destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to...

24

Upload: others

Post on 10-Jul-2020

8 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness
Page 2: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

A predator is any creature which gets someportion of its food by killing another animal.However, the concept means very differentthings to different people. Examples ofpredation include such everyday events as aswallow catching flies, a bass eating minnows,a quail catching grasshoppers and a man en-joying beef or chicken.

The sheep producer who sees a coyote killone of his lambs is pretty certain that this par-ticular coyote is a predator. The hunter who isfortunate enough to see a coyote catch and killa rabbit knows that the coyote is a predator,too. In each case, the coyote has taken acreature which the man valued and perhapsdesired for his own use. Often, we reserve theterm “predator” for those animals which ac-tually compete with man for prey animals.

There are many other people who view thecoyote in quite a different light To many hunt-ers, the coyote is a challenging quarry whichgives many a thrilling chase. To people whosimply enjoy nature, the coyote ranks as one ofthe most beautiful, intelligent creatures onearth. To many cattle ranchers, he is a symbolof the “Old West” and they enjoy listening tothe yipping song of coyotes at sunrise and sun-set. Fur trappers realize that the coyote can bea valuable furbearer. The eating habits of thecoyote don’t interfere with the enterprises ofthese men and so, to them, he is somethingmore than a competing predator.

The late Dr. Paul Errington observed thatpeople often confuse the fact of predation withthe effects of predation. Few actual inci-dents of predation are actually witnessed byman. When predation is observed, it usuallymakes a vivid impression on the observer. Mostof us have difficulty rationalizing the idea that a

destructive act can be anything but detrimentalto the prey animals. Thus, the careful observerwho is lucky enough to actually witness the actof predation in the wild often comes away withthe impression that the predators aredecimating their prey.

We have used coyotes as an example inthe paragraphs above because there are somany emotional prejudices about them. Equallydiverse views are held about many otherpredators. The views differ, according to ourpersonal experiences.

Like most predators, coyotes are op-portunists. Individuals differ in what they eatand in how they act. Leaving morals out of it, in-dividual animals vary in habits and actions justas humans do. Some are desirable to havearound, others are hardly noticed and stillothers are downright bothersome. It makes nomore sense to manage all of the Individuals of aspecies in the same way than it would to treatall people in the same way.

Killing predators or modifying the en-vironment in order to control damagessometimes becomes necessary, but it is evenmore important to remember that most naturalpredators are valuable to us. Predation is one ofthe fundamental natural laws. Like all naturallaws, we can work with it to our advantage;working entirely against it can bring en-vironmental disaster.

How is predation important to us? Firstand foremost, it is a natural counterbalance tothe great reproductive capacity of most preyspecies. Another natural counterbalance existsin the form of competition between predatorsthemselves. A given area can support only somany of each different type of predator. Whenthe numbers of any one kind of predator are un-naturally decreased, other kinds of predatorstend to increase and fill the gap.

There is another way in which predation isimportant to us. It is often nature’s way ofeliminating weak, stupid, stunted, and diseasedcreatures in all wild species. Sick animals orthose of poor quality are of little value to man. Afew of their diseases (for example, tularemia orrabies) can infect man or his livestock. Yet,through predation, many unfit animals arekilled before they can breed. Many diseasedanimals die before they can spread disease asmuch as they might otherwise. When such a“culling” process occurs, the deaths are not awaste because more food becomes availablefor those that are fit, strong and (perhaps)valuable to us.

This is the real meaning of predation. Innature, it is the normal and necessary workingof a basic law that ultimately benefits all life, in-cluding man.

Page 3: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

Understanding Is ImportantThe important thing to remember is that

only by understanding and working with normalpredation can we control the damage thatresults when predation is not normal. There aretwo ways of doing this: we can avoid predatordamage by providing livestock protection frompredators. When this is not enough, we canreduce predator damage by removing the in-dividual predators that are causing damage.

Avoiding predator damage is by far the bet-ter plan. We can achieve this through good landuse, livestock protection, and control of ourown tame predators— the domestic dogs andcats. Employing all three of these together is of-ten necessary because no one alone is certainto do the job. When we use land so that coverand food for valuable wildlife are preservedrather than destroyed, wildlife is more abun-dant. Then, predators can obtain enough foodby harvesting the surplus and less fit in-dividuals of wild prey species. Through the useof barns, poultry houses, fences, and traineddogs, man can protect livestock from predators.This is “insurance” that few producers can af-ford to be without.

The best way to reduce predator damagethat we cannot otherwise avoid is to remove theindividual animal that is causing the damage.The producer has the right to destroy anypredator that is molesting his flocks or herds. Ifhe does not know how, his County Extension

Agent will help him learn how, with assistancefrom the specialist provided by the State Ex-tension Service.

It is important to realize that the damagecan be stopped only by removal ofthe particular predator that is causing it. Whenone gray fox is raiding a chicken-house, it’s thatfox that must be removed to save the chickens,not the ones that aren’t bothering anything.When a coyote is killing lambs, it is that par-ticular coyote that must be removed to saveremaining lambs, and not the ones digging outmice over in the back woodlot. We’ve got tocorrect the idea that every fox, or coyote, orhawk, or what have you, is just waiting for thechance to wreak havoc in our flocks and herds.For the most part, predators prey on wildspecies. Normally, they avoid man and hisdomestic creatures. It is the exception and notthe rule when a native predator makes his livingby preying on domestic stock. When such an in-dividual is removed, the damage almost alwaysstops and predation resumes its normal coursein the wild, where it is needed.

PredationLet’s take a closer look at the act of

predation—one animal preying on another.There is a tendency on the part of many

people to classify all predatory creatures aswild, savage and dangerous. It is difficult to un-derstand how this idea has become so en-

Page 4: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

trenched because the two most coddled andcommon household pets, the cat and the dog,are both very definitely predators. The quiet, af-fectionate nature of these animals toward theirhuman companions is well known. The gentle,purring “kitty,” curled upon the cushion, has adual personality and can be a ferociouspredator indeed to small birds and mice. So too,the dog that romps with the children, howevergood natured, can be a keen and eager hunterand even a fierce and dangerous killer, if suf-ficiently aroused. With such famil iar“domestic” animals, these complex behaviorpatterns are so commomplace they are takenfor granted. What is not so well known is thatthese same qualities have evolved in nearly allpredatory animals. This dual nature is naturaland essential to the survival of nearly allpredators.

The adults of higher predators, whetherbird or mammal, have become so efficient insecuring food that they often have a good dealof time to themselves, particularly during thatpart of the year when they are not tendingyoung. Most predators are creatures of highenergy and intelligence, and develop a con-siderable range of activities that lie outside thebasic behavior patterns connected with feedingand reproduction. With mammals, many ofthese activities are well-known. Scientists whostudy animal behavior have described variousforms of play, roughhousing and mock-fightingamong predators.

The coyote is no exception in this regard,and behavioral scientists have repeatedly ob-served a variety of “play behaviors” in free-ranging populations of animals. Coyotes havebeen observed running as if playing tag,howling at the moon, carrying various objects

around with them while running from anothercoyote, ambushing and attacking a playmate orprovoking a playful fight. In addition to the playbehavior outlined above, coyotes have theability to recognize other individuals and toform bonds of individual acquaintanceship, notonly with other coyotes, but (under certain cir-cumstances) with human beings as well. Thecoyote has the ability to develop the same fond-ness for human companionship which ischaracteristic of the domestic dog.

The Savage SideNow, with the foregoing in mind, we can

look more objectively at the “savage” side ofthe nature of predatory animals. The behaviorpatterns are really quite familiar. Most are com-monplace and may be readily observed in boththe domestic cat and dog. We often overlookthe fact that both these domestic animals, nomatter how well fed, definitely enjoy hunting. ifgiven the opportunity, both will hunt and kill forreasons that obviously have nothing what-soever to do with hunger. Hunting excitementcan be aroused to a high pitch by the scent orsight of some species but not by others. The ac-tions of a hunting animal, even when engagedin killing something, are not “savage” and“fierce.” A predator does not kill in a fightingrage, but rather in a spirit of alert, high ex-citement. This “enjoyment” of hunting, readilyseen in the cat and dog, is characteristic of allthe higher predators, including coyotes.

Again, the reason predators have evolvedthis desire or will to hunt and kill certain preyspecies is not difficult to understand. An in-dividual may kill in excess of its own needs outof necessity to care for the young. Parents of allhigher predators must hunt and kill far in ex-cess of their own needs, and quite independentof their own hunger, to feed their offspring.

Page 5: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

Domestic cats will take to hunting miceand small birds (“natural” prey items for them)with no prior instruction. These prey speciesare just the right size and have the rightbehaviors to cause the cat to focus its attentionon them. Scientists who study animal behaviorhave shown that the innate catching and killingbehavior of cats is actually unsuited to catch-ing and killing birds. Nonetheless, most catswill hunt birds enthusiastically and some willlearn to modify their innate behavior patternsso as to become very successful at this. Thebehavior patterns of cats are more suited tohunting and killing mice, and most cats canbecome successful “mousers” merely byhoning and refining behaviors which theyalready have. Around farms and other areaswhich have an abundance of mice, cats are ableto catch and kill mice readily and satisfy theirhunger very quickly. However, most peoplehave seen cats which are no longer hungrywhich continue to catch mice and “toy” withthem, releasing them and pouncing on themrepeatedly. This, too, is the result of the way inwhich nature has designed the cat to succeedas a predator.

Getting Enough to EatIn the everyday activities of a predator

trying to make a living in a natural community,time and energy must be budgeted so as to en-sure that the predator will obtain enough foodto meet his requirements for energy andnutrients. This requires several different typesof activity: hunting to locate prey animals,stalking (or coursing, in many canine predators)to get close enough to actually catch the prey,pouncing or attacking, killing and eating. Ob-viously, a predator in a natural community willneed to spend a lot of time hunting at sometimes, as prey will not be evenly distributedthroughout the community. When prey animalsare encountered, they must be stalked orchased, and many of these attempts will be un-successful. When this happens, the predatorhas to be “ready” to begin hunting anew and tostalk and chase when prey is encounteredagain.

When a stalk or chase is successful (whenthe predator has put himself within strikingdistance of the prey), he still must attack orpounce on the prey animal. At this point, theprey may also escape, so that the sequence ofhunting, stalking, etc. may have to begin again.However, when successful contact is made, thepredator still must kill, and some prey animalsmay escape with their lives at this stage as well,particularly those attacked by young or inex-perienced predators. Many prey animals fight

back when attacked and some are able to suc-cessfully repel or escape predators at thispoint. However, once a kill is made, a predatoris not completely assured of being able to putthe prey to his own use. He may be displaced bya bigger, more aggressive predator whichdesires his prey, particularly if he is a younganimal. So even successful killing is no guaran-tee that a predator will actually obtain the foodwhich he needs to ensure his survial

However, nature has provided forpredators. In the hypothetical sequence whichwe have outlined above, a predator would needto be motivated to spend more time actuallyhunting than stalking or coursing. He wouldneed to spend more time stalking or coursingthan pouncing or attacking. He would need tospend more time attacking than killing, and soon. Scientists have discovered that mostpredators possess what they call “action-specific energy” for many behaviors. This sim-ply means that the desire to perform certainbehaviors builds up within the animal and theywill continue to perform certain activities (suchas hunting, catching, killing, etc.) until the ac-tion specific energy for that behavior has beenused up. This is why a cat will hunt birds, eventhough he may be well fed at the house. This isthe reason that a cat will toy with a mouse,releasing it and recatching it repeatedly.Predators whose needs are satisfied with littleexpenditure of energy in the behaviorsassociated with obtaining food, will continue toperform many of these behaviors in the ab-sence of hunger.

in addition to being deliberate hunters,predators are also opportunists. Nature hasseen to it that predators are always ready toseize an opportunity and exert themselves theminute they see a really good chance to catchsomething.

From the foregoing, you might supposethat predation is a complex process. This cer-tainly seems to be the case. Predators live at

Page 6: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

the top of the food chain in an ecological com-unity. They must be mobile opportunists whotake every opportunity presented by nature, inaddition to being methodical hunters. At timeshowever, predators can be quite selective,focusing their attentions on animals which aresick, wounded or abnormal; but at other times,perfectly healthy animals may be taken. Normalpredation involves much more than theelimination of the unfit prey wild animals,although where wounded or crippled prey isabundant, the attention of the predators maybeconcentrated on such animals until they areeliminated.

Predation is never entirely random. Thereare always elements of selectivity and op-portunity which are at work. The prey, in asense, selects itself. Sheep producers oftenpoint out that coyotes take the strongest lamb,not the weakest. In fact, this is usually the case.Weak lambs are often in the center of a group oflambs, while the strong lamb is on the outsideand is more active. The coyote is attracted tothe active animal on the fringe of the group, aneasier prey choice.

Finally, a marked characteristic of almostall predators is a tendency (often amounting toan insistency) of launching an attack only atquarry that flees from them. This tendencybecomes very pronounced as the quarry ap-proaches the predator in size, or exceeds it.With large quarry, predators are usually verycautious and will often refuse to come to gripswith such prey as long as it stands its groundand appears to be on the defensive. Once a eweruns, an experienced coyote can kill a 150-pound ewe without difficulty.

These, of course, are calculated decisions,and real hunger can act as a powerful variable,

forcing the predator to become involved insituations it normally would avoid such aspreying on calves. Yet, as a rule, predators,while not minding a struggle, have no wish toget into a real fight.

The nature of predation, then, is one of op-portunity coupled with selectivity. Coyotes willwait in a field being harvested, knowing full wellthat such activity often flushes rabbits androdents. Prairie fires are also utilized byeducated coyotes.

Now, if we have left the impression that thehigher predators have an easy time of it, thisshould be corrected. Experienced adults at cer-tain times of the year certainly have no dif-ficulties, but inexperienced young may farequite differently, even under identical con-ditions. It is no accident that the very time ofyear when hunting is easiest (in early summer)is the very time of year when the foodrequirements of the young meat-eaters arethemselves highest. At this time, there are anynumber of blundering, innocent half-grownyoung of a wide range of wild prey speciesavailable to the hunters. The experiencedadults, during such times of plenty and count-less opportunities, do have things pretty easy.However, for young predators, selectivity of thesternest kind begins; a selectivity that is just asruthless to the coyote as to their prey. Theyoung coyotes feed on the young of the wildprey species and both grow up together. Theclumsy, stupid, or lazy predator starves and iseliminated. Weak, crippled, blundering, or slowprey animals—those which are in anyway inef-ficient—are also eliminated. This adjustment iscontinuous, beginning anew each season andcontinuing throughout the adult life of bothpredator and wild prey to the end of theirrespective lives. The pressure is as much onone as it is on the other and demands everhigher standards of alertness, speed and ef-ficiency on both sides.

Even though we might expect the predatorto be at an advantage in this situation, mortalityamong wild predators, particularly in the firstyear of life, is surprisingly high. Just how highmay be illustrated by comparing the average lifeexpectancy of a coyote (usually less than 3years at birth) with the maximum age attainable(probably about 14 in the wild and occasionallyin excess of 20 years in captivity). The criticalperiod for predators seems to be in the fall rightafter they are abandoned by the adults. Oncethey reach the spring of their second season,their chances of seeing additional winters aremuch improved.

In the preceding paragraphs we havealluded to instruction and experience as beingessential to survival. There is ever-increasing

Page 7: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

considerable period of time when the victor sitsevidence that a good many of the behavior pat-terns of the predators are learned as opposed tobeing altogether instinctive.

Among the basic predatory instinctsinherent in all the predators is a tendency to bedrawn to movement; that is, to chase, and tokill. However, these innate behaviors aremodified by learning. All predators have an ab-solutely amazing capacity for storing ex-perience, especially successful experience,and an equally amazing ability for using thatstored experience in new situations. Thedevelopment of such an ability in a potentiallylong-lived creature obviously has a higher sur-vival value than a very wide range of inflexibleinstinctive reactions.

Adult predators “instruct” the young of theyear by encouraging them first to chase, andthen to take dead prey from the parents.Although we often think of the instinct to chaseas being linked to the instinct to kill, in thehigher predators the two actions become lessclosely associated, and at times are entirelydisconnected. In dealing with any large, dif-ficuit quarry the chase, capture, and killing aretasks of such magnitude that they engage theentire attention and energy of the predator. Af-ter a hard struggle of this kind, there is often a

and rests before beginning to feed.The acts of hunting and killing are, in all

the higher predators, completed actions in theirown right and not necessarily connected withfeeding. All the predatory animals really enjoyhunting, but even more they enjoy the ex-citement associated with the experience ofkilling. Given the opportunity, most predators,once aroused, will kill repeatedly in what ap-pears to be an insatiable blood-lust. Themustelids, mink, weasel, and ferret are bestknown for this, perhaps because they morefrequently get themselves into situations wherethis characteristic can assert itself; but it isfound in the other hunting animals as well. Thebehavior of dogs, when among sheep or en-closed poultry is exactly the same.

Once introduced to hunting, and afterhaving made a few kills, many predators seemto find the experience so “gratifying” that itbecomes dissociated with hunger andbecomes an end in itself.

Predators Effect on Prey MembersThere is a great deal of disagreement as to

just how much affect predators actually have inlimiting prey populations. Critics of the so-called “balance-of-nature” theory point out thatmany prey species undergo cyclic highs andlows despite the presence of predators,therefore, proving that predation cannot be con-trolling their numbers. However, mostpredators take prey in direct proportion to itsavailability. Predatory pressure is flexible andits major impact will shift between species orlocalities, depending upon relative availabilityof prey. With an increase in population den-sities, more and more density-dependentregulating factors (predation, competition,reproduction, emigration, disease) come intoplay. Even though predation may not always bethe dominant factor reducing a prey population,it may serve to moderate peaks in prey abun-dance. A single species of predator could act asa moderating influence on several prey speciessimultaneously, switching its feeding behavioraccording to the availability of each. Therefore,

Page 8: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

despite the fact that a prey species may con-tinue to undergo cyclic highs and lows in thepresence of a predator, it is incorrect to assumethat the predator is having no affect on thatprey population.

It is important to remember that an in-crease or decrease in the abundance of any onespecies produces changes in all other species.This principle applies to other species ofpredators as well as prey. There is evidence thatwhen populations of one predator (such as thecoyote) are reduced, populations of otherspecies of predators in the area will tend to in-crease.

Reaction of Prey to PredatorBefore closing this discussion, some

notice should be taken of the reactions ofvarious prey species to the presence ofpredators. Reactions of prey animals topredators range from aggressive defiance to afear so complete as to be totally paralyzing. Asa rule, the more nearly the prey animal ap-proaches the size of the attacking predator, themore likely it is tempted to defend itself or atleast fight to escape if caught. Where the sizedisparity is great, or when a quarry hasexhausted itself in its efforts to escape, fear-paralysis may be observed. Quarry in a state offear-paralysis can be taken in the hand, simplypicked up, without its making the least effort atfurther attempts to escape.

The above reaction seems to be confinedto species which are relatively defenseless.Usually these are species that constitute thenormal prey for the predator concerned.However, the fear reaction is not alwayspresent in prey species. Species that do notnormally constitute food for predators react tothem in a very different way. Sheep not preyedupon by coyotes pay little attention to thepresence of coyotes. Only when an attack is ac-tually made do they show any real alarm. Eventhen, they often seem more surprised thanafraid. In open areas, sheep do panic andusually manage to evade repeated attacks oc-curring at one time.

There are exceptions. Coyotes living inareas where better quality wild prey is scarcemay take to feeding Iargely on some domesticlivestock. There is also the odd individual of anypredatory species that works out some specialtechnique (probably by accident) of catchingand killing some locally abundant domesticspecies that is normally not taken. Examples ofthis aberrant behavior are rather well known:“man eaters” in the large cats come to mind atonce. Individual coyotes sometimes take tokilling domestic dogs and cats. The occasionalcoyote becomes a confirmed chicken killer.Such individuals are often adult males.Sometimes, but not always, such individualsare very old or physically impaired in some waythat acts as a handicap in the speed or coor-dination needed to take their normal wild prey.

Predators Preyingon Other Predators

Interpredation, the attacking of onepredator by another is rare in mammals. Butcoyotes do affect the numbers of otherpredators. We usually think of predators aseating the prey animals, but seldom do we con-sider the fact that all animals in a given area are“tied together.” Predators are not only affectedby prey, but predators are affected by otherpredators, within a given area. Some of thesepredators feed on each other; coyotes kill bob-cats and fox; coyotes even kill other coyotesand there are records of foxes killing otherfoxes. There may also be a high degree of com-petition between predators for the availablefood. Coyotes keep populations of other kindsof smaller predators down because the coyotesare dominant predators, being the largest andmost adaptable. After using poison baits inseveral areas, an employee of the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Weldon B. Robinson, notedthat the lesser predators increased enough tofill the gap left by the missing coyotes.

In South Dakota and North Dakota the redfox increased and spread into areas left vacant

Page 9: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

by wide-spread poisoning of coyotes. Thiscreated a problem for sheepmen because therewere three to five foxes present in areas whereoriginally there had been only one coyote.Cases of confirmed lamb losses were reportedfor red fox. After thousands of dollars werespent in an attempt to extirpate the coyote, thepeople of South Dakota and North Dakotafound themselves with a low coyote populationand a high red fox population. Bobcats in-creased, too.

These, then, are some of various aspectsof predation. it is a complex subject with manyramifications, and our knowledge on the sub-ject though increasing, is still very limited.

Il. The CoyoteCoyotes are members of the dog family or

Canidae and are much like dogs in many of theirhabits. The scientific name of the coyote, Canislatrans is Latin for “barking dog.” The commonname comes from the Aztec Indian word coyotiand was handed down by the Spaniards.Although the preferred pronunciation is theMexican-Spanish version “ki-o-tee,” the short-ened “ki-ote” is commonly used. Coyotes aresometimes referred to as prairie or brushwolves. The true wolf or timber wolf, Canislupus, was once found in Kansas, but has beenextinct in the state since about 1905.

Coyotes are found throughout Kansas aswel as most of the North American continent.In recent years they have expanded their rangeinto all of the United States. in Kansas, coyotesare most abundant in the eastern two-thirds ofthe state.

The coyote is a great deal smaller thanmany people believe, averaging about two feethigh at the front shoulders. In Kansas, adultmale coyotes average about 30 pounds whilefemales average slightly smaller at 25 pounds.Coyotes in eastern Kansas average a couple ofpounds heavier than western Kansas coyotes.An occasional extremely large coyote may ap-proach 45 pounds.

Coyotes are typically light gray to dullyellow, and particularly in eastern Kansas, of-ten have somewhat of a reddish coloration. Theouter hairs of the coyote’s coat are broadlytipped with black. The throat and belly are whiteto pale gray and may also have a reddishcoloration. There is, however, a great deal ofvariation in the natural color of coyotes in Kan-sas. The iris of the eye is a tawny yellow or palegold and is characteristic of all coyotes.

Coyotes have a heavy winter coat which isshed in late spring and then is replacedgradually through the summer months. The furis prime from November through February andis used extensively for trim on winter coats andparkas.

Different Kinds of CoyotesThere are 19 recognized subspecies of the

coyote in North America, two of which arefound in Kansas. The plains coyote, CanisIatrans latrans, is found in the western two-thirds of Kansas and the south-eastern coyote,Canis Iatrans frustror, is found in the southeastand extreme eastern portions of the state. Thesoutheastern subspecies is darker and morereddish than the pale plains subspecies and ithas much more black down the front of theforelegs.

Page 10: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

Do Coyotes Crosswith Domestic Dogs?

Occasionally, coyotes have been known tocross with domestic dogs, forming a hybridcommonly known as a coydog. Coydogs arerelatively rare in Kansas, but they are known tooccur, particularly in more heavily populatedareas where dogs are allowed to roam free. Of-ten a coydog will be larger than either of itsparents. Also, unlike many hybrids, the coydogis fertile and can reproduce. Characteristicswhich may indicate that an animal is a coydogare; weight more than 45 pounds; eye colorother than pale gold; and black, red or spottedcoloration. In most cases, expert identificationis necessary to determine whether an animal isor is not a coydog. Very little is known about thedistribution, abundance or behavior of coyote-dog crosses in Kansas.

Identification of hybrids is complicated bythe fact that there is a great deal of natural colorvariation in coyote populations. Colorationranges from extremely pale or almost white tonearly black or red. The most reliable method toidentify hybrids is a detailed examination of theskull by an expert.

How Long Do Coyotes Live?Coyotes have been known to live 14 years

in the wild and up to 21 years in captivity, but

the average life-span in the wild is much shorterthan that. The average age of coyotes in a wildpopulation is 2 to 3 years. This low average isdue partially to the fact that a large proportionof the coyotes die before they ever reach 1 yearof age. Mortality of coyotes may range from 40percent in unhunted populations up to 60 or 70percent in populations undergoing intense hunt-ing pressure.

The Songs of the CoyoteCoyotes are perhaps best known for their

howling or singing ability. They commonly givea series of yips, yaps and howls, often in con-cert with other coyotes. The coyote’s voice hasa ventriloqual quality and may carry for severalmiles. Two or three coyotes howling togethercreate a bedlam that is often mistaken for ten ortwenty. Coyotes are most often heard howlingfrom about sunset until just after sunrise, butthey can occasionally be heard during the day.Time of year has some effect on the frequencyof howling, with a peak occurring during latesummer and fall. Sometimes a train whistle or asiren will stimulate coyotes to howl, evenduring the middle of the day.

The Family Life of the CoyoteCoyotes probably do not mate for life, but

are monogamous; that is, they will take onlyone mate in any given year. Breeding begins in

Page 11: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

late January, reaches a peak by mid-February,and continues into early March. Individualfemale coyotes are only capable of breedingwithin a single period of 2 to 5 days once a year.

Usually, one-year-old females do not breed,but under some conditions they may. In someyears fewer than 10 percent of the animals inthis age group become sexually active, but inyears when food is abundant and competitionis low as many as 75 percent of the yearlingfemales may breed. The percentage of the en-tire female coyote population capable ofbreeding has been shown to vary from about 30to over 90 percent, depending on environmentaland social conditions. Most of this variation ap-pears to result from the frequency with whichfemales become sexually mature in their firstyear of life and, to a lesser degree, fromvariations in the breeding capabilities of oldercoyotes.

The female coyote prepares the den inwhich the young will be born. She may dig herown den, but more often she will remodel an oldbadger burrow, or may use a hollow tree or acrevice in a rock pile. One female usuallyprepares or cleans out several den burrowsbefore selecting the one in which to give birthto her pups. These extra dens maybe utilized ata future date if the original den is disturbed, orthey may never be used. Sometimes the mothercoyote will split the litter between several densonce they reach several weeks of age.

Gestation is about 63 days and the pupsare born from early April through mid-May. Theyare blind and helpless at birth and are coveredwith brownish-gray woolly fur. The male coyoteactively participates in raising the young anddoes most of the hunting for the female and hernewborn pups.

An average litter contains five to sevenpups, but this may vary from only one up to adozen or more in rare cases. A study conductedin Texas indicated that litter sizes may vary in-versely with the coyote population density. Lit-ter sizes in areas of high population densityaveraged 3 to 4 whereas in areas of low coyotenumbers the average increased to as high as 9per litter. Thus, in areas with low coyote num-bers, the remaining animals responded byhaving larger litters.

Coyote pups first open their eyes at about11 days of age, although some may open themas early as 8 days. Coyote pups can bedistinguished from fox pups by the shape of theeye pupil; the pupils in strong light are round incoyote pups and are vertically elliptical in livingred and gray fox pups.

The young first venture outside the den atabout 3 weeks of age, but do not remain outsidefor long periods of time until they are about 5 or6 weeks old. During the first few weeks after thepups are born, the male hunts while the femaletends the pups. At weaning time (about 8 weeksof age) both parents bring food to the young intheir stomachs and disgorge it outside the den.In contrast to the fox den, the outside of thecoyote den is usually clean, with no largecollection of bones or other carrion.

The coyote family usually moves out of theden sometime in June or early July. They main-tain a center of activity throughout the summerand early fall which is characterized by flat-tened vegetation, worn areas and diggings. Thepups are taught to hunt when they are 8 to 12weeks old and, as the summer progresses, theybegin to range over wider and wider areas.These loose family groups break up in the latefall when the young disperse.

Page 12: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

Coyotes are thought to be territorial andapparently maintain their territories by scent-marking and (rarely) by actual fighting. Maturemales establish a home range averaging 10 to20 square miles in size. Females range over asmaller area (about 5 to 15 square miles), buttheir home ranges are more distinct and overlapmuch less than do those of males. Radiotracking studies have given us information oncoyote territoriality that was never obtainablebefore. Our knowledge in this area remainsscanty, however, the ongoing studies shouldprovide us with even more information.

Beginning about November many of theyoung coyotes disperse, seeking territories oftheir own. This dispersal movement may be inany direction and the young coyote may end upas much as 100 miles or more from the denwhere it was born. The average distance movedis from 10 to 25 miles, but movements of 40 to50 miles are not uncommon. Once dispersalhas taken place, the coyote establishes a homerange where it will probably remain for the restof its life. Dispersal apparently takes placeprimarily among young coyotes in their firstyear of life.

How Many Coyotesare there in Kansas?

No one knows for sure, as there is no wayto count all of the coyotes. Scientists havedevised a method to determine the coyote den-sity changes from year to year in an area,provided that the method is carried outprecisely. The figures for Kansas have beencomplied on this density survey between 1972-1979 and the results are in Figure 1. The coyotepopulation in Kansas seems to be more stable

than in surrounding states. Again, as to whatthis density survey translates to in numbers ofcoyotes is not known. But, it has beenestimated that the early summer coyotepopulation in Kansas varies between 150,000and 300,000 coyotes and that the late wintercoyote population is between 80,000 and150,000 coyotes.

Under very favorable conditions,population densities may reach five or sixcoyotes per square mile. But such densitieswould be unusual, occurring in a given areaonly for short periods of time. An average ofabout one coyote per square mile is normal overmost of Kansas.

Coyotes are basically solitary animals andare usually found either alone or in pairs.Although groups of coyotes are sometimesseen, they are not true packs like those ofwolves. Wolf packs are characterized by a highdegree of social structure, organization andcooperation, particularly in hunting activities.Groups of coyotes may be found together in avariety of circumstances, but there is not thesame degree of organization or cooperation asfound among members of a wolf pack.

in the fall, coyotes may be seen in loosefamily groups, but these will gradually break upas winter progresses. Often in winter, groups ofcoyotes will be brought together by the pres-ence of a concentrated source of food (such asa cattle carcass) in an area where other food isless available. Sometimes coyotes will be con-centrated in small areas of good cover. This isparticularly true in areas where huntingpressure is intense and suitable escape coveris in short supply. Finally, groups of coyotesmay occasionally occur in the early springduring breeding season. Several males may becourting the same female simultaneously.

Page 13: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness
Page 14: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

What Do Coyotes Eat?Coyotes are far from being finicky eaters

and will gulp down nearly anything digestibleand some things that aren’t. Although rodentsand rabbits make up the bulk of their menu,coyotes are opportunists and take whateverfood is easily obtainable. If the most availableitem happens to be an unprotected lamb or calf,coyotes may take advantage of the situation.On the other hand, coyotes also readily eatplant foods such as plums, mulberries, pears orwatermelons, when they are available.

Most coyotes begin foraging just prior tosunset and continue for several hours afterdark. They are again active, to a lesser extent,just before daylight. However, they may forageat any time of the night or day. While foragingand traveling from area to area, coyotes followroads and trails. They also follow conspicuousfeatures of the landscape such as ridges,draws, fencelines, field borders and wind-breaks. A good rule of thumb is that a coyotewill follow the easiest path through a particulararea.

Coyotes and humans generally get alongwith few difficulties. It is only when coyotes eatsomething of value or something that belongs

to man that they come to be regarded as ad-versaries. Numerous food habit studies havedemonstrated that only a small proportion ofthe coyotes in any given area are livestockpredators. This is small comfort to the stock-man who may be losing animals to a problempredator. Nevertheless, we should attempt tokeep our objectivity about predators. They areintegral parts of most natural communities. It isno more fair to visit the sins of a few animalsupon the many blameless ones in thepopulation than it is to single out a segment ofhuman society and blame it for the trans-gressions of a few of its members.

Page 15: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness
Page 16: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

III. Coyote Damage Control In KansasSince the State of Kansas was founded, vir-

tually every coyote control method known toman has been tried.

BountiesPayment of bounties was the first way in

which Kansas attempted to control predators.These bounties were started in 1877. After 93years of bounty payments, the results havebeen overwhelmingly consistent and con-clusive. The bounty system does not controlpredators or predator damage to poultry andlivestock. Payment of bounties was discon-tinued in Kansas in 1970.

A major weakness of the bounty system isthat it is self-regulating. When predators areabundant, they are hunted heavily and many arekilled, but when they are scarce the hunting ef-fort and enthusiasm for hunting decline. Thusthe bounty system goes on year after year,yielding a small harvest when the population islow and a large harvest when the population ishigh. The same is true even when a higher thanaverage bounty payment is made andprofessional bounty hunters take large num-bers of animals. These professionals workareas only where the population is high. Whenan increased amount of effort is required to har-vest animals in profitable numbers, the bounty

hunter moves to “greener pastures” and ac-tually leaves behind a healthier predatorpopulation. Reducing the numbers of predatorsmakes it easier for the remaining predators tosurvive the winter and come through in bettershape. In spring larger litters are born and thenext fall the predator population is about whereit was before the bounty hunter entered thearea. Continued high prices paid for coyotes,causes repeated high harvest, and coupled witha low cycle in coyote numbers could cause areduction in total coyote population. But it isdoubtful that the reduction could be drasticenough and maintained for sufficient time totheaten the coyote’s existence.

Are Coyotes Population Cyclic?Evidence seem to suggest that most wild

animal populations in the Temperate Region (ofwhich Kansas is a part) have experienced aseries of increases extending over a periodseveral years followed by an abrupt decrease.Also populations of one kind of animal may behigh in one part of the state while in anotherpart, the same kind of animal population wouldbe low. Some persons believe such changes are“cyclic” and maintain that every 10 years or so,the population peaks. Coyotes are a goodexample of an animal with periodic “booms”and “busts.” In peak years (boom years) a per-son might find three coyotes where severalyears before only one coyote could be found.Animal populations in the Temperate Region dofluctuate over a period of years, but the con-ditions which trigger increases and decreasesdo not always occur at regularly spaced timesnor in the right combinations necessary toproduce true cyclic changes. The “ups” and“downs” occur at different and unpredictableintervals and consequently are not truly cyclic.

Poison BaitsIn addition to the payment of bounties,

another way that people in Kansas have tried toreduce the predator population was through theuse of poison baits. This sounds like a goodidea and would seem to be an easy to usemethod, but known methods of baiting have notproven to be either effective or selective.

When poisons are used in a populationcontrol attempt, many problems develop. Some

Page 17: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

people feel that attempts to poison coyotesproduce a new “breed” of coyote. It is possiblethat the sustained use of poison baits attractsthose coyotes most apt to feed on carrion.Coyotes which have a natural tendency to huntand kill their own food are less affected bythese poisoning programs, resulting in gradualselection for coyotes more inclined to kill thanto eat carrion. Such genetic selectivity hasbeen known to occur in populations of insectstreated with pesticides and in diseaseorganisms treated with various antibiotic agents.However, coyotes are much longer-livedthan insects or bacteria and genetic selectionin coyotes would be almost imperceptibly slow.However in a species such as the coyote, wheremany behavior patterns are learned rather thaninherited, those learned behavior patternscould be changed in a single generation. Somecoyotes also undoubtedly get sublethal dosesof poison bait and recover after beingagonizingly sick. Thereafter those coyotes mayturn to livestock when short of natural, livefood, rather than feeding on carrion. If thesesuppositions hold true, poisoning could ac-tually worsen a livestock depredation problemafter a period of sustained use. Although theseideas have often been suggested, they have yetto be proven one way or another.

Page 18: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

Difficult to Eradicate CoyotesIf we recall some of the points brought up

in the preceding sections, we begin to realizejust how difficult it would be to eradicateestablished populations of coyotes by anymeans. First of all, recall that the percentage offirst-year females that breeds is highly depen-dent upon both food availability and on thegeneral level of the population. Also recall thatthere is a great deal of variability in litter size,changing inversely with population density. In-tensive control probably stimulates both ofthese regulators to result in greatly increasedreproduction. That is, control which lowerscoyote densities may stimulate breeding in alarger percentage of the remaining females andstimulate the production of larger litters.

During late fall and winter, nature takes aheavy toll of the young, inexperienced coyotesas they disperse and learn to fend for them-selves. Research shows that annual mortalityfor coyotes one year and older may reach 40percent in populations not undergoing trappingor intensive artificial control. Therefore, thehigh reproductive potential of coyotes undergood conditions may mean that control effortsmerely crop the population, taking the surplusnormally lost to nature. For that reason, trap-ping for pelts during fall and early winter is suc-cessful, but population control attempts at thattime are practically wasted effort. Nature isalready effectively culling the population. Acomputer simulation study in Californiasuggests that at least 75 percent of the coyotepopulation must be removed each year before asustained decline in the population can beachieved.

Control probably also stimulates im-migration into the control area from more denselypopulated areas nearly. Remembering theextremes mobility that coyotes possess (over100 miles in some cases), even if the entireState of Kansas was cleared of coyotes, theywould be able to reinvade from other areas intothe center of the state within one or two years.

Because of the coyote’s opportunisticfeeding habits, it is able to utilize a wide varietyof food items and to survive under adverse con-ditions. The fact that only a small percentage ofall coyotes eat livestock means that hit andmiss control efforts will probably be less ef-fective than trying to control problem in-dividuals.

The main point brought out by research todate is that the predator damage controlproblem is much more difficult and complexthan anyone ever realized. Clearly, it has shownthat the coyote is a highly adaptable and ver-satile predator which is holding its own and

even appears to be expanding its range. Pastexperience has shown that eradication orpopulation reduction attempts are tremen-dously expensive, must be carried out con-tinuously over vast areas, and have dubious ef-fectiveness in reducing coyote populations orproblems. Aside from that, continuous controlefforts tend to “educate” the remainingcoyotes and make “control” an increasingly dif-ficult job. Although man has learned muchabout the life histories and effects of animalsliving together in a given area, far more remainsunknown to him. Perhaps man has Iearnedenough to realize that he will be better off towork with nature rather than to force his willupon her.

Livestock LossesLivestock losses to predators represent a

serious problem to many livestock producers inthe United States. The sheep industry is hit hard-est by predation, but there are also losses incalves, small pigs, goats and poultry. The singlemost important predator on livestock is thecoyote. In some areas of the country, domesticdogs, mountain lions, bobcats, bears, foxes andeagles cause some livestock losses. After thecoyote the next most important predators inKansas are domestic dogs, while bobcats,foxes and eagles may cause occasional losses.

Accurate estimates of livestock losses topredators are difficult to obtain, largely due tothe difficulties in examining a significant frac-tion of the losses in time to determine cause ofdeath. In Kansas, we have basically five sourcesof estimated predator losses for various years.These are: 1) a 1949 survey reported by Gier(1968); 2) Annual Reports, Rodent and PredatorControl Project, Kansas State Extension Ser-vice, 1954-1960; 3) Kansas Crop and LivestockReporting Service (1968); 4) USDA EconomicResearch Service (1974); 5) Meduna study (1977)Division of Biology, Kansas State University.Loses of stock sheep and lambs to coyotes anddogs averaged less than one percent during1975-76 in Kansas. (Rebel et al. 1981).

Each method of determining livestock lossto predators has advantages and disad-vantages. Mail surveys, questionnaires and per-sonal interviews are relatively low in cost, butare hampered by the fact that it is impossible toconfirm losses. Biological studies, in which anattempt is made to necropsy all dead animals,avoid the problem of loss confirmation, but aretime-consuming and expensive. Also, it is dif-ficult to find and examine all dead animals intime to determine specific cause of death.Because of the large amount of time requiredfor this type of study, it is difficult to samplemany producers.

Page 19: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

In Kansas, the coyote is not as much of aserious threat to the sheep industry as he is far-ther west. in order to understand why this istrue a review of the sheep industry-coyoteproblem is in order to aid in understanding theproblems.

Kansas is located in the Plains-Wheat-Corn-Sheep-Producing area of the WesternUnited States. Most of the sheep are raised infarm-flock management schemes rather thanrange sheep flocks where greater problems oc-cur between coyotes and sheep.

According to a USDA study, loss rates oflambs and sheep to coyotes were highest inStates with public range grazing and moun-tainous terrains. Comparatively few deaths dueto coyotes occur in the Plains States of Kan-sas, Nebraska, and North and South Dakota.

Part of this difference in proportions waslikely due to location and part to type ofmanagement. The larger herds are more oftenpastured on open ranges where exposure tocoyotes is greater. In comparison, smallerherds are usually located in more intensive farm-ing areas and/or are kept more confined.

Certain management practices do con-tribute to coyote predation of lambs. Theproportion of sheep which are pasture or range-lambed has probably increased over the past 20years along with the proportion of total sheepon Iarge-scale operations. Although thischange in the management system reduceslabor costs, it increases the exposure of young

lambs to predators as well as to death bynatural causes such as weather.

Some interesting differences existed be-tween a comparison of ranchers with high andlow predation losses. High-loss producers hada much lower average docking rate, 90 lambsper 100 ewes compared with 113 for the low-loss producers. Range lambing appeared to bea contributing factor in this mortality dif-ference. Proportionately more of the high-lossproducers range-lambed—65 percent, com-pared with 41 percent of the low-lossproducers.

How Should WeSpend Our Tax Dollars?

There are five basic programs tax payersmay employ to deal with predator damage con-trol problems.

1. The first of these five basic program ap-preaches is simply to do nothing. Although thishas never really been tried, at least officially, itmay have some merit. It may be that a stategovernment doing nothing to help in predatoryanimal damage control would thereby en-courage the people themselves to adjustmanagement practices so as to protect theirlivestock from whatever conflicts they mighthave with wild animals.

2. A second approach would be to haveprivate pest control operators entirely respon-sible for handling animal damage controlproblems when and where they occur at the

Page 20: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

choice of the owner on whose property theseproblems are occurring. The pest controloperator would be paid by the customer for hisservices. No government or tax payer moneywould be needed in such an arrangement.Again, this is not a common practice in anyarea as large as a state; however, private pestcontrol operators are becoming more involvedin vertebrate animal damage control than theyhave been in the past. If there is indeed aserious problem in this area, it would seem

logical that private industry could provide asolution to these problems.

This leaves us with three additional alter-natives. These next two are the most commomones employed in predator damage controlprograms which are financed by tax payers of agiven area. We are going to use for comparisonthe programs in Nebraska and Kansas in theyear 1976. In addition to predator damage con-trol, the Nebraska and Kansas programs alsooffer educational assistance in controlling

EDUCATIONAL AIDS TO KANSAS WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL PROGRAM

RODENT DAMAGE CONTROLPublication:Controlling Rats—AF-43Controlling House Mice—AF-42Controlling Pocket Gophers—L-346Black-tailed Prairie Dogs—AF-12Use of Smoke Cartridges—AF-32Use of Zinc Phosphide in Prairie Dog Con-

trol—AF-29Kangaroo Rat—AF-30

BIRD DAMAGE CONTROLPublications:Walk in Type Pigeon Trap—AF-11Pest Bird Management—C-585Starling Control in Feedlots (new)–

AF-7-80.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publica-

tions:Controlling Crop Depredations of Black-

birds/Starlings—ADC 105Controlling Bird Damage, A List of

Sources of Supply—ADC 104Controlling Blackbird/Starling Roosts

by Dispersal—ADC 103

PREDATOR DAMAGE CONTROLPublicationsManaging Predator Problems—C-620How to Call Coyotes—C-400How to Trap Coyotes—C-522How to Skin Coyotes—C-467

Slide Sets:How to Trap a Coyote—The slide set consistsof 125 slides which cover how to trap a coyote,how to trap a bobcat and how to skin a coyoteand prepare the pelt for sale. Cassette narratedwith printed script.How to Call A Coyote-This slide set consistsof 52 slides intended to provide knowledge asto the step-by-step learning process of attract-ing coyotes by artificial calls.Opportunists of the Prairie—This slide set con-tains 80 slides which attempt to tell the story ofthe coyote in Kansas. It covers the biology ofthe coyote and the situation pertaining to live-stock losses due to coyote predation.Physical Evidence of Carnivore Depredation—This 223-slide set prepared and narrated byTexas A&M Extension Service. Very good.Should be viewed by all county agriculturalagents. Available from State Extension Wildlifeoffice only.

OTHER WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROLPublications:Bats and Bat Management—AF-48Controlling Moles—L-343Proceedings of the Fourth Great Plains

Wildlife Damage Control Workshop,Manhattan*

*All Proceedings sold for $4Great Plains Handbook on Prevention and

Control of Wildlife Damage–Price $15

Page 21: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

damage from field rodents, commensal rodentsand birds when requested. The recom-mendations for controlling damage from allspecies follow sound, biological principles andare in accordance with federal and state laws.

3. The Nebraska program is termed a “ser-vice program.”

Basically, a service type program is one inwhich persons are hired (usually by the state orfederal government) to respond to requests forhelp with damage due to depredations by wildanimals.

Nebraska’s animal damage controlprogram is a cooperative one between the Stateof Nebraska and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice. A Memorandum of Understanding is in ef-fect between the Service and Nebraska’s Depart-ments of Agriculture, Public Health, and theCooperative Extension Service. A supplementalagreement with the State Department ofAgriculture provides cooperative funding forfield operations.

The program is administered by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and is under the direc-tion of the State Supervisor, Division of AnimalDamage Control in Lincoln. An Assistant StateSupervisor is also stationed in the Lincoln of-fice and a Pilot is stationed at North Platte. Dis-trict Field Assistants are located strategicallyover the state with one serving as aerial gunner.

Services are provided with the objective ofcontrolling damage to agriculture and protect-ing public health from damage by non-gamemammals and birds and rodents.

The program provides operational (doing)assistance on a request basis for the control ofdamage caused by predatory mammals. Chiefamong these is damage caused to Nebraska’slivestock and poultry industries by coyotes.Traps, snares, M-44’s, ground and aerial shoot-ing are the tools used in operational activities.

The program also provides extension typeassistance on predator damage control andother wildlife damage problems as applicable.The goal is to resolve these damage problemsin the most effective, selective, and efficientmanner possible.

When a Service program is first imple-mented, requests for assistance and reportedlosses are typically high. After the program isestablished, requests for assistance and re-ported losses are reduced as problems are re-solved. Wildlife damage is a dynamic functionso losses and problems never completely stabi-lize.

A long time ago some trappers working in aservice-type program realized they could notrespond to all the calls for service they receivedand added a new touch; they taught theproducer himself how to locate good trapping

sites and make sets. This has worked outespecially well in some states; not only does ittake care of that producer’s immediate predatorproblem, but it enables him to take care offuture depredations, all by himself. He doesn’thave to wait for a trapper.

These experiences have shown that someproducers who are really concerned about pred-ator damage are also interested in learning howto trap. Moreover, they learn very quickly. Thuscame the old idea of Extension education—thatof helping people to help themselves. It hasgrown into what is now known as the ExtensionPredator Damage Control Program, the fourthof our alternative approaches to helping solveconflicts between man and wildlife.

4. The system now used in Kansas is agood example of an Extension PredatorDamage Control Program. A questionnaire sur-vey of producers who received training fromKansas animal damage control specialistsduring the period July 1, 1975 through June 30,1976 evaluated the effectiveness of training inreducing predator losses. Nonrespondentswere contacted by telephone wheneverpossible. Useable responses were obtainedfrom 63 of 77 (82 percent) producers receivingtraining.

A total of 52 percent of those receivingtraining were able to stop their losses com-pletely. Reported predation losses aftertraining were substantially lower than thosereported prior to training. Sheep producersreported an overall 79 percent decrease in theirsheep losses to predators following training(with the exception of two producers who ac-tually reported a combined increase of two per-cent in their predator losses, despite theremoval of 79 coyotes). Producers also reporteddecreases of 76 percent in calf losses, 89 per-cent in swine losses, and 53 percent in poultrylosses. These exact figures may not be toomeaningful because of the different lengths oftime involved in reporting losses before and af-ter training. However, the results suggestoverall loss reductions in the neighborhood of75 percent.

Of those receiving training, 42 percent inturn showed someone else how to stopdamage, multiplying the effects of the program.The number of requests for assistance inpredator damage control has declined steadilysince 1970. A total of 92 percent of thoseresponding approved of the educationalprogram as conducted.

A total of 61 percent of the producersreported using more than one method in theirattempts to reduce losses. Methods employedwere: steel traps (92 percent), firearms (35 per-cent), livestock management (30 percent),

Page 22: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

snares (27 percent), predator calls (24 percent),and dogs (8 percent). Nine producers (15 per-cent) indicated that they would like to be able touse poisons in predator damage control, par-ticularly sodium cyanide in the M-44 device.(Use of poisons, aircraft and bounties inpredator damage control are outlawed in Kan-sas.)

Producers receiving training captured amean of 6.2 coyotes. This figure is probably in-flated somewhat by the fact that someproducers trapped coyotes for fur in addition tocontrolling damage. Producers reported cap-turing 6.7 percent nontarget species.

The Kansas program is low in cost. Com-pared to conservatively estimated budgets of16 other Great Plains and Western states, Kan-sas taxpayers pay six times less than the nextlowest budget and have fewer recorded or re-

ported losses, have less controversy and have aprogram that is effective and efficient.

The program is conducted through theCooperative Extension Service at Kansas StateUniversity in Manhattan. Three people are em-ployed in the Kansas program, two specialistsand one secretary. County Extension agricul-tural agents are the front-line force in directingand motivating the field program. They directthe deployment of specialists to provide assis-tance and consultation to individuals experi-encing livestock losses. A Memorandum of Un-derstanding between Kansas State UniversityCooperative Extension Service, Kansas Fishand Game Commission, Kansas Department ofHealth and Environment and U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service is reviewed once a year.

This memorandum assures that the Kan-sas program employs the use of selective

Page 23: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

methods of predator removal and stresses thedevelopment of effective management ofdomestic livestock. This approach encouragesthe maintenance of maximum livestock qualityand production and contributes to the con-servation of the state’s resources.

County Agricultural Agents organizerequests for training service. Farmers havingdamage go to the agents just as they do for helpwith other farm problems. The agents arrangefor local training, set dates, announce meetingsand demonstrations. Sometimes they tietraining in predator trapping with other kinds offarm demonstrations.

When a date has been scheduled, an Ex-tension trapper meets with the producer group.On the first day’s meeting, the trapper usuallyexplains the program. He often shows moviesof trapping, hands out informative bulletins,and answers questions. Then he goes throughthe trapping process step by step. He showswhere to look for predator signs and where andhow to make a good set. Then he has the in-terested producers do it themselves. Alldemonstrations are made right on the areaswhere damage is occurring; the final set ismeant to catch the predator doing the damage.If any producer wants more training later, hegets it on follow-up calls.

At the same time, the educational ap-proach to solving problems has a great deal ofmerit in most cases. But in those few instancesin which the individual who has receivededucational assistance is unable to solve hisproblem it seems appropriate that additionalassistance should be available.

To avoid requests for such help in caseswhere it is not really needed, it is essential thatthis additional assistance be provided at anominal fee to be paid by the person ex-periencing the animal damage problem. Such afee would cover technical services for theperiod of time needed to solve the problem.

Such a program would cost more moneythan the Extension approach but it wouldprovide the means for solving seriousproblems, and would allow the use of highlytechnical and specialized too l s byprofessionally trained persons. For those whodon’t need such help, it would provide for thedissemination of information so that peoplecan help themselves.

Objectives of the Kansas ProgramThe primary objectives of the coyote

damage control effort in Kansas are: 1) toprovide relief from predation on livestock bycoyotes; 2) to develop educational materials foryouth and adults to enable them to understandproblems and how to solve them; 3) to maintainliaison and an effective working relationshipwith stockmen, agencies, and organizations; 4)to develop additional ways to prevent lossesand 5) to encourage livestock husbandrymethods that tend to prevent livestock lossesdue to predation.

A disadvantage of the Extension System isthe need in a few cases, for assistance beyondthat of an educational nature. Some problemscould be solved faster by professional in-volvement.

5. The fifth approach that could be used tosolve wildlife damage control problems is tocombine the service-type and Extension typeapproach. This idea is relatively new and hasnot been employed in the United States.

The need for reasonable environmentalprotection in the United States is increasingday by day, resulting in restrictions on many ofthe tools available for solving animal damageproblems.

Page 24: destructive act can be anything but detrimentaldestructive act can be anything but detrimental to the prey animals. Thus, the careful observer who is lucky enough to actually witness

ConclusionRegardless of which means people choose

to correct or prevent the conflicts betweenpredators and livestock, man’s responsibilitywill always remain a key factor. Sheep have notchanged in the last 2,000 years, neither has thecoyote. The only thing that has changed ispeoples’ way of thinking regarding sheep andcoyotes.

In thinking about livestock, predatorproblems we might do well to heed the Bibicaladmonition, “The good shepherd giveth his lifefor the sheep, but he that . . . seeth the wolfcoming and Ieaveth the sheep, and fleeth, andthe wolf catcheth them and scattereth thesheep . . . .“ (St. John’s XII.)

We believe that it is possible to employpreventive measures to successfully protectlivestock from predation. Producers should bewilling to closely examine their livestockhusbandry methods as they relate to predatorlosses. It is unlikely that real progress can bemade until such management considerationsare evaluated. However, there is another aspectof the problem which must be addressed, aswell. There is an increasing trend towardoverreaction to necessary control measuresand demands for undue protection for coyotepopulations. It is important to emphasize thatsome coyotes do kill livestock under the verybest management procedures. At times,coyotes do become overabundant in areas andcreate nuisance, depredation and public healthproblems.

We hope that this booklet provides youwith the knowledge you seek and need to makedecisions for now and in the future. We havetried to assemble here the current knowledgeconcerning predation involving particularly thecoyote.

F. Robert HendersonExtension State Leader, Wildlife Damage Control

Edward K. BoggessArea Extension SpecialistWildlife Damage Control

Robert J. RobedProfessor, Division of Biology

Cooperative Extension Service, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas

C-578 (Revised) April 1987Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, as amended. Kansas State University, County Extension Councils,Extension Districts and United States Department of Agriculture Cooperating, Richard D. Wootton, Associate Director. All educational programs and materialsavailable without discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability.File Code: Wildlife-1 4-87—2.5M; 1-89—5M; 5-94—150; 3-95—250; 11-95—1M