement.


Barrier fence with wire overhang to exclude coyotes

Electric Fencing. Electric fencing, used for years to manage livestock,
has recently been revolutionized by the introduction of new energizers
and new fence designs from Australia and New Zealand. The chargers, now
also manufactured in the United States, have high output with low
impedance, are resistant to grounding, present a minimal fire hazard,
and are generally safe for livestock and humans. The fences are usually
constructed of smooth, high-tensile wire stretched to a tension of 200
to 300 pounds (90 to 135 kg). The original design of electric fences
for controlling predation consisted of multiple, alternately charged
and grounded wires, with a charged trip wire installed just above
ground level about 8 inches (20 cm) outside the main fence to
discourage digging. Many recent designs have every wire charged.

The number of spacings between wires varies considerably. A fence of 13
strands gave complete protection to sheep from coyote predation in
tests at the USDA's US Sheep Experiment Station (Fig. 4). Other designs
of fewer wires were effective in some studies, ineffective in others.

The amount of labor and installation techniques required vary with each
type of fencing. High-tensile wire fences require adequate bracing at
corners and over long spans. Electric fencing is easiest to install on
flat, even terrain. Labor to install a high-tensile electric fence may
be 40% to 50% less than for a conventional livestock fence.

Labor to keep electric fencing functional can be significant. Tension
of the wires must be maintained, excessive vegetation under the fence
must be removed to prevent grounding, damage from livestock and
wildlife must be repaired, and the charger must be checked regularly to
ensure that it is operational.

Charged wire Ground wire
High-tensile electric fence for coyote control

Ground level

Fig. 4. High-tensile, electric, antipredator fence.
modified livestock fence for coyote prevention Fig. 5. Existing
woven-wire livestock fence modified with electrified wire.

Coyotes and other predators occasionally become "trapped" inside
electric fences. These animals receive a shock as they enter the
pasture and subsequently avoid approaching the fence to escape. In some
instances the captured predator may be easy to spot and remove from the
pasture, but in others, particularly in large pastures with rough
terrain, the animal may be difficult to remove.

Electric Modification of Existing Fences. The cost to completely
replace old fences with new ones, whether conventional or electric, can
be substantial. In instances where existing fencing is in reasonably
good condition, the addition of one to several charged wires can
significantly enhance the predator-deterring ability of the fence and
its effectiveness for controlling livestock (Fig. 5). A charged trip
wire placed 6 to 8 inches (15 to 230 cm) above the ground about 8 to 10
inches (20 to 25 cm) outside the fence is often effective in preventing
coyotes from digging and crawling under. This single addition to an
existing fence is often the most effective and economical way to
fortify a fence against coyote passage.

If coyotes are climbing or jumping a fence, charged wires can be added
to the top and at various intervals. These wires should be offset
outside the fence. Fencing companies offer offset brackets to make
installation relatively simple. The number of additional wires depends
on the design of the original fence and the predicted habits of the
predators.

Portable Electric Fencing. The advent of safe, high-energy chargers has
led to the development of a variety of portable electric fences. Most
are constructed with thin strands of wire running through polyethylene
twine or ribbon, commonly called polywire or polytape. The polywire is
available in single and multiple wire rolls or as mesh fencing of
various heights. It can be quickly and easily installed to serve as a
temporary corral or to partition off pastures for controlled grazing.

Perhaps the biggest advantage of portable electric fencing is the
ability to set up temporary pens to hold livestock at night or during
other predator control activities. Portable fencing increases livestock
management options to avoid places or periods of high predation risk.
Range sheep that are not accustomed to being fenced, however, may be
difficult to contain in a portable fence.

Fencing and Predation Management. The success of various types of
fencing in keeping out predators has ranged from poor to excellent.
Density and behavior of coyotes, terrain and vegetative conditions,
availability of prey, size of pastures, season of the year, design of
the fence, quality of construction, maintenance, and other factors all
interplay in determining how effective a fence will be. Fencing is most
likely to be cost-effective where the potential for predation is high,
where there is potential for a high stocking rate, or where electric
modification of existing fences can be used.

Fencing can be effective when incorporated with other means of
predation control. For example, combined use of guarding dogs and
fencing has achieved a greater degree of success than either method
used alone. An electric fence may help keep a guarding dog in and
coyotes out of a pasture. If an occasional coyote does pass through a
fence, the guarding dog can keep it away from the livestock and alert
the producer by barking.

Fencing can also be used to concentrate predator activity at specific
places such as gateways, ravines, or other areas where the animals try
to gain access. Traps and snares can often be set at strategic places
along a fence to effectively capture predators. Smaller pastures are
easier to keep free from predators than larger ones encompassing
several square miles (km^2).

Fencing is one of the most beneficial investments in predator damage
control and livestock management where practical factors warrant its
use.

As a final note, fences can pose problems for wildlife. Barrier fences
in particular exclude not only predators, but also many other wildlife
species. This fact should be considered where fencing intersects
migration corridors for wildlife. Ungulates such as deer may attempt to
jump fences, and they occasionally become entangled in the top wires.

Cultural Methods and Habitat Modification

At the present time, there are no documented differences in the
vulnerability of various breeds of sheep to coyote or dog predation
because there has been very little research in this area. Generally,
breeds with stronger flocking behaviors are less vulnerable to
predators.

A possible cause of increased coyote predation to beef cattle calves is
the increased use of cattle dogs in herding. Cows herded by dogs may
not be as willing to defend newborn calves from coyotes as those not
accustomed to herding dogs.

Flock or Herd Health. Healthy sheep flocks and cow/calf herds have
higher reproductive rates and lower overall death losses. Coyotes often
prey on smaller lambs. Poor nutrition means weaker or smaller young,
with a resultant increased potential for predation. Ewes or cows in
good condition through proper nutrition will raise stronger young that
may be less vulnerable to coyote predation.

Record Keeping. Good record-keeping and animal identification systems
are invaluable in a livestock operation for several reasons. From the
standpoint of coyote predation, records help producers identify loss
patterns or trends to provide baseline data that will help determine
what type and amount of coyote damage control is economically feasible.
Records also aid in identifying critical problem areas that may require
attention. They may show, for example, that losses to coyotes are high
in a particular pasture in early summer, thus highlighting the need for
preventive control in that area.

Counting sheep and calves regularly is important in large pastures or
areas with heavy cover where dead livestock could remain unnoticed. It
is not unusual for producers who do not regularly count their sheep to
suffer fairly substantial losses before they realize there is a
problem. Determining with certainty whether losses were due to coyotes
or to other causes may become impossible.

Season and Location of Lambing or Calving. Both season and location of
lambing and calving can significantly affect the severity of coyote
predation on sheep or calves. The highest predation losses of sheep and
calves typically occur from late spring through September due to the
food requirements of coyote pups. In the Midwest and East, some lambing
or calving occurs between October and December, whereas in most of the
western states lambing or calving occurs between February and May. By
changing to a fall lambing or calving program, some livestock producers
have not only been able to diversify their marketing program, but have
also avoided having a large number of young animals on hand during
periods when coyote predation losses are typically highest.

Shortening lambing and calving periods by using synchronized or group
breeding may reduce predation by producing a uniform lamb or calf crop,
thus reducing exposure of small livestock to predation. Extra labor and
facilities may be necessary, however, when birthing within a
concentrated period. Some producers practice early weaning and do not
allow young to go to large pastures, thus reducing the chance of coyote
losses. This also gives orphaned and weak young a greater chance to
survive.

The average beef cattle calf production is about 78% nationwide.
First-calf heifers need human assistance to give birth to a healthy
calf about 40% of the time. Cow/calf producers who average 90% to 95%
calf crops generally check their first-calf heifers every 2 hours
during calving. Also, most good producers place first-calf heifers in
small pastures (less than 160 acres [64 ha]). When all cows are bred to
produce calves in a short, discreet (e.g. 60-day) period, production
typically increases and predation losses decrease. The birth weight of
calves born to first-calf heifers can be decreased by using
calving-ease bulls, thus reducing birthing complications that often
lead to coyote predation.

Producers who use lambing sheds or pens for raising sheep and small
pastures or paddocks for raising cattle have lower predation losses
than those who lamb or calve in large pastures or on open range. The
more human presence around sheep, the lower the predation losses.
Confining sheep entirely to buildings virtually eliminates predation
losses.

Corrals. Although predation can occur at any time, coyotes tend to kill
sheep at night. Confining sheep at night is one of the most effective
means of reducing losses to predation. Nevertheless, some coyotes and
many dogs are bold enough to enter corrals and kill sheep. A
"coyote-proof" corral is a wise investment. Coyotes are more likely to
attack sheep in unlighted corrals than in corrals with lights. Even if
the corral fence is not coyote-proof, the mere fact that the sheep are
confined reduces the risk of predation. Penning sheep at night and
turning them out at mid-morning might reduce losses. In addition,
coyotes tend to be more active and kill more sheep on foggy or rainy
days than on sunny days. Keeping the sheep penned on foggy or rainy
days may be helpful.

Aside from the benefits of livestock confinement, there are some
problems associated it. Costs of labor and materials associated with
building corrals, herding livestock, and feeding livestock must be
considered. In addition, the likelihood of increased parasite and
disease problems may inhibit adoption of confinement as a method of
reducing damage.

Carrion Removal. Removal and proper disposal of dead sheep and cattle
are important since livestock carcasses tend to attract coyotes,
habituating them to feed on livestock.

Some producers reason that coyotes are less likely to kill livestock if
there is carrion available. This may be a valid preventative measure if
an adequate supply of carrion can be maintained far away from
livestock. If a coyote becomes habituated to a diet of livestock
remains, however, it may turn to killing livestock in the absence of
carcasses. Wherever there is easily accessible carrion, coyotes seem to
gather and predation losses are higher. Conversely, where carrion is
generally not available, losses are lower. A study in Canada showed
that the removal of livestock carcasses significantly reduced
overwinter coyote populations and shifted coyote distributions out of
livestock areas.

Habitat Changes. Habitat features change in some areas, depending on
seasonal crop growth. Some cultivated fields are devoid of coyotes
during winter but provide cover during the growing season, and a
corresponding increase in predation on nearby livestock may occur.

The creation of nearly 40 million acres (16 million ha) of Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) acres may benefit many species of wildlife,
including predators. These acres harbor prey for coyotes and foxes, and
an increase in predator populations can reasonably be predicted.
Clearing away weeds and brush from CRP areas may reduce predation
problems since predators usually use cover in their approach to
livestock. Generally, the more open the area where livestock are kept,
the less likely that coyote losses will occur. Often junk piles are
located near farmsteads. These serve as good habitat for rabbits and
other prey and may bring coyotes into close proximity with livestock,
increasing the likelihood for opportunistic coyotes to prey on
available livestock. Removing junk piles may be a good management
practice.

Pasture Selection. If sheep or beef cattle are not lambed or calved in
sheds or lots, the choice of birthing pastures should be made with
potential coyote predation problems in mind. Lambs and calves in remote
or rugged pastures are usually more vulnerable to coyote predation than
those in closer, more open, and smaller pastures. In general, a
relatively small, open, tightly fenced pasture that can be kept under
close surveillance is a good choice for birthing livestock that are
likely targets of coyotes. Past experience with predators as well as
weather and disease considerations should also serve as guides in the
selection of birthing pastures.

A factor not completely understood is that, at times, coyotes and other
predators will kill in one pasture and not in another. Therefore,
changing pastures during times of loss may reduce predation. There may
seem to be a relationship between size of pasture and predator losses,
with higher loss rates reported in larger pastures. In reality, loss
rates may not be related as much to pasture size as to other local
conditions such as slope, terrain, and human populations. Hilly or
rugged areas are typically sparsely populated by humans and are
characterized by large pastures. These conditions are ideal for
coyotes.

Sheep pastures that contain or are adjacent to streams, creeks, and
rivers tend to have more coyote problems than pastures without such
features. Water courses serve as hunting and travel lanes for coyotes.

Herders. Using herders with sheep or cattle in large pastures can help
reduce predation, but there has been a trend away from herders in
recent years because of increasing costs and a shortage of competent
help. Nevertheless, tended flocks or herds receive closer attention
than untended livestock, particularly in large pastures, and problems
can be solved before they become serious. We recommend two herders per
band of range sheep. If herders aren't used, daily or periodic checking
of the livestock is a good husbandry practice.

Frightening Devices and Repellents

Frightening devices are useful for reducing losses during short periods
or until predators are removed. The devices should not be used for long
periods of time when predation is not a problem. To avoid acclimation
you can increase both the degree and duration of effectiveness by
varying the position, appearance, duration, or frequency of the
frightening stimuli, or using them in various combinations. Many
frightening methods have been ridiculed in one way or another;
nevertheless, all of the techniques discussed here have helped
producers by saving livestock and/or buying some time to institute
other controls.

Lights. A study involving 100 Kansas sheep producers showed that using
lights above corrals at night had the most marked effect on losses to
coyotes of all the devices examined. Out of 79 sheep killed by coyotes
in corrals, only three were killed in corrals with lights. Nearly 40%
of the producers in the study used lights over corrals. There was some
indication in the study that sheep losses to dogs were higher in
lighted corrals, but the sample size for dog losses was small and the
results inconclusive. Most of the producers (80%) used mercury vapor
lights that automatically turned on at dusk and off at dawn.

Another advantage of lighted corrals is that coyotes are more
vulnerable when they enter the lighted area. Coyotes often establish a
fairly predictable pattern of killing. When this happens in a lighted
corral, it is possible for a producer to wait above or downwind of the
corral and to shoot the coyote as it enters. Red or blue lights may
make the ambush more successful since coyotes appear to be less
frightened by them than by white lights. Revolving or flashing the
lights may enhance their effectiveness in frightening away predators.
There is some speculation that the old oil lamps used in highway
construction repelled coyotes, presumably because of their flickering
effect.

Bells and Radios. Some sheep producers place bells on some or all of
their sheep to discourage predators. Where effects have been measured,
however, no difference in losses was detected. Some producers use a
radio tuned to an all-night station to temporarily deter coyotes, dogs,
and other predators.

Vehicles. Parking cars or pickups in the area where losses are
occurring often reduces predation temporarily. Effectiveness can be
improved or extended by frequently moving the vehicle to a new
location. Some producers place a replica of a person in the vehicle
when losses are occurring in the daylight. If predators continue to
kill with vehicles in place, the vehicle serves as a comfortable blind
in which to wait and shoot offending predators.

Propane Exploders. Propane exploders produce loud explosions at timed
intervals when a spark ignites a measured amount of propane gas. On
most models, the time between explosions can vary from about 1 minute
to 15 minutes. Their effectiveness at frightening coyotes is usually
only temporary, but it can be increased by moving exploders to
different locations and by varying the intervals between explosions. In
general, the timer on the exploder should be set to fire every 8 to 10
minutes, and the location should be changed every 3 or 4 days. In
cattle pastures, these devices should be placed on rigid stands above
the livestock. Normally, the exploder should be turned on just before
dark and off at daybreak, unless coyotes are killing livestock during
daylight hours. Motion sensors are now available and likely improve
their effectiveness, though it is still only temporary. Exploders are
best used to reduce losses until more permanent control or preventive
measures can be implemented. In about 24 coyote depredation complaints
over a 2-year period in North Dakota, propane exploders were judged to
be successful in stopping or reducing predation losses until offending
coyotes could be removed. "Success time" of the exploders appears to
depend a great deal on how well they are tended by the livestock
producer.

Strobe Lights and Sirens. The USDA's Denver Wildlife Research
electronic guard coyote frightening device

Fig. 6. Electronic Guard frightening device

Center developed a frightening device called the Electronic Guard (EG)
(Fig. 6). The EG consists of a strobe light and siren controlled by a
variable interval timer that is activated at night with a photoelectric
cell. In tests conducted in fenced pastures, predation was reduced by
about 89%. The device is used in Kansas and other states to protect
cows/calves from coyote predation. Most research on the effectiveness
of this device, however, has been done on sheep operations. Suggestions
for using the unit differ for pastured sheep and range operations.

To use the EG in fenced pastures (farm flocks):
* Place EGs above the ground on fence posts, trees, or T-posts so
they can be heard and seen at greater distances and to prevent
livestock from damaging them.
* Position EGs so that rain water cannot enter them and cause a
malfunction.
* Locate EGs so that light can enter the photocell port or window. If
positioned in deep shade, they may not turn on or off at the
desired times.

The number of EGs used to protect sheep in fenced pastures depends on
pasture size, terrain features, and the amount and height of vegetation
in or around the pasture. In general, at least two units should be used
in small (20 to 30 acres [8 to 12 ha]), level, short-grass pastures.
Three to four units should be used in larger (40 to 100 acres [16 to 40
ha]), hilly, tall grass, or wooded pastures. Don't use EGs in pastures
larger than about 100 acres (40 ha) because their effective range is
limited. The device could be useful in larger pastures when placed near
areas where sheep congregate and bed at night. EGs should be placed on
high spots, where kills have been found, at the edge of wooded areas,
near or on bedgrounds, or near suspected coyote travelways. They should
be moved to different locations every 10 to 14 days to reduce the
likelihood of coyotes getting used to them

To use the EG in open range (herded or range sheep):

The number of EGs used will depend on the number of sheep in the band
and the size of the bedground. Four units should be used to protect
bands of 1,000 ewes and their lambs.

When possible, place one EG in the center of the bedground and the
other three around the edge of the bedground. Try to place the units on
coyote travelways.

EGs should be placed on high points, ridge tops, edges of clearings,
or on high rocks or outcroppings. Hang the devices on tree limbs 5 to 7
feet (1.5 to 2.1 m) above ground level. If used above timberline or in
treeless areas, hang them from a tripod of poles.

Herders who bed their sheep tightly will have better results than
those who allow sheep to bed over large areas. Sheep that are bedded
about 200 yards (166 m) or less in diameter, or are spread out not more
than 200 to 400 yards (166 to 332 m) along a ridge top, can usually be
protected with EGs.

Repellents. The notion of repelling coyotes from sheep or calves is
appealing, and during the 1970s, university and government researchers
tested a wide variety of potentially repellent chemical compounds on
sheep. Both olfactory (smell) and gustatory (taste) repellents were
examined. The underlying objective was to find a compound that, when
applied to sheep, would prevent coyotes from killing them. Tests were
conducted with various prey species including rabbits, chickens, and
sheep. Some repellents were applied by dipping target animals in them,
others were sprayed on, and some were applied in neck collars or ear
tags.

Coyotes rely heavily on visual cues while stalking, chasing, and
killing their prey. Taste and smell are of lesser importance in
actually making the kill. These factors may in part account for the
fact that the repellent compounds were not able to consistently prevent
coyotes from killing, although some of the repellents were obviously
offensive to coyotes and prevented them from consuming the killed prey.
Several compounds were tested on sheep under field conditions, but none
appeared to offer significant, prolonged protection.

If an effective chemical repellent were to be found, the obstacles in
bringing it to industry use would be significant. The compound would
not only need to be effective, but also persistent enough to withstand
weathering while posing no undue risk to the sheep, other animals, or
the environment. It would also have to withstand the rigorous
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval process.

High-frequency sound has also been tested as a repellent for coyotes,
but the results were no more encouraging than for chemical repellents.
Coyotes, like dogs, responded to particular sound frequencies and
showed some aversion to sounds broadcast within one foot (30 cm) of
their ear. Researchers, however, were unable to broadcast the sound a
sufficient distance to test the effects under field conditions.

Aversive Conditioning. The objective of aversive conditioning is to
feed a coyote a preylike bait laced with an aversive agent that causes
the coyote to become ill, resulting in subsequent avoidance of the
prey. Most of the research on this technique has involved the use of
lithium chloride, a salt, as the aversive agent.

Aversive conditioning is well documented for averting rodents from food
sources, but significant problems must be overcome before the method
can be used to reduce coyote predation on sheep. Coyotes must be
induced to eat sheeplike baits that have been treated with the aversive
chemical. The chemical must cause sufficient discomfort, such as
vomiting, to cause coyotes to avoid other baits. Furthermore, the
avoidance must be transferred to live sheep and must persist long
enough without reinforcement for the method to offer realistic
protection to sheep.

To date, pen and field tests with aversive conditioning have yielded
conflicting and inconclusive results. It does not appear that aversive
conditioning is effective in reducing predation, but additional field
tests would be useful.

Guarding Animals.

Livestock Guarding Dogs. A livestock guarding dog is one that generally
stays with sheep or cattle without harming them and aggressively repels
predators. Its protective behaviors are largely instinctive, but proper
rearing plays a part. Breeds most commonly used today include the Great
Pyrenees, Komondor, Anatolian Shepherd, and Akbash Dog (Fig. 7). Other
Old World breeds used to a lesser degree include Maremma,
Sharplaninetz, and Kuvasz. Crossbreeds are also used.

The characteristics of each sheep operation will dictate the number of
dogs required for effective protection from predators. If predators are
scarce, one dog is sufficient for most fenced pasture operations. Range
operations often use two dogs per band of sheep. The performance of
individual dogs will differ based on age and experience. The size,
topography, and habitat of the pasture or range must also be
considered. Relatively flat, open areas can be adequately covered by
one dog. When brush, timber, ravines, and hills are in the pasture,
several dogs may be required, particularly if the sheep are scattered.
Sheep that flock and form a cohesive unit, especially at night, can be
protected by one dog more effectively than sheep that are continually
scattered and bedded in a number of locations.
coyote guard dog akbash dog

Fig. 7. Livestock guarding dog (Akbash dog)

The goal with a new puppy is to channel its natural instincts to
produce a mature guardian dog with the desired characteristics. This is
best accomplished by early and continued association with sheep to
produce a bond between the dog and sheep. The optimum time to acquire a
pup is between 7 and 8 weeks of age. The pup should be separated from
litter mates and placed with sheep, preferably lambs, in a pen or
corral from which it can't escape. This socialization period should
continue with daily checks from the producer until the pup is about 16
weeks old. Daily checks don't necessarily include petting the pup. The
primary bond should be between the dog and the sheep, not between the
dog and humans. The owner, however, should be able to catch and handle
the dog to administer health care or to manage the livestock. At about
4 months, the pup can be released into a larger pasture to mingle with
the other sheep.

A guarding dog will likely include peripheral areas in its patrolling.
Some have been known to chase vehicles and wildlife and threaten
children and cyclists. These activities should be discouraged.
Neighbors should be alerted to the possibility that the dog may roam
onto their property and that some predator control devices such as
traps, snares, and M-44s present a danger to it. Many counties enforce
stringent laws regarding owner responsibility for damage done by
roaming dogs. It is in the best interests of the owner, dog, and
community to train the dog to stay in its designated area.

The use of guarding dogs does not eliminate the need for other
predation control actions. They should, however, be compatible with the
dog's behavior. Toxicants (including some insecticides and
rodenticides) used to control various pest species can be extremely
hazardous to dogs and are therefore not compatible with the use of
guarding dogs.

The M-44 is particularly hazardous to dogs. Some people have
successfully trained their dogs to avoid M-44s by allowing the dog to
set off an M-44 filled with pepper or by rigging the device to a rat
trap. The unpleasant experience may teach the dog to avoid M-44s, but
the method is not fool-proof--one error by the dog, and the result is
usually fatal. With the exception of toxic collars, which are not legal
in all states, toxicants should not be used in areas where guarding
dogs are working unless the dog is chained or confined while the
control takes place.

Dogs caught in a steel trap set for predators are rarely injured
seriously if they are found and released within a reasonable period of
time. If snares and traps are used where dogs are working, the producer
should: (1) encourage the use of sets and devices that are likely not
to injure the dog if it is caught, and (2) know where traps and snares
are set so they can be checked if a dog is missing. Aerial hunting, as
well as calling and shooting coyotes, should pose no threat to guarding
dogs. Ensuring the safety of the dog is largely the producer's
responsibility.

Dogs may be viewed as a first line of defense against predation in
sheep and cow/calf operations in some cases. Their effectiveness can be
enhanced by good livestock management and by eliminating predators with
suitable removal techniques.

Donkeys. Although the research has not focused on donkeys as it has on
guarding dogs, they are gaining in popularity as protectors of sheep
and goat flocks in the United States. A recent survey showed that in
Texas alone, over 2,400 of the 11,000 sheep and goat producers had used
donkeys as guardians.

The terms donkey and burro are synonymous (the Spanish translation of
donkey is burro) and are used interchangeably. Donkeys are generally
docile to people, but they seem to have an inherent dislike of dogs and
other canids, including coyotes and foxes. The typical response of a
donkey to an intruding canid may include braying, bared teeth, a
running attack, kicking, and biting. Most likely it is acting out of
aggression toward the intruder rather than to protect the sheep. There
is little information on a donkey's effectiveness with noncanid
predators such as bears, mountain lions, bobcats, or birds of prey.

Reported success of donkeys in reducing predation is highly variable.
Improper husbandry or rearing practices and unrealistic expectations
probably account for many failures. Donkeys are significantly cheaper
to obtain and care for than guarding dogs, and they are probably less
prone to accidental death and premature mortality than dogs. They may
provide a longer period of useful life than a guarding dog, and they
can be used with relative safety in conjunction with snares, traps,
M-44s, and toxic collars.

Researchers and livestock producers have identified several key points
to consider when using a donkey for predation control:
Use only a jenny or a gelded jack. Intact jacks are too aggressive and
may injure livestock. Some jennies and geldings may also injure
livestock. Select donkeys from medium-sized stock. Use only one donkey
per group of sheep. The exception may be a jenny with a foal. When two
or more adult donkeys are together or with a horse, they usually stay
together, not necessarily near the sheep. Also avoid using donkeys in
adjacent pastures since they may socialize across the fence and ignore
the sheep.

Allow about 4 to 6 weeks for a naive donkey to bond to the sheep.
Stronger bonding may occur when a donkey is raised from birth with
sheep.

Avoid feeds or supplements containing monensin or lasolacid. They are
poisonous to donkeys. Remove the donkey during lambing, particularly if
lambing in confinement, to avoid injuries to lambs or disruption of the
lamb-ewe bond. Test a new donkey's response to canids by challenging it
with a dog in a pen or small pasture. Discard donkeys that don't show
overt aggression to an intruding dog. Use donkeys in smaller (less than
600 acres [240 ha]), relatively open pastures with not more than 200 to
300 head of livestock. Large pastures with rough terrain and vegetation
and widely scattered livestock lessen the effectiveness of a donkey.

Llamas. Like donkeys, llamas have an inherent dislike of canids, and a
growing number of livestock producers are successfully using llamas to
protect their sheep. A recent study of 145 ranches where guard llamas
were used to protect sheep revealed that average losses of sheep to
predators decreased from 26 to 8 per year after llamas were employed.
Eighty percent of the ranchers surveyed were "very satisfied" or
"satisfied" with their llamas. Llamas reportedly bond with sheep within
hours and offer advantages over guarding dogs similar to those
described for donkeys.

Other Animals. USDA's Agricultural Research Service tested the bonding
of sheep to cattle as a method of protecting sheep from coyote
predation. There was clearly some protection afforded the sheep that
remained near cattle. Whether this protection resulted from direct
action by the cattle or by the coyotes' response to a novel stimulus is
uncertain. Later studies with goats, sheep, and cattle confirmed that
when either goats or sheep remained near cattle, they were protected
from predation by coyotes. Conversely, goats or sheep that grazed apart
from cattle, even those that were bonded, were readily preyed on by
coyotes.

There are currently no research data available on the ideal ratio of
cattle to sheep, the breeds of cattle, age of cattle most likely to be
used successfully, or on the size of bonded groups to obtain maximum
protection from predation. Multispecies grazing offers many advantages
for optimum utilization of forage, and though additional study and
experience is needed, it may also be a tool for coyote damage control.

Any animal that displays aggressive behavior toward intruding coyotes
may offer some benefit in deterring predation. Other types of animals
reportedly used for predation control include goats, mules, and
ostriches. Coyotes in particular are suspicious of novel stimuli. This
behavior is most likely the primary reason that many frightening
tactics show at least temporary effectiveness.

Toxicants

Pesticides have historically been an important component in an
integrated approach to controlling coyote damage, but their use is
extremely restricted today by federal and state laws. All pesticides
used in the United States must be registered with the EPA under the
provisions of FIFRA and must be used in accordance with label
directions. Increasingly restrictive regulations implemented by EPA
under the authority of FIFRA, the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), presidential order, and the Endangered Species Act have
resulted in the near elimination of toxicants legally available for
predator damage control.

The only toxicants currently registered for mammalian predator damage
control are sodium cyanide, used in the M-44 ejector device, and
Compound 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate), for use in the livestock
protection collar. These toxicants are Restricted Use Pesticides and
may be used only by certified pesticide applicators. Information on
registration status and availability of these products in individual
states may be obtained from the respective state's department of
agriculture.

Sodium Cyanide in the M-44. The M-44 is a spring-activated device used
to expel sodium cyanide into an animal's mouth. It is currently
registered by EPA for use by trained personnel in the control of
depredating coyotes, foxes, and dogs.

The M-44 consists of a capsule holder wrapped in an absorbent material,
an ejector mechanism, a capsule containing approximately 0.9 grams of a
powdered sodium cyanide mixture, and a 5- to 7-inch (15- to 18-cm)
hollow stake (Fig. 8). For most effective use, set M-44s in locations
similar to those for good trap sets. Drive the hollow stake into the
ground. Cock the ejector unit and secure it in the stake. Screw the
wrapped capsule holder containing the cyanide capsule onto the ejector
unit, and apply fetid meat bait to the capsule holder. Coyotes
attracted by the bait will try to bite the baited capsule holder. When
the M-44 is pulled, the spring-activated plunger propels sodium cyanide
into the animal's mouth, resulting in death within a few seconds.
M-44 coyote management device diagram

Fig. 8. The M-44 device consists of the (a) base, (b) ejector, (c)
capsule holder, and (d) cyanide-containing plastic capsule.

The M-44 is very selective for canids because of the attractants used
and the unique requirement that the device be triggered by pulling on
it. While the use of traps or snares may present a hazard to livestock,
M-44s can be used with relative safety in pastures where livestock are
present. Although not recommended, they can also be used in the
presence of livestock guarding dogs if the dogs are first successfully
conditioned to avoid the devices. This can be done by allowing them to
pull an M-44 loaded with pepper. An additional advantage of M-44s over
traps is their ability to remain effective during rain, snow, and
freezing conditions.

While M-44s can be used effectively as part of an integrated damage
control program, they do have several disadvantages. Because canids are
less responsive to food-type baits during warm weather when natural
foods are usually abundant, M-44s are not as effective during warmer
months as they are in cooler weather. M-44s are subject to a variety of
mechanical malfunctions, but these problems can be minimized if a
regular maintenance schedule is followed. A further disadvantage is the
tendency for the cyanide in the capsules to absorb moisture over time
and to cake, becoming ineffective. Maximum effectiveness of M-44s is
hampered by the requirement to follow 26 use restrictions established
by the EPA in the interest of human and environmental safety. The M-44
is not registered for use in all states, and in those where it is
registered, the state may impose additional use restrictions. A formal
training program is required before use of M-44s. Some states allow its
use only by federal ADC specialists, whereas other states may allow
M-44s to be used by trained and certified livestock producers.

1080 Livestock Protection Collar. The livestock protection collar (LP
collar or toxic collar) is a relatively new tool used to selectively
kill coyotes that attack sheep or goats. Collars are placed on sheep or
goats that are pastured where coyotes are likely to attack. Each collar
contains a small quantity (300 mg) of Compound 1080 solution. The
collars do not attract coyotes, but because of their design and
position on the throat, most attacking coyotes will puncture the collar
and ingest a lethal amount of the toxicant. Unlike sodium cyanide, 1080
is slow-acting, and a coyote ingesting the toxicant will not exhibit
symptoms or die for several hours. As a result, sheep or goats that are
attacked are usually killed. The collar is registered only for use
against coyotes and may be placed only on sheep or goats.

The LP collar must be used in conjunction with specific sheep and goat
husbandry practices to be most effective. Coyote attacks must be
directed or targeted at collared livestock. This may be accomplished by
temporarily placing a "target" flock of perhaps 20 to 50 collared lambs
or kids and their uncollared mothers in a pasture where coyote
predation is likely to occur, while removing other sheep or goats from
that vicinity. In situations where LP collars have been used and found
ineffective, the common cause of failure has been poor or ineffective
targeting. It is difficult to ensure effective targeting if
depredations are occurring infrequently. In most instances, only a high
and regular frequency of depredations will justify spending the time,
effort, and money necessary to become trained and certified, purchase
collars, and use them properly.

The outstanding advantage in using the LP collar is its selectivity in
eliminating individual coyotes that are responsible for killing
livestock. The collar may also be useful in removing depredating
coyotes that have eluded other means of control. Disadvantages include
the cost of collars (approximately $20 each) and livestock that must be
sacrificed, more intensive management practices, and the costs and
inconvenience of complying with use restrictions, including
requirements for training, certification, and record keeping. One use
restriction limits the collars to use in fenced pastures only. They
cannot be used to protect sheep on open range. Also, collars are not
widely available, because they are registered for use in only a few
states.

Fumigants

Carbon monoxide is an effective burrow fumigant recently re-registered
by the EPA. Gas cartridges, which contain 65% sodium nitrate and 35%
charcoal, produce carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and other noxious
gases when ignited. They were registered by the EPA in 1981 for control
of coyotes in dens only. This is the only fumigant currently registered
for this purpose.

Trapping

There are many effective methods for trapping coyotes, and success can
be enhanced by considering several key points. Coyotes learn from past
events that were unpleasant or frightening, and they often avoid such
events in the future. In spring and summer, most coyotes limit their
movements to a small area, but in late summer, fall, and winter they
may roam over a larger area. Coyotes follow regular paths and
crossways, and they prefer high hills or knolls from which they can
view the terrain. They establish regular scent posts along their paths,
and they depend on their ears, nose, and eyes to sense danger.

The following describes one method of trapping that has proven
effective for many beginners.

Items Needed to Set a Coyote Trap:
* One 5-gallon (19-l) plastic bucket to carry equipment.
* Two No. 3 or No. 4 traps per set.
* One 18-to 24-inch (46-to 61-cm) stake for holding both traps in
place.
* Straight claw hammer to dig a hole in the ground for trap placement
and to pound the stake into the ground.
* Leather gloves to protect fingers while digging the trap bed.
* Cloth (or canvas) feed sack to kneel on while digging a trap bed
and pounding the stake.
* Roll of plastic sandwich bags to cover and prevent soil from
getting under the pan of the trap.
* Screen sifter for sifting soil over the traps.
* Rib bone for leveling off soil over the traps once they are set in
place and covered.
* Bottle of coyote urine to attract the coyote to the set (keep urine
away from other equipment).

Locating the Set. Coyotes travel where walking is easy, such as along
old roads, and they have preferred places to travel, hunt, rest, howl,
and roam. Do not set traps directly in a trail but to one side where
coyotes may stop, such as on a hilltop, near a gate, or where cover
changes. Make the set on level ground to ensure that the coyote walks
across level ground to it.

Good locations for a set are often indicated by coyote tracks. The
following are good locations on most farms and ranches for setting
traps: high hills and saddles in high hills; near isolated land
features or isolated bales of hay; trail junctions, fences, and stream
crossings; pasture roads, livestock trails, waterways, game trails, and
dry or shallow creek beds; near pond dams, field borders, field
corners, groves of trees, and eroded gullies; sites near animal
carcasses, bone or brush piles; and under rim rocks.

Making the Set. Place three to five trap sets near the area where
coyotes have killed livestock.

First, observe the area where the losses are occurring and look for
tracks and droppings to determine the species responsible. Study the
paths used by predators. If you have 4 hours to spend setting traps,
spend at least 3 of them looking for coyote sign.
* Decide where to place the trap sets. Always place them in an open,
flat area because of wind currents, dispersion of scent, and
visibility. Never place traps uphill or downhill from the coyote's
expected path of approach.
* Look for open places where coyote tracks indicate that the animal
milled around or stopped. Place the set upwind from the path (or
site of coyote activity) so the prevailing wind will carry the
scent across the area of expected coyote activity.
* Choose a level spot as close as possible to, but not directly on,
the coyote's path. The coyote's approach should never be over dry
leaves, tall grass, stones, sticks, weeds, or rough ground. Make
each set where the coyote has clear visibility as it approaches.
* Place the set using two No. 3 traps with a cold-shut chain repair
link affixed to the top of a steel stake. The link should swivel
around the stake top. The stake should be at least 18 inches (46
cm) long, or longer if the soil is loose. Use two stakes set at an
angle to each other if the soil will not hold with a single stake.

Figures 9 through 29 illustrate the procedures for making a set.
canvas placement for coyote trapping

Fig. 9. A piece of canvas, about 3 feet x 6 feet, used as a kneeling
cloth, makes preparing the trap site much easier.
compress the spring of the coyote trap prepare trap bed for coyote trap
set coyote trap photos step by step


place coyote trap in bed stake down coyote trap cover the trap pan bed
the coyote trap pan

Fig 20. Take out or add soil until the trap pan and jaws are about 1/2
inch below the level of the surrounding ground. Build a ridge for the
jaw opposite the trigger to sit on. On the side of the trap that has
the trigger, place soil under the trap pan cover on either side of the
trigger to hold the pan cover up tight against the bottom of the jaws.
take care not to get dirt under the trap pan

Fig 21. Stretch the pan cover tightly across the pan and under the
jaws. Pan and jaws should be level and flat. In cold weather, plastic
can be placed under the trap. Place plastic baggies on each spring and
mix table salt with dry soil or peat moss to cover the trap. Set the
other trap as shown above. Place the pan cover so that the dog or
trigger can move upward without binding it in. Anything that slows the
action of the trap can cause a miss or a toe hold.
sift dirt over coyote trap make coyote trap set look natural

Fig. 23. The trap should be set about 1/4 inch below the level of the
surrounding ground. The set must look natural. The soil around the trap
and over the springs, chains, and stake should be packed to the same
firmness as the ground the coyote walks on in its approach to the set.
Only soft soil should be directly over the trap pan within the set jaw
area. Use a curved stick, brush, or rib bone to level soil over the
trap.
place object near trap that can be easily seen bait trap remove signs
of human presence gather left over dirt dispose of left over dirt how
to leave the trap set area

Always bury the traps and stake in the ground using dry, finely sifted
soil. One of the most difficult aspects of using traps is trapping when
the ground is frozen, muddy, wet, or damp. If the weather is expected
to turn cold and/or wet, you should use one or a combination of the
following materials in which to set and cover the traps: Canadian
sphagnum peat moss, very dry soil, dry manure, buckwheat hulls, or
finely chopped hay. A mixture of one part table salt or calcium
chloride with three parts dry soil will prevent the soil from freezing
over the trap. When using peat moss or other dry, fluffy material,
cover the material with a thin layer of dry soil mixed with 1/4
teaspoon of table salt. This will blend the set with the surrounding
soil and prevent the wind from blowing peat moss away from the trap. As
an alternative, traps could be set in a bed of dry soil placed over the
snow or frozen ground.

Guiding Coyote Footsteps. Use a few strategically placed dirt clods,
sticks, small rocks, or stickers around the set to guide the coyote's
foot to the traps. Coyotes will tend to avoid the obstacles and place
their feet in bare areas. Do not use this method to the extent that the
set looks unnatural.

Care of Coyote Traps. New traps can be used to trap coyotes, but better
results may be obtained by using traps that have been dyed. Dyeing
traps helps prevent rust and removes odors. Wood chips or crystals for
dyeing traps are available from trapping supply outlets. Some trappers
also wax their traps to prevent them from rusting and to extend the
life of the traps.

Inevitably, rusting will occur when traps are in use. It does not harm
the traps, but after their continued use the rust often will slow the
action of the trap and cause it to miss a coyote. Traps also become
contaminated with skunk musk, gasoline, oil, blood, or other odors. It
is important that traps be clean and in good working condition. Rusted
traps should be cleaned with a wire brush to ensure that the trigger
and pan work freely. Check the chain links for open links. File the
triggers and receivers to eliminate all rounded edges. Make any
adjustments necessary so that the pan will sit level and the trap
perform smoothly.

Size of Traps for Coyotes. There are many suitable traps for catching
coyotes. Both the No. 3 and No. 4 are good choices. Many trappers
prefer a No. 3 coilspring round-jawed off-set trap. It is a good idea
to use superweld kinkless chain. The length of chain varies depending
on whether the trap is staked or a drag is used. A longer chain should
be used with a drag. The off-set jaws are designed to reduce broken
foot bones, which can allow the coyote to escape by wriggling out of
the trap. Traps with coil springs are good coyote traps, but they
require more upkeep than a double long-spring trap. The type and size
of trap may be regulated in each state. Body gripping traps are
dangerous and illegal in some states for catching coyotes. When pet
dogs might be present, use a padded-jaw No. 3 double coilspring trap.

While additional testing needs to be conducted, results of research to
reduce injury using padded-jaw traps have been encouraging. In tests
with No. 3 Soft-Catch(R) coilsprings, No. 3 NM longsprings, and No. 4
Newhouse longsprings, capture rates for coyotes were 95%, 100%, and
100%, respectively. Soft-Catch traps caused the least visible injury to
captured coyotes.

Anchoring Traps. Chain swivels are necessary for trapping coyotes. One
swivel at the stake, one in the middle of the chain, and one at the
trap are recommended. Drags (Fig. 30) instead of stakes can be used
where there is an abundance of brush or trees or where the ground is
too rocky to use a stake. Use a long chain (5 feet [1.5 m] or more) on
a drag.

Lures and Scents. Coyotes are interested in and may be attracted to
odors in their environment. Commercially available lures and scents or
natural odors such as fresh coyote, dog, or cat droppings or urine may
produce good results. Coyote urine works the best.

Problems in Trapping Coyotes. A great deal of experience is required to
effectively trap coyotes. Trapping by experienced or untrained people
may serve to educate coyotes, making them very difficult to catch, even
by experienced trappers. Coyotes, however, exhibit individualized
patterns of behavior. Many, but not all, coyotes become trap-shy after
being caught and then escaping from a trap. There is a record of one
coyote having been caught eight times in the same set. Some coyotes
require considerably more time and thought to trap than others. With
unlimited time, a person could trap almost any coyote.

If a coyote digs up or springs a trap without getting caught, reset the
trap in the same place. Then carefully set one or two traps near the
first set. Use gloves and be careful to hide the traps. Changing scents
or using various tricks, such as a lone feather as a visual attraction
near a set, or a ticking clock in a dirt hole set as an audible
attraction, may help in trying to catch wary coyotes.

Resetting Traps and Checking Trap Sets. Once a coyote is caught at a
set, reset the trap in the same place. The odor and disturbance at the
set where a coyote has been caught will often attract other coyotes.
Sometimes other coyotes will approach but not enter the circle where
the coyote was caught. If signs indicate that this has happened, move
the trap set outside of the circle. Leave all sets out for at least 2
weeks before moving the traps to a new location. Check the traps once
every 24 hours, preferably in the morning around 9 or 10 o'clock.
Reapply the scent every 4 days, using 8 to 10 drops of coyote urine.

Human Scent and Coyote Trapping. Minimize human scent around trap sets
as much as possible.

Fig. 30. Trapping drag

Coyote trap drags

If traps are being set in warm months, make sure the trapper has
recently bathed, has clean clothes, and is not sweating. Leave no
unnecessary foreign odors, such as cigarette butts or gum wrappers,
near the set. Wear clean gloves and rubber footwear while setting
traps. A landowner may have an advantage over a stranger who comes to
set traps since the coyotes are acquainted with the landowner's scent
and expect him/her to be there. Coyotes have been known to leave an
area after encountering an unfamiliar human scent.

Because of human scent, coyotes are more difficult to catch with traps
in wet or humid weather. Wear gloves, wax traps, and take other
precautionary measures in areas where humans are not commonly present,
where wet weather conditions are common, and where coyotes have been
trapped for several years and have learned to avoid traps.

Killing a Trapped Coyote. A coyote will make its most desperate attempt
to get out of the trap as a person approaches. As soon as you get
within a few feet (m) of the coyote, check to see that the trap has a
firm hold on the coyote's foot. If so, shoot the coyote in the head,
with a .22 caliber weapon. It is often a good idea to reset the trap in
the same place. The blood from the coyote will not necessarily harm the
set as long as it is not on the trap or on the soil over the reset
traps. Reset the trap regardless of the species of animal captured,
skunks included.

Draw Stations. Draw stations are natural areas or places set up
intentionally to draw coyotes to a particular location. For example,
the straw and cleanings from a chicken house can be placed in an area
where coyote tracks are found. Traps can then be set around the edges
of the straw. Areas around carcasses or parts of animals, such as a
cow's head, are good places to set traps. Wire the carcass to a stake
driven into the ground and out of sight. Once coyotes start feeding,
set traps 30 to 60 feet (9 to 18 m) upwind from the carcasses or draw
station. Never set traps very close to carcasses because nontarget
animals such as vultures, eagles, hawks, skunks, and opossums will be
caught. If sheep graze in an area where traps are set, cover the traps
with a disc blade or brush during the day and uncover them at night
when the sheep are penned.

Opposition to Traps. Opposition to foothold traps is based primarily on
two objections: (1) a lack of selectivity for the animal which the trap
is set for and (2) foot injury sustained by the captured animal. Trap
pan tension devices such as sticks, forked twigs, springs, and sponges
placed under the trap pan have been used for many years to reduce
captures of nontarget species. Many coyote traps have an adjustable pan
tension screw. One study evaluated two pan tension devices. Preliminary
results indicated that the use of either device could exclude nearly
90% of the gray foxes, swift foxes, striped skunks, opossums, and
jackrabbits that stepped on traps, as compared with 24% on average for
unequipped traps. A variety of other species were excluded at even
higher rates. Some coyotes were also excluded, but because more traps
remained functional, the net result appeared to be an increase in
coyote trapping efficiency. Advances in trap design, including off-set
jaws and padded-jaw traps, have increased the humaneness of foothold
traps. Traps should be checked once or twice each day to minimize the
length of time that an animal must remain in a trap.
coyote snare components Fig. 33. Setting the snare

proper staking and setting of coyote snare

Fig. 34. Fastening the snare to the stake

Snares Snaring is the technique of setting a steel-cable loop in an
animal's path to capture it by the neck, body, or leg. Snares usually
consist of a 2.5- to 10foot (0.75- to 3.0-m) long piece of galvanized
aircraft cable containing a slide lock that forms a loop in the cable
(Fig. 31). On short snares, a swivel to prevent twisting and breaking
the cable is attached to the end of the cable opposite the loop. On
longer snares, swivels can be located near the middle of the cable and
at one end.

Snares offer several advantages over steel foothold traps. They are
lightweight, compact, simple in function, affected little by weather,
easy to set, low in cost, and offer a high degree of human safety. In a
south Texas study, snares were 10 times more selective over steel
foothold traps for target species of coyotes and bobcats. Snares,
however, can be a greater hazard than traps to livestock. Recent
research has produced deer stops and break-away or relaxing locks that
have significantly improved snare specificity.

Preparation of Snares.New commercial snares and extension cables can be
cleaned by boiling each dozen snares in a pan or bucket of water with 4
tablespoons (16 gm) of baking soda for one hour. The snares will turn a
dull gray after being removed from this bath and hung up to dry
outdoors. Darken snares by boiling them in brown logwood crystals and
dye. After boiling, snares should be kept clean of foreign odors. Wear
clean gloves when handling and setting snares.

How to Set Snares. Snares designed to capture predators by the neck or
leg are set directly in the animal's path of movement and are held in
place using various techniques. One support that works particularly
well can be constructed from a 36-inch (0.9-m) piece of 12-gauge
galvanized or 9-gauge soft wire. Form a V bend in the support wire,
about 4 inches (10 cm) from the end, and drive the wire into the ground
with a notched rod (Fig. 32) to prevent the support from moving in the
wind. Wrap the snare around the support about three times and hold it
in place with a U bend formed in the upper end of the snare support.
Bend the snare cable upward slightly, just inside the lock, to ensure
that the snare loop is not closed by the wind (Fig. 33).

Snares should be attached to a solid object so that captured animals
cannot escape (Fig. 34). A steel 1/2-inch (1.3- cm) diameter rebar, 24
to 30 inches (61 to 72 cm) long (depending on soil hardness), makes a
good anchor for coyotes and smaller predators. Attach snares to the
rebar with a strong swivel to prevent tangling and breaking. A lead
cable that is at least as strong as the snare cable can be used to
attach short snares to the rebar stake. Avoid using 9-gauge (0.38-cm)
wire or several strands of 14-gauge (0.21-cm) wire to anchor snares to
a rebar stake because they may bend back and forth, crystallize, and
break. When used for coyotes, snares also can be secured to a dead tree
limb that is at least 6 inches (15 cm) in diameter and 6 feet (2 m)
long.
snare set on woven wire

Snares set in holes under woven-wire fences can be held in place about
1 to 2 inches (2.5 to 5 cm) from the fence with the snare support
system (Fig. 35). The snare should be set far enough away from the
fence to prevent the lock from catching on the bottom wire of the
fence. The bottom of the loop should be about 2 inches (5 cm) above the
bottom of the hole. The snares can be anchored to the heavy-gauge wire
on the bottom of the fence. Two strands of baling wire or S hooks can
be used to fasten the snare to the bottom wire.

If there is a chance of accidentally catching a pet dog, a leg snare
set is recommended (Fig. 36). Set a small loop about 5 inches (13 cm)
or less to one side of the opening, and set the bottom of the loop on
the ground. When a coyote goes under a fence, it places both front feet
firmly on the ground, and sticks its head just under the bottom wire.
Once its head is past the bottom wire, the coyote begins to raise its
head. The idea is to set the leg snare so that one front foot will pass
through the snare.

Snares are usually set in the form of a round or oval loop. In a trail
set (Fig. 37), a round loop that is 12 inches (30 cm) in diameter can
form an oval loop that is about 14 inches (36 cm) high and 10 inches
(25 cm) wide. Use a 5/64- or 3/32-inch (0.2- or 0.24-cm) diameter
galvanized aircraft cable for snaring coyotes. Varying round loop
diameters and heights above ground is recommended when snaring coyotes
(Table 1). The loop size in a hole in a fence should vary depending
upon the size of the hole.


image of snare set to catch the leg of a coyote

CAPTION: Table 1 Specific loop dimensions for snaring coyotes

Height of
Round loop Loop above
Type of Set diameter Ground
Inches Centimeters Inches Centimeters
Trail 9-12 (23-30) 10-12 (25-30)
Under
Fence 7-10 (18-25) 2 (5)



Where to Set Snares. Animals usually follow the easiest route through
heavy cover. These routes, which generally consist of trails, are
excellent locations to snare predators. Snares are effective along
trails leading to draw stations. Some effective locations for snaring
coyotes include: (1) along trails in thickets or heavy vegetation
leading to a carcass, (2) on trails under fences, (3) on livestock
trails in vacant pastures, (4) in the bottoms of ravines, and 5) on
narrow paths inside weeds or brush. Trails can be created by driving on
weeds or stubble with a pickup, by walking in snow, or by mowing a
trail through weeds or grass with a weed eater.

Regulations for Snaring. Snares are not legal in all states. Where
snares are legal, most states have regulations which require that
snares be visually inspected every 24 hours. Snares should be checked
early in the morning to increase the probability of releasing nontarget
animals unharmed.

Methods to Avoid Capturing Nontarget Animals. Sites where snares are
set should be carefully selected to avoid capturing nontarget animals.
Avoid setting snares: (1) in pastures with livestock, (2) within 25
yards (23 m) of animal carcasses (to prevent capturing birds of prey
and other scavengers), (3) within major deer, elk, or antelope
wintering areas (these big game animals are much less susceptible to
foothold traps), (4) on any trails being used by livestock, deer, elk,
and other nontarget animals (attract predators away from these trails
with specific baits and lures), (5) under fences where livestock,
antelope, deer, or nontarget dogs are using the "crawl space," and (6)
where people can readily view captured animals.

Coyote trail snare Fig. 37. Trail snare set

Use a short snare cable to reduce injuries where accidentally captured
dogs might jump over a fence or a tree branch. Also avoid using
entangling devices (attachments that increase the chance of killing the
snared animal) where dogs might be captured. Use the lightest snare
lock (breakaway lock) possible to capture the desired animal. If
livestock, deer, elk, or antelope are captured by a leg, they can
usually break a light lock but may be held by heavy locks. Record the
location and number of snares on a map so they can be found, and remove
all snares when damage stops or when they cannot be checked frequently.

Shooting

Shooting coyotes is legal in many situations, and it often ranks high
among the choices for removing a predator. Safety, however, is a
critical factor that in some circumstances may preclude the use of
firearms (for example, local laws may prohibit shooting, or neighbors
may be too close).

For shooting coyotes, a medium-powered bolt-action rifle fitted with a
scope is recommended. The .223 Remington, .22-250, .220 Swift, or the
.243 Winchester are all capable of killing a coyote up to a distance of
250 yards (225 m). Since coyotes are able to detect human scent, the
shooter should take a stand downwind from where the coyote will likely
approach. An elevated location where the lighting works to the
shooter's advantage is a good choice. If predators are killing sheep in
the daytime, construct a comfortable blind at a vantage point in the
pasture where the killing has occurred. Whenever possible, rest the
rifle on a solid support while aiming. A homemade shooting stick will
improve accuracy over shooting freehand.

A shotgun, preferably a 12-gauge semi-automatic, can be used for
shooting at short range (less than 50 yards [45 m]). Often it is
advisable to have both a 12-gauge shotgun and a scoped rifle available.
Copper-coated (BB) lead shot, No. 4 buckshot (lead), and in newer
shotguns, the larger-sized steel shot works well for killing coyotes.

Shooting From Ground Vehicles. Shooting from vehicles (snowmobiles,
motorcycles, and pickups) in open, flat prairie country can be
effective and provide immediate results. Under most circumstances,
however, this method is not practical as it requires keen driving
skills, is dangerous, and is illegal in most states.

Calling and Shooting Coyotes. Coyotes may respond to predator calls.
Calling, like other methods of predation control, should be used
sparingly and only when needed. Coyotes can be called at any time of
the day although the first couple of hours after dawn and the last few
hours before darkness are usually best. Call in areas where there are
signs of coyotes, such as tracks or droppings.

In some situations, coyotes can be located by listening to their
howling at sundown and sunrise. Some hunters use sirens to elicit howls
from coyotes. Often a voice imitation of a coyote howl works as well.
Coyotes often come to a howl without howling back, so the prudent
hunter is always ready to shoot.

Hunting at Night. Not many people have witnessed predators killing
livestock because it usually occurs at night, away from human activity.
As stated previously, calling and shooting predators at night is
illegal in many states. Where legal, however, hunting at night with the
use of artificial lights may be effective. Red or blue light tends to
spook predators less readily than white light does. Calling without the
use of artificial lights is effective only with snow cover and the
light of a full moon.

Aerial Hunting. The use of aircraft for shooting coyotes is strictly
regulated by the provisions of the Airborne Hunting Act and is allowed
only under special permit in states where legal. Aerial hunting is
selective and allows taking only the target species. Although it is
costly, it may be one of the most cost-effective methods of reducing
predator damage when all factors are considered. It is often the best
method where conditions are right for removing depredating animals that
have successfully evaded traditional ground control methods such as
trapping.

Fixed-wing aerial hunting is limited primarily to open areas with
little vegetative cover. The greater maneuverability of helicopters
makes them more useful for hunting in areas of brush, scattered timber,
and rugged terrain.

Although aerial hunting can be conducted over bare ground, it is most
effective where there is deep snow cover. Animals are more visible
against a background of snow and are much less mobile in their attempts
to avoid the aircraft. Under optimal conditions of clear, sunny skies
and fresh snow cover, much of the hunting can be accomplished by
searching for and following fresh coyote tracks. Aerial hunting success
can be increased when conducted with the assistance of a ground crew.
Before the plane arrives, a ground crew can locate coyotes in the
hunting area by eliciting howls with a siren, a mouth-blown howler
call, or a voice howl. Two-way radio communication allows the ground
crew to direct the aircraft toward the sound of the coyotes, thus
reducing hunting time.

Aerial hunting is not recommended for, nor undertaken by, most
livestock producers because of the special skills required of both
pilot and gunner and the danger inherent with the low-level flight.
Although weather, terrain, and state laws limit the application of this
method, it can often provide a prompt resolution to depredation
problems.

Denning

Predation can frequently be resolved by locating coyote dens and
removing the pups and/or the adults responsible for depredations.
Denning may also be warranted as a preventive control strategy if
coyote predation has historically and consistently occurred in a
particular area during the lambing season.

Breeding pairs of coyotes are extremely territorial. They vigorously
defend their territories against other canine intruders. Coyotes often
den year after year in the same general location. If a particular
denning pair of coyotes has a history of existing with and not preying
on livestock, it may be to the producer's advantage to leave them
alone. Their removal will open up a territory that may become occupied
with coyotes that are more likely to prey on livestock.

Although tracking a coyote from a livestock kill back to its den
requires skill and persistence, it is probably the most foolproof
method to locate the den of the offending animals. If tracking is not
feasible because of poor tracking conditions or lack of the required
skills, there are alternatives that may be used.

Coyotes will usually howl in response to a howl from another coyote
near their den. One or both adult coyotes will often be near the den
between 7:30 to 9:00 a.m. A response can be elicited by voice howling,
blowing a coyote howler call, or broadcasting recorded calls from a
tape player. It is usually best to wait 30 minutes to 1 hour between
howls because the same coyotes may not respond again within that
period.

Once the approximate location of a den is determined, careful planning
is required to ensure the best chance of immediately removing the adult
coyotes. The hunter should approach the den unseen and downwind to
within calling distance, armed with a high powered rifle and/or
repeating shotgun loaded with heavy shot. A call that imitates the
whines or yelps of a coyote pup can be very effective under these
circumstances, especially when used in conjunction with a dog to act as
a decoy. A small-to medium-sized dog moving in the vicinity of the den
gives the coyotes something to focus on and reduces the likelihood that
the hunter will be detected. The sounds of a pup in distress along with
the sight of a dog so near the den will cause most coyotes to display
highly aggressive behavior, frequently chasing the dog back to within
close proximity of the hunter.

After the adults are removed, the pups can be killed by fumigating the
den with a gas cartridge registered for this purpose, or the pups can
be dug out by hand. If attempts to shoot one or both adults are
unsuccessful, the chances of trapping or snaring them are improved if
the pups are left alive and confined in the den. This can be
accomplished by driving stakes 2 inches (5 cm) apart down through the
den entrance. Carefully place blind sets in the den trails or at the
den mound. Capture will often result when the adults return to
investigate the area. If the adults are not captured within a
reasonable period of time, the pups should be destroyed. Removal of the
pups is often effective in stopping predation even if the adult coyotes
are not removed.

An airplane can be used very effectively to locate coyote dens when
depredations occur in spring or early summer in open prairies or
sagebrush terrain. Early morning hours provide the best light
conditions for locating adult animals near the den site or as they
return from hunting. The low angle light reflects on the coyote and
provides good contrast with the surrounding vegetation and soil. Actual
den sign, however, shows up better during the middle of the day with
light coming from directly overhead. Dens are most easily located after
the pups have begun venturing outside. The pups soon trample down the
vegetation around the den, making the site more visible from the air.
If aerial shooting is legal, it is often possible to remove the adults
and pups in one operation. In open terrain, landings can often be made
within walking distance of the den.

Although denning requires special skills, training, and often
considerable time, the advantages can be significant. A cost-benefit
analysis conducted during one study determined that the cost to remove
a den of depredating coyotes could be recovered if only 3.6 lambs were
saved. In the same study, the average number of lambs killed by each
depredating pair of coyotes was 4.9 per week. While these findings
indicate that denning could be cost effective after only a few days,
the benefits actually continue in most instances for the duration of
the season. Denning can be very selective for the offending animals and
can resolve some depredation problems at relatively low cost.

Hunting with Dogs. Several breeds are generally known as trailing
hounds, including Walkers, Julys, redbones, blueticks, black and tans,
Plott hounds, and English fox hounds. Trail hounds follow the scent
left by a predator and run it to tree or bay it on the ground. Coyotes
are seldom caught and killed by trail hounds. In most instances, trail
hounds are used in combination with sight hounds. The trail hounds run
coyotes into the open, and then sight hounds are released to capture
the fleeing coyote. More commonly, coyotes are shot as they run from
the pack of hounds. Sight hounds, generally greyhounds or Russian wolf
hounds, are used in open prairie country to run coyotes down and kill
them.

Economics of Damage and Control

Sheep numbers in the United States have declined about 80% from 1942 to
1976 (Gee et al. 1977). Former sheep producers reported that the
principal reasons for leaving the sheep industry included high
predation losses, low lamb and wool prices, a shortage of good hired
labor, and the producer's age.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (1978) estimated the economic impact
of coyote predation on producers with predator problems, on producers
without predator problems, and on consumers during 1977. They used an
average lamb loss rate of 4% (267,000 lambs) and a ewe loss rate of
1.5% (125,000 ewes) to estimate an economic loss of $19 million to
producers from coyote predation in the 17 western states. The reduced
number of sheep and lambs resulted in a higher market price, which
benefited producers by $6 million. The net impact of coyote predation
on sheep producers was a loss of $13 million, and the impact on
consumers was $4 million in additional costs. The General Accounting
Office (GAO 1990) estimated that coyotes in 17 western states killed
sheep and lambs valued at $18 million in 1989. The National
Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS 1991) reported that sheep and
lamb losses to coyotes in the United States were valued at $18.3
million in 1990.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (1978) reported calf losses between
birth and weaning to coyotes across the United States at 0.4%, with
predation decreasing to nearly zero by weaning time. Dorrance (1982)
reported that coyotes were responsible for 16% of the 1,520 confirmed
predation losses of cattle in Alberta from 1974 to 1978. Coyote
predation on calves caused producers with coyote problems across the
United States to lose an estimated $20 million. However, because of the
greater price flexibility of beef compared with sheep, the reduction in
the number of beef calves marketed (estimated at 0.4%, or 115,000 fewer
calves) resulted in a higher price, which benefited beef producers by
$81 million. The net impact of the reduced supply of beef as a result
of coyote predation was a gain of $61 million to beef producers, but it
cost consumers an additional $98 million in higher prices for beef,
resulting in an overall loss of $37 million. NASS (1992) reported that
cattle and calf losses to coyotes in the United States were valued at
$24.3 million in 1991.

Coyote predation also can cause substantial losses of domestic goats.
In three studies in Texas, where an estimated 1.1 million goats (about
90% of the goats in the United States) are raised (Scrivner et al.
1985), predators were reported to take 18.1% of the adults and 33.9% of
the kids (Pearson 1986). NASS (1991) reported that goat losses to
coyotes in the United States were valued at $5.7 million in 1990.

Pearson (1986) stated that predators, particularly coyotes, accounted
for losses of hundreds of chickens and turkeys in the 14 western
states. In one study, Andelt and Gipson (1979) reported that between
June 4 and August 31, 1976, a mated pair of coyotes apparently killed
268 domestic turkeys in Nebraska valued at $938.

Although the average value of livestock losses to coyotes reflected the
overall impact on producers, it did not reflect the severity of losses
to some individuals. Balser (1964) and Gee et al. (1977) indicated that
coyote predation is much more serious for some producers than others.
Most sheep producers suffer no or minor predator losses, whereas 20% to
25% of the producers suffer losses that are significantly higher than
the average (US Fish Wildl. Serv. 1978). These losses can drive
producers out of business because of low profit margins. Nonfatal
injuries and harassment of livestock by coyotes also can result in
reduced weight gain and subsequent reductions in profit.

Acknowledgments

Much of the information and several of the figures for this chapter
were adapted from the SID Sheep Production Handbook, Predator Damage
Control chapter, published by the American Sheep Industry Association,
Inc. (1990) and various publications authored by

F. R. Henderson, J. S. Green, W. F. Andelt, G. E. Connolly, and D. A.
Wade.

The section on economics of damage and control was adapted from Andelt
(1987).

Figure 1 by Emily Oseas Routman.

Figure 6 adapted from a USDA-APHIS-ADC illustration by Renee Lanik,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

For Additional Information

Alberta Agriculture. 1990. Methods of investigating predation of
livestock. Alberta Agric., Crop Prot. Branch, Agdex 684-4. 36 pp.

Andelt, W. F. 1987. Coyote predation. Pages 128-140 in M. Novak, J. A.
Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch. Wild furbearer management and
conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry. Nat. Resour.

Andelt, W. F. 1988. Proper use of snares for capturing furbearers.
Colorado State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv. Pub. 6.517, Fort Collins. 4 pp.

Andelt, W. F., and P. S. Gipson. 1979. Domestic turkey losses to
radio-tagged coyotes. J. Wildl. Manage. 4:673-679.

Balser, D. S. 1964. Management of predator populations with
antifertility agents. J. Wildl. Manage. 28:352-358.

Bateman, J. 1971. Animal traps and trapping. Stackpole Books.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 286 pp.

Bekoff, M., ed. 1978. Coyotes: biology, behavior, and management.
Academic Press, New York. 384 pp.

Boggess, E. K., F. R. Henderson, and C. W. Spaeth. 1980. Managing
predator problems: practices and procedures for preventing and reducing
livestock losses. Coop. Ext. Serv. C-620, Kansas State Univ.,
Manhattan. 19 pp.

Connolly, G. 1992a. Sheep and goat losses to predators in the United
States. Proc. Eastern Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 5:75-82.

Connolly, G. 1992b. Coyote damage to livestock and other resources.
Pages 161-169 in A. H. Boer, ed. Proceedings, ecology and management of
the eastern coyote. Univ., New Brunswick, Fredericton.

Connolly, G. E. 1988. M-44 sodium cyanide ejectors in the Animal Damage
Control program, 19761986. Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf. 13:220-225.

Connolly, G. E. and W. M Longhurst. 1975. The effects of control on
coyote populations -- a simulation model. Univ. California, Coop. Ext.
Serv. Bull. 1872. 37 pp.

deCalesta, D. S. 1983. Building an electric antipredator fence. Pacific
Northwest Ext. Pub. 225. 11 pp.

Dorrance, M. J. 1982. Predation losses of cattle in Alberta. J. Range
Manage. 35:690-692.

Gee, C. K., W. R. Bailey, R. L. Gum, and L. M. Arthur. 1977. Sheep and
lamb losses to predators and other causes in the western United States.
US Dep. Agric., Econ. Res. Serv., Agric. Econ. Rep. 369. 41 pp.

Gee, C. K., D. B. Nielsen and D. M. Stevens. 1977. Factors in the
decline of the western sheep industry. US Dep. Agric., Econ. Res.
Serv., Agric. Econ. Rep. 377. 31 pp.

General Accounting Office (GAO). 1990. Wildlife management effects of
Animal Damage Control program on predators. GAO/RCED-90-149, US General
Account. Office, Washington, DC. 31 pp.

Gier, H. T. 1968. Coyotes in Kansas. Revised. Kansas State Coll. Agric.
Exp. Stn. Bull. 393. 118 pp.

Green, J. S. ed. 1987. Protecting livestock from coyotes: a synopsis of
the research of the Agricultural Research Service. Natl. Tech. Info.
Serv. PB 88 133590/AS. 105 pp.

Green, J. S., and R. A. Woodruff. 1991. Livestock guarding dogs protect
sheep from predators. US Dep. Agric., Agric. Info. Bull. No. 588. 31
pp.

Henderson, F. R. 1986. "How to Call a Coyote," Kansas State Univ.,
Coop. Ext. Serv., Manhattan. Pub. C-400. 4 pp.

Henderson, F. R. 1987. How to trap a coyote. Kansas State. Univ., Coop.
Ext. Serv., Pub. C-660. 12 pp.

Henderson, F. R. 1988. Use of snares for capturing coyotes. CES, Kansas
State Univ., Coop. Ext. Serv. Pub. C-698., Manhattan. 4 pp.

Henderson, F. R., E. K. Boggess, and R. J. Robel. 1977. Understanding
the coyote. Kansas State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv., Pub. C-578.,
Manhattan. 24 pp.

Hulet, C. V., D. M. Anderson, J. N. Smith, W. L. Shupe, C. A. Taylor,
Jr., and L. W. Murray. 1989. Bonding of goats to sheep and cattle for
protection from predators. Appl. An. Behav. Sci. 22:261-267.

Knowlton, F. F. 1972. Preliminary interpretations of coyote population
mechanics with some management implications. J. Wildl. Manage.
36:369-382.

Linhart, S. B., G. J. Dasch, and F. J. Turkowski. 1981. The steel
leghold trap: techniques for reducing foot injury and increasing
selectivity. Proc. Worldwide Furbearer Conf. 3:1560-1578.

Linhart, S. B., J. D. Roberts, and G. J. Dasch. 1981. Electric fencing
reduces coyote predation on pastured sheep. J. Range Manage.
35:276-281.

Linhart, S. B., R. T. Sterner, G. J. Dasch, and J. W. Theade. 1984.
Efficacy of light and sound stimuli for reducing coyote predation upon
pastured sheep. Prot. Ecol. 6:75-84.

Meduna, R. 1977. Relationship between sheep management and coyote
predation. M.S. Thesis, Kansas State Univ., Manhattan. 140 pp.

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 1991. Sheep and goat
predator loss. US Dep. Agric., Agric. Statistics Board, Washington, DC.

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 1992. Cattle and
calves death loss. US Dep Agric., Agric. Statistics Board, Washington,
DC.

Pearson, E. W. 1986. A literature review of livestock losses to
predators in western U.S. US Fish Wildl. Serv. Final Rep., Denver,
Colorado. 20 pp.

Robel, R. J., A. D. Dayton, F. R. Henderson, R. L. Meduna, and C. W.
Spaeth. 1981. Relationships between husbandy methods and sheep losses
to canine predators. J. Wildl. Manage. 45:894-911.

Scrivner, J. H. 1983. The 1080 toxic collar: economics of field use in
Texas. Proc. Western Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 1:201-204.

Scrivner, J. H., D. A. Wade, G. E. Connolly, and L. C. Howard, Jr.
1985. The effects of predation on an Angora goat ranch. Nat. Wool
Grower. 75:10-13.

Shelton, M. 1984. The use of conventional and electric fencing to
reduce coyote predation on sheep and goats. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. MP
1556. 12 pp.

Till, J. A., and F. F. Knowlton. 1983. Efficacy of denning in
alleviating coyote depredations on domestic sheep. J. Wildl. Manage.
47:1018-1025.

Todd, A. W. and L. B. Keith. 1976. Responses of coyotes to winter
reductions in agricultural carrion. Alberta Wildl. Tech. Bull. 5. 32
pp.

USDA. 1993. Animal Damage Control Program. Supplement to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement-1992. US Dep. Agric. Washington, DC.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Predator damage in the West: a
study of coyote management alternatives. US Fish Wildl. Serv.,
Washington, DC. 168 pp.

Wade, D. A. 1973. Control of damage by coyotes and some other
carnivores. Colorado State Univ., Coop. Ext. Serv. Bull. 482a. 16 pp.

Wade, D. A. 1976. The use of aircraft in predator control. Vertebr.
Pest Conf. Proc. 7:154-160.

Wagner, F. H. 1988. Predator control and the sheep industry: the role
of science in policy formation. Regina Books, Claremont, California.
230 pp.

Walton, M. T., and C. A. Feild. 1989. Use of donkeys to guard sheep and
goats in Texas. Eastern Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 4:87-94.

Young, S. P., and H. T. Jackson. 1951. The clever coyote. The Stackpole
Co., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and the Wildl. Manage. Inst.,
Washington, DC. 411 pp.

Video Tapes

Video tape, VHS. "Livestock Guarding Dogs, Protecting Sheep From
Coyotes." US Dep. Agric., An. Plant Health Inspect. Serv., An. Damage
Control.

Video tape, VHS. "How to Call a Coyote." Kansas State Univ., Coop. Ext.
Serv. Manhattan.

Video tape VHS. "How to Snare a Coyote." Kansas State Univ. Coop. Ext.
Serv., Manhattan.

Video tape, VHS. "A Matter of Perspective." Texas A&M Coop. Ext. Serv.
San Angelo.

Video tape, VHS. "How to Trap a Coyote." Colorado State Univ. Coop.
Ext. Serv., Fort Collins.

Editors

Scott E. Hygnstrom; Robert M. Timm; Gary E. Larson

PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF WILDLIFE DAMAGE -- 1994

Cooperative Extension Division Institute of Agriculture and Natural
Resources University of Nebraska -Lincoln

United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service Animal Damage Control

Great Plains Agricultural Council Wildlife Committee

[14]Home | [15]Publications | [16]Service Vendors | [17]Education |
[18]Solutions | [19]Agencies | [20]Store

(c) 2005[21] Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management
[22]Report an Error | [23]Policies | [24]Credits |

References

1. LYNXIMGMAP:http://icwdm.org/handbook/carnivor/Coyotes.asp#FPMap10
2. http://icwdm.org/
3. http://icwdm.org/credits/AskTheExpert.aspx
4. http://icwdm.org/handbook/credits/AskTheExpert.aspx
5. http://icwdm.org/credits/site_map.asp
6. http://icwdm.org/handbook/Store/Index.aspx
7. http://icwdm.org/credits/About.aspx
8. http://icwdm.org/credits/FAQ.aspx
9. http://icwdm.org/credits/TermsofUse.aspx
10. http://icwdm.org/Podcasts/Default.aspx
11. http://icwdm.org/Podcasts/default.asp
12. http://icwdm.org/wildlife/coyotes.asp
13. http://icwdm.org/wildlife/coyotes.asp
14. http://icwdm.org/
15. http://icwdm.org/Publications/WildlifePublications.asp
16. http://icwdm.org/VendorsService/default1.asp
17. http://icwdm.org/Education/GeneralEducation.asp
18. http://icwdm.org/handbook/index.asp
19. http://icwdm.org/Agencies/default.asp
20. http://icwdm.org/handbook/credits/store.asp
21. http://icwdm.org/handbook/credits/termsofuse.asp
22. mailto:***@unl.edu?subject=Report%20an%20Error
23. http://icwdm.org/handbook/confidentiality_statement.asp
24. http://icwdm.org/credits/about.asp

[USEMAP]
http://icwdm.org/handbook/carnivor/Coyotes.asp#FPMap10
1. http://www.cornell.edu/
2. http://www.clemson.edu/
3. http://www.unl.edu/
4. http://www.usu.edu/

[Gerry Harris]

<Loading Image...>

On 11/26/2016 2:46 PM, Garrison L. Hilliard wrote: