ManagingPredator Problems:Practices and Procedures forPreventing and Reducing Livestock Losses

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICEKansas State University, Manhattan

ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Causes of Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Livestock Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Swine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Predator Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Coyotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other Predators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Facility Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pastures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Corrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .General Husbandry Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Corralling Sheep at Night . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Carrion Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pasture Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Shed Lambing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Record-Keeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Variable Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Predisposing Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electric Fences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Conventional Fences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Predator FrighteningDevices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Propane Exploders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Aggressive Livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Radios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Shepherds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guard Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Experimental Predator Deterrents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Repellents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Aversive Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electromagnetic Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Predator Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Management Systems—Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Predator Damage Management Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .Selected References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33333444456666666668888899

11151515151616161616171717171717181819

Introduction Causes of LossFor many years, Kansas Extension Specialists have

worked closely with livestock producers to help them re-duce predator losses. Over the years, we have had the op-portunity to observe a wide variety of livestock manage-ment practices and their associated predation problems.Certain livestock management practices have been foundto be consistently associated with high predator losseswhereas other practices are commonly associated withlow losses.

The purpose of this publication is to share with theproducer those management practices that have beenfound to be effective in reducing predator losses and tohelp producers avoid practices that lead to increasedlosses. In addition, a variety of nonlethal predatordamage control methods are discussed. The primary em-phasis is on reducing sheep losses to coyotes and dogs.Less detailed discussions are devoted to other types oflivestock and other predators.

This publication draws upon our own experiences;the experiences of other specialists, researchers, mana-gers and producers; and on the results of a Master’sstudy at Kansas State University entitled, “RelationshipsBetween Sheep Management and Coyote Predation” byRobert L. Meduna. That study was conducted in 1975-76in cooperation with 100 southcentral Kansas sheep pro-ducers.

Some of the information in this booklet is based on astatistical comparison of management practices em-ployed by Kansas sheep producers and their levels ofpredation loss. However, statistical studies, conductedwith a large number of different managers under avariety of uncontrolled conditions, must be interpretedwith some caution. It is impossible to examine onelivestock management factor individually, while holdingall other factors constant. Also, differing levels ofmanagement can influence not only predation losses, butother predisposing factors or sources of loss such as star-vation, disease, parasitism, and weather. Then too, cer-tain locales may traditionally have high predation losses,for reasons other than management, which are difficultor impossible to quantify. At least in some instances, a“good” livestock manager may have higher predationlosses than a “poor” manager. However, by takingproven and prudent preventive measures (where physi-cally and economically feasible), livestock producers canhelp to assure that their predation losses will be mini-mized for their particular locality.

This publication should prove especially useful tonew producers who are just getting set up, but it alsocontains information that should be of interest toestablished producers. Not all of the suggestedmanagement practices in this booklet will be applicableto every operation, situation or locale. However, thispublication can serve as a source of ideas that can be in-corporated into new or existing livestock productionsystems.

Livestock FactorsThere are a number of factors relating directly to

livestock that can have an important bearing onpredation losses. The relative importance of these factorswill vary depending upon the type of livestock being con-sidered.Sheep

Both season and location of lambing can have majorimpacts on the severity of coyote predation on sheep. Thehighest predation losses of sheep in Kansas typically oc-cur from late spring through September. In 1975-76, the100 southcentral Kansas sheep producers in Meduna’sstudy, (representing about 20% of the sheep produced inthe state) reported an annual loss to predators of 0.9 per-cent of both sheep and lambs. In 1974, the USDAEconomic Research Service estimated coyote losses inKansas to be 3.2 percent of lambs and 3.4 percent ofstock sheep, based on a questionnaire survey of a sampleof Kansas sheep producers. In that survey only 356 of ap-proximately 2,700 sheep producers in Kansas (l3%)were sent questionnaires and responses were obtainedfrom only 146 of those contacted (41% response rate). InKansas, much lambing occurs between October and De-cember, whereas in most of the western United States,lambing occurs between February and May. By going toa fall lambing program, some Kansas sheepmen havenot only been able to take advantage of high spring mar-ket prices for lambs, but have also avoided having largenumbers of lambs on hand during those periods of timethat predation losses are typically highest. Lambing insheds or lots helps to avoid potential problems from theseasonally high fall coyote populations.

In general, large flocks of sheep tend to have ahigher total predator loss in terms of numbers thansmaller flocks. However, on a percentage basis, theproportion of sheep lost to predators averages less in thelarger flocks. This suggests that larger operators are ableto spread their predation risk over a larger number ofsheep and, proportionately, are able to reduce theirlosses, despite the fact that they may actually lose moretotal sheep than a smaller producer.

At the present time, there are no documented dif-ferences in the vulnerability of various breeds of sheep tocoyote or dog predation, although there has been very lit-tle research in this area. In general, sheep have beenbred for meat and wool production and ease of handling,not for defensive behavior or aggression. It appears thatmost sheep are relatively easy prey for coyotes, althoughcoyotes will selectively kill lambs in mixed flocks andmay single out and attack sheep that exhibit disabilities.

CattleCattle losses to predation are much less common,

proportionately, than sheep losses, although individualcalves are usually worth more than individual lambs.Less than one-half of one percent of all calves in theGreat Plains were believed killed by predators in 1978,

3

according to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report. Ingeneral, it appears that most calf predation is done by afew coyotes who learn a killing technique and tend to“specialize.”

There is little information available on the suscep-tibility of various breeds of cattle to predation. Longhorncattle are reputed to be effective at protecting their calvesand themselves from predation but there is no objectiveresearch data to support this claim. Breeds of cattle orcrossbreeds that tend to have calving complications alsotend to have more predation problems.

The age of cattle is often related to the severity of apredation problem. First-calf heifers seem to suffer adisproportionately large share of the calf loss topredators. Heifers are generally more prone to calvingcomplications and tend to be poorer mothers than oldercows, thus giving coyotes more opportunity to prey on thecalves. The age of the calf is also very important. Mostcalves killed by coyotes are less than one week old. Calvesover 3-4 weeks of age are seldom bothered unless they aresick or injured, although attacks on large, healthy calvesby groups of 2 or more coyotes have been reported. Oldercattle are attacked by coyotes only under very unusualand rare circumstances. Calving paralysis is the mostcommon cause of predator-inflicted injury or death to anadult cow. This paralysis gives a coyote an opportunity tofeed on the unborn caIf and, sometimes, part of the cowas well.

Seasonal variations in calf losses basically follow thepeaks of the calving season. Most losses of calves arereported in the late winter and spring with a peak inMarch.

PoultryPoultry losses to predators have been greatly

reduced by the adoption of confinement productionsystems.

Unconfined poultry, of any age, are a prime targetfor coyotes and free-ranging dogs. In many areas, it ispossible to let poultry range freely throughout the day, ifthey are shut up well before dusk. Where good approachcover exists, coyotes may lie in wait to snatch a carelesschicken or duck, even at mid-day.

SwineSwine losses are restricted primarily to young pigs

weighing less than 50 pounds. Confinement farrowingand feeding systems have greatly reduced swine losses topredation.

Young pigs that are allowed to forage and run freelyon pasture, particularly in wooded or brushy areas, oftenhave a tendency to gradually disappear over time. Someof that disappearance may be attributable to coyotes.Other “mortality” factors (disease, poisonous plants,parasites, starvation, weather, accidents, and escape)can be relatively high in young pigs that are not in-tensively managed and this mortality may be difficult todetect or monitor in pastures with heavy cover.

Occasionally, predators may take young pigs shortlyafter they have been separated from the sows for

weaning. Coyotes apparently are attracted by the in-cessant squealing of the newly-weaned pigs which, if inan accessible lot or pen, are vulnerable to predation.

Predator FactorsCoyotes

Coyotes are the number one predator of livestock inKansas and in most of the western United States. Ingeneral, individual coyotes will range over areas about3 to 5 miles on a side (10 to 25 square miles) and thoseranges usually overlap to varying degrees.

Kansas coyotes are accustomed to human odor.They are active primarily at night but may venture closeto farmsteads even in broad daylight if terrain or coverare adequate for concealment. In Kansas, coyotes nor-mally go under or through fences whenever possible.However, they are capable of jumping or climbing overfences and will do so under some circumstances.

Not all coyotes kill livestock. Those coyotes whichare killing livestock are usually referred to as “offendinganimals.” It is desirable, when using lethal controlmethods, to direct those methods at offending animals.Of course, there is no way to look at any individualcoyote through a rifle scope or in a trap and be able totell whether or not it is an offending animal. However, ina damage situation, control methods can be con-centrated in and around the damage area and alongcoyote travel routes to and from the area. When this isdone, there is reasonable assurance that the offendingcoyote(s) will be among the first few coyotes captured.Time after time, we have worked with producers ex-periencing coyote problems who, after capturing one or afew coyotes, had no more predator problems for monthsor even years afterwards, despite the continued presenceof coyotes in their vicinity.

Predation on livestock appears to bear some rela-tionship to coyotes’ seasonal energy needs. Coyotes breedin February and have one litter of 5-7 young in late Aprilor early May. During and immediately following thisspring whelping season, coyote energy demands increaserapidly as the parents provide food for the young. At thistime, some coyotes turn to domestic livestock as a readilyavailable source of food.

In late summer and early fall, another increase incoyote predation is usually noted. At this time of theyear, the food demands of the large and fast-growingpups may tend to outstrip the ability of the adults toprovide them with “natural” foods. Again, domesticlivestock may offer an easily obtainable source of abun-dant food. This late-summer increase in predation mayalso be related to learning or development of sheep-killing behavior by the coyote pups.

Winter losses of sheep to coyotes are generally lowerthan at other times of the year, despite the high energyneeds of individual coyotes. This is probably due to loweroverall coyote numbers, increased availability of ediblecarrion, and reduced availability of sheep because ofcloser pasturing and confinement feeding.

Coyotes typically kill from one to three sheep per

predation incident and feed on one or more. Coyote killscan usually be recognized by the presence of bite woundsin the throat or neck or, in small lambs, by bites in thetop or back of the skull. If the animal was alive at thetime of attack, removal of the skin in the area of thewounds should reveal extensive bleeding and bruises.Lack of bleeding at the point of attack (externally or in-ternally) indicates that the animal was already at or neardeath at the time it was fed upon. Coyotes generallyprefer to begin feeding on the intestinal fat and on thehindquarters and rib area. Coyotes attack small calves bybiting and eating around the rectal and pelvic areas. Ifthe calf attempts to escape, the coyote may grab at itstail, occasionally resulting in bob-tailed calves.

Although the method of kill is usually sufficient toidentify the species of predator involved, it should not beconsidered absolute proof. In recent studies on a Mon-tana ranch, coyotes attacked the neck or throat region in66 to 92 percent of the cases and the head or neck regionin 89 to 100 percent of the cases. Dogs were also observedto attack in the neck and throat region, an occurrencewhich we have occasionally observed in Kansas. In ad-dition, studies in Utah have shown that coyotes will oc-casionally attack at the flank and hindquarters, similarto the manner of dog kills. Therefore, evidence otherthan the method of kill, such as tracks or hairs, issometimes required to make a positive assessment as towhether or not a particular kill is definitely attributableto a coyote. Refer to “Understanding the Coyote” C-578for more detailed information.

DogsDogs are second only to coyotes as predators of

livestock in Kansas. Dogs account for about one-fourthof all sheep predation losses in the state. Most damage iscaused by free-ranging pets or unwanted dogs “dumped”in the country. Very few truly wild or “feral” dogs arefound in Kansas. Dogs will occasionally hybridize withcoyotes and these crosses (known as coydogs), althoughrelatively rare, have been known to cause substantialdamage.

Dog problems are more likely to occur near towns orcities, but can happen anywhere at anytime. Most dogskill for “sport,” not for food. Therefore, their attackstend to be unpredictable and devastating. Dogs may at-tack singly or in groups, with the latter being perhapsmore common. A marauding pack of dogs may form forjust a single night and the producer’s own dog may evenbe enticed to join in the killing spree.

Large numbers of sheep, poultry or pigs are ofteninjured or killed in a dog attack. Kills are usually notclean; attacked animals are typically bitten and torn inseveral places, particularly on the hindquarters. Someanimals may be injured but still alive. Sheep and cattlewill sometimes be run through fences. Usually, there islittle or no evidence of feeding on any of the carcasses.Some dogs, however, may kill in the same manner ascoyotes, and vice versa. Therefore, tracks or otherevidence are needed to make a positive identification ofthe predator species involved.

Dog Attack

There is some evidence to suggest that producerswho own dogs are less likely to suffer attacks fromcoyotes, but evidence also indicates that they may bemore prone to suffer dog losses. The use of guard dogsfor the specific purpose of protecting sheep frompredators will be discussed in a later section.

Other PredatorsRed foxes, bobcats and feral house cats cause some

relatively minor predation problems in Kansas. Poultrylosses are the major problem, but any of these predatorsare also capable of killing small lambs or pigs. Bobcatsmay rarely kill newborn calves, but this is exceedinglyuncommon in Kansas. Very few cases of livestock kills byeagles have been documented in Kansas, although it isnot uncommon for eagles to scavenge agriculturalcarrion in winter.

Facility Factors

Certain characteristics of a livestock producer’sfacilities or locale can be related to the potential forpredator problems. Some of these are discussed below.

PasturesMost pasture fences in Kansas were built to confine

livestock, not to exclude predators. Access into mostpastures (under, through or over the fences) is easy forcoyotes and dogs. Seemingly there is some relationshipbetween size of pasture and predator losses, with higherloss rates reported in larger pastures. However, loss ratesmay not be related to pasture size per se, but pasture sizemay be reflective of other local conditions such as slope,terrain, and human populations. Hilly or rugged areasare typically sparsely populated and are characterized bylarge pastures; these conditions are ideal for coyotes.

Sheep losses to coyotes are typically highest inpastures that are grazed during the summer and fall(grass, grass-sudan, milo stubble) and lower in thosegrazed in winter (wheat and rye). This is consistent withthe seasonal distribution of predator losses discussedearlier. An exception is sudan pasture which is grazedduring the summer but typically has low losses. However,kills are difficult to find in tall sudan pastures so the lossrates reported for this pasture type may be somewhatlow.

Sheep losses to dogs may be related to height ofpasture cover. Loss rates to dogs tend to be highest insudan and milo stubble and lowest in grass, wheat andrye pastures.

Sheep pastures which contain or are adjacent tostreams, creeks and rivers tend to have more coyoteproblems than other pastures. These water courses, withtheir accompanying habitat, serve as natural huntingand travel lanes for coyotes.

Coyote and dog kills may occur on any type ofterrain, from perfectly flat to extremely hilly or erodedpastures. Most kills occur in the rougher portion ofpastures, possibly because sheep are easier to head offand catch in those areas. Running sheep apparently slow

down when approaching the bottoms of draws. In flatregions where cover is abundant, coyote kills may becommon in level pastures.

CorralsConfining sheep at night is one of the most effective

means for reducing losses to predation. However, somecoyotes and many dogs are bold enough to enter corralsand kill sheep. Corral fences in Kansas are generally bet-ter than pasture fences, but most still offer little resis-tance to predators. Coyotes are more prone to attacksheep in unlighted corrals than in corrals with lights.There is some indication that the reverse maybe true fordogs.

Studies in Kansas indicate that losses to coyotes maybe greater in corrals that are over 200 yards from aresidence than in corrals that are located closer to humanhabitations.

BuildingsProducers who use lambing sheds have lower

predation losses than those who lamb in pens orpastures. The higher the degree of confinement, thelower the predation losses that can be expected, and themore intensive the management needed. Sheep confinedentirely to buildings or lots have lower predator lossesthan unconfined or semi-confined flocks, but the poten-tial for non-predator losses (especially from diseases andparasites) is much greater.

Management PracticesGeneral Husbandry Practices

Under this category we have grouped several generallivestock management techniques that have been shownto be effective in reducing predator losses.

Corralling Sheep at NightIn farm-flock areas, the single most important step

that a sheep producer can take to reduce coyote losses ispenning sheep at night. Sheep that are regularly pennedsoon learn to come into the corrals or nearby vicinity inthe evening where they can be shut in with a minimalamount of time and effort. Even if the corral fence is not“coyote-proof,” the mere fact that the sheep are confinedreduces the predation risk. Upgrading corral or pasturefences with predator resistant fences (discussedelsewhere in this publication) and adding lights can fur-ther reduce the risk of loss.

Carrion RemovalRemoval and proper disposal of dead livestock is ex-

tremely important. Carrion tends to attract coyotes andmay also habituate them to feed on livestock. Someproducers reason that by feeding the coyotes they maykeep them from killing any livestock. Perhaps this wouldbe a valid preventative measure if an adequate supply of

6

It is important to remove carrion, particularly during winter. Some studies show that this practice willreduce the over-wintering coyote population and can shift coyote distribution out of livestock areas.

7

carrion could be maintained continuously. In reality,however, carrion is usually available for only briefperiods and at erratic intervals. If a coyote becomeshabituated to a diet of sheep carcasses, for example, itmay turn to killing sheep if the carrion source becomesunavailable. In addition, a recent study in Canada hasshown that the removal of agricultural carrion cansignificantly reduce over-winter coyote populations andcan shift coyote distributions out of livestock areas.Although the applicability of these findings to Kansasconditions is not known, we know from food habitsstudies that Kansas coyotes feed extensively on carrion inwinter.

Pasture SelectionIf sheep are not lambed in sheds or lots, choice of

lambing pastures should be made with consideration ofthe potential for predator problems. Lambs in remote orrugged pastures are usually more vulnerable to coyotepredation than those in closer or more open pastures. Ingeneral, a relatively small, open, tightly fenced pasturethat can be kept under close surveillance is ideal for lamb-ing. Past experience with predators, weather and diseasemust also serve as a guide in the selection of lambing pas-tures.

Choice of calving pastures involves weighingpredation risks against weather and disease con-siderations and arriving at an acceptable compromise.Rugged pastures provide good weather protection forcows and calves but are also ideal areas for coyotes.Small pastures tend to have increased disease problemswhereas larger pastures may lead to an increased preda-tion risk. Cow-calf operators need to make the necessarydecisions based on past experience and judgments as tothe relative severity of predation, disease and weather.Consideration should be given to calving heifers insmaller pastures near the house or ranch headquarters,where they can be kept under closer surveillance.

Shed LambingLambing in sheds or lots can reduce both predation

and non-predation losses, but it requires more of a com-mitment in terms of time and facilities than does pasturelambing. Many producers do the actual lambing in smalllots, then place the ewes with their lambs in a barn orshed for several days before turning them back out intolots or small pastures. This procedure reduces predationboth on healthy newborn lambs and on lambs weakenedby lack of food (orphans) or by a difficult birth.

Basically, the decision on shed lambing dependsupon whether a sheep producer has the facilities, desire,and time to manage intensively for a higher percentagelamb crop, or whether he prefers to manage less in-tensively and settle for a lower percentage lamb crop.

Record-KeepingThe value of a good system of record-keeping cannot

be overstressed in a livestock management operation.From a predation standpoint, records help producers to

identify loss patterns or trends, in addition to providingbaseline data which can be used for making decisions onwhat type, and how much, predator damage control iseconomically feasible. Records also aid in identifyingcritical problem areas which may require corrective ac-tion.

Counting sheep regularly is important in largepastures or areas with heavy cover where dead sheepcould remain unobserved. It is not unusual for producerswho do not regularly count their sheep to suffer fairlysubstantial losses before they finally discover that theyare missing some sheep. Sometimes so much time elapsesbefore the losses are discovered that it becomes im-possible to determine with certainty whether the losseswere due to predators or to other natural causes.

Variable GrazingWhere available facilities permit, a livestock pro-

ducer may be able to distribute his livestock in such away as to reduce the amount of predation loss. For exam-ple, some pastures may traditionally be the site ofpredator problems at certain seasons of the year. If it ispossible to change grazing schedules so that the problempasture is used at another time of the year or by lessvulnerable livestock, predator losses may be reduced.While changing pastures cannot guarantee that preda-tion pressure will not also shift, this technique can beeffective, especially when the new pasture is more open,closer to buildings, or easier to keep under observation.

Predisposing FactorsIn this area of general husbandry practices, it is im-

portant to understand the possible relationships betweenpredisposing factors and actual or perceived predatorlosses. Coyotes do not always kill sick or weak sheep and,in some cases, they may actually kill some of thehealthiest sheep in the flock. However, in a recent Mon-tana study, it was observed that visibly “handicapped”sheep were killed by coyotes, usually before healthysheep were taken. Nutrition, diseases, parasites,poisonous plants, weather, or injury may thereforepredispose livestock to predation by making a particularlamb or calf more vulnerable to predation because ofweakness, loss of mobility, or reduced alertness. In ad-dition, when any of these factors leads to the death of theanimal (and subsequent scavenging by predators), thepredation issue is confounded and, at first glance, im-proper conclusions may be reached.

For example, if a producer is losing sheep topoisonous plants or disease and wrongly diagnoses thesituation as a predator problem, he may waste valuabletime and effort on improper corrective actions. ‘There-fore, when a predator problem is suspected, it doesn’thurt to check more closely to make sure that there is notsome other factor involved. This should include properidentification of predator kills (as discussed in previoussections) as well as a check of the herd for signs ofdisease, birthing problems or other conditions that couldlead to weakness or death.

8

FencingVarious types of fences have been used for centuries

to control or limit the movements of domestic livestock.Now, there is convincing evidence that practical fencescan be designed, built and maintained to limit themovements of livestock predators as well. Probably thefirst predator-resistant fences were the encircling thornybarricades or sharpened palisades erected by primitivepeoples around villages or campsites to protect them-selves and their livestock from large nocturnal predators.More conventional types of fencing have been used in at-tempts to deter coyotes since at least the 1890s. In theearly 1900s, D. E. Lantz described the use of fencingaround corrals and small pastures in Kansas to protectlivestock from coyotes. Early in this century, J.T. Jardinedescribed several other experiments with coyote-prooffences conducted in Oregon rangeland areas.

Fences which coyotes cannot easily go under orthrough can, to varying degrees, create “barriers” whichcoyotes must either avoid or cross with come difficulty.Barrier fencing against coyotes can be classed as one oftwo fairly distinct types. Exclusion fences are designed toprevent the entry of coyotes entirely. Drift fences excludesome (but not all) coyotes and restrict or direct themovements of the remainder, usually making it easier todetect and remove animals which do gain access to a penor pasture. Exclusion and drift fences may be con-structed as conventional fences, electrified fences, or acombination of the two. In the past, barrier fences werefelt to be economically feasible only for corrals and small

Exclusion FenceThis fence tested by deCalesta in Oregon was found

to successfully excludeold wire for the apron.

coyotes. Cost is reduced by using

9

pastures. However, various types of predator-resistantfence designs are now proving to be not only effective,but economically feasible for more routine types of usearound pastures.

Electric FencesThe use of electric fencing to deter coyotes was

discussed by W.L. McAtee as early as 1939. In pastyears, a few Kansas sheep producers have used standardsingle or double-wire electric fences in attempts to ex-clude coyotes, with some apparent success. It was not un-til recent revolutionary developments in electric fencetechnology and design, however, that this techniquebecame an effective and economically practical methodfor excluding predators from livestock.

The development of new, low-impedance “ener-gizers” (chargers) in New Zealand and Australia hasprompted renewed interest in the utilization of electri-fied fences for protecting livestock from predators. Ac-cording to government research, these energizers havelower internal resistance than American chargers, arecapable of maintaining higher line voltages undersimulated load conditions, and have a better capacity todrive through vegetation. Because of the low impedanceof these energizers, grass, weeds or snow have little effecton the line voltage under dry conditions. Under wetvegetation conditions or when woody or brushy vege-tation is in contact with the fence, line voltage may bedecreased. There is less of an arc, and consequently lessfire hazard, with these energizers than with conventional

on

Drift FenceThis fence will exclude most coyotes and greatly hin-

der the movement of all. Shorter fences without theapron can also serve as drift fences if they are tightly con-structed and conform closely to the ground.

All ground wires are connected to four l-inch steelpipes driven about 5 feet into the ground (fig. 3). Thesteel ground pipes should be spaced at least 6 feet apart.All charged wires are connected to the energizer (see sec-tion on “Power”). A nonelectric gate maybe constructedfrom 1- by 2-inch welded wire fencing and aluminumtubing. The gate should be at least 5 feet high. A con-crete sill is buried under the gate. End-post wire strainersshould be used.

Galvanized high tensile steel wire (12.5 gauge) isrecommended. Smooth wire stretchers should be used tostretch the wire to approximately 250-pound tension.

Wood comer and brace posts are recommended.

“weed burner” types of charges currently in use. Becausethe charge pulse lasts for such a brief period of time, thefence poses little danger to livestock or humans. How-ever, any type of electric fence is potentially hazardousand should be adequately marked and treated with re-spect.

The design or “configuration” of the fence isprobably just as important as the type of charger that isused. These fences employ radically different designsfrom the conventional, single or double-wire electricfences that most Americans are familiar with. Thesefences consist of multiple wires; the number and spacingof wires varies with the purpose of the fence, local con-ditions, and economic factors. In dry areas, groundedwires may be alternated with hot wires.

These fences utilize high tensile strength, smoothwire stretched to a tension of 150 to 250 pounds. Thistension helps to maintain the proper wire spacings and

Because of the powerful strain on comer posts, cornerand brace posts should be set 5½ feet above the groundand at least 3 feet deep in concrete. Line posts may beeither fiberglass (no insulators needed) or wood or steelwith plastic or porcelain insulators. All wires must befree running from comer to comer to allow for propertension and maintenance.

A high-voltage energizer must be used to overcomevoltage drainage caused by vegetation and the resistanceof the animal’s body. The only energizer presently knownto be capable of providing the necessary voltage ismanufactured in New Zealand, but is distributedthroughout the United States. (from Gates, 1978)

assures that any animal attempting to force its way be-tween wires will make strong contact. If adjacent wiresare charged and uncharged, any animal contacting bothsimultaneously “completes the circuit” and receives astrong shock. Because of the multiple wires and the hightension that must be maintained, it is imperative thatcorners and long spans be adequately braced. Under drysoil conditions, it is important that the fence beadequately grounded. A grounding arrangement com-monly used is to drive 4 steel rods or pipes at least 5 feetinto the ground at the corners of a 6 foot square and towire them all together (see illustration). Also, it is im-portant that these fences be regularly inspected andmaintained. Line voltage should be checked regularlywith a voltmeter. The fences are usually constructed sothat the proper wire tension can be maintained by usingin-line wire tighteners, thus avoiding having to unfastenthe wires from the posts.

10

Tests conducted in 1977 by the Denver WildlifeResearch Center in North Dakota and by the USDA’sSheep Research Station in Dubois, Idaho, have shownthat a 5½ foot electric fence, with 12 alternating hot andground wires, completely stopped coyotes from enteringtest enclosures and killing sheep. Such a fence, while ef-fective, would most likely be used only by producerswhose losses are very high or who are putting up new (orcompletely replacing old) permanent fencing. This typeof fence is effective and practical for use as a coyote-proof, nighttime corral. Details of the fence are shown inthe accompanying illustrations on preceding page.

Where all-electric fencing has been used in Kansas,producers have apparently had good success excludingcoyotes from pastures and lots with a 5-wire, alternatinghot-and-ground fence, shown below. The cost of ma-terials per mile (not including charger or volt meter)for these fences is approximately (in 1979): 12 wire-$1460; 7 wire-$1040; 5 wire-$860; 3 wire-$620.

Many times it may be more practical and eco-nomical to add electric wires to an existing fence,rather than building a completely new fence to excludepredators. Tests in Kansas by the Denver WildlifeResearch Center, USFWS, in cooperation with the KSUExtension Service, showed that, where existing wovenwire fences are in reasonably good condition, sheep canbe protected from coyotes by adding 4 or 5 off-set electricwires. In that case, all of the electric wires were charged

and the existing fence was used as a ground. More or lesswires might be required for a particular fence, dependingon the net wire spacings and the habits of individualdepredating coyotes. This type of fence construction isshown on page 12.

In 1979, predator research biologists from the Den-ver Wildlife Research Center, USFWS, interviewedsheep producers in the West who were using electricfences or wires to protect sheep from coyotes. Twenty-three producers were interviewed in Kansas, Oklahomaand Texas and 14 in California, Oregon and Washington.Fourteen producers provided adequate information topermit a comparison of predator losses before and afterthey erected their electric fences or wires. Before fencing,losses to coyotes by all 14 producers over an aggregatetotal of 271 months and 27 lambing seasons totaled 1,064sheep. Losses after fences or electric wires were installed,over a period of 228 months and 22 lambing seasons,totaled 51 sheep. This represents a reduction of about94 percent in reported predator losses after the installa-tion of electric fences or wires (corrected for the numberof months and lambing seasons). Of 34 respondents,23 (68%) rated their fences as very effective and 11 (32%)as fairly effective for controlling predation. All but one ortwo of 34 producers said that their fences were a good in-vestment, that they would install more electric fence oradditional wires if losses in the future were high, and thatthey would recommend electric fencing as a predatordamage control technique to other producers.

11

Conventional FencesConventional (non-electric) fences can be con-

structed in such a way as to exclude coyotes or hindertheir movements. Although the initial cost of a con-ventional fence is higher than that of an electric fencewith similar predator resistance, maintenance costs andtime are generally less.

The height and design of the fence are dependentupon economic considerations and the desired purposefor the fence. An exclusion fence will cost considerablymore than a drift fence.

Before constructing a predator-resistant fence, somepertinent physical and behavioral traits of coyotes shouldbe considered. Most coyotes in Kansas prefer to go underor through a fence, if possible, rather than jumping over.Research has shown that some coyotes can pass througha netwire opening no larger than six inches on a side.Also, coyotes are excellent jumpers if they have the in-clination or need to do so. There is some reason to believethat the degree of fence-jumping behavior exhibited bycoyotes may differ in various regions of the country,

Two

possibly because of differences in soil and weather con-ditions. Coyotes are also capable of climbing many typesof fences.

There is a great deal of behavioral variation betweenindividual coyotes. One coyote may be deterred by afence only 3% feet in height, whereas another may jumpor climb over a 6 foot or higher fence. As a general rule,a 51/2 foot fence will be high enough to exclude mostcoyotes. The addition of an overhang and a wire apronon the outside of the fence, to prevent climbing over anddigging under, reduces the possibility of the fence beingbreached by a coyote to almost zero.

Although several “coyote-proof” fence designs havebeen proposed over the years, they have been slow to gainacceptance because of their high initial costs. MauriceShelton, from Texas A&M University, proposed thefence design shown in the accompanying illustration inabout 1974. At that time, he estimated that the fencecould be built for approximately $4100 per mile. Thecost in 1980 would be significantly higher. Sheltonpointed out that, although this cost per mile may seem

heights of 48” woven-wire with-24” turned as apron.

13

unrealistically high, it is still only a 30 to 40 percent in-crease over the cost of constructing a new conventionalnet fence. Therefore, if new fencing is to be constructed,it seems important to consider coyotes as one of theanimals whose movements are to be controlled. Sheltonalso pointed out that the cost per head of fencing declinesrapidly as larger areas are fenced and higher stockingrates are used. Many producers may fail to consideramortization of fencing costs over the life of the fence.The initial cost of the fence plus maintenance costs,divided by “the estimated “life” (in years) of the fence,will provide an estimate of the annual expense for thefence. A comparison of that estimated annual cost withthe average annual predator loss (dollars) will aid indetermining the economic feasibility of the fence.Building a predator-resistant fence is often particularlypractical and feasible when the construction of new fenc-ing is already needed.

Recently, David deCalesta, from Oregon StateUniversity, reported on the use of a 6 foot high fence with

an overhang and apron for excluding coyotes from sheep(see illustration). He estimated cost of this fence in 1978at $2500 per mile for materials and $1680 per mile forlabor, giving a total cost per mile of approximately$4180. This type of fence was constructed around2 pastures on ranches with histories of sheep losses inwestern Oregon. One rancher used the pasture enclosedby the fence as a “security pasture.” Lambs and eweswere grazed in this pasture until the lambs were onemonth old, then they were moved to surroundingpastures. Later, the security pasture was used to containsheep when coyotes began to kill sheep in surroundingpastures, until those offending coyotes could be elimi-nated. During the one-year test of the fence, no sheepwere killed by coyotes in the security pasture and 4 sheepwere killed in surrounding pastures. On the other ranch,sheep were kept in the pasture enclosed by the coyote-proof fence throughout the test period. No sheep werekilled in the test pasture, although 38 sheep were killedin surrounding pastures.

Photo by David deCalesta

14

Gate construction used with fence on page 13. Photo by David deCalesta

Predator Frightening DevicesWhen using predator frightening devices, it should

be kept in mind that their effectiveness may decreaseover time as coyotes become used to them. Varying theposition, appearance, duration or frequency of thefrightening stimuli, or using them in various com-binations, may increase both the degree of effectivenessand the length of time over which the devices will be ef-fective.

LightsIn Meduna’s study involving 100 southcentral Kan-

sas sheep producers, he concluded that “the use of lightsabove corrals at night had perhaps the most obvious ef-fect on losses to predators of any factor examined in thestudy.” Of 79 sheep killed by coyotes in corrals, only3 were lost in corrals with lights. Nearly 40 percent of theproducers in that study used lights over corrals. Therewas some indication that sheep losses to dogs were higherin lighted corrals, but the sample size for dog losses wassmall and the results inconclusive. Most of the producers(80%) use mercury vapor lights with electric-eye sensorswhich automatically turned the lights on at dusk and offat dawn. The remainder used standard incandescentlights with either timers or manual switches.

Another advantage of lighted corrals, which is oftenoverlooked, is that lights can help in removing a problem

coyote if losses do begin to occur. Coyotes will often setup a fairly predictable killing pattern. When this hap-pens in a lighted corral, it is possible for a producer toconceal himself at some point above or downwind of thecorral, and to shoot the coyote as it comes in to make akill.

It has been stated that the use of revolving orflashing lights may enhance the effectiveness of lights.We have no information to either support or dispute thisstatement.

Propane ExplodersThese devices produce loud explosions at automati-

cally timed intervals when a spark ignites a measuredamount of propane gas. On most models, the time inter-val between explosions can be varied from about one perminute to about one per hour.

Use of these devices is usually considered to be ofonly temporary effectiveness at keeping coyotes awayfrom sheep. The period of effectiveness can be increasedby moving the exploders to different locations and byvarying the time interval between explosions. In general,the timer on the exploder should be set to fire every 8-10minutes and the location should be changed every 3 or4 days. Normally, the exploder should be turned on justbefore dark and off at daybreak. However, if coyotes arekilling sheep during daylight hours, the exploder shouldbe operating at that time.

Because of their temporary effectiveness, use ofthese devices is best confined to reducing losses untilmore permanent control or preventive measures can be

taken. In about 24 coyote depredation complaints over a2-year period in North Dakota, propane exploders werejudged to be successful in stopping or reducing predationlosses until offending coyotes could be removed. “Suc-cess time” of the exploders appears to depend a greatdeal on how well they are tended by the livestock pro-ducer.

BellsSome sheep producers place bells on some or all of

their sheep in an effort to discourage predators. In Kan-sas, Meduna’s statistical study of producers indicatedthat bells might be of some usefulness in discouragingpredation in nighttime corrals. There were no detectabledifferences in losses between flocks on pasture in whichsome or all sheep wore bells and flocks in which no sheepwore bells. However, no attacks were reported on sheepor lambs wearing bells.

VehiclesUse of a vehicle such as a car or a pickup, parked in

the area where losses are occurring, is often of temporaryeffectiveness in reducing predation losses. Effectivenesscan be improved or extended by frequently moving thevehicle to new locations. An old-fashioned scarecrowmay also be of limited effectiveness.

Aggressive LivestockBilly goats, ponies or other domestic livestock that

are more aggressive than sheep may also help to detercoyotes under some conditions. However, their use is noguarantee against loss.

RadiosUse of a tractor radio or other loud radio turned to

an all night station has been found to be at least tem-porarily effective at deterring coyotes.

ShepherdsDirect herding of sheep (by a sheepman, a member

of his family, or an individual hired for that purpose) isgenerally a last resort type of situation in Kansas wherepastures are relatively small and sheep can be easilycorraled at night. However, in range sheep operations,this practice is more common and can be effective inreducing predation losses.

Guard DogsGuard dogs have reportedly been used successfully

for many centuries in Europe and Asia to protect live-stock from bears and wolves. Although interest in the useof dogs for livestock protection is increasing, researchon the effectiveness of this technique is still incom-plete. The Denver Wildlife Research Center, USFWS,recently completed preliminary tests of the HungarianKomondor for protecting sheep flocks in fenced pas-tures. A significant reduction in sheep losses to coyoteswas demonstrated, although one pair of dogs harassedsheep. Further studies are now being conducted bygovernment and university researchers to more thor-

Komondor Guard Dog. Photo by Guy E. Connolly, USFWS.

Great Pyreneesoughly assess the dogs potential for protecting livestock.A number of livestock producers are currently usingthese dogs for livestock protection, although their ef-fectiveness for this use is still unknown at the presenttime. However, of the producers using Komondors orGreat Pyrenees who responded to a recent questionnairesent out by predator researchers from the U.S. Sheep Ex-periment Station at Dubois, Idaho, a majority rated thedogs as good to excellent at protecting their livestockfrom predation.

Other breeds of dogs which could prove suitable forguarding livestock include the Great Pyrenees, the Hun-garian Kuvasz, the Italian Maremma, the YugoslavianShar Planinetz, and the Turkish Karabash. One possi-ble problem with dogs such as the Great Pyrenees isthat most of them today have been bred for pets andshow dogs, not livestock guard dogs. Although it ap-pears that the use of guard dogs may have a place, theywill need to be carefully selected and trained. A guarddog must have a different behavior and tempera-ment than a livestock herding dog. A main compo-nent of guarding is “following behavior. ” A properlybred and trained guard dog will be content to stay with ornear the flock or herd, but never attack them. A secondcomponent of guarding is “aggressive behavior, ” the ten-dency of the dog to protect the herd or flock against whatit perceives as threats.

Jeff Green, a predator damage control researcher atthe U.S. Sheep Experiment Station, is currently con-ducting research on the Komondor and the GreatPyrenees for protecting sheep and he lists the followingpoints for consideration by producers contemplatingpurchasing livestock guarding dogs: 1) There is no onebreed of dog that is currently thought to be the “best” forpredator control; 2) Dogs should be purchased from areputable breeder—one who knows about the dogs hesells; 3) Given a choice, buy dogs from a working parent-age; 4) Start the dogs with livestock at an early age (8-12weeks) and be sure that the livestock won’t injure theyoung puppy or frighten it badly; 5) Put the pups im-mediately where you want them to work (don’t raise apup for several months in your home or yard and thenlater expect it to stay near the barn with your sheep);6) Be patient, large working dogs may not mature until

or 3 years of age, so expect puppy problems (such as

16

playing with sheep) for sometime. However, be swift tocorrect any bad behavior of the dog, especially as itrelates to playing with or harassing livestock. The dogmust know that harassing the stock is unacceptable;7) Give the dog some basic obedience training (come, sit,stay, no, etc.) and be able to reasonably control it;8) Even though a pup is of a guarding breed, it may notnecessarily perform the livestock guarding task well;9) Don’t expect miracles, presumably the guarding is in-stinctive, but be prepared to teach the dog what you ex-pect it to do (where it is to guard and what it is to guard);10) There is a variety of opinions as to the degree of af-fection that should be given a guarding dog. The best ap-proach is probably to give the dog affection when it iswhere it is supposed to be and when it is doing what it issupposed to be doing. This positive enforcement willproduce better results than physical abuse.

Experimental Predator DeterrentsThe deterrent methods listed below are all in the ex-

perimental stages at the present time. They will probablyeither never come into practical field use, or will requiremany more years of research and development. They arelisted here only because they have been the subject of agreat deal of publicity and have generated a lot ofquestions.

RepellentsLiterally hundreds of candidate chemicals have been

screened for use as predator repellents. To date,laboratory and field studies of these chemicals havefailed to produce even one effective compound whichcould safely be applied to a food animal destined forhuman consumption. There are no coyote repellentscurrently registered in the United States.

Aversive AgentsAversive conditioning of coyotes is an area which

has received much publicity, but which has yielded veryfew concrete results. Theoretically, if a coyote is fed aprey-like bait containing an illness-producing drug, itwill in the future associate that illness with the live preyand will be inhibited from attacking. However, labo-ratory research on this technique has yielded inconsistentand contradictory results and field tests have been in-conclusive, at best.

Electromagnetic DevicesUse of various ultrasonic or electromagnetic devices

to repel coyotes has sometimes been touted as a solutionto predator problems. However, to date, there is no ob-jective scientific evidence which shows effectiveness ofthese devices. Also, it should be kept in mind that levelsof ultrasonic sound sufficient to repel coyotes could alsobe potentially harmful to livestock, pets, or humans ex-posed to the sound.

Predator RemovalUse of preventive measures and nonlethal control

techniques alone may not always be sufficient to satisfac-torily resolve a predator problem. Although nonlethalmethods do reduce both the likelihood and the severity ofpredation losses and can help to buy some time if lossesdo begin, many producers will still find it necessary, atsome point, to remove offending predators.

In recent years, there has been more interest in trap-ping and hunting predators for the increased value oftheir fur, rather than just for damage control purposes.However, for a producer who is strictly interested inreducing predation losses, there is little to be gainedfrom removing predators when no losses are occurring inthe hope that it will help to prevent future losses. An ex-ception to this would be predator removal initiated in anarea just prior to a time period when predation problemshave historically and consistently occurred. Most coyotesare territorial, but certain components of the populationare quite mobile, particularly during the fall and wintermonths. Territories that are vacated when a coyote iskilled are usually rapidly reoccupied. Not all coyotes killsheep and even fewer kill calves. Therefore, if coyotesliving in association with a livestock production unit arecausing no particular problems, it makes little sense tokill them, just to have them be replaced by other coyoteswhich may or may not cause problems.

In Kansas, the most effective and reliable techniquefor removing depredating coyotes is the steel trap.Direct, individualized assistance is available to anylivestock producer in the state who is experiencing apredator problem just by calling the local County Ex-tension Office. A predator damage control specialist willcome to your farm as quickly as possible, supply you withthe necessary equipment, and show you exactly whereand how to make sets to capture the offending coyotes.Follow-up assistance is also available, if needed. In someareas, local trappers or hunters (dog hunters, callers)may be available to help a producer with a predatorproblem.

For more information on lethal damage controltechniques, ‘see the KSU Extension Bulletins How toTrap a Coyote, C-522 and How to Call Coyotes, C-400.Aerial hunting and the use of poisons for predators areillegal in the state of Kansas.

Management Systems-SummaryThis discussion of management systems is intended

to illustrate and summarize how the methods discussedin this publication can be brought together, or in-tegrated, into a comprehensive system of livestockmanagement for reducing predator losses.

In Kansas, producers who do not pen sheep at nightcan normally expect to have predator problems. Poorpasture and/or corral fences are often associated withhigher than normal predation losses and can also in-crease the difficulty of removing problem predators if

losses do begin to occur. Good, tight net-wire fences,even though they are not “coyote-proof,” will act as de-terrents to some coyotes and will restrict the movementsof most others. When coyote access to a pasture is lim-ited, it becomes much simpler to properly place snaresor traps for the removal of offending animals, if nec-essary. The addition of a coyote-proof corral for night-time confinement (an exclusion fence constructed witheither conventional or electric fencing) adds additionalsecurity from predation to a sheep production operation.If the corral is not coyote-proof, it should be lighted toreduce the predation risk and to aid in removing offend-ing coyotes should losses occur.

Lambing in sheds or lots reduces not only lossesfrom lambing complications and starvation, but alsoreduces predation losses. If shed lambing is not possible,lambing in small, tightly fenced pastures which can beclosely watched is advisable from a predation standpoint.If the possibility of predation is feared during criticallambing or calving periods, a producer should considerthe preventive use of propane exploders or otherpredator-scaring devices before losses begin. Producersliving near towns or cities should be especially alert topotential problems from free-running dogs.

Of course, sanitation is important in reducingpredator problems. Good managers generally have lessdead livestock in the first place, and they dispose ofcarrion properly by burying or having it hauled off. Thisnot only helps to keep predators from becominghabituated to feeding on livestock, but it may also reducepredator numbers in the immediate livestock productionarea.

Sheep producers with flocks of 300 or more are mostefficient in terms of predator losses, on a percentagebasis, even though their total predation losses may behigher than those of producers with fewer sheep. A newproducer just building a flock, however, is cautioned toproceed slowly. Numerous problems other than pre-dation can crop up in a hurry when a manager exceedshis knowledge, experience, or facilities.

By keeping accurate, up-to-date records, a producermay, over time, identify patterns or trends in predationlosses. Certain seasons, certain locations, or a com-bination of both, may be associated with high or lowlosses. Once these problem times or areas have beenidentified, the producer can then modify his manage-ment practices, if feasible, in an attempt to correct theproblems. Even though it may not be possible to solvepredation problems by management methods alone, ac-curate records can be of value in helping the producer toanticipate when and where problems may occur. Recordsof financial loss can also be useful in determining theeconomic feasibility of proposed predator damage man-agement practices. Counting sheep or pigs at regular in-tervals while they are on pasture can also aid in the earlydetection of a predation problem. If there is no practicalway of eliminating predator access to the livestock, pred-ator removal will usually be necessary once losses havebegun. However, use of predator frightening methodscan be of definite benefit in preventing or reducing lossesuntil the offending animal(s) can be captured.

Predator damage management means much morethan attempting to remove problem coyotes oncedamage has begun. Damage management meansutilizing the “ounce of prevention” principle to reducepredation risks through modifications in livestockmanagement, including the employment of one or moreof a variety of nonlethal damage reduction techniqueswhere applicable. Remember, “It’s too late to lock thebarn door once the horse has been stolen.” By practicingproven preventive measures, livestock producers canminimize predation losses and simplify problem animalcontrol when and if it becomes necessary.

18

Selected ReferencesThe following list contains many of the references used inpreparing this publication and provides possible sourcesfor readers desiring more detailed information.Boggess, E. K., R.D. Andrews and R.A. Bishop. 1978.

Domestic animal losses to coyotes and dogs in Iowa.J. Wildl. Manage. 42(2):362-372.

Bowns, J.E. 1976. Field criteria for predator damageassessment. Utah Sci. 37:26-30.

Brawley, K.C. 1977. Domestic sheep mortality duringand after tests of several predator control methods.M.S. Thesis, Univ. Montana. 69pp.

Connolly, G. E., R.M. Timm, W.E. Howard, and W.M.Longhurst. 1976. Sheep killing behavior of captivecoyotes. J. Wildl. Manage. 40(3):400-407.

Coppinger, R. and L. Coppinger. 1978. Livestock guard-ing dogs for U.S. agriculture. Livestock Dog Project.25pp.

deCalesta, D.S. and M.G. Cropsey. 1978. Field test of acoyote-proof fence. Wildl. Sot. Bull. 6(4):256-259.

Gee, C. K., R.S. Magleby, W.R. Bailey, R.L. Gum andL.M. Arthur. 1977. Sheep and lamb losses topredators and other causes in the western UnitedStates. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Econ. Rep. 369.41pp.

Gates, N. 1978. Constructing an effective anticoyoteelectric fence. U.S. Dep. Agric. Leafl. 565. 6pp.

Henderson, F. R. 1975. How to trap a coyote. KansasState Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv. Publ. C-522. 8pp.

Henderson, F. R. 1975. How to call coyotes. Kansas StateUniv. Coop. Ext. Serv. Publ. C-400. 12pp.

Henderson, F. R., E.K. Boggess and B.A. Brown. 1977.Understanding the coyote. Kansas State Univ.Coop. Ext. Serv. Publ. C-578. 24pp.

Henne, D. R. 1975. Domestic sheep mortality on awestern Montana ranch. M. S. Thesis, Univ. Mon-tana. 53pp.

Jardine, J.T. 1908. Preliminary report on grazing ex-periments in a coyote-proof pasture. U.S. Dept.Agric. Forest Serv. Circ. 156. 32pp.

Jardine, J.T. 1909. Coyote-proof pasture experiment,1908. U.S. Dep. Agric. Forest Serv. Circ. 160. 40pp.

Jardine, J.T. 1911. Coyote-proof enclosures in connectionwith range lambing grounds. U.S. Dep. Agric.Forest Serv. Bull. 97. 32pp.

Lantz, D.E. 1905. The relation of coyotes to stock raisingin the West. U.S. Dep. Agric. Farmer’s Bull. 226.24pp.

Linhart, S., J. Roberts, G. Larson and T. Rose. 1978.Field evaluation of electric fencing to alleviate coyotepredation on sheep. 1978. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.,Denver Wildl. Res. Center Rep. 16pp. (unpub-lished)

Linhart, S. and J. Roberts. 1977. Field evaluation ofelectric fencing to alleviate coyote predation onsheep. 1977. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Denver Wildl.Res. Center Rep. 18pp. (unpublished)

McAtee, W.L. 1939. The electric fence in wildlifemanagement. J. Wildl. Manage. 3(l): 1-13.

Meduna, R.L. 1977. Relationships between sheepmanagement and coyote predation. M. S. Thesis,Kansas State Univ. 140pp.

Munoz, J.R. 1976. Causes of sheep mortality at the CookRanch, Florence, Montana. 1975-76. M. S. Thesis,Univ. Montana. 55pp.

Shelton, M. n.d. Fencing as a means of protectinglivestock from predation. Texas A&M Univ. Agric.Expt. Stn. 8pp.

Thompson, B.C. 1976. Evaluation of wire fences for con-trol of coyote depredations. M. S. Thesis, OregonState Univ. 59pp.

Todd, A.W. and L.B. Keith. 1976. Responses of coyotesto winter reductions in agricultural carrion. AlbertaWildl. Tech. Bull. 5. 32pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Predator damagein the West: A study of coyote management alter-natives. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Dep. Int. 168pp.

Young, S.P. and H.H.T. Jackson. 1951. The clevercoyote. Stackpole Co. and Wildl. Manage. Inst.411pp.

Acknowledgements

We especially want to thank Robert J. Robel and RobertL. Meduna for their efforts in securing funds and con-ducting the research upon which a major part of thispublication is based.

We wish to express our appreciation to Bennett A.Brown, Guy E. Connolly, David S. deCalesta, Jeffrey S.Green, Samuel B. Linhart, Robert L. Meduna, DarrellMontei, Roger D. Nass, Robert J. Rebel and Robert M.Timm for reading and making constructive commentsand criticisms on earlier drafts of this publication.

19

F. Robert HendersonExtension State Leader,

Wildlife Damage Control Program

Clifford W. SpaethExtension Specialist, Animal Sciences and Industry

Photo by Guy E. Connolly