Jeffrey S. Green Assistant Regional Director USDA-APHIS- COYOTES Animal Damage Control 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- Animal Damage Control Boise, Idaho 83705

Fig. 1. Coyote, Canis latrans

Damage Prevention and Shed lambing, kidding, and calving Toxicants usually reduce coyote predation. Control Methods M-44 ejector devices for use with Remove carrion to help limit coyote sodium cyanide-loaded plastic Exclusion populations. capsules. They are most effective Produce livestock in confinement. Frightening Agents and during cold weather (fall to spring). Repellents Herd livestock into pens at night. Livestock protection collars (LPC) Guarding dogs: Some dogs have containing Compound 1080 Exclusion fences (net-wire and/or (sodium monofluoroacetate) are electric), properly constructed and significantly reduced coyote predation. registered for use only in certain maintained, can aid significantly in states. reducing predation. Donkeys and llamas: Some are Fumigants Cultural Methods and aggressive toward canines and have Habitat Modification reduced coyote predation. Gas cartridges are registered as a burrow (den) fumigant. Select pastures that have a lower Sonic and visual repellents: Strobe incidence of predation to reduce lights, sirens, propane cannons, and Trapping exposure of livestock to predation. others have reduced predation on both sheep and calves. Leghold traps (Nos. 3 and 4) are Herding of livestock generally reduces effective and are the most versatile Chemical odor and taste repellents: predation due to human presence control tool. during the herding period. None have shown sufficient effectiveness to be registered for Snares are effective where coyotes pass Change lambing, kidding, and calving use. through or under net-wire fences seasons. and in trail sets.

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 C-51 Great Plains Agricultural Council Wildlife Committee Shooting Aerial hunting is effective in removing Other Methods coyotes where terrain, ground Shooting from the ground is effective. cover, vegetation, regulations, and Denning: Remove adult coyotes and/ Use rabbit distress calls or mimic landownership conditions permit. or their young from dens. howling or other coyote sounds to Hunting with dogs is effective for trail- bring coyotes within shooting ing coyotes from kill sites, locating distance. dens, running coyotes, and assisting with aerial hunting or calling.

Identification Habitat weaker lambs are also present. Usu- ally, the stronger lamb is on the In body form and size, the coyote Many references indicate that coyotes periphery and is more active, making (Canis latrans) resembles a small collie were originally found in relatively it more prone to attack than a weaker dog, with erect pointed ears, slender open habitats, particularly the grass- lamb that is at the center of the flock muzzle, and a bushy tail (Fig. 1). lands and sparsely wooded areas of and relatively immobile. Coyotes are predominantly brownish the western United States. Whether or Coyote predation on livestock is gener- gray in color with a light gray to not this was true, coyotes have ally more severe during early spring cream-colored belly. Color varies adapted to and now exist in virtually and summer than in winter for two greatly, however, from nearly black to every type of habitat, arctic to tropic, reasons. First, sheep and cows are usu- red or nearly white in some individu- in North America. Coyotes live in ally under more intensive manage- als and local populations. Most have deserts, swamps, tundra, grasslands, ment during winter, either in feedlots dark or black guard hairs over their brush, dense forests, from below sea or in pastures that are close to human back and tail. In western states, typical level to high mountain ranges, and at activity, thus reducing the opportunity adult males weigh from 25 to 45 all intermediate altitudes. High densi- for coyotes to take livestock. Second, pounds (11 to 16 kg) and females from ties of coyotes also appear in the sub- predators bear young in the spring and 22 to 35 pounds (10 to 14 kg). In the urbs of Los Angeles, Pasadena, raise them through the summer, a pro- East, many coyotes are larger than Phoenix, and other western cities. cess that demands increased nutri- their western counterparts, with males tional input, for both the whelping and averaging about 45 pounds (14 kg) and Food Habits nursing mother and the growing females about 30 pounds (13 kg). young. This increased demand corre- sponds to the time when young sheep Coyote-dog and coyote-wolf hybrids Coyotes often include many items in or beef calves are on pastures or range- exist in some areas and may vary their diet. Rabbits top the list of their land and are most vulnerable to attack. greatly from typical coyotes in size, dietary components. Carrion, rodents, Coyote predation also may increase color, and appearance. Also, coyotes in ungulates (usually fawns), insects during fall when young coyotes dis- the New England states may differ in (such as grasshoppers), as well as live- perse from their home ranges and color from typical western coyotes. stock and poultry, are also consumed. establish new territories. Many are black, and some are reddish. Coyotes readily eat fruits such as These colorations may partially be due watermelons, berries, and other veg- to past hybridization with dogs and etative matter when they are available. General Biology, wolves. True wolves are also present In some areas coyotes feed on human Reproduction, and in some areas of coyote range, particu- refuse at dump sites and take pets Behavior larly in Canada, Alaska, Montana, (cats and small dogs). northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Coyotes are most active at night and Michigan. Relatively few wolves Coyotes are opportunistic and gener- during early morning hours (especially remain in the southern United States ally take prey that is the easiest to where human activity occurs), and and Mexico. secure. Among larger wild animals, coyotes tend to kill young, inexperi- during hot summer weather. Where Range enced animals, as well as old, sick, or there is minimal human interference weakened individuals. With domestic and during cool weather, they may be animals, coyotes are capable of catch- active throughout the day. Historically, coyotes were most com- ing and killing healthy, young, and in mon on the Great Plains of North Coyotes bed in sheltered areas but do some instances, adult prey. Prey selec- America. They have since extended not generally use dens except when tion is based on opportunity and a their range from Central America to raising young. They may seek shelter myriad of behavioral cues. Strong, the Arctic, including all of the United underground during severe weather healthy lambs are often taken from a States (except Hawaii), Canada, and or when closely pursued. Their physi- flock by a coyote even though smaller, Mexico. cal abilities include good eyesight and

C-52 hearing and a keen sense of smell. feeding and caring for the young. Coy- the site. The quantity of sheep or calf Documented recoveries from severe otes commonly hunt as singles or remains left after a kill vary widely injuries are indicative of coyotes’ pairs; extensive travel is common in depending on how recently the kill physical endurance. Although not as their hunting forays. They will hunt in was made, the size of the animal fleet as greyhound dogs, coyotes have the same area regularly, however, if killed, the weather, and the number been measured at speeds of up to 40 food is plentiful. They occasionally and species of predators that fed on miles per hour (64 km/hr) and can bury food remains for later use. the animal. sustain slower speeds for several miles Pups begin emerging from their den One key in determining whether a (km). by 3 weeks of age, and within 2 sheep or calf was killed by a predator Distemper, hepatitis, parvo virus, and months they follow adults to large is the presence or absence of subcuta- mange (caused by parasitic mites) are prey or carrion. Pups normally are neous (just under the skin) hemor- among the most common coyote dis- weaned by 6 weeks of age and fre- rhage at the point of attack. Bites to a eases. Rabies and tularemia also occur quently are moved to larger quarters dead animal will not produce hemor- and may be transmitted to other ani- such as dense brush patches and/or rhage, but bites to a live animal will. If mals and humans. Coyotes harbor sinkholes along water courses. The enough of the sheep carcass remains, numerous parasites including mites, adults and pups usually remain carefully skin out the neck and head to ticks, fleas, worms, and flukes. Mortal- together until late summer or fall observe tooth punctures and hemor- ity is highest during the first year of when pups become independent. rhage around the punctures. Talon life, and few survive for more than 10 Occasionally pups are found in groups punctures from large birds of prey will to 12 years in the wild. Human activity until the breeding season begins. also cause hemorrhage, but the loca- is often the greatest single cause of tion of these is usually at the top of the Coyotes are successful at surviving coyote mortality. head, neck, or back. This procedure and even flourishing in the presence of becomes less indicative of predation as Coyotes usually breed in February and people because of their adaptable the age of the carcass increases or if the March, producing litters about 9 behavior and social system. They typi- remains are scanty or scattered. weeks (60 to 63 days) later in April and cally display increased reproduction May. Females sometimes breed during and immigration in response to Coyotes, foxes, mountain lions, and the winter following their birth, par- human-induced population reduction. bobcats usually feed on a carcass at the ticularly if food is plentiful. Average flanks or behind the ribs and first con- litter size is 5 to 7 pups, although up to sume the liver, heart, lungs, and other 13 in a litter has been reported. More Damage and Damage viscera. Mountain lions often cover a than one litter may be found in a single Identification carcass with debris after feeding on it. den; at times these may be from Bears generally prefer meat to viscera females mated to a single male. As Coyotes can cause damage to a variety and often eat first the udder from lac- noted earlier, coyotes are capable of of resources, including livestock, poul- tating ewes. Eagles skin out carcasses hybridizing with dogs and wolves, but try, and crops such as watermelons. on larger animals and leave much of reproductive dysynchrony and They sometimes prey on pets and are a the skeleton intact. With smaller ani- behaviors generally make it unlikely. threat to public health and safety when mals such as lambs, eagles may bite off Hybrids are fertile, although their they frequent airport runways and and swallow the ribs. Feathers and breeding seasons do not usually corre- residential areas, and act as carriers of “whitewash” (droppings) are usually spond to those of coyotes. rabies. Usually, the primary concern present where an eagle has fed. regarding coyotes is predation on live- Coyote dens are found in steep banks, Coyotes may kill more than one ani- stock, mainly sheep and lambs. Preda- rock crevices, sinkholes, and under- mal in a single episode, but often will tion will be the focus of the following brush, as well as in open areas. Usu- only feed on one of the animals. discussion. ally their dens are in areas selected for Coyotes typically attack sheep at the protective concealment. Den sites are Since coyotes frequently scavenge on throat, but young or inexperienced typically located less than a mile (km) livestock carcasses, the mere presence coyotes may attack any part of the from water, but may occasionally be of coyote tracks or droppings near a body. Coyotes usually kill calves by much farther away. Coyotes will often carcass is not sufficient evidence that eating into the anus or abdominal area. dig out and enlarge holes dug by predation has taken place. Other evi- Dogs generally do not kill sheep or smaller burrowing animals. Dens vary dence around the site and on the car- calves for food and are relatively from a few feet (1 m) to 50 feet (15 m) cass must be carefully examined to aid indiscriminate in how and where they and may have several openings. in determining the cause of death. attack. Sometimes, however, it is Signs of a struggle may be evident. Both adult male and female coyotes difficult to differentiate between dog These may include scrapes or drag hunt and bring food to their young for and coyote kills without also looking marks on the ground, broken vegeta- several weeks. Other adults associated at other sign, such as size of tracks tion, or blood in various places around with the denning pair may also help in (Fig. 2) and spacing and size of canine

C-53 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 typi- cally longer than that of a dog of simi- lar size and weight. Generally, dogs 3" attack and rip the flanks, hind quar- ters, and head, and may chew ears. The sheep are sometimes still alive but 5" Coyote 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 Wolf 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 neces- sary to rely on circumstantial informa- tion. For more information on this subject, refer to the section Procedures for Evaluating Predation on Livestock 2 1/2" 4" and Wildlife, in this book. Red fox Legal Status Large dog

The status of coyotes varies depending Fig. 2. Footprints of canid predators on state and local laws. In some states, including most western states, coyotes are classified as predators and can be Federal statutes that pertain to wildlife Damage Prevention and taken throughout the year whether or damage control include the Federal Control Methods not they are causing damage to live- Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenti- stock. In other states, coyotes may be cide Act (FIFRA), which deals with For managing coyote damage, a vari- taken only during specific seasons and using toxicants, and the Airborne ety of control methods must be avail- often only by specific methods, such as Hunting Act, which regulates aerial able since no single method is effective trapping. Night shooting with a spot- hunting. in every situation. Success usually light is usually illegal. Some state laws Laws regulating coyote control are not involves an integrated approach, com- allow only state or federal agents to necessarily uniform among states or bining good husbandry practices with use certain methods (such as snares) to even among counties within a state, effective control methods for short take coyotes. Some states have a provi- and they may change frequently. A periods of time. Regardless of the sion for allowing the taking of pro- 1989 Supreme Court action established means used to stop damage, the focus tected coyotes (usually by special that it was not legal to circumvent the should be on damage prevention and permit) when it has been documented laws relative to killing predators, even control rather than elimination of coy- that they are preying on livestock. In to protect personal property (livestock) otes. It is neither wise nor practical to some instances producers can apply from predation. kill all coyotes. It is important to try to control methods, and in others, control prevent coyotes from killing calves or must be managed by a federal or state sheep for the first time. Once a coyote agent. Some eastern states consider the has killed livestock, it will probably coyote a game animal, a furbearer, or a continue to do so if given the protected species.

C-54 opportunity. Equally important is taking action as quickly as possible to stop coyotes from killing after they start. 1/4" x 4 1/2" carriage bolt Exclusion galvanized woven wire Most coyotes readily cross over, under, or through conventional live- stock fences. A coyote’s response to a fence is influenced by various factors, including the coyote’s experience and 72" galvanized 3" treated pole fencing 7' long motivation for crossing the fence. Total 69" 6" stays exclusion of all coyotes by fencing, 4" vertical especially from large areas, is highly spacing at top unlikely since some eventually learn to 1 1/2" at the 56" bottom either dig deeper or climb higher to defeat a fence. Good fences, however, can be important in reducing preda- tion, as well as increasing the effective- ness of other damage control methods (such as snares, traps, or guarding 23" apron animals). (old fencing) Recent developments in fencing equip- ment and design have made this technique an effective and economi- cally practical method for protecting 28" sheep from predation under some grazing conditions. Exclusion fencing may be impractical in western range sheep ranching operations. Fig. 3. Barrier fence with wire overhang and Net-Wire Fencing. Net fences in buried apron. 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 Electric Fencing. Electric fencing, The number of spacings between wires spacing less than 4 inches (10 cm). Dig- used for years to manage livestock, has varies considerably. A fence of 13 ging under a fence can be discouraged recently been revolutionized by the strands gave complete protection to by placing a barbed wire at ground introduction of new energizers and sheep from coyote predation in tests at level or using a buried wire apron new fence designs from Australia and the USDA’s US Sheep Experiment Sta- (often an expensive option). The fence New Zealand. The chargers, now also tion (Fig. 4). Other designs of fewer should be about 5 1/2 feet (1.6 m) high manufactured in the United States, wires were effective in some studies, to discourage coyotes from jumping have high output with low impedance, ineffective in others. are resistant to grounding, present a over it. Climbing can usually be pre- The amount of labor and installation minimal fire hazard, and are generally vented by adding a charged wire at techniques required vary with each safe for livestock and humans. The the top of the fence or installing a wire type of fencing. High-tensile wire fences are usually constructed of overhang. fences require adequate bracing at cor- smooth, high-tensile wire stretched to ners and over long spans. Electric fenc- Barrier fences with wire overhangs a tension of 200 to 300 pounds (90 to ing is easiest to install on flat, even and buried wire aprons were tested in 135 kg). The original design of electric terrain. Labor to install a high-tensile Oregon and found effective in keeping fences for controlling predation con- electric fence may be 40% to 50% less coyotes out of sheep pastures (Fig. 3). sisted of multiple, alternately charged than for a conventional livestock fence. The construction and materials for and grounded wires, with a charged such fencing are usually expensive. trip wire installed just above ground Labor to keep electric fencing func- Therefore, fences of this type are rarely level about 8 inches (20 cm) outside the tional can be significant. Tension of the used except around corrals, feedlots, main fence to discourage digging. wires must be maintained, excessive or areas of temporary sheep confine- Many recent designs have every wire vegetation under the fence must be ment. charged. removed to prevent grounding, dam-

C-55 age from livestock and wildlife must Fiberglass line post be repaired, and the charger must be checked regularly to ensure that it is operational. Coyotes and other predators occasion- 66' ally become “trapped” inside electric fences. These animals receive a shock Fiberglass 6' 22' stays as they enter the pasture and subse- 11' quently avoid approaching the fence to escape. In some instances the captured predator may be easy to spot and Fiberglass remove from the pasture, but in line post others, particularly in large pastures with rough terrain, the animal may be Charged wire difficult to remove. + 8" Ground wire - 8" Electric Modification of Existing + 8" Fiberglass Fences. The cost to completely stay - 8" replace old fences with new ones, + 8" whether conventional or electric, can - 8" Trip wire be substantial. In instances where + 8" 8" existing fencing is in reasonably good - 8" condition, the addition of one to sev- + 4" 6" - 4" Note: eral charged wires can significantly + 4" Drawing not to scale enhance the predator-deterring ability - 4" of the fence and its effectiveness for controlling livestock (Fig. 5). A Ground charged trip wire placed 6 to 8 inches level (15 to 230 cm) above the ground about 8 to 10 inches (20 to 25 cm) outside the Fig. 4. High-tensile, electric, antipredator fence. fence is often effective in preventing coyotes from digging and crawling un- der. 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 Outrigger post advent of safe, high-energy chargers with four wires 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 Fig. 5. Existing woven-wire livestock fence modified with electrified wire. 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

C-56 as a temporary corral or to partition As a final note, fences can pose prob- Counting sheep and calves regularly is off pastures for controlled grazing. lems for wildlife. Barrier fences in par- important in large pastures or areas ticular exclude not only predators, but with heavy cover where dead livestock Perhaps the biggest advantage of port- also many other wildlife species. This could remain unnoticed. It is not able electric fencing is the ability to set fact should be considered where fenc- unusual for producers who do not up temporary pens to hold livestock at ing intersects migration corridors for regularly count their sheep to suffer night or during other predator control wildlife. Ungulates such as deer may fairly substantial losses before they activities. Portable fencing increases attempt to jump fences, and they occa- realize there is a problem. Determining livestock management options to sionally become entangled in the top with certainty whether losses were due avoid places or periods of high preda- wires. to coyotes or to other causes may tion risk. Range sheep that are not become impossible. accustomed to being fenced, however, Cultural Methods and Habitat Season and Location of Lambing may be difficult to contain in a port- Modification able fence. or Calving. Both season and location At the present time, there are no docu- of lambing and calving can signifi- Fencing and Predation Manage- mented differences in the vulnerability cantly affect the severity of coyote pre- ment. The success of various types of of various breeds of sheep to coyote or dation on sheep or calves. The highest fencing in keeping out predators has dog predation because there has been predation losses of sheep and calves ranged from poor to excellent. Density very little research in this area. Gener- typically occur from late spring and behavior of coyotes, terrain and ally, breeds with stronger flocking through September due to the food vegetative conditions, availability of behaviors are less vulnerable to preda- requirements of coyote pups. In the prey, size of pastures, season of the tors. Midwest and East, some lambing or year, design of the fence, quality of calving occurs between October and construction, maintenance, and other A possible cause of increased coyote December, whereas in most of the factors all interplay in determining predation to beef cattle calves is the western states lambing or calving how effective a fence will be. Fencing increased use of cattle dogs in herding. occurs between February and May. By is most likely to be cost-effective where Cows herded by dogs may not be as changing to a fall lambing or calving the potential for predation is high, willing to defend newborn calves from program, some livestock producers where there is potential for a high coyotes as those not accustomed to have not only been able to diversify stocking rate, or where electric modifi- herding dogs. their marketing program, but have cation of existing fences can be used. Flock or Herd Health. Healthy also avoided having a large number of Fencing can be effective when incorpo- sheep flocks and cow/calf herds have young animals on hand during periods rated with other means of predation higher reproductive rates and lower when coyote predation losses are typi- control. For example, combined use of overall death losses. Coyotes often cally highest. guarding dogs and fencing has prey on smaller lambs. Poor nutrition Shortening lambing and calving peri- achieved a greater degree of success means weaker or smaller young, with ods by using synchronized or group than either method used alone. An a resultant increased potential for pre- breeding may reduce predation by electric fence may help keep a guard- dation. Ewes or cows in good condi- producing a uniform lamb or calf crop, ing dog in and coyotes out of a pas- tion through proper nutrition will raise thus reducing exposure of small live- ture. If an occasional coyote does pass stronger young that may be less vul- stock to predation. Extra labor and through a fence, the guarding dog can nerable to coyote predation. facilities may be necessary, however, keep it away from the livestock and Record Keeping. Good record- when birthing within a concentrated alert the producer by barking. keeping and animal identification sys- period. Some producers practice early Fencing can also be used to concen- tems are invaluable in a livestock weaning and do not allow young to go trate predator activity at specific places operation for several reasons. From the to large pastures, thus reducing the such as gateways, ravines, or other standpoint of coyote predation, chance of coyote losses. This also gives areas where the animals try to gain records help producers identify loss orphaned and weak young a greater access. Traps and snares can often be patterns or trends to provide baseline chance to survive. set at strategic places along a fence to data that will help determine what The average beef cattle calf production effectively capture predators. Smaller type and amount of coyote damage is about 78% nationwide. First-calf pastures are easier to keep free from control is economically feasible. heifers need human assistance to give predators than larger ones encompass- Records also aid in identifying critical birth to a healthy calf about 40% of the ing several square miles (km2). problem areas that may require atten- tion. They may show, for example, that time. Cow/calf producers who aver- Fencing is one of the most beneficial losses to coyotes are high in a particu- age 90% to 95% calf crops generally investments in predator damage con- lar pasture in early summer, thus high- check their first-calf heifers every 2 trol and livestock management where lighting the need for preventive hours during calving. Also, most good practical factors warrant its use. control in that area. producers place first-calf heifers in

C-57 small pastures (less than 160 acres [64 Some producers reason that coyotes nerable to coyote predation than those ha]). When all cows are bred to pro- are less likely to kill livestock if there is in closer, more open, and smaller pas- duce calves in a short, discreet (e.g. carrion available. This may be a valid tures. In general, a relatively small, 60-day) period, production typically preventative measure if an adequate open, tightly fenced pasture that can increases and predation losses supply of carrion can be maintained be kept under close surveillance is a decrease. The birth weight of calves far away from livestock. If a coyote good choice for birthing livestock that born to first-calf heifers can be de- becomes habituated to a diet of live- are likely targets of coyotes. Past expe- creased by using calving-ease bulls, stock remains, however, it may turn to rience with predators as well as thus reducing birthing complications killing livestock in the absence of car- weather and disease considerations that often lead to coyote predation. casses. Wherever there is easily acces- should also serve as guides in the sible carrion, coyotes seem to gather selection of birthing pastures. Producers who use lambing sheds or and predation losses are higher. Con- pens for raising sheep and small pas- A factor not completely understood is versely, where carrion is generally not tures or paddocks for raising cattle that, at times, coyotes and other preda- available, losses are lower. A study in have lower predation losses than those tors will kill in one pasture and not in Canada showed that the removal of who lamb or calve in large pastures or another. Therefore, changing pastures livestock carcasses significantly on open range. The more human pres- during times of loss may reduce pre- reduced overwinter coyote popula- ence around sheep, the lower the pre- dation. There may seem to be a rela- tions and shifted coyote distributions dation losses. Confining sheep entirely tionship between size of pasture and out of livestock areas. to buildings virtually eliminates preda- predator losses, with higher loss rates tion losses. Habitat Changes. Habitat features reported in larger pastures. In reality, change in some areas, depending on loss rates may not be related as much Corrals. Although predation can seasonal crop growth. Some cultivated to pasture size as to other local condi- occur at any time, coyotes tend to kill fields are devoid of coyotes during tions such as slope, terrain, and human sheep at night. Confining sheep at winter but provide cover during the populations. Hilly or rugged areas are night is one of the most effective growing season, and a corresponding typically sparsely populated by hu- means of reducing losses to predation. increase in predation on nearby live- mans and are characterized by large Nevertheless, some coyotes and many stock may occur. pastures. These conditions are ideal for dogs are bold enough to enter corrals coyotes. and kill sheep. A “coyote-proof” corral The creation of nearly 40 million acres is a wise investment. Coyotes are more (16 million ha) of Conservation Sheep pastures that contain or are likely to attack sheep in unlighted cor- Reserve Program (CRP) acres may adjacent to streams, creeks, and rivers rals than in corrals with lights. Even if benefit many species of wildlife, tend to have more coyote problems the corral fence is not coyote-proof, the including predators. These acres har- than pastures without such features. mere fact that the sheep are confined bor prey for coyotes and foxes, and an Water courses serve as hunting and reduces the risk of predation. Penning increase in predator populations can travel lanes for coyotes. sheep at night and turning them out at reasonably be predicted. Clearing Herders. Using herders with sheep or mid-morning might reduce losses. In away weeds and brush from CRP cattle in large pastures can help reduce addition, coyotes tend to be more areas may reduce predation problems predation, but there has been a trend active and kill more sheep on foggy or since predators usually use cover in away from herders in recent years rainy days than on sunny days. Keep- their approach to livestock. Generally, because of increasing costs and a ing the sheep penned on foggy or rainy the more open the area where live- shortage of competent help. Neverthe- days may be helpful. stock are kept, the less likely that coyote losses will occur. Often junk less, tended flocks or herds receive Aside from the benefits of livestock piles are located near farmsteads. closer attention than untended live- confinement, there are some problems These serve as good habitat for rabbits stock, particularly in large pastures, associated it. Costs of labor and mate- and other prey and may bring coyotes and problems can be solved before rials associated with building corrals, into close proximity with livestock, they become serious. We recommend herding livestock, and feeding live- increasing the likelihood for opportu- two herders per band of range sheep. stock must be considered. In addition, nistic coyotes to prey on available live- If herders aren’t used, daily or periodic the likelihood of increased parasite stock. Removing junk piles may be a checking of the livestock is a good hus- and disease problems may inhibit good management practice. bandry practice. adoption of confinement as a method of reducing damage. Pasture Selection. If sheep or beef Frightening Devices and cattle are not lambed or calved in Repellents Carrion Removal. Removal and sheds or lots, the choice of birthing proper disposal of dead sheep and pastures should be made with poten- Frightening devices are useful for cattle are important since livestock car- tial coyote predation problems in reducing losses during short periods casses tend to attract coyotes, mind. Lambs and calves in remote or or until predators are removed. The habituating them to feed on livestock. rugged pastures are usually more vul- devices should not be used for long

C-58 periods of time when predation is not Some producers use a radio tuned to a problem. To avoid acclimation you an all-night station to temporarily can increase both the degree and dura- deter coyotes, dogs, and other preda- tion of effectiveness by varying the tors. position, appearance, duration, or fre- Vehicles. Parking cars or pickups in quency of the frightening stimuli, or the area where losses are occurring of- using them in various combinations. ten reduces predation temporarily. Many frightening methods have been Effectiveness can be improved or ridiculed in one way or another; never- extended by frequently moving the theless, all of the techniques discussed vehicle to a new location. Some pro- here have helped producers by saving ducers place a replica of a person in livestock and/or buying some time to the vehicle when losses are occurring institute other controls. Fig. 6. Electronic Guard frightening device in the daylight. If predators continue Lights. A study involving 100 Kansas to kill with vehicles in place, the Center developed a frightening device sheep producers showed that using vehicle serves as a comfortable blind in called the Electronic Guard (EG) (Fig. lights above corrals at night had the which to wait and shoot offending 6). The EG consists of a strobe light most marked effect on losses to coy- predators. and siren controlled by a variable otes of all the devices examined. Out Propane Exploders. Propane interval timer that is activated at night of 79 sheep killed by coyotes in corrals, exploders produce loud explosions at with a photoelectric cell. In tests con- only three were killed in corrals with timed intervals when a spark ignites a ducted in fenced pastures, predation lights. Nearly 40% of the producers in measured amount of propane gas. On was reduced by about 89%. The device the study used lights over corrals. most models, the time between explo- is used in Kansas and other states to There was some indication in the sions can vary from about 1 minute to protect cows/calves from coyote pre- study that sheep losses to dogs were 15 minutes. Their effectiveness at dation. Most research on the effective- higher in lighted corrals, but the frightening coyotes is usually only ness of this device, however, has been sample size for dog losses was small temporary, but it can be increased by done on sheep operations. Suggestions and the results inconclusive. Most of moving exploders to different loca- for using the unit differ for pastured the producers (80%) used mercury tions and by varying the intervals be- sheep and range operations. vapor lights that automatically turned tween explosions. In general, the timer on at dusk and off at dawn. To use the EG in fenced pastures (farm on the exploder should be set to fire flocks): Another advantage of lighted corrals is every 8 to 10 minutes, and the location that coyotes are more vulnerable when should be changed every 3 or 4 days. 1. Place EGs above the ground on they enter the lighted area. Coyotes In cattle pastures, these devices should fence posts, trees, or T-posts so they often establish a fairly predictable pat- be placed on rigid stands above the can be heard and seen at greater tern of killing. When this happens in a livestock. Normally, the exploder distances and to prevent livestock lighted corral, it is possible for a pro- should be turned on just before dark from damaging them. ducer to wait above or downwind of and off at daybreak, unless coyotes are 2. Position EGs so that rain water can- the corral and to shoot the coyote as it killing livestock during daylight hours. not enter them and cause a malfunc- enters. Red or blue lights may make Motion sensors are now available and tion. the ambush more successful since coy- likely improve their effectiveness, otes appear to be less frightened by though it is still only temporary. 3. Locate EGs so that light can enter them than by white lights. Exploders are best used to reduce the photocell port or window. If losses until more permanent control or positioned in deep shade, they may Revolving or flashing the lights may preventive measures can be imple- not turn on or off at the desired enhance their effectiveness in frighten- mented. In about 24 coyote depreda- times. ing away predators. There is some tion complaints over a 2-year period in speculation that the old oil lamps used 4. The number of EGs used to protect North Dakota, propane exploders in highway construction repelled sheep in fenced pastures depends were judged to be successful in stop- coyotes, presumably because of their on pasture size, terrain features, and ping or reducing predation losses until flickering effect. the amount and height of vegetation offending coyotes could be removed. in or around the pasture. In general, Bells and Radios. Some sheep pro- “Success time” of the exploders ap- at least two units should be used in ducers place bells on some or all of pears to depend a great deal on how small (20 to 30 acres [8 to 12 ha]), their sheep to discourage predators. well they are tended by the livestock level, short-grass pastures. Three to Where effects have been measured, producer. four units should be used in larger however, no difference in losses was Strobe Lights and Sirens. The (40 to 100 acres [16 to 40 ha]), hilly, detected. USDA’s Denver Wildlife Research tall grass, or wooded pastures.

C-59 5. Don’t use EGs in pastures larger compound that, when applied to Aversive conditioning is well docu- than about 100 acres (40 ha) because sheep, would prevent coyotes from mented for averting rodents from food their effective range is limited. The killing them. Tests were conducted sources, but significant problems must device could be useful in larger pas- with various prey species including be overcome before the method can be tures when placed near areas where rabbits, chickens, and sheep. Some used to reduce coyote predation on sheep congregate and bed at night. repellents were applied by dipping tar- sheep. Coyotes must be induced to eat get animals in them, others were sheeplike baits that have been treated 6. EGs should be placed on high spots, sprayed on, and some were applied in with the aversive chemical. The chemi- where kills have been found, at the neck collars or ear tags. cal must cause sufficient discomfort, edge of wooded areas, near or on such as vomiting, to cause coyotes to bedgrounds, or near suspected Coyotes rely heavily on visual cues avoid other baits. Furthermore, the coyote travelways. They should be while stalking, chasing, and killing avoidance must be transferred to live moved to different locations every their prey. Taste and smell are of lesser sheep and must persist long enough 10 to 14 days to reduce the likeli- importance in actually making the kill. without reinforcement for the method hood of coyotes getting used to These factors may in part account for to offer realistic protection to sheep. them. the fact that the repellent compounds were not able to consistently prevent To date, pen and field tests with To use the EG in open range (herded coyotes from killing, although some of aversive conditioning have yielded or range sheep): the repellents were obviously offensive conflicting and inconclusive results. It 1. The number of EGs used will to coyotes and prevented them from does not appear that aversive condi- depend on the number of sheep in consuming the killed prey. Several tioning is effective in reducing preda- the band and the size of the compounds were tested on sheep tion, but additional field tests would bedground. Four units should be under field conditions, but none be useful. used to protect bands of 1,000 ewes appeared to offer significant, pro- Guarding Animals. and their lambs. longed protection. Livestock Guarding Dogs. A live- 2. When possible, place one EG in the If an effective chemical repellent were stock guarding dog is one that gener- center of the bedground and the to be found, the obstacles in bringing it ally stays with sheep or cattle without other three around the edge of the to industry use would be significant. harming them and aggressively repels bedground. Try to place the units The compound would not only need predators. Its protective behaviors are on coyote travelways. to be effective, but also persistent largely instinctive, but proper rearing enough to withstand weathering while plays a part. Breeds most commonly 3. EGs should be placed on high posing no undue risk to the sheep, used today include the Great Pyrenees, points, ridge tops, edges of clear- other animals, or the environment. It Komondor, Anatolian Shepherd, and ings, or on high rocks or would also have to withstand the rig- Akbash Dog (Fig. 7). Other Old World outcroppings. Hang the devices on orous Environmental Protection breeds used to a lesser degree include tree limbs 5 to 7 feet (1.5 to 2.1 m) Agency (EPA) approval process. Maremma, Sharplaninetz, and Kuvasz. above ground level. If used above Crossbreeds are also used. timberline or in treeless areas, hang High-frequency sound has also been them from a tripod of poles. tested as a repellent for coyotes, but The characteristics of each sheep the results were no more encouraging operation will dictate the number of 4. Herders who bed their sheep tightly than for chemical repellents. Coyotes, dogs required for effective protection will have better results than those like dogs, responded to particular from predators. If predators are scarce, who allow sheep to bed over large sound frequencies and showed some one dog is sufficient for most fenced areas. Sheep that are bedded about aversion to sounds broadcast within pasture operations. Range operations 200 yards (166 m) or less in diam- one foot (30 cm) of their ear. Research- often use two dogs per band of sheep. eter, or are spread out not more ers, however, were unable to broad- The performance of individual dogs than 200 to 400 yards (166 to 332 m) cast the sound a sufficient distance to will differ based on age and experi- along a ridge top, can usually be test the effects under field conditions. ence. The size, topography, and habitat protected with EGs. of the pasture or range must also be Aversive Conditioning. The objec- Repellents. The notion of repelling considered. Relatively flat, open areas tive of aversive conditioning is to feed coyotes from sheep or calves is can be adequately covered by one dog. a coyote a preylike bait laced with an appealing, and during the 1970s, uni- When brush, timber, ravines, and hills aversive agent that causes the coyote versity and government researchers are in the pasture, several dogs may be to become ill, resulting in subsequent tested a wide variety of potentially re- required, particularly if the sheep are avoidance of the prey. Most of the pellent chemical compounds on sheep. scattered. Sheep that flock and form a research on this technique has Both olfactory (smell) and gustatory cohesive unit, especially at night, can involved the use of lithium chloride, a (taste) repellents were examined. The be protected by one dog more effec- salt, as the aversive agent. underlying objective was to find a tively than sheep that are continually

C-60 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 shoot- ing 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 Fig. 7. Livestock guarding dog (Akbash dog) defense against predation in sheep and cow/calf operations in some cases. Their effectiveness can be enhanced by scattered and bedded in a number of to the possibility that the dog may good livestock management and by locations. roam onto their property and that eliminating predators with suitable some predator control devices such as removal techniques. The goal with a new puppy is to chan- traps, snares, and M-44s present a nel its natural instincts to produce a Donkeys. Although the research has danger to it. Many counties enforce mature guardian dog with the desired not focused on donkeys as it has on stringent laws regarding owner characteristics. This is best accom- guarding dogs, they are gaining in responsibility for damage done by plished by early and continued asso- popularity as protectors of sheep and roaming dogs. It is in the best interests ciation with sheep to produce a bond goat flocks in the United States. A of the owner, dog, and community to between the dog and sheep. The opti- recent survey showed that in Texas train the dog to stay in its designated mum time to acquire a pup is between alone, over 2,400 of the 11,000 sheep area. 7 and 8 weeks of age. The pup should and goat producers had used donkeys be separated from litter mates and The use of guarding dogs does not as guardians. placed with sheep, preferably lambs, eliminate the need for other predation The terms donkey and burro are syn- in a pen or corral from which it can’t control actions. They should, however, onymous (the Spanish translation of escape. This socialization period be compatible with the dog’s behavior. donkey is burro) and are used inter- should continue with daily checks Toxicants (including some insecticides changeably. Donkeys are generally from the producer until the pup is and rodenticides) used to control vari- docile to people, but they seem to about 16 weeks old. Daily checks don’t ous pest species can be extremely haz- have an inherent dislike of dogs and necessarily include petting the pup. ardous to dogs and are therefore not other canids, including coyotes and The primary bond should be between compatible with the use of guarding foxes. The typical response of a don- the dog and the sheep, not between the dogs. key to an intruding canid may include dog and humans. The owner, how- The M-44 is particularly hazardous to braying, bared teeth, a running attack, ever, should be able to catch and han- dogs. Some people have successfully kicking, and biting. Most likely it is dle the dog to administer health care trained their dogs to avoid M-44s by acting out of aggression toward the or to manage the livestock. At about 4 allowing the dog to set off an M-44 intruder rather than to protect the months, the pup can be released into a filled with pepper or by rigging the sheep. There is little information on a larger pasture to mingle with the other device to a rat trap. The unpleasant donkey’s effectiveness with noncanid sheep. experience may teach the dog to avoid predators such as bears, mountain A guarding dog will likely include M-44s, but the method is not fool- lions, bobcats, or birds of prey. peripheral areas in its patrolling. Some proof—one error by the dog, and the Reported success of donkeys in reduc- have been known to chase vehicles result is usually fatal. With the excep- ing predation is highly variable. and wildlife and threaten children and tion of toxic collars, which are not legal Improper husbandry or rearing prac- cyclists. These activities should be dis- in all states, toxicants should not be tices and unrealistic expectations couraged. Neighbors should be alerted used in areas where guarding dogs are

C-61 probably account for many failures. Llamas. Like donkeys, llamas have an Toxicants Donkeys are significantly cheaper to inherent dislike of canids, and a grow- Pesticides have historically been an obtain and care for than guarding ing number of livestock producers are important component in an integrated dogs, and they are probably less prone successfully using llamas to protect approach to controlling coyote dam- to accidental death and premature their sheep. A recent study of 145 age, but their use is extremely mortality than dogs. They may pro- ranches where guard llamas were used restricted today by federal and state vide a longer period of useful life than to protect sheep revealed that average laws. All pesticides used in the United a guarding dog, and they can be used losses of sheep to predators decreased States must be registered with the EPA with relative safety in conjunction with from 26 to 8 per year after llamas were under the provisions of FIFRA and snares, traps, M-44s, and toxic collars. employed. Eighty percent of the must be used in accordance with label ranchers surveyed were “very satis- Researchers and livestock producers directions. Increasingly restrictive fied” or “satisfied” with their llamas. have identified several key points to regulations implemented by EPA Llamas reportedly bond with sheep consider when using a donkey for pre- under the authority of FIFRA, the within hours and offer advantages dation control: National Environmental Policy Act over guarding dogs similar to those (NEPA), presidential order, and the 1. Use only a jenny or a gelded jack. described for donkeys. Endangered Species Act have resulted Intact jacks are too aggressive and Other Animals. USDA’s Agricultural in the near elimination of toxicants may injure livestock. Some jennies Research Service tested the bonding of legally available for predator damage and geldings may also injure live- sheep to cattle as a method of protect- control. stock. Select donkeys from ing sheep from coyote predation. medium-sized stock. The only toxicants currently registered There was clearly some protection for mammalian predator damage con- 2. Use only one donkey per group of afforded the sheep that remained near trol are sodium cyanide, used in the sheep. The exception may be a cattle. Whether this protection resulted M-44 ejector device, and Compound jenny with a foal. When two or from direct action by the cattle or by 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate), for more adult donkeys are together or the coyotes’ response to a novel stimu- use in the livestock protection collar. with a horse, they usually stay lus is uncertain. Later studies with These toxicants are Restricted Use Pes- together, not necessarily near the goats, sheep, and cattle confirmed that ticides and may be used only by certi- sheep. Also avoid using donkeys in when either goats or sheep remained fied pesticide applicators. Information adjacent pastures since they may near cattle, they were protected from on registration status and availability socialize across the fence and ignore predation by coyotes. Conversely, of these products in individual states the sheep. goats or sheep that grazed apart from may be obtained from the respective cattle, even those that were bonded, 3. Allow about 4 to 6 weeks for a state’s department of agriculture. were readily preyed on by coyotes. naive donkey to bond to the sheep. Sodium Cyanide in the M-44. The Stronger bonding may occur when There are currently no research data M-44 is a spring-activated device used a donkey is raised from birth with available on the ideal ratio of cattle to to expel sodium cyanide into an sheep. sheep, the breeds of cattle, age of cattle animal’s mouth. It is currently regis- most likely to be used successfully, or 4. Avoid feeds or supplements con- tered by EPA for use by trained per- on the size of bonded groups to obtain taining monensin or lasolacid. They sonnel in the control of depredating maximum protection from predation. are poisonous to donkeys. coyotes, foxes, and dogs. Multispecies grazing offers many 5. Remove the donkey during lamb- advantages for optimum utilization of The M-44 consists of a capsule holder ing, particularly if lambing in con- forage, and though additional study wrapped in an absorbent material, an finement, to avoid injuries to lambs and experience is needed, it may also ejector mechanism, a capsule contain- or disruption of the lamb-ewe bond. be a tool for coyote damage control. ing approximately 0.9 grams of a pow- dered sodium cyanide mixture, and a 6. Test a new donkey’s response to Any animal that displays aggressive 5- to 7-inch (15- to 18-cm) hollow stake canids by challenging it with a dog behavior toward intruding coyotes (Fig. 8). For most effective use, set in a pen or small pasture. Discard may offer some benefit in deterring M-44s in locations similar to those for donkeys that don’t show overt predation. Other types of animals good trap sets. Drive the hollow stake aggression to an intruding dog. reportedly used for predation control into the ground. Cock the ejector unit include goats, mules, and ostriches. 7. Use donkeys in smaller (less than and secure it in the stake. Screw the Coyotes in particular are suspicious of 600 acres [240 ha]), relatively open wrapped capsule holder containing the novel stimuli. This behavior is most pastures with not more than 200 to cyanide capsule onto the ejector unit, likely the primary reason that many 300 head of livestock. Large pas- and apply fetid meat bait to the cap- frightening tactics show at least tem- tures with rough terrain and vegeta- sule holder. Coyotes attracted by the porary effectiveness. tion and widely scattered livestock bait will try to bite the baited capsule lessen the effectiveness of a donkey. holder. When the M-44 is pulled, the

C-62 their ability to remain effective during The LP collar must be used in conjunc- rain, snow, and freezing conditions. tion with specific sheep and goat hus- c bandry practices to be most effective. While M-44s can be used effectively as Coyote attacks must be directed or tar- part of an integrated damage control geted at collared livestock. This may d program, they do have several disad- be accomplished by temporarily plac- vantages. Because canids are less ing a “target” flock of perhaps 20 to 50 responsive to food-type baits during collared lambs or kids and their warm weather when natural foods are uncollared mothers in a pasture where usually abundant, M-44s are not as coyote predation is likely to occur, effective during warmer months as while removing other sheep or goats they are in cooler weather. M-44s are from that vicinity. In situations where subject to a variety of mechanical mal- LP collars have been used and found functions, but these problems can be ineffective, the common cause of fail- minimized if a regular maintenance b ure has been poor or ineffective target- schedule is followed. A further disad- ing. It is difficult to ensure effective vantage is the tendency for the cyanide targeting if depredations are occurring in the capsules to absorb moisture over infrequently. In most instances, only a time and to cake, becoming ineffective. high and regular frequency of depre- Maximum effectiveness of M-44s is dations will justify spending the time, hampered by the requirement to fol- effort, and money necessary to become low 26 use restrictions established by trained and certified, purchase collars, the EPA in the interest of human and and use them properly. environmental safety. The M-44 is not registered for use in all states, and in The outstanding advantage in using those where it is registered, the state the LP collar is its selectivity in elimi- may impose additional use restric- nating individual coyotes that are tions. A formal training program is responsible for killing livestock. The required before use of M-44s. Some collar may also be useful in removing states allow its use only by federal depredating coyotes that have eluded a ADC specialists, whereas other states other means of control. Disadvantages may allow M-44s to be used by trained include the cost of collars (approxi- and certified livestock producers. mately $20 each) and livestock that must be sacrificed, more intensive Fig. 8. The M-44 device consists of the (a) base, 1080 Livestock Protection Collar. management practices, and the costs (b) ejector, (c) capsule holder, and (d) cyanide- The livestock protection collar (LP and inconvenience of complying with containing plastic capsule. collar or toxic collar) is a relatively use restrictions, including require- new tool used to selectively kill ments for training, certification, and coyotes that attack sheep or goats. spring-activated plunger propels record keeping. One use restriction Collars are placed on sheep or goats sodium cyanide into the animal’s limits the collars to use in fenced pas- that are pastured where coyotes are mouth, resulting in death within a few tures only. They cannot be used to pro- likely to attack. Each collar contains a seconds. tect sheep on open range. Also, collars small quantity (300 mg) of Compound are not widely available, because they The M-44 is very selective for canids 1080 solution. The collars do not are registered for use in only a few because of the attractants used and the attract coyotes, but because of their states. unique requirement that the device be design and position on the throat, triggered by pulling on it. While the most attacking coyotes will puncture Fumigants use of traps or snares may present a the collar and ingest a lethal amount of hazard to livestock, M-44s can be used the toxicant. Unlike sodium cyanide, Carbon monoxide is an effective bur- with relative safety in pastures where 1080 is slow-acting, and a coyote row fumigant recently re-registered by livestock are present. Although not ingesting the toxicant will not exhibit the EPA. Gas cartridges, which contain recommended, they can also be used symptoms or die for several hours. As 65% sodium nitrate and 35% charcoal, in the presence of livestock guarding a result, sheep or goats that are produce carbon monoxide, carbon dogs if the dogs are first successfully attacked are usually killed. The collar dioxide, and other noxious gases when conditioned to avoid the devices. This is registered only for use against ignited. They were registered by the can be done by allowing them to pull coyotes and may be placed only on EPA in 1981 for control of coyotes in an M-44 loaded with pepper. An addi- sheep or goats. dens only. This is the only fumigant tional advantage of M-44s over traps is currently registered for this purpose.

C-63 Trapping 7. Roll of plastic sandwich bags to 1. First, observe the area where the There are many effective methods for cover and prevent soil from get- losses are occurring and look for trapping coyotes, and success can be ting under the pan of the trap. tracks and droppings to determine the species responsible. Study the enhanced by considering several key 8. Screen sifter for sifting soil over paths used by predators. If you points. Coyotes learn from past events the traps. that were unpleasant or frightening, have 4 hours to spend setting traps, and they often avoid such events in the 9. Rib bone for leveling off soil over spend at least 3 of them looking for future. In spring and summer, most the traps once they are set in place coyote sign. and covered. coyotes limit their movements to a 2. Decide where to place the trap sets. small area, but in late summer, fall, 10. Bottle of coyote urine to attract the Always place them in an open, flat and winter they may roam over a coyote to the set (keep urine away area because of wind currents, dis- larger area. Coyotes follow regular from other equipment). persion of scent, and visibility. Never paths and crossways, and they prefer place traps uphill or downhill from Locating the Set. Coyotes travel where high hills or knolls from which they the coyote’s expected path of walking is easy, such as along old roads, can view the terrain. They establish approach. Look for open places where and they have preferred places to travel, regular scent posts along their paths, coyote tracks indicate that the animal hunt, rest, howl, and roam. Do not set and they depend on their ears, nose, milled around or stopped. and eyes to sense danger. traps directly in a trail but to one side where coyotes may stop, such as on a 3. Place the set upwind from the path (or The following describes one method of hilltop, near a gate, or where cover site of coyote activity) so the prevail- trapping that has proven effective for changes. Make the set on level ground to ing wind will carry the scent across many beginners. ensure that the coyote walks across level the area of expected coyote activity. ground to it. Items Needed to Set a Coyote Trap: 4. Choose a level spot as close as pos- Good locations for a set are often indi- sible to, but not directly on, the coyote’s 1. One 5-gallon (19-l) plastic bucket cated by coyote tracks. The following path. The coyote’s approach should to carry equipment. are good locations on most farms and never be over dry leaves, tall grass, 2. Two No. 3 or No. 4 traps per set. ranches for setting traps: high hills and stones, sticks, weeds, or rough ground. saddles in high hills; near isolated land Make each set where the coyote has 3. One 18- to 24-inch (46- to 61-cm) features or isolated bales of hay; trail clear visibility as it approaches. stake for holding both traps in junctions, fences, and stream crossings; place. 5. Place the set using two No. 3 traps pasture roads, livestock trails, water- with a cold-shut chain repair link 4. Straight claw hammer to dig a ways, game trails, and dry or shallow affixed to the top of a steel stake. The hole in the ground for trap place- creek beds; near pond dams, field bor- link should swivel around the stake ment and to pound the stake into ders, field corners, groves of trees, and top. The stake should be at least 18 the ground. eroded gullies; sites near animal car- inches (46 cm) long, or longer if the 5. Leather gloves to protect fingers casses, bone or brush piles; and under soil is loose. Use two stakes set at an while digging the trap bed. rim rocks. angle to each other if the soil will not hold with a single stake. 6. Cloth (or canvas) feed sack to Making the Set. Place three to five kneel on while digging a trap bed trap sets near the area where coyotes Figures 9 through 29 illustrate the pro- and pounding the stake. have killed livestock. cedures for making a set.

Fig. 10. Kneel down on the cloth and outline a trench approximately Fig. 9. A piece of canvas, about 3 feet x 6 feet, used as a kneeling 3 feet long, 7 inches wide, and 2 inches deep. Dig the trench so that it cloth, makes preparing the trap site much easier. runs lengthwise to the prevailing wind.

C-64 Fig 11. Dig out the soil with tools and by hand. Fig 14. Compress this spring below the jaw hinge, then bend the spring as shown above.

Fig. 12. Pile the excavated soil from the trench on the kneeling Fig 15. Hold the compressed spring with your right leg as shown cloth. above, then compress the left spring. Hold this spring down with your left hand.

Fig. 13. Place one of the traps on your left leg just above your knee. Fig. 16. Carefully spread the jaws. Reach under the jaws with your Grasp the trap spring nearest your right leg as shown, and left hand, holding the pan up while you ease the two springs’ compress the spring. tension so that the trap will remain set.

C-65 Fig. 17. Twist the springs back toward the trigger. Always set the Fig 20. Take out or add soil until the trap pan and jaws are about trap in the ground so that the animal walks into it over the jaw 1/2 inch below the level of the surrounding ground. Build a ridge that is nearest to the bottom of the trench, as shown above. 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.

Fig. 18. Drive a steel stake into the center of the trench so that the Fig 21. Stretch the pan cover tightly across the pan and under the top of the stake is even with the bottom of the trench. Place one of jaws. Pan and jaws should be level and flat. In cold weather, the set traps at each end of the trench. Place the trap so it sits plastic can be placed under the trap. Place plastic baggies on each solidly and will not tip if the coyote steps on the spring or jaws. 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.

Fig. 19. Place canvas, plastic, screen, cloth, wax paper, or a similar Fig. 22. Use a sifter of 1/4-inch hail screen on a wood frame, 7 inches material over the pan and under the trap jaws. Be sure the pan sits by 10 inches and 2 inches deep. Sift soil from the canvas kneeling level with the trap jaws. cloth over the set, covering the entire trench back to ground level (except directly over the traps).

C-66 Fig. 23. The trap should be set about 1/4 inch below the level of Fig. 26. Carefully brush out all tracks and signs of activity. 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.

Fig. 24. Place an object over the buried stake that can be easily Fig. 27. Use the canvas kneeling cloth to carry away all loose soil. seen; the further away it can be seen, the better. Use an old, dried This cloth can also be used to carry soil to the set. In summer it is a bleached bone, a dried cow chip, a small bush or clump of grass, good idea to store fine dry soil for use in winter. You can often an old dried root, a small stake, or a stump. The object should be locate dry soil in wet weather under bridges, on cut banks, or in about 6 to 8 inches high and be very visible. old sheds.

Fig. 25. Place a tablespoon of coyote urine on the projection. When Fig. 28. Discard the material removed from the trap site. smelling the scent and seeing the projection, the coyote will likely walk directly into the wind and step into a trap as it approaches the projection. A coyote dropping placed nearby will improve the set.

C-67 gripping traps are dangerous and ille- gal 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® coilsprings, No. 3 NM longsprings, and No. 4 Newhouse longsprings, capture rates for coyotes were 95%, 100%, and 100%, respec- Fig. 29. Leave the trap area as near to its original condition as tively. Soft-Catch traps caused the possible. The coyote’s keen sense of sight and smell will quickly least visible injury to captured coyotes. alert it to danger. Anchoring Traps. Chain swivels are necessary for trapping coyotes. One Always bury the traps and stake in the traps are available from trapping sup- swivel at the stake, one in the middle ground using dry, finely sifted soil. ply outlets. Some trappers also wax of the chain, and one at the trap are One of the most difficult aspects of their traps to prevent them from rust- recommended. Drags (Fig. 30) instead using traps is trapping when the ing and to extend the life of the traps. of stakes can be used where there is an ground is frozen, muddy, wet, or Inevitably, rusting will occur when abundance of brush or trees or where damp. If the weather is expected to traps are in use. It does not harm the the ground is too rocky to use a stake. turn cold and/or wet, you should use traps, but after their continued use the Use a long chain (5 feet [1.5 m] or one or a combination of the following rust often will slow the action of the more) on a drag. materials in which to set and cover the trap and cause it to miss a coyote. traps: Canadian sphagnum peat moss, Lures and Scents. Coyotes are inter- Traps also become contaminated with very dry soil, dry manure, buckwheat ested in and may be attracted to odors skunk musk, gasoline, oil, blood, or hulls, or finely chopped hay. A mix- in their environment. Commercially other odors. It is important that traps ture of one part table salt or calcium available lures and scents or natural be clean and in good working condi- chloride with three parts dry soil will odors such as fresh coyote, dog, or cat tion. Rusted traps should be cleaned prevent the soil from freezing over the droppings or urine may produce good with a wire brush to ensure that the trap. When using peat moss or other results. Coyote urine works the best. trigger and pan work freely. Check the dry, fluffy material, cover the material chain links for open links. File the trig- Problems in Trapping Coyotes. with a thin layer of dry soil mixed with gers and receivers to eliminate all A great deal of experience is required 1/4 teaspoon of table salt. This will rounded edges. Make any adjustments to effectively trap coyotes. Trapping by blend the set with the surrounding soil necessary so that the pan will sit level experienced or untrained people may and prevent the wind from blowing and the trap perform smoothly. serve to educate coyotes, making them peat moss away from the trap. As an very difficult to catch, even by experi- alternative, traps could be set in a bed Size of Traps for Coyotes. There enced trappers. Coyotes, however, of dry soil placed over the snow or fro- are many suitable traps for catching exhibit individualized patterns of zen ground. coyotes. Both the No. 3 and No. 4 are behavior. Many, but not all, coyotes good choices. Many trappers prefer a Guiding Coyote Footsteps. Use a become trap-shy after being caught No. 3 coilspring round-jawed off-set few strategically placed dirt clods, and then escaping from a trap. There is trap. It is a good idea to use superweld sticks, small rocks, or stickers around a record of one coyote having been kinkless chain. The length of chain var- the set to guide the coyote’s foot to the caught eight times in the same set. ies depending on whether the trap is traps. Coyotes will tend to avoid the Some coyotes require considerably staked or a drag is used. A longer obstacles and place their feet in bare more time and thought to trap than chain should be used with a drag. The areas. Do not use this method to the others. With unlimited time, a person off-set jaws are designed to reduce extent that the set looks unnatural. could trap almost any coyote. broken foot bones, which can allow the Care of Coyote Traps. New traps coyote to escape by wriggling out of If a coyote digs up or springs a trap can be used to trap coyotes, but better the trap. Traps with coil springs are without getting caught, reset the trap results may be obtained by using traps good coyote traps, but they require in the same place. Then carefully set that have been dyed. Dyeing traps more upkeep than a double long- one or two traps near the first set. Use helps prevent rust and removes odors. spring trap. The type and size of trap gloves and be careful to hide the traps. Wood chips or crystals for dyeing may be regulated in each state. Body Changing scents or using various

C-68 Killing a Trapped Coyote. A coyote will make its most desperate attempt Drag hook with S link for coyote traps 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 1 1/2" see that the trap has a firm hold on the offset coyote’s foot. If so, shoot the coyote in Mild steel rod twist 5/16" diameter the head, with a .22 caliber weapon. It 8" long Side is often a good idea to reset the trap in view 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 Mild steel rod 10 1/2" captured, skunks included. 7/16" diameter about 28" long Draw Stations. Draw stations are natural areas or places set up inten- tionally to draw coyotes to a particular About 1" weld location. For example, the straw and on both sides Points sharpened and cleanings from a chicken house can be given 1 1/2" offset placed in an area where coyote tracks twist 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 7" driven into the ground and out of sight. Once coyotes start feeding, set Fig. 30. Trapping drag traps 30 to 60 feet (9 to 18 m) upwind from the carcasses or draw station. Never set traps very close to carcasses tricks, such as a lone feather as a visual are being set in warm months, make because nontarget animals such as vul- attraction near a set, or a ticking clock sure the trapper has recently bathed, tures, eagles, hawks, skunks, and in a dirt hole set as an audible attrac- has clean clothes, and is not sweating. opossums will be caught. If sheep tion, may help in trying to catch wary Leave no unnecessary foreign odors, graze in an area where traps are set, coyotes. such as cigarette butts or gum wrap- cover the traps with a disc blade or pers, near the set. Wear clean gloves Resetting Traps and Checking brush during the day and uncover and rubber footwear while setting Trap Sets. Once a coyote is caught at them at night when the sheep are traps. A landowner may have an a set, reset the trap in the same place. penned. advantage over a stranger who comes The odor and disturbance at the set to set traps since the coyotes are Opposition to Traps. Opposition to where a coyote has been caught will acquainted with the landowner’s scent foothold traps is based primarily on often attract other coyotes. Sometimes and expect him/her to be there. two objections: (1) a lack of selectivity other coyotes will approach but not Coyotes have been known to leave an for the animal which the trap is set for enter the circle where the coyote was area after encountering an unfamiliar and (2) foot injury sustained by the caught. If signs indicate that this has human scent. captured animal. Trap pan tension happened, move the trap set outside of devices such as sticks, forked twigs, the circle. Leave all sets out for at least Because of human scent, coyotes are springs, and sponges placed under the 2 weeks before moving the traps to a more difficult to catch with traps in trap pan have been used for many new location. Check the traps once wet or humid weather. Wear gloves, years to reduce captures of nontarget every 24 hours, preferably in the wax traps, and take other precaution- species. Many coyote traps have an morning around 9 or 10 o’clock. ary measures in areas where humans adjustable pan tension screw. One Reapply the scent every 4 days, using are not commonly present, where wet study evaluated two pan tension 8 to 10 drops of coyote urine. weather conditions are common, and devices. Preliminary results indicated where coyotes have been trapped for Human Scent and Coyote Trap- that the use of either device could several years and have learned to ping. Minimize human scent around exclude nearly 90% of the gray foxes, avoid traps. trap sets as much as possible. If traps swift foxes, striped skunks, opossums, and jackrabbits that stepped on traps,

C-69 Wrap snare around snare support Swivel

Slide U-shaped lock snare support

2.5' to 10' galvanized Bend snare to aircraft cable prevent wind from closing it

Fig. 31. Coyote snare Fig. 33. Setting the snare

Cable, NOT wire, holds snare to stake

36" galvanized No. 9 wire

Notched driving rod

1/2" V bend rebar stake prevents movement

Fig. 32. Driving the support wire Fig. 34. Fastening the snare to the stake

as compared with 24% on average for capture it by the neck, body, or leg. snares were 10 times more selective unequipped traps. A variety of other Snares usually consist of a 2.5- to 10- over steel foothold traps for target spe- species were excluded at even higher foot (0.75- to 3.0-m) long piece of cies of coyotes and bobcats. Snares, rates. Some coyotes were also galvanized aircraft cable containing a however, can be a greater hazard than excluded, but because more traps slide lock that forms a loop in the cable traps to livestock. Recent research has remained functional, the net result (Fig. 31). On short snares, a swivel to produced deer stops and break-away appeared to be an increase in coyote prevent twisting and breaking the or relaxing locks that have significantly trapping efficiency. Advances in trap cable is attached to the end of the cable improved snare specificity. design, including off-set jaws and opposite the loop. On longer snares, Preparation of Snares. New com- padded-jaw traps, have increased the swivels can be located near the middle mercial snares and extension cables humaneness of foothold traps. Traps of the cable and at one end. can be cleaned by boiling each dozen should be checked once or twice each Snares offer several advantages over snares in a pan or bucket of water with day to minimize the length of time that steel foothold traps. They are light- 4 tablespoons (16 gm) of baking soda an animal must remain in a trap. weight, compact, simple in function, for one hour. The snares will turn a Snares affected little by weather, easy to set, dull gray after being removed from low in cost, and offer a high degree of this bath and hung up to dry outdoors. Snaring is the technique of setting a human safety. In a south Texas study, Darken snares by boiling them in steel-cable loop in an animal’s path to

C-70 ing. 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) Keep slide wire or several strands of 14-gauge clear of (0.21-cm) wire to anchor snares to a fence 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 7" to 10" least 6 inches (15 cm) in diameter and diameter round loop 6 feet (2 m) long. Snares set in holes under woven-wire fences can be held in place about 1 to 2 About 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 Fig. 35. Snare set for woven wire 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 bot- tom of the hole. The snares can be an- chored 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 Small loop (about 5") 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. Loop on ground to When a coyote goes under a fence, it side of opening 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 Fig. 36. Leg snare set raise its head. The idea is to set the leg snare so that one front foot will pass brown logwood crystals and dye. prevent the support from moving in through the snare. After boiling, snares should be kept the wind. Wrap the snare around the Snares are usually set in the form of a clean of foreign odors. Wear clean support about three times and hold it round or oval loop. In a trail set (Fig. gloves when handling and setting in place with a U bend formed in the 37), a round loop that is 12 inches (30 snares. upper end of the snare support. Bend cm) in diameter can form an oval loop the snare cable upward slightly, just How to Set Snares. Snares designed that is about 14 inches (36 cm) high inside the lock, to ensure that the snare to capture predators by the neck or leg and 10 inches (25 cm) wide. Use a loop is not closed by the wind (Fig. 33). are set directly in the animal’s path of 5/64- or 3/32-inch (0.2- or 0.24-cm) movement and are held in place using Snares should be attached to a solid diameter galvanized aircraft cable for various techniques. One support that object so that captured animals cannot snaring coyotes. Varying round loop works particularly well can be con- escape (Fig. 34). A steel 1/2-inch (1.3- diameters and heights above ground is structed from a 36-inch (0.9-m) piece of cm) diameter rebar, 24 to 30 inches (61 recommended when snaring coyotes 12-gauge galvanized or 9-gauge soft to 72 cm) long (depending on soil (Table 1). The loop size in a hole in a wire. Form a V bend in the support hardness), makes a good anchor for fence should vary depending upon the wire, about 4 inches (10 cm) from the coyotes and smaller predators. Attach size of the hole. end, and drive the wire into the snares to the rebar with a strong ground with a notched rod (Fig. 32) to swivel to prevent tangling and break-

C-71 Table 1.Specific loop dimensions for snaring coyotes. Height of Round loop loop above Type diameter in ground in of set inches (cm) inches (cm) Trail 9-12 (23-30) 10-12 (25-30) Under fence 7-10 (18-25) 2 (5)

Where to Set Snares. Animals usu- Not more ally follow the easiest route through than 1" Eye guide heavy cover. These routes, which gen- points erally consist of trails, are excellent locations to snare predators. Snares are effective along trails leading to draw stations. Some effective locations for 9" to 12" snaring coyotes include: (1) along trails Steel stake in thickets or heavy vegetation leading to a carcass, (2) on trails under fences, Eye guide points (3) on livestock trails in vacant pas- 10" to 12" tures, (4) in the bottoms of ravines, and 5) on narrow paths inside weeds or No. 9 extension cable brush. Trails can be created by driving (NOT wire) on weeds or stubble with a pickup, by walking in snow, or by mowing a trail Trail through weeds or grass with a weed Fig. 37. Trail snare set eater. Regulations for Snaring. Snares Use a short snare cable to reduce inju- For shooting coyotes, a medium- are not legal in all states. Where snares ries where accidentally captured dogs powered bolt-action rifle fitted with a are legal, most states have regulations might jump over a fence or a tree scope is recommended. The .223 Rem- which require that snares be visually branch. Also avoid using entangling ington, .22-250, .220 Swift, or the .243 inspected every 24 hours. Snares devices (attachments that increase the Winchester are all capable of killing a should be checked early in the morn- chance of killing the snared animal) coyote up to a distance of 250 yards ing to increase the probability of re- where dogs might be captured. Use (225 m). Since coyotes are able to leasing nontarget animals unharmed. the lightest snare lock (breakaway detect human scent, the shooter should Methods to Avoid Capturing Non- lock) possible to capture the desired take a stand downwind from where target Animals. Sites where snares animal. If livestock, deer, elk, or ante- the coyote will likely approach. An are set should be carefully selected to lope are captured by a leg, they can elevated location where the lighting avoid capturing nontarget animals. usually break a light lock but may be works to the shooter’s advantage is a Avoid setting snares: (1) in pastures held by heavy locks. Record the loca- good choice. If predators are killing with livestock, (2) within 25 yards tion and number of snares on a map so sheep in the daytime, construct a com- (23 m) of animal carcasses (to prevent they can be found, and remove all fortable blind at a vantage point in the capturing birds of prey and other scav- snares when damage stops or when pasture where the killing has occurred. engers), (3) within major deer, elk, or they cannot be checked frequently. Whenever possible, rest the rifle on a antelope wintering areas (these big solid support while aiming. A home- Shooting game animals are much less suscep- made shooting stick will improve tible to foothold traps), (4) on any trails Shooting coyotes is legal in many situ- accuracy over shooting freehand. being used by livestock, deer, elk, and ations, and it often ranks high among A shotgun, preferably a 12-gauge other nontarget animals (attract preda- the choices for removing a predator. semi-automatic, can be used for shoot- tors away from these trails with spe- Safety, however, is a critical factor that ing at short range (less than 50 yards cific baits and lures), (5) under fences in some circumstances may preclude [45 m]). Often it is advisable to have where livestock, antelope, deer, or the use of firearms (for example, local both a 12-gauge shotgun and a scoped nontarget dogs are using the “crawl laws may prohibit shooting, or neigh- rifle available. Copper-coated (BB) space,” and (6) where people can bors may be too close). lead shot, No. 4 buckshot (lead), and in readily view captured animals. newer shotguns, the larger-sized steel shot works well for killing coyotes.

C-72 Shooting From Ground Vehicles. have successfully evaded traditional intruders. Coyotes often den year after Shooting from vehicles (snowmobiles, ground control methods such as trap- year in the same general location. If a motorcycles, and pickups) in open, flat ping. particular denning pair of coyotes has prairie country can be effective and a history of existing with and not prey- Fixed-wing aerial hunting is limited provide immediate results. Under ing on livestock, it may be to the primarily to open areas with little most circumstances, however, this producer’s advantage to leave them vegetative cover. The greater maneu- method is not practical as it requires alone. Their removal will open up a verability of helicopters makes them keen driving skills, is dangerous, and territory that may become occupied more useful for hunting in areas of is illegal in most states. with coyotes that are more likely to brush, scattered timber, and rugged prey on livestock. Calling and Shooting Coyotes. terrain. Coyotes may respond to predator Although tracking a coyote from a Although aerial hunting can be con- calls. Calling, like other methods of livestock kill back to its den requires ducted over bare ground, it is most predation control, should be used skill and persistence, it is probably the effective where there is deep snow sparingly and only when needed. most foolproof method to locate the cover. Animals are more visible Coyotes can be called at any time of den of the offending animals. If track- against a background of snow and are the day although the first couple of ing is not feasible because of poor much less mobile in their attempts to hours after dawn and the last few tracking conditions or lack of the avoid the aircraft. Under optimal con- hours before darkness are usually best. required skills, there are alternatives ditions of clear, sunny skies and fresh Call in areas where there are signs of that may be used. coyotes, such as tracks or droppings. snow cover, much of the hunting can be accomplished by searching for and Coyotes will usually howl in response In some situations, coyotes can be following fresh coyote tracks. Aerial to a howl from another coyote near located by listening to their howling at hunting success can be increased when their den. One or both adult coyotes sundown and sunrise. Some hunters conducted with the assistance of a will often be near the den between 7:30 use sirens to elicit howls from coyotes. ground crew. Before the plane arrives, to 9:00 a.m. A response can be elicited Often a voice imitation of a coyote a ground crew can locate coyotes in by voice howling, blowing a coyote howl works as well. Coyotes often the hunting area by eliciting howls howler call, or broadcasting recorded come to a howl without howling back, with a siren, a mouth-blown howler calls from a tape player. It is usually so the prudent hunter is always ready call, or a voice howl. Two-way radio best to wait 30 minutes to 1 hour to shoot. communication allows the ground between howls because the same Hunting at Night. Not many people crew to direct the aircraft toward the coyotes may not respond again within have witnessed predators killing live- sound of the coyotes, thus reducing that period. hunting time. stock because it usually occurs at Once the approximate location of a night, away from human activity. As Aerial hunting is not recommended den is determined, careful planning is stated previously, calling and shooting for, nor undertaken by, most livestock required to ensure the best chance of predators at night is illegal in many producers because of the special skills immediately removing the adult states. Where legal, however, hunting required of both pilot and gunner and coyotes. The hunter should approach at night with the use of artificial lights the danger inherent with the low-level the den unseen and downwind to may be effective. Red or blue light flight. Although weather, terrain, and within calling distance, armed with a tends to spook predators less readily state laws limit the application of this high powered rifle and/or repeating than white light does. Calling without method, it can often provide a prompt shotgun loaded with heavy shot. A call the use of artificial lights is effective resolution to depredation problems. that imitates the whines or yelps of a only with snow cover and the light of a coyote pup can be very effective under full moon. Denning these circumstances, especially when Aerial Hunting. The use of aircraft Predation can frequently be resolved used in conjunction with a dog to act for shooting coyotes is strictly regu- by locating coyote dens and removing as a decoy. A small- to medium-sized lated by the provisions of the Airborne the pups and/or the adults responsible dog moving in the vicinity of the den Hunting Act and is allowed only for depredations. Denning may also be gives the coyotes something to focus under special permit in states where warranted as a preventive control on and reduces the likelihood that the legal. Aerial hunting is selective and strategy if coyote predation has histori- hunter will be detected. The sounds of allows taking only the target species. cally and consistently occurred in a a pup in distress along with the sight Although it is costly, it may be one of particular area during the lambing of a dog so near the den will cause the most cost-effective methods of re- season. most coyotes to display highly aggres- ducing predator damage when all fac- sive behavior, frequently chasing the Breeding pairs of coyotes are extreme- tors are considered. It is often the best dog back to within close proximity of ly territorial. They vigorously defend method where conditions are right for the hunter. their territories against other canine removing depredating animals that

C-73 After the adults are removed, the pups dicate that denning could be cost effec- predation on sheep producers was a can be killed by fumigating the den tive after only a few days, the benefits loss of $13 million, and the impact on with a gas cartridge registered for this actually continue in most instances for consumers was $4 million in addi- purpose, or the pups can be dug out the duration of the season. Denning tional costs. The General Accounting by hand. If attempts to shoot one or can be very selective for the offending Office (GAO 1990) estimated that both adults are unsuccessful, the animals and can resolve some depre- coyotes in 17 western states killed chances of trapping or snaring them dation problems at relatively low cost. sheep and lambs valued at $18 million are improved if the pups are left alive in 1989. The National Agricultural Hunting with Dogs. Several breeds and confined in the den. This can be Statistical Service (NASS 1991) are generally known as trailing accomplished by driving stakes 2 reported that sheep and lamb losses to hounds, including Walkers, Julys, red- inches (5 cm) apart down through the coyotes in the United States were bones, blueticks, black and tans, Plott den entrance. Carefully place blind valued at $18.3 million in 1990. hounds, and English fox hounds. Trail sets in the den trails or at the den hounds follow the scent left by a The US Fish and Wildlife Service mound. Capture will often result when predator and run it to tree or bay it on (1978) reported calf losses between the adults return to investigate the the ground. Coyotes are seldom birth and weaning to coyotes across area. If the adults are not captured caught and killed by trail hounds. In the United States at 0.4%, with preda- within a reasonable period of time, the most instances, trail hounds are used tion decreasing to nearly zero by pups should be destroyed. Removal of in combination with sight hounds. The weaning time. Dorrance (1982) the pups is often effective in stopping trail hounds run coyotes into the open, reported that coyotes were responsible predation even if the adult coyotes are and then sight hounds are released to for 16% of the 1,520 confirmed preda- not removed. capture the fleeing coyote. More com- tion losses of cattle in Alberta from An airplane can be used very effec- monly, coyotes are shot as they run 1974 to 1978. Coyote predation on tively to locate coyote dens when dep- from the pack of hounds. Sight calves caused producers with coyote redations occur in spring or early hounds, generally greyhounds or Rus- problems across the United States to summer in open prairies or sagebrush sian wolf hounds, are used in open lose an estimated $20 million. How- terrain. Early morning hours provide prairie country to run coyotes down ever, because of the greater price flex- the best light conditions for locating and kill them. ibility of beef compared with sheep, adult animals near the den site or as the reduction in the number of beef they return from hunting. The low calves marketed (estimated at 0.4%, or angle light reflects on the coyote and Economics of Damage 115,000 fewer calves) resulted in a provides good contrast with the sur- and Control higher price, which benefited beef pro- rounding vegetation and soil. Actual ducers by $81 million. The net impact den sign, however, shows up better Sheep numbers in the United States of the reduced supply of beef as a during the middle of the day with light have declined about 80% from 1942 to result of coyote predation was a gain coming from directly overhead. Dens 1976 (Gee et al. 1977). Former sheep of $61 million to beef producers, but it are most easily located after the pups producers reported that the principal cost consumers an additional $98 have begun venturing outside. The reasons for leaving the sheep industry million in higher prices for beef, result- pups soon trample down the vegeta- included high predation losses, low ing in an overall loss of $37 million. tion around the den, making the site lamb and wool prices, a shortage of NASS (1992) reported that cattle and more visible from the air. If aerial good hired labor, and the producer’s calf losses to coyotes in the United shooting is legal, it is often possible to age. States were valued at $24.3 million in remove the adults and pups in one 1991. The US Fish and Wildlife Service operation. In open terrain, landings (1978) estimated the economic impact Coyote predation also can cause can often be made within walking dis- of coyote predation on producers with substantial losses of domestic goats. In tance of the den. predator problems, on producers with- three studies in Texas, where an esti- Although denning requires special out predator problems, and on con- mated 1.1 million goats (about 90% of skills, training, and often considerable sumers during 1977. They used an the goats in the United States) are time, the advantages can be significant. average lamb loss rate of 4% (267,000 raised (Scrivner et al. 1985), predators A cost-benefit analysis conducted dur- lambs) and a ewe loss rate of 1.5% were reported to take 18.1% of the ing one study determined that the cost (125,000 ewes) to estimate an economic adults and 33.9% of the kids (Pearson to remove a den of depredating loss of $19 million to producers from 1986). NASS (1991) reported that goat coyotes could be recovered if only 3.6 coyote predation in the 17 western losses to coyotes in the United States lambs were saved. In the same study, states. The reduced number of sheep were valued at $5.7 million in 1990. the average number of lambs killed by and lambs resulted in a higher market Pearson (1986) stated that predators, each depredating pair of coyotes was price, which benefited producers by $6 particularly coyotes, accounted for 4.9 per week. While these findings in- million. The net impact of coyote

C-74 losses of hundreds of chickens and For Additional General Accounting Office (GAO). 1990. turkeys in the 14 western states. In one Wildlife management effects of Animal Information Damage Control program on predators. study, Andelt and Gipson (1979) GAO/RCED-90-149, US General Account. reported that between June 4 and Alberta Agriculture. 1990. Methods of Office, Washington, DC. 31 pp. August 31, 1976, a mated pair of investigating predation of livestock. Alberta Gier, H. T. 1968. Coyotes in Kansas. Revised. coyotes apparently killed 268 domestic Agric., Crop Prot. Branch, Agdex 684-4. Kansas State Coll. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 393. turkeys in Nebraska valued at $938. 36 pp. 118 pp. Andelt, W. F. 1987. Coyote predation. Pages Although the average value of live- Green, J. S. ed. 1987. Protecting livestock from 128-140 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. coyotes: a synopsis of the research of the stock losses to coyotes reflected the Obbard, and B. Malloch. Wild furbearer Agricultural Research Service. Natl. Tech. overall impact on producers, it did not management and conservation in North Info. Serv. PB 88 133590/AS. 105 pp. reflect the severity of losses to some America. Ontario Ministry. Nat. Resour. Green, J. S., and R. A. Woodruff. 1991. Livestock individuals. Balser (1964) and Gee et Andelt, W. F. 1988. Proper use of snares for guarding dogs protect sheep from predators. al. (1977) indicated that coyote preda- capturing furbearers. Colorado State Univ. US Dep. Agric., Agric. Info. Bull. No. 588. tion is much more serious for some Coop. Ext. Serv. Pub. 6.517, Fort Collins. 4 pp. 31 pp. producers than others. Most sheep Andelt, W. F., and P. S. Gipson. 1979. Domestic Henderson, F. R. 1986. “How to Call a Coyote,” producers suffer no or minor predator turkey losses to radio-tagged coyotes. J. Kansas State Univ., Coop. Ext. Serv., Wildl. Manage. 4:673-679. losses, whereas 20% to 25% of the Manhattan. Pub. C-400. 4 pp. producers suffer losses that are signifi- Balser, D. S. 1964. Management of predator Henderson, F. R. 1987. How to trap a coyote. populations with antifertility agents. J. Kansas State. Univ., Coop. Ext. Serv., Pub. cantly higher than the average (US Wildl. Manage. 28:352-358. Fish Wildl. Serv. 1978). These losses C-660. 12 pp. can drive producers out of business Bateman, J. 1971. Animal traps and trapping. Henderson, F. R. 1988. Use of snares for Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. capturing coyotes. CES, Kansas State Univ., because of low profit margins. Non- 286 pp. fatal injuries and harassment of live- Coop. Ext. Serv. Pub. C-698., Manhattan. Bekoff, M., ed. 1978. Coyotes: biology, behavior, 4 pp. stock by coyotes also can result in and management. Academic Press, New York. reduced weight gain and subsequent Henderson, F. R., E. K. Boggess, and R. J. Robel. 384 pp. 1977. Understanding the coyote. Kansas reductions in profit. Boggess, E. K., F. R. Henderson, and C. W. State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv., Pub. C-578., Spaeth. 1980. Managing predator problems: Manhattan. 24 pp. Acknowledgments practices and procedures for preventing and Hulet, C. V., D. M. Anderson, J. N. Smith, W. L. reducing livestock losses. Coop. Ext. Serv. Shupe, C. A. Taylor, Jr., and L. W. Murray. C-620, Kansas State Univ., Manhattan. 19 pp. Much of the information and several of the 1989. Bonding of goats to sheep and cattle figures for this chapter were adapted from the Connolly, G. 1992a. Sheep and goat losses to for protection from predators. Appl. An. SID Sheep Production Handbook, Predator predators in the United States. Proc. Eastern Behav. Sci. 22:261-267. Damage Control chapter, published by the Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 5:75-82. Knowlton, F. F. 1972. Preliminary interpretations American Sheep Industry Association, Inc. of coyote population mechanics with some (1990) and various publications authored by Connolly, G. 1992b. Coyote damage to livestock management implications. J. Wildl. Manage. F. R. Henderson, J. S. Green, W. F. Andelt, G. E. and other resources. Pages 161-169 in A. H. 36:369-382. Connolly, and D. A. Wade. Boer, ed. Proceedings, ecology and management of the eastern coyote. Univ., Linhart, S. B., G. J. Dasch, and F. J. Turkowski. 1981. The section on economics of damage and control New Brunswick, Fredericton. The steel leghold trap: techniques for reducing was adapted from Andelt (1987). foot injury and increasing selectivity. Proc. Connolly, G. E. 1988. M-44 sodium cyanide ejectors Worldwide Furbearer Conf. 3:1560-1578. Figure 1 by Emily Oseas Routman. in the Animal Damage Control program, 1976- Figure 6 adapted from a USDA-APHIS-ADC 1986. Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf. 13:220-225. Linhart, S. B., J. D. Roberts, and G. J. Dasch. 1981. illustration by Renee Lanik, University of Electric fencing reduces coyote predation on Connolly, G. E. and W. M Longhurst. 1975. The pastured sheep. J. Range Manage. 35:276-281. Nebraska-Lincoln. effects of control on coyote populations — a simulation model. Univ. California, Coop. Linhart, S. B., R. T. Sterner, G. J. Dasch, and J. W. Ext. Serv. Bull. 1872. 37 pp. Theade. 1984. Efficacy of light and sound stimuli for reducing coyote predation upon deCalesta, D. S. 1983. Building an electric pastured sheep. Prot. Ecol. 6:75-84. antipredator fence. Pacific Northwest Ext. Pub. 225. 11 pp. Meduna, R. 1977. Relationship between sheep management and coyote predation. M.S. Thesis, Dorrance, M. J. 1982. Predation losses of cattle in Kansas State Univ., Manhattan. 140 pp. Alberta. J. Range Manage. 35:690-692. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Gee, C. K., W. R. Bailey, R. L. Gum, and L. M. 1991. Sheep and goat predator loss. US Dep. Arthur. 1977. Sheep and lamb losses to Agric., Agric. Statistics Board, Washington, predators and other causes in the western DC. United States. US Dep. Agric., Econ. Res. Serv., Agric. Econ. Rep. 369. 41 pp. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 1992. Cattle and calves death loss. US Dep Gee, C. K., D. B. Nielsen and D. M. Stevens. Agric., Agric. Statistics Board, Washington, 1977. Factors in the decline of the western DC. sheep industry. US Dep. Agric., Econ. Res. Serv., Agric. Econ. Rep. 377. 31 pp.

C-75 Pearson, E. W. 1986. A literature review of livestock Wade, D. A. 1976. The use of aircraft in predator losses to predators in western U.S. US Fish control. Vertebr. Pest Conf. Proc. 7:154-160. Wildl. Serv. Final Rep., Denver, Colorado. 20 pp. Wagner, F. H. 1988. Predator control and the sheep industry: the role of science in policy Robel, R. J., A. D. Dayton, F. R. Henderson, R. L. formation. Regina Books, Claremont, Meduna, and C. W. Spaeth. 1981. Relationships California. 230 pp. between husbandy methods and sheep losses to canine predators. J. Wildl. Manage. 45:894- Walton, M. T., and C. A. Feild. 1989. Use of donkeys 911. to guard sheep and goats in Texas. Eastern Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 4:87-94. Scrivner, J. H. 1983. The 1080 toxic collar: economics of field use in Texas. Proc. Western Wildl. Young, S. P., and H. T. Jackson. 1951. The clever Damage Control Conf. 1:201-204. coyote. The Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and the Wildl. Manage. Inst., Scrivner, J. H., D. A. Wade, G. E. Connolly, and Washington, DC. 411 pp. L. C. Howard, Jr. 1985. The effects of predation on an Angora goat ranch. Nat. Wool Grower. 75:10-13. Video Tapes Shelton, M. 1984. The use of conventional and Video tape, VHS. “Livestock Guarding Dogs, electric fencing to reduce coyote predation Protecting Sheep From Coyotes.” US Dep. on sheep and goats. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Agric., An. Plant Health Inspect. Serv., An. MP 1556. 12 pp. Damage Control. Till, J. A., and F. F. Knowlton. 1983. Efficacy of Video tape, VHS. “How to Call a Coyote.” denning in alleviating coyote depredations Kansas State Univ., Coop. Ext. Serv. on domestic sheep. J. Wildl. Manage. Manhattan. 47:1018-1025. Video tape VHS. “How to Snare a Coyote.” Todd, A. W. and L. B. Keith. 1976. Responses of Kansas State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv., coyotes to winter reductions in agricultural Manhattan. carrion. Alberta Wildl. Tech. Bull. 5. 32 pp. Video tape, VHS. “A Matter of Perspective.” USDA. 1993. Animal Damage Control Program. Texas A&M Coop. Ext. Serv. San Angelo. Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement-1992. US Dep. Agric. Video tape, VHS. “How to Trap a Coyote.” Washington, DC. Colorado State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv., Fort Collins. 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. Editors Wade, D. A. 1973. Control of damage by coyotes Scott E. Hygnstrom and some other carnivores. Colorado State Robert M. Timm Univ., Coop. Ext. Serv. Bull. 482a. 16 pp. Gary E. Larson

C-76