AcknowledgmentsThe printing of this publication was made possible by a grant

from the Texas Sheep and Goat Commodity Board, whose missionis to finance programs to protect sheep and goats, fund research,and develop educational programs within the 111-countyReferendum Area.

The author extends his appreciation to the following individualsfor their assistance in the preparation and review of this publica-tion: Dr. Guy Connolly, Dr. Dale Wade, Dr. Fred Guthery, Dr.James Browns, Gary Nunley, Murray Walton, Dr. Jack Payne, RoyMcBride, Dr. Maurice Shelton, Allen Turner and Dr. Milo Shult.Dr. Connolly of USDA-APHIS Denver Wildlife Research Centergraciously shared several photographs used herein.

TEXAS SHEEP & GOATCOMMODITY BOARD

3

he coyote is as much a part of the Texas land-scape as the familiar mesquite tree. Like the

Coping with CoyotesManagement Alternatives for Minimizing Livestock Losses

Dale Rollins

• learning how to control problem coyotes, and• developing a plan of action before the problem

reaches a crisis level.

The objective of this publication is to increaseyour awareness of these required skills and, indoing so, to help minimize your livestock losses tocoyotes.

Coyotes: Up Close and PersonalCoyotes are not as large or heavy as many

people believe; the typical adult male tips thescales at about 30 pounds. They are predomi-nantly grayish to brownish in color with lighter-colored bellies. Color varies, however, rangingfrom nearly black to red to almost white in someindividuals and local populations.

Coyotes are most active atnight and during twilight hours.They bed in areas of tall grass orbrush, but do not use densexcept for raising young (fromApril to June). Coyotes possessgood eyesight and hearing and ahighly developed sense of smell.They can run at speeds of up to40 miles per hour for shortdistances and travel over fairlylarge home ranges (from 2 to 20square miles).

Coyotes are basically solitaryand do not form packs as wolvesdo, although family groups maybe seen occasionally. A familygroup may include a mated pair,nonbreeding offspring from the

*Extension Wildlife Specialist, The TexasA&M University System.

Figure 1. Coyotes are not as large asmost people think. Few weigh morethan 35 pounds.

Tmesquite, the coyote is locally abundant, well-established, adaptable, and resilient to forcesaimed at its control. Up to a point, both the mes-quite and the coyote are compatible with mostlivestock ranching, but when the population ofeither species becomes too dense, livestock pro-duction can suffer.

Livestock losses to predators, primarily coyotes,can and do occur statewide, but the sheep andgoat industry suffers the greatest impact. In 1988,the loss of sheep and goats to predators in Texaswas about $12 million. Predation is the number-one cause of death to sheep and goats in theEdwards Plateau region. The rangelands of otherareas of Texas are well suited forsheep and goat production, butineffective means of preventingpredatory losses preclude large-scale grazing by sheep and/orgoats. Additional losses occur inthe cattle, poultry, swine, andmelon industries.

Minimizing livestock losses tocoyote predation requires:

• understanding the coyote'sways,

• learning to interpret coyotesign and recognize coyotekills,

• reducing the exposure of sus-ceptible livestock,

previous year, and pups from the current year.The coyote's society consists of two kinds ofindividuals: territorial animals and transients.Territorial coyotes tend to be mature breedinganimals, while transients are typically yearlings orvery old individuals. In South Texas, about two-thirds of the population are territorial and the restare transients. Coyotes establish and maintainterritories through direct means (aggressive en-counters with intruders) and indirect means(howling, scent posts). Recent studies suggest thattransient coyotes occupy the buffer zones betweenexisting territories until they are able to establisha territory of their own.

Coyotes occupy a wide range of habitats andmay be found within the city limits of metropoli-tan areas or in the remote stretches of West Texas.One reason for this success is their ability tosubsist on a varied diet, including rodents, rabbits,carrion, insects, fruits, wild game, garbage, anddomestic livestock (Figure 2). Coyotes are highlyopportunistic, and individual diets are dictated toa large degree by the seasonal availability ofdifferent foods.

Coyotes are monogamous and breed only onceper year. They usually breed during February andMarch and have a gestation period of about 63days. Average litter size is 5 to 7 pups, but largerlitters are not uncommon (as many as 19 pupshave been observed). In areas of low coyote den-sity or where food is abundant, litters tend to be

larger than in areas of high coyote density or foodscarcity. Dens may be located in steep banks, rockcrevices, thick underbrush, or relatively openareas. Both parents share in raising the litter. Pupsremain in or near the den until they are about 2months old, when they may accompany the par-ents on short trips. Adults and pups usually re-main together until late summer, when the pupstend to disperse. Coyotes and dogs will interbreed(rarely), and such "coydogs" are fertile. Hybridsusually are larger and darker than the typicalcoyote, although size and color vary with thebreed of dog involved. Annual mortality ratesaverage about 60 percent for young coyotes, andfew coyotes live beyond about 6 years of age.People cause most coyote deaths, but coyotes alsoare susceptible to canine diseases such as distem-per, hepatitis, mange, parvovirus, and rabies.Hookworms are the only comon parasite whichfrequently cause mortality in coyotes, and thosemortalities are most common inpups.

Coyotes are perhaps the wariest and mostintelligent animals found in Texas rangelands.They are difficult to trap, a tribute to their intelli-gence and keen sense of smell. Coyotes maybecome educated or "trap-shy" by unsuccessfulattempts at control. As with other species, sur-vival of the fittest applies. In areas where coyotecontrol has been practiced diligently for manyyears (such as the Edwards Plateau), the coyotesthat remain are extremely wary animals.

Recognizing and InterpretingCoyote Sign

The ability to read the landscape and interpretsign is essential in assessing coyote presence andpopulation trends. You should be able to identifycoyotes by their tracks, droppings (scats), howls,and "slides" where they pass under fences. Coyotehowls are easily identified, but, in areas of heavycontrol pressure, coyotes rarely howl.

Next to seeing the animal, identifying tracks isthe best way to determine a coyote's presence.Coyote tracks usually can be distinguished fromthose of a dog by the shape and impressions ofclaws (Figure 3). Coyote tracks are usually longerthan they are wide, while dog tracks are usuallyas wide as they are long. In most situations only

Figure 2. This chart of an "average coyote diet illustrateshow adaptable coyotes are. These data were assembled frommore than 8,000 coyotes collected from 17 western states.

4

a close inspection of hair and other sign (liketracks) may identify the animal.

The manner in which a predator kills its prey isoften characteristic for that particular species. Thepublication B-1492, "Procedures for EvaluatingPredation on Livestock and Wildlife," available for$10 from the Texas Agricultural Extension Service,is an excellent field guide for determining whattype of predator (if any) was responsible for ananimal's death. Only some general comments oninterpreting kill signs are presented here.

Coyotes usually kill adult sheep or goats bybiting the throat just behind the lower jaw, whichkills the victim by suffocation and shock (Figure5). Smaller prey such as kid goats, lambs, orrabbits are killed by biting through the head orneck. The victim usually displays puncturewounds in the throat region. Upon skinning, thethroat area may exhibit considerable bleedingbelow the skin. In contrast to coyotes, dogs usu-ally kill sheep or goats by attacking the hindquar-ters, flanks, and head, and rarely kill as cleanly ascoyotes. However, inexperienced coyotes may killin a manner more typical of dogs, and some dogkills can be mistaken for coyote kills. For thisreason, it is important to look for additionalevidence such as tracks to confirm your identifica-tion of the predator.

Animals killed by bobcats often have clawmarks on the carcass and subcutaneous hemor-rhaging. Kills made by mountain lions will havetooth punctures about 2 inches apart and willusually have claw marks on the neck and/orshoulders. Also, lion kills (and sometimes bobcatkills) may be dragged some distance from the

the front two claw marks are visible on coyotetracks, as opposed to all four claw marks on dogtracks. Good areas in which to search for tracksinclude stock trails, ranch roads, sandy draws, andwatering points.

Another sign is the presence of scats. Coyotescats are typically about the diameter of a cigarand will vary in appearance depending on theanimal's diet. The scat may contain hair, wool,feathers, bones, or other animal parts, as well asplant material. The color of the scat varies fromblack to light gray, or even pink when watermelonis the main component of the diet. Scats are oftendeposited along ranch and county roads or neartrapsets.

While coyotes have been know to climb orjump fences, they tend to use slides to crawlunder netwire fencing (Figure 4). Note any slidesunder or through fencing and check for the pres-ence of coyote hairs that may be caught in thewire above the slide. Other animals such as deer,javelina, raccoons, and rabbits also use slides, but

5

Figure 3. Coyote tracks are similar in size to a medium-sized dog's,but are usually more narrow with only the two inside claw marksvisible.

Figure 4. This is a"slide" used by coy-otes to crawl undera netwire fence.

tor responsible. Kid goats andlambs are usually most susceptibleto coyotes, bobcats, and othersmall predators. By contrast,mountain lions can handle muchlarger animals such as yearlingcattle and colts. Knowing whetherlivestock have been harassed,attacked, and injured or killedoutright also may help to identifythe predator species. Dogs areamong the least discriminating andleast efficient (in terms of killing)of the predators.

Make note of when and wherekills are occurring to determinewhether there is a pattern. Coy-otes kill more livestock duringearly summer because the de-mands of rearing pups increase theparents' food needs and becausemore lambs and kids are availableduring this season. Discuss preda-tor problems with your neighbors

to find out if they are also suffering losses. Ex-change information about predation on yourherds, sightings of coyotes or their sign, and thedirection of predator travel.

Coyote control falls into one of two categories: (a)livestock husbandry and management; and (b)manipulation of the coyote population, either bylethal or nonlethal methods. Each situation is uniqueand may call for a combination of methods. Somepractices may not be suitable in certain situations,while others may not be practical or economical. Itis important to evaluate all available information andoptions carefully before choosing control methods.

Livestock Husbandry andManagement

Total confinement of livestock usually preventslosses to coyotes, but confinement is not practicalfor most ranchers who produce livestock bygrazing pasture or rangeland. Likewise, penning atnight can be an effective means of limiting preda-tion, but it may not be feasible in many situations.Furthermore, some coyotes may enter pens and

point of attack and partially or entirely covered bydirt, leaves, and twigs.

The appearance of the prey animal is not al-ways an adequate means of determining whichpredator species is responsible for the kill. Asmentioned before, inexperienced coyotes maybehave atypically when making a kill. Also, don'tassume that every dead animal you find is a resultof a predator, as livestock die for a variety ofreasons. Carcasses are often fed upon by coyotesor other scavenging animals. As a rule, animalsdying from "natural" causes do not show signs ofbleeding and will not have external wounds.

Observing vultures will help you find livestockcarcasses. Make it a point to investigate all live-stock deaths and gather as much information fromeach one as possible. Just as a coroner looks at abody for clues as to cause of death, so should thelivestock producer observe and assemble informa-tion. The basic information that should be notedincludes the kind (species) and class (age, sex,breed) of livestock. Try to determine first if theanimal was killed or if it died from natural causes.Then, for predatory kills, try to identify the preda-

Figure 5. The typical attack behavior of adult coyotes is to grab the animal atthe throat behind the jaw (photograph courtesy of Guy Connolly, DenverWildlife Research Center).

6

corrals and continue killing. Shed-lambing orkidding is usually effective in preventing preda-tion while the animals are in confinement, butsuch management schemes also increase produc-tion costs in terms of buildings, labor, and feed.Also, parasite problems are usually greater whensheep or goats are confined to pens. Restrictinglivestock to certain pastures that tend to be lessvulnerable to coyotes, either because of moreopen country or proximity to people, may de-crease losses. However, because sheep and goatsare susceptible to coyotes throughout the year,selective use of pastures could prevent the use ofsome pastures entirely.

Changing the date of thelambing-kidding-calving seasonmay reduce exposure of younganimals to coyotes. This strategyis most useful for calves as theyare most vulnerable to coyotesshortly after birth, especiallyduring late winter (February toMarch). Sheep and goats arevulnerable to coyote predation atall ages, so a change in lambingor kidding seasons is less effec-tive in preventing losses.

Population ControlNonlethal Coyote Control

In recent years, public opinionopposing the killing of predatorshas focused attention on nonle-thal control methods, but many,if not most, situations will re-quire some removal of coyotes tostop depredation. Nonlethalapproaches can be used as a firstline of defense, with lethalmethods applied as necessary.

Fencing. Different combina-tions of conventional netwire,barbed wire, and electrical wirescan help keep coyotes away fromlivestock. However, there is prob-ably no such thing as an economi-cally feasible "coyote-proof" fence.

The traditional sheep and goat fence of netwire withtwo strands of barbed wire on top, if kept in goodrepair, will prevent most dogs from entering a pas-ture, but coyotes will dig under, pass through a holein the fence, climb, or even jump over some fences(Figure 6). Nevertheless, a good netwire fence willfunnel coyote activities in such a manner that theirtravel can be monitored more easily. Good fencingalso facilitates certain control techniques such assnaring and trapping. For maximum effectiveness, anetwire fence should be at least 5 feet high and havemesh no larger than 6 inches wide, a buried wireapron to deter digging under, and an electrified wire

on top to prevent climbing over.These specifications make for anexpensive fence.

Improvements in electricfencing technology (energizers,fiberglass posts, wire), coupledwith the fact that electric fencescan cost less than conventionalfencing, have prompted manyproducers to use these "hot"fences for deterring coyotes.Unlike conventional fences,electric fences are more of apsychological than a physicalbarrier, and coyotes must betrained to respect them. The useof seven to twelve charged andground wires, alternately spaced4 to 6 inches apart, has excludedcoyotes in some situations. Inone Texas study, coyotes wereshocked as they passed throughan electric fence into the pastureand became trapped inside thefenced pasture. Thus, when usingelectric fences, it may be helpfulto incorporate both a physicalbarrier (a strand of barbed wireat ground level) as well as apsychological barrier. The addi-tion of an electric "trip" wirelocated 8 to 10 inches away fromthe fence at a height of 6 to 8inches increased the effective-ness of the fence (Figure 7).

7

Figure 6. Coyotes will often craw un-der and may even jump over a netwirefence (photograph courtesy of GuyConnolly, Denver Wildlife ResearchCenter).

Figure 7. The addition of an electric"trip" wire, placed just outside theexisting fence, helps deter coyotesfrom digging under.

Modifying existing netwire fences with one ormore electric wires has been effective, providedthe existing netwire fence is in reasonably goodcondition. The addition of a single electric tripwire is probably the single best investment thatcan be made to reduce coyote passage. However,the trip wire should be placed outside the fence,and this often presents a problem if fencelinebrush interferes with placement of the wire. Aswith all electric fencing, maintenance is a chronicproblem. In a recent nationwide survey, 95 per-cent of the ranchers surveyed said that "shorted-out" fences were a recurring problem.

Repellents. Strange sounds and the presence ofpeople tend to frighten coyotes to varying degrees.Various sonic visual devices, including propanecannons, sirens, distress calls, radios, lights, andscarecrows have been tried from time to time. Forthe most part, these methods have been ineffec-tive, as coyotes adapt readily to them. Best resultshave been observed when several devices are usedtogether and when the type and location of de-vices are changed frequently. To date, none ofthem, singly or in combination, can be reliedupon for consistent or long-term protection fromcoyotes.

Chemical methods of repelling coyotes throughthe use of livestock body sprays, collars containingodorous chemicals, or odor stations placed in live-stock areas have shown only limited and short-termeffects. Insecticides approved for lice control maytemporarily reduce predation. Other chemicals, suchas lithium chloride, have been injected into meat tomake coyotes ill in an attempt to make them avoidsheep. This technique has also failed to be effective.

Reproduction Inhibitors. Because predatorlosses tend to be most severe during the pup-rearing months, various experiments to sterilizeadult coyotes have been attempted. While specificchemicals do inhibit coyote reproduction, theyhave not been consistently effective, and nochemicals are registered for this purpose. Anotherlimitation is that there is no effective method ofgetting the chemosterilant into the coyote. Recentadvances in reproductive inhibitors have focusedon the use of "immunocontraception." This tech-nique uses hormones or anti-fertility vaccineseither to keep the female fro ovulating or toinhibit the egg from becoming fertilized. While

8

Figure 8. Guarding animals, especially dogs, have becomemore popular in recent years.

these techniques appear to have merit, it willprobably be some time before their usefulness forfield applications is realized.

Guard Animals. In recent years, there has beena surge of interest in the use of guard animals toprotect livestock from coyotes. Several species havebeen used, including dogs, donkeys, ostriches, emus,llamas, and mules (Figure 8). The use of differentbreeds of guard dogs, including Komondor, GreatPyrenees, Anatolian Shepherds, Akbash, mongrels,and others, has increased greatly in the past 5 years.Researchers and producers agree that guard dogs caneffectively prevent livestock losses to coyotes. Ac-cording to a 1986 survey, 71 percent of those polledconsidered their guard dog to be "very effective" atprotecting livestock; 21 percent indicated they were"somewhat effective"; 8 percent said that guard dogswere "not effective." In the same study, 81 percent ofthe producers considered their dogs to be an eco-nomic asset to livestock production. No particular

breed of dog was deemed to be most effective,suggesting that the manner in which the dog wasreared was of equal or greater importance thanbloodline. Success is usually greater when the dogsare reared with livestock from an early age (about 2months). A list of guard-dog breeders is availablefrom the Texas Department of Agriculture. Bondingof the dog to the sheep or goats, and vice versa, isimportant for success with an guard animal. Guarddogs tend to most effective in smaller pastures ofless than 1,000 acres and when used in conjunctionwith other control methods such as electric fencing.When dogs are used, care must be taken not toendanger them with lethal control techniquesintended for predators. Livestock protection collarsand M-44 devices should not be used with guarddogs, while techniques such as aerial gunning maybe used without endangering the guard dogs.

There is testimonial evidence that donkeys andmules also decrease coyote predation on sheepand goats. At this time, there is insufficient evi-dence to determine the guarding abilities of otheranimals such as ostriches, emus, and llamas.

Lethal Control MethodsLethal methods are used to reduce the coyote

population or remove individuals that may becausing damage. These methods may be preven-tive (used beforehand to reduce expected damage)or corrective (initiated after damage starts). Theconditions and history of damage in a particularplace dictate the type of approach to be used.When the population is reduced for only a shorttime or in a limited geographical area (such as onone ranch within a count), the results are typi-cally short-term. In general, population suppres-sion becomes more effective with increased effortand duration of control, and with increased size ofthe area under control. Buffer zones also can beeffective on a large scale to prevent infiltration bycoyotes. The Edwards Plateau region is an ex-ample of an area where intensive and extensivecoyote control efforts provide livestock protection.From about 1930 to 1970, much of the EdwardsPlateau was virtually free of coyotes because ofconcerted predator control efforts and the use oftoxicants. In recent years, however, coyotes haveinfiltrated this area in many locations, suggestingthat the buffer zone around the Edwards Plateauno longer exists. Changes in land-use practices,

loss of certain predator-control tools, increasedsympathy for predators on the part of the generalpublic, and the resourcefulness of the coyotesuggest that coyote populations in this area willprobably continue to increase.

Lethal control methods need to be not onlyeffective, but selective as well. To the degreepossible, control efforts should be directed to-wards coyotes in particular, and ultimately onlytoward the offending individual coyotes. Selectiv-ity refers to a technique's ability to take only thetarget species (such as aerial gunning), whilespecificity refers to the ability to remove only theoffending individual (such as Livestock ProtectionCollars). Other factors that determine the controlmethod of choice include safety, humaneness,environmental impact, cost, and operator skillrequired. Rating control methods as to theirselectivity, specificity, effectiveness, safety, andhumaneness is subjective by nature, and open tointerpretation by each individual.

Shooting. Shooting coyotes, either from theground or from aircraft, can be an effective,selective means of reducing coyote numbers.While the use of bounties for coyotes is not rec-ommended, the value of pelts during times of highfur prices acts as an incentive to increase thenumber of coyotes taken annually. However,coyote pelts are only prime from about Decemberthrough February, and not even that long over thesouthern half of the state.

Coyotes can be attracted within shooting rangeby various distress calls (like that of a rabbit),either electronic or mouth-blown (Figure 9), or bysimulating coyote barks and howls. The callerlures the coyote within a range where it can beshot with either a centerfire rifle or a shotgunloaded with No. 4 or larger shot. While calling canbe effective in some areas, coyotes tend to become"call-shy" in areas where calling is frequentlyused. As a result, few problem coyotes can beremoved by calling. Calling and shooting requirespecial skills and experience to be effective.

Aircraft (airplanes and helicopters) can be used tolocate dens for subsequent control and/or for shoot-ing coyotes with shotguns directly from the air(Figure 10). Aerial hunting of coyotes is regulated bystate and federal authorities, and a permit must be

9

obtained from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Depart-ment. Where livestock losses are severe andweather, terrain, and cover conditions are favorable,aerial hunting can be highly effective in reducinglocal populations quickly. Furthermore, aerial hunt-ing can be highly effective in reducing local popula-tions quickly. Furthermore, aerial hunting often canbe used to remove coyotes that have become trap-shy or otherwise educated to control efforts. How-ever, coyotes also can become shy of aircraft. Heli-copters are generally preferred to airplanes becauseof their greater maneuverability. A 12-gauge auto-matic shotgun loaded with No. 2, BB, or buckshot isrecommended for aerial hunting. Aerial hunting is

done at low altitudes (less that 150 feetabove ground level) and, as such, can behazardous. Aerial gunning generallycosts from $70 to $300 per hour of flighttime, and costs for helicopters are aboutthree times higher than for fixed wingaircraft.

Hunting with Dogs. In open, flatcountry, typical of some farmingregions of Texas, coyotes can be takenwith greyhounds and other dogs thathunt by sight. Fences, brush, andrough terrain reduce their effective-ness, however. In some areas, trailhounds may be used to track and huntcoyotes. However, neither of thesemethods is employed in areas thatsuffer the most from coyote predation.Dogs may be helpful in locating dens.

Denning. Denning is the practice of removingthe pups and/or parents from the den during latespring. Experience has shown that, if the pups arekilled, depredation losses by the parents usuallycease, even if the parents are not killed. Denningis useful only for specific situations, but it is animportant technique for resolving some predationproblems. However, locating a den is a difficult,time-consuming task that requires special trackingskills.

Trapping. The steel leghold trap is one of theoldest and most widely used tools for controllingcoyotes (Figure 11). It is very effective and the

10

Figure 10. Aerial gunning can be an effective, selective way of reduc-ing coyote populations quickly.

Figure 9. Imitating the calls of a distressed rabbit or other small animal may entice coyotes into shooting range. Bothelectronic and mouth-blown calls are available.

may be effective for dogs, bobcats,and raccoons, but are ineffectivefor coyotes.

Snaring. In areas with netwirefencing, the use of wire cablesnares is common, effective meansof coyote control. Snares can bepositioned in holes in the fence orin slides where coyotes are crawl-ing under the fence (Figure 12).Snares also can be placed indepen-dently of a fence along a trail, butthese are less effective than sets inconjunction with a barrier fence.Snares are easily set and main-tained and do not require the samelevel of user skill as steel traps.However, snares are not selectivefor coyotes only, and nontargetcatches (deer, javelina, raccoons)are common. Also, fencing must be

Figure 11. Steel leghold traps remain one of the most effective tools for re-moving problem coyotes. Live-traps (box traps) are ineffective.

most versatile tool available. Opponents of trap-ping claim that is non-selective, but the selectivityof a steel trap can be greatly enhanced by theaddition of tension devices on the pan, selection oftrapping sites and sets, and the use of relativelyspecies-specific lures and scents.

The major advantage of traps is that they can beused under a wide variety of conditions and inremote country. Establishing and maintainingeffective trap sets are time-consuming tasks.Considerable skill and expertise are required tocatch problem coyotes. As mentioned before,coyotes are adept at digging up or otherwiseavoiding steel traps, and such trap-shy coyotes canbe extremely difficult to remove. If you don't havethe time, patience, and willingness to learn how totrap coyotes correctly, trapping is an art best leftto the expert. A casual attempt at trapping may domore harm than good in the long run. Trappingsometimes results in some coyotes losing a foot,and these "peg-leg" coyotes are often notoriouslivestock killers. Traps should be monitored rou-tinely to minimize the loss of such coyotes.

Leghold traps (typically Nos. 3 or 4) are theonly types of traps effective for coyotes. Live traps(box-type traps which catch the animal unharmed)

11

Figure 12. Snares are most effective when used in conjunc-tion with netwire fences in good condition.

in good condition (that is, there should be only alimited number of holes that allow passage throughthe fence) in order for snaring to be most effective.

M-44 Devices. The M-44 is a mechanical devicethat propels sodium cyanide powder into the mouth

of an animal that pulls on the device with its teeth(Figure 13). When positioned in the field, the M-44top is baited with a scent attractive to coyotes. Whenthe bait is bitten and pulled upward by the animal,the device ejects sodium cyanide powder into theanimal's mouth, resulting in the death of the animalin a short time (unconsciousness usually occurs inless than 90 seconds). The M-44 is highly selectivefor coyotes and other canids becauseof the attractants and the ejectionmethod used. In addition to its selec-tivity for canids, M-44's are environ-mentally safe and pose little risk topeople when used properly. M-44'sare most effective during fall andwinter and least effective during hotsummer months.

Sodium cyanide is a restricted-use pesticide and is available onlyto individuals trained, certified,and licensed by the Texas Depart-ment of Agriculture (TDA). M-44'smust be set in accordance withcertain specifications as outlined byTDA. For more information refer toMP-1181, "Using the M-44 inCoyote Control," available in En-glish and Spanish from the TexasAnimal Damage Control Service.

Livestock Protection Collars. The livestockprotection collar (LPC), also referred to as "toxiccollar" or "1080 collar," was developed by RoyMcBride of Alpine. It consists of two rubbercontainers filled with Compound 1080 attachedwith straps to the throat of a sheep or goat (Figure14). The LPC was designed to take advantage ofthe killing behavior of coyotes. A coyote generally

12

Figure 14. The Livestock Protection Collar is the most specific method avail-able for removing coyotes that are attacking livestock. Coyotes that attack atthe throat puncture the collar and receive a lethal dose of a toxicant.

Figure 13. The M-44device is an effectivecontrol tool and is se-lective for canids. Thephotograph on the topshows the componentsof an M-44 while theone at left shows thedevice in place.

kills by attacking at the throat, and in doing sousually punctures one or both of the collarpouches, thus receiving a lethal dose of the toxi-cant. Collars are placed on highly susceptibleanimals (lambs and kids), and these individualsare placed in pastures with a history of coyotepredation. Because coyotes usually select younganimals (if given the opportunity), collars shouldbe placed on lambs (or kids) at a suggested rate of10 collared lambs (kids) per 100 adults. A largeflock of collared individuals will improve the oddsof attack by an offending coyote. Recently, regula-tions have been adopted that allow the "pooling"of collars under certain guidelines. This willenhance the use of LPCs. Other considerations andadvice for using LPCs can be found in B-1509,"Applicator Manual for Compound 1080 in Live-stock Protection Collars," available for $10 fromthe Texas Agricultural Extension Service.

LPCs offer several advantages for coyote con-trol. First, they are highly selective for coyotes andare specific for those individual coyotes that killsheep and goats. Collars may be effective in re-moving educated coyotes that elude other controlmethods. They may be used in the presence ofother livestock with minimal risk of exposure tothe toxicant. Extensive field testing has shown thatcollars pose minor risks to nontarget animals orpeople. Finally, specific skills like those requiredin trapping and formulating baits and scents arenot critical for success with LPCs.

However, LPCs also have certain disadvantages,including their cost, the labor involved, and regu-lations concerning their use. Collars may be punc-tured by thorns or torn by wire or snags and thenmust be replaced. Collared animals attacked bycoyotes are usually killed during the attack (ormust be destroyed because of injuries sustained inthe attack). Collars are not effective in removingcoyotes that exhibit atypical killing behavior(attacking at sites other than the throat). Frequentinspections of collared animals are required toensure that collars are maintained in the properposition and that the pouches are intact. In certainsituations, coyotes may avoid collared animals andattack other herds or uncollared individuals withinthe herd.

Compound 1080 is a highly toxic chemical andits use is regulated by state and federal restric-

tions. Applicators of LPCs must be trained, certi-fied, and licensed by TDA, the state agency re-sponsible for pesticide licensing. Furthermore,detailed records on the use and fate of collars isrequired.

The Public and Coyote ControlOne's views regarding the relative and absolute

merits of coyotes are largely a matter of perspective.Some see the coyote as the devil himself, whileothers perceive him as a symbol of the wide openspaces. Public opinion related to the need andmethods for controlling predators has had consider-able impact on the tools available for predatorcontrol. Surveys verify that there is a wide differ-ence of opinion between the general public andthose whose livelihood is adversely affected bypredation losses. For example, in a recent nationwidesurvey, 91 percent of the sheep producers surveyedfavored killing "as many coyotes as possible,"whereas only 38 percent of the "informed public"approved of such control levels. Surveys clearlydemonstrate that the public tends to favor controlmethods that are perceived to be "humane" and"specific." In general, nonlethal control methods areviewed more favorably than lethal methods. A 1995survey indicated that Texas respondents were gener-ally more supportive of predator control for live-stock protection than respondents from the rest ofthe United States, although the overall trends weresimilar.

Endangered SpeciesIn certain counties in South Texas, some lethal

control options are restricted because of the pres-ence of ocelots and jaguarundis. These two catspecies are classified as Endangered by the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service. In such counties, the use oftraps, snares, and M-44 devices may be unlawfuland/or their use restricted. Check with your localrepresentative of the Texas Animal Damage ControlService, Texas Department of Agriculture, TexasParks and Wildlife Department, or U.S. Fish andWildlife Service to see if such regulations exist inyour county.

13

SummaryAs mentioned before, coyotes have much in

common with the mesquite trees that are socommon on Texas rangelands. Viewed by some asa constant problem, both have proven to be resil-ient and resistant to widespread efforts aimed atcontrolling their numbers. With both species,human thoughts have evolved from eradicationduring the 1940s and the 1950s, to control duringthe 1960s and 1970s, to management during the1980s and 1990s. Biological resilience, comple-mented by public concerns over environmentalmatters, ensures that both mesquite and coyotewill endure. From the rancher's viewpoint, in-creases in coyote populations must be accompa-nied by an ever-increasing vigilance and diligence,if sheep and goat ranching is to remain at thelevels observed today.

14

Where to Go for AssistanceSeveral state agencies can assist those suffering

from coyote predation on livestock. The TexasAnimal Damage Control Service provides techni-cal assistance to such landowners. Contact theState Director, P.O. Box 830337, San Antonio,78283-0337 for the name of the district officeclosest to you. The Texas Department of Agricul-ture is the licensing agency for all pesticides andprovides certification for use of the M-44 deviceand LPCs. Furthermore, TDA compiles a listing ofindividuals producing guard animals. ContactTDA at P.O. Box 12847, Austin, 78711. Finally, theTexas Agricultural Extension Service, with countyoffices located statewide, can assist by providingtechnical and educational materials and advicerelated to predator management.

Additional Reading MaterialsThe following is a partial list of booklets, bulletins, etc. pertaining to

various aspects of coyote control and predator management in general.

Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Robert M. Timm, editor. GreatPlains Agricultural Council Wildlife Resources Committee and the NebraskaCooperative Extension Service.

B-1509, Applicator Manual for Compound 1080 in Livestock ProtectionCollars. Texas Agricultural Extension Service ($10 per copy).

B-1429, Procedures for Evaluating Predation on Livestock and Wildlife. TexasAgricultural Extension Service ($5 per copy).

Impacts, Incidence, and Control of Predation on Livestock in the UnitedStates, with particular Reference to Predation by Coyotes. Dale A. Wade. Coun-cil for Agricultural Science and Technology, Special Publication No. 10,March 1982.

Livestock Guarding Dogs: Protecting Sheep from Predators. AgriculturalInformation Bulletin No. 588, USDA.

Building an Electric Antipredator Fence. Extension Publication PNW 225,Oregon, Washington, and Idaho Cooperative Extension Services.

L-1908, Trapping Coyotes. Texas Animal Damage Control Service.

L-1917, Controlling Coyotes with Snares. Texas Animal Damage ControlService.

Predator Damage in the West: a Study of Coyote Management Alternatives.U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

C-578, Understanding the Coyote. Kansas Cooperative Extension Service.

Coyotes: Biology, Behavior and Management. M. Bekoff, editor. AcademicPress, Sandiego, CA.

Meinzer, W.P. Coyote. Texas Tech University Press: Lubbock, 1995.

Coyotes in the Southwest: A Compendium of Our Knowledge. D. Rollins,Editor. Symposium proceedings. Texas Agricultural Extension Service, SanAngelo. ($10 per copy).

A Matter of Perspective (A 23-minute video that examines the controversysurrounding coyotes in Texas. Available for $20 per copy from TAEX, 7887N. Hwy. 87, San Angelo.