C-51

COYOTESJeffrey S. GreenAssistant Regional DirectorUSDA-APHIS-Animal Damage ControlLakewood, Colorado 80228

F. Robert HendersonExtension SpecialistAnimal Damage ControlKansas State UniversityManhattan, Kansas 66506-1600

Mark D. CollingeState DirectorUSDA-APHIS-Animal Damage ControlBoise, Idaho 83705

Fig. 1. Coyote, Canis latrans

Damage Prevention andControl Methods

Exclusion

Produce livestock in confinement.

Herd livestock into pens at night.

Exclusion fences (net-wire and/orelectric), properly constructed andmaintained, can aid significantly inreducing predation.

Cultural Methods andHabitat Modification

Select pastures that have a lowerincidence of predation to reduceexposure of livestock to predation.

Herding of livestock generally reducespredation due to human presenceduring the herding period.

Change lambing, kidding, and calvingseasons.

Shed lambing, kidding, and calvingusually reduce coyote predation.

Remove carrion to help limit coyotepopulations.

Frightening Agents andRepellents

Guarding dogs: Some dogs havesignificantly reduced coyotepredation.

Donkeys and llamas: Some areaggressive toward canines and havereduced coyote predation.

Sonic and visual repellents: Strobelights, sirens, propane cannons, andothers have reduced predation onboth sheep and calves.

Chemical odor and taste repellents:None have shown sufficienteffectiveness to be registered foruse.

Toxicants

M-44 ejector devices for use withsodium cyanide-loaded plasticcapsules. They are most effectiveduring cold weather (fall to spring).

Livestock protection collars (LPC)containing Compound 1080(sodium monofluoroacetate) areregistered for use only in certainstates.

Fumigants

Gas cartridges are registered as aburrow (den) fumigant.

Trapping

Leghold traps (Nos. 3 and 4) areeffective and are the most versatilecontrol tool.

Snares are effective where coyotes passthrough or under net-wire fencesand in trail sets.

PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF WILDLIFE DAMAGE — 1994

Cooperative Extension DivisionInstitute of Agriculture and Natural ResourcesUniversity of Nebraska - Lincoln

United States Department of AgricultureAnimal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceAnimal Damage Control

Great Plains Agricultural CouncilWildlife Committee

C-52

Shooting

Shooting from the ground is effective.

Use rabbit distress calls or mimichowling or other coyote sounds tobring coyotes within shootingdistance.

Aerial hunting is effective in removingcoyotes where terrain, groundcover, vegetation, regulations, andlandownership conditions permit.

Hunting with dogs is effective for trail-ing coyotes from kill sites, locatingdens, running coyotes, and assistingwith aerial hunting or calling.

Other Methods

Denning: Remove adult coyotes and/or their young from dens.

Identification

In body form and size, the coyote(Canis latrans) resembles a small colliedog, with erect pointed ears, slendermuzzle, and a bushy tail (Fig. 1).Coyotes are predominantly brownishgray in color with a light gray tocream-colored belly. Color variesgreatly, however, from nearly black tored or nearly white in some individu-als and local populations. Most havedark or black guard hairs over theirback and tail. In western states, typicaladult males weigh from 25 to 45pounds (11 to 16 kg) and females from22 to 35 pounds (10 to 14 kg). In theEast, many coyotes are larger thantheir western counterparts, with malesaveraging about 45 pounds (14 kg) andfemales about 30 pounds (13 kg).

Coyote-dog and coyote-wolf hybridsexist in some areas and may varygreatly from typical coyotes in size,color, and appearance. Also, coyotes inthe New England states may differ incolor from typical western coyotes.Many are black, and some are reddish.These colorations may partially be dueto past hybridization with dogs andwolves. True wolves are also presentin some areas of coyote range, particu-larly in Canada, Alaska, Montana,northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, andMichigan. Relatively few wolvesremain in the southern United Statesand Mexico.

Range

Historically, coyotes were most com-mon on the Great Plains of NorthAmerica. They have since extendedtheir range from Central America tothe Arctic, including all of the UnitedStates (except Hawaii), Canada, andMexico.

Habitat

Many references indicate that coyoteswere originally found in relativelyopen habitats, particularly the grass-lands and sparsely wooded areas ofthe western United States. Whether ornot this was true, coyotes haveadapted to and now exist in virtuallyevery type of habitat, arctic to tropic,in North America. Coyotes live indeserts, swamps, tundra, grasslands,brush, dense forests, from below sealevel to high mountain ranges, and atall intermediate altitudes. High densi-ties of coyotes also appear in the sub-urbs of Los Angeles, Pasadena,Phoenix, and other western cities.

Food Habits

Coyotes often include many items intheir diet. Rabbits top the list of theirdietary components. Carrion, rodents,ungulates (usually fawns), insects(such as grasshoppers), as well as live-stock and poultry, are also consumed.Coyotes readily eat fruits such aswatermelons, berries, and other veg-etative matter when they are available.In some areas coyotes feed on humanrefuse at dump sites and take pets(cats and small dogs).

Coyotes are opportunistic and gener-ally take prey that is the easiest tosecure. Among larger wild animals,coyotes tend to kill young, inexperi-enced animals, as well as old, sick, orweakened individuals. With domesticanimals, coyotes are capable of catch-ing and killing healthy, young, and insome instances, adult prey. Prey selec-tion is based on opportunity and amyriad of behavioral cues. Strong,healthy lambs are often taken from aflock by a coyote even though smaller,

weaker lambs are also present. Usu-ally, the stronger lamb is on theperiphery and is more active, makingit more prone to attack than a weakerlamb that is at the center of the flockand relatively immobile.

Coyote predation on livestock is gener-ally more severe during early springand summer than in winter for tworeasons. First, sheep and cows are usu-ally under more intensive manage-ment during winter, either in feedlotsor in pastures that are close to humanactivity, thus reducing the opportunityfor coyotes to take livestock. Second,predators bear young in the spring andraise them through the summer, a pro-cess that demands increased nutri-tional input, for both the whelping andnursing mother and the growingyoung. This increased demand corre-sponds to the time when young sheepor beef calves are on pastures or range-land and are most vulnerable to attack.Coyote predation also may increaseduring fall when young coyotes dis-perse from their home ranges andestablish new territories.

General Biology,Reproduction, andBehavior

Coyotes are most active at night andduring early morning hours (especiallywhere human activity occurs), andduring hot summer weather. Wherethere is minimal human interferenceand during cool weather, they may beactive throughout the day.

Coyotes bed in sheltered areas but donot generally use dens except whenraising young. They may seek shelterunderground during severe weatheror when closely pursued. Their physi-cal abilities include good eyesight and

hearing and a keen sense of smell.Documented recoveries from severeinjuries are indicative of coyotes’physical endurance. Although not asfleet as greyhound dogs, coyotes havebeen measured at speeds of up to 40miles per hour (64 km/hr) and cansustain slower speeds for several miles(km).

Distemper, hepatitis, parvo virus, andmange (caused by parasitic mites) areamong the most common coyote dis-eases. Rabies and tularemia also occurand may be transmitted to other ani-mals and humans. Coyotes harbornumerous parasites including mites,ticks, fleas, worms, and flukes. Mortal-ity is highest during the first year oflife, and few survive for more than 10to 12 years in the wild. Human activityis often the greatest single cause ofcoyote mortality.

Coyotes usually breed in February andMarch, producing litters about 9weeks (60 to 63 days) later in April andMay. Females sometimes breed duringthe winter following their birth, par-ticularly if food is plentiful. Averagelitter size is 5 to 7 pups, although up to13 in a litter has been reported. Morethan one litter may be found in a singleden; at times these may be fromfemales mated to a single male. Asnoted earlier, coyotes are capable ofhybridizing with dogs and wolves, butreproductive dysynchrony andbehaviors generally make it unlikely.Hybrids are fertile, although theirbreeding seasons do not usually corre-spond to those of coyotes.

Coyote dens are found in steep banks,rock crevices, sinkholes, and under-brush, as well as in open areas. Usu-ally their dens are in areas selected forprotective concealment. Den sites aretypically located less than a mile (km)from water, but may occasionally bemuch farther away. Coyotes will oftendig out and enlarge holes dug bysmaller burrowing animals. Dens varyfrom a few feet (1 m) to 50 feet (15 m)and may have several openings.

Both adult male and female coyoteshunt and bring food to their young forseveral weeks. Other adults associatedwith the denning pair may also help in

feeding and caring for the young. Coy-otes commonly hunt as singles orpairs; extensive travel is common intheir hunting forays. They will hunt inthe same area regularly, however, iffood is plentiful. They occasionallybury food remains for later use.

Pups begin emerging from their denby 3 weeks of age, and within 2months they follow adults to largeprey or carrion. Pups normally areweaned by 6 weeks of age and fre-quently are moved to larger quarterssuch as dense brush patches and/orsinkholes along water courses. Theadults and pups usually remaintogether until late summer or fallwhen pups become independent.Occasionally pups are found in groupsuntil the breeding season begins.

Coyotes are successful at survivingand even flourishing in the presence ofpeople because of their adaptablebehavior and social system. They typi-cally display increased reproductionand immigration in response tohuman-induced population reduction.

Damage and DamageIdentification

Coyotes can cause damage to a varietyof resources, including livestock, poul-try, and crops such as watermelons.They sometimes prey on pets and are athreat to public health and safety whenthey frequent airport runways andresidential areas, and act as carriers ofrabies. Usually, the primary concernregarding coyotes is predation on live-stock, mainly sheep and lambs. Preda-tion will be the focus of the followingdiscussion.

Since coyotes frequently scavenge onlivestock carcasses, the mere presenceof coyote tracks or droppings near acarcass is not sufficient evidence thatpredation has taken place. Other evi-dence around the site and on the car-cass must be carefully examined to aidin determining the cause of death.Signs of a struggle may be evident.These may include scrapes or dragmarks on the ground, broken vegeta-tion, or blood in various places around

the site. The quantity of sheep or calfremains left after a kill vary widelydepending on how recently the killwas made, the size of the animalkilled, the weather, and the numberand species of predators that fed onthe animal.

One key in determining whether asheep or calf was killed by a predatoris the presence or absence of subcuta-neous (just under the skin) hemor-rhage at the point of attack. Bites to adead animal will not produce hemor-rhage, but bites to a live animal will. Ifenough of the sheep carcass remains,carefully skin out the neck and head toobserve tooth punctures and hemor-rhage around the punctures. Talonpunctures from large birds of prey willalso cause hemorrhage, but the loca-tion of these is usually at the top of thehead, neck, or back. This procedurebecomes less indicative of predation asthe age of the carcass increases or if theremains are scanty or scattered.

Coyotes, foxes, mountain lions, andbobcats usually feed on a carcass at theflanks or behind the ribs and first con-sume the liver, heart, lungs, and otherviscera. Mountain lions often cover acarcass with debris after feeding on it.Bears generally prefer meat to visceraand often eat first the udder from lac-tating ewes. Eagles skin out carcasseson larger animals and leave much ofthe skeleton intact. With smaller ani-mals such as lambs, eagles may bite offand swallow the ribs. Feathers and“whitewash” (droppings) are usuallypresent where an eagle has fed.

Coyotes may kill more than one ani-mal in a single episode, but often willonly feed on one of the animals.Coyotes typically attack sheep at thethroat, but young or inexperiencedcoyotes may attack any part of thebody. Coyotes usually kill calves byeating into the anus or abdominal area.

Dogs generally do not kill sheep orcalves for food and are relativelyindiscriminate in how and where theyattack. Sometimes, however, it isdifficult to differentiate between dogand coyote kills without also lookingat other sign, such as size of tracks(Fig. 2) and spacing and size of canine

C-53

C-5

Wolf

Red fox

4"

Large dog

Fig. 2. Footprints of canid predators

2 1/2"

3"

Coyote5"

tooth punctures. Coyote tracks tend tobe more oval-shaped and compactthan those of common dogs. Nailmarks are less prominent and thetracks tend to follow a straight linemore closely than those of dogs. Theaverage coyote’s stride at a trot is 16 to18 inches (41 to 46 cm), which is typi-cally longer than that of a dog of simi-lar size and weight. Generally, dogsattack and rip the flanks, hind quar-ters, and head, and may chew ears.The sheep are sometimes still alive butmay be severely wounded.

Accurately determining whether ornot predation occurred and, if so, bywhat species, requires a considerableamount of knowledge and experience.Evidence must be gathered, piecedtogether, and then evaluated in light ofthe predators that are in the area, thetime of day, the season of the year, andnumerous other factors. Sometimeseven experts are unable to confirm thecause of death, and it may be neces-sary to rely on circumstantial informa-tion. For more information on thissubject, refer to the section Proceduresfor Evaluating Predation on Livestockand Wildlife, in this book.

Legal Status

The status of coyotes varies dependingon state and local laws. In some states,including most western states, coyotesare classified as predators and can betaken throughout the year whether ornot they are causing damage to live-stock. In other states, coyotes may betaken only during specific seasons andoften only by specific methods, such astrapping. Night shooting with a spot-light is usually illegal. Some state lawsallow only state or federal agents touse certain methods (such as snares) totake coyotes. Some states have a provi-sion for allowing the taking of pro-tected coyotes (usually by specialpermit) when it has been documentedthat they are preying on livestock. Insome instances producers can applycontrol methods, and in others, controlmust be managed by a federal or stateagent. Some eastern states consider thecoyote a game animal, a furbearer, or aprotected species.

4

Federal statutes that pertain to wildlifedamage control include the FederalInsecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenti-cide Act (FIFRA), which deals withusing toxicants, and the AirborneHunting Act, which regulates aerialhunting.

Laws regulating coyote control are notnecessarily uniform among states oreven among counties within a state,and they may change frequently. A1989 Supreme Court action establishedthat it was not legal to circumvent thelaws relative to killing predators, evento protect personal property (livestock)from predation.

Damage Prevention andControl Methods

For managing coyote damage, a vari-ety of control methods must be avail-able since no single method is effectivein every situation. Success usuallyinvolves an integrated approach, com-bining good husbandry practices witheffective control methods for shortperiods of time. Regardless of themeans used to stop damage, the focusshould be on damage prevention andcontrol rather than elimination of coy-otes. It is neither wise nor practical tokill all coyotes. It is important to try toprevent coyotes from killing calves orsheep for the first time. Once a coyotehas killed livestock, it will probablycontinue to do so if given the

56"

Fig. 3. Barrier fence with wire overhang andburied apron.

69"

28"

3" treated pole7' long

1/4" x 4 1/2" carriage boltgalvanized woven wire

23" apron(old fencing)

72" galvanizedfencing

6" stays 4" vertical

spacing at top1 1/2" at the

bottom

opportunity. Equally important istaking action as quickly as possible tostop coyotes from killing after theystart.

Exclusion

Most coyotes readily cross over,under, or through conventional live-stock fences. A coyote’s response to afence is influenced by various factors,including the coyote’s experience andmotivation for crossing the fence. Totalexclusion of all coyotes by fencing,especially from large areas, is highlyunlikely since some eventually learn toeither dig deeper or climb higher todefeat a fence. Good fences, however,can be important in reducing preda-tion, as well as increasing the effective-ness of other damage control methods(such as snares, traps, or guardinganimals).

Recent developments in fencing equip-ment and design have made thistechnique an effective and economi-cally practical method for protectingsheep from predation under somegrazing conditions. Exclusion fencingmay be impractical in western rangesheep ranching operations.

Net-Wire Fencing. Net fences ingood repair will deter many coyotesfrom entering a pasture. Horizontalspacing of the mesh should be lessthan 6 inches (15 cm), and verticalspacing less than 4 inches (10 cm). Dig-ging under a fence can be discouragedby placing a barbed wire at groundlevel or using a buried wire apron(often an expensive option). The fenceshould be about 5 1/2 feet (1.6 m) highto discourage coyotes from jumpingover it. Climbing can usually be pre-vented by adding a charged wire atthe top of the fence or installing a wireoverhang.

Barrier fences with wire overhangsand buried wire aprons were tested inOregon and found effective in keepingcoyotes out of sheep pastures (Fig. 3).The construction and materials forsuch fencing are usually expensive.Therefore, fences of this type are rarelyused except around corrals, feedlots,or areas of temporary sheep confine-ment.

Electric Fencing. Electric fencing,used for years to manage livestock, hasrecently been revolutionized by theintroduction of new energizers andnew fence designs from Australia andNew Zealand. The chargers, now alsomanufactured in the United States,have high output with low impedance,are resistant to grounding, present aminimal fire hazard, and are generallysafe for livestock and humans. Thefences are usually constructed ofsmooth, high-tensile wire stretched toa tension of 200 to 300 pounds (90 to135 kg). The original design of electricfences for controlling predation con-sisted of multiple, alternately chargedand grounded wires, with a chargedtrip wire installed just above groundlevel about 8 inches (20 cm) outside themain fence to discourage digging.Many recent designs have every wirecharged.

The number of spacings between wiresvaries considerably. A fence of 13strands gave complete protection tosheep from coyote predation in tests atthe USDA’s US Sheep Experiment Sta-tion (Fig. 4). Other designs of fewerwires were effective in some studies,ineffective in others.

The amount of labor and installationtechniques required vary with eachtype of fencing. High-tensile wirefences require adequate bracing at cor-ners and over long spans. Electric fenc-ing is easiest to install on flat, eventerrain. Labor to install a high-tensileelectric fence may be 40% to 50% lessthan for a conventional livestock fence.

Labor to keep electric fencing func-tional can be significant. Tension of thewires must be maintained, excessivevegetation under the fence must beremoved to prevent grounding, dam-

C-55

C-56

Fig. 5. Existing woven-wire livestock fence modified with electrified wire.

Outrigger postwith four wires

Fig. 4. High-tensile, electric, antipredator fence.

Fiberglassstays

Fiberglassline post

Fiberglassline post

4"4"4"4"8"8"8"

8"8"

8"8"8"Charged wire

Ground wire+

+

+

+

+

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

6'

66'

22'

11'

Groundlevel

Fiberglassstay

Trip wire

8"

6"Note:Drawing not to scale

age from livestock and wildlife mustbe repaired, and the charger must bechecked regularly to ensure that it isoperational.

Coyotes and other predators occasion-ally become “trapped” inside electricfences. These animals receive a shockas they enter the pasture and subse-quently avoid approaching the fence toescape. In some instances the capturedpredator may be easy to spot andremove from the pasture, but inothers, particularly in large pastureswith rough terrain, the animal may bedifficult to remove.

Electric Modification of ExistingFences. The cost to completelyreplace old fences with new ones,whether conventional or electric, canbe substantial. In instances whereexisting fencing is in reasonably goodcondition, the addition of one to sev-eral charged wires can significantlyenhance the predator-deterring abilityof the fence and its effectiveness forcontrolling livestock (Fig. 5). Acharged trip wire placed 6 to 8 inches(15 to 230 cm) above the ground about8 to 10 inches (20 to 25 cm) outside thefence is often effective in preventingcoyotes from digging and crawling un-der. This single addition to an existingfence is often the most effective andeconomical way to fortify a fenceagainst coyote passage.

If coyotes are climbing or jumping afence, charged wires can be added tothe top and at various intervals. Thesewires should be offset outside thefence. Fencing companies offer offsetbrackets to make installation relativelysimple. The number of additionalwires depends on the design of theoriginal fence and the predicted habitsof the predators.

Portable Electric Fencing. Theadvent of safe, high-energy chargershas led to the development of a varietyof portable electric fences. Most areconstructed with thin strands of wirerunning through polyethylene twine orribbon, commonly called polywire orpolytape. The polywire is available insingle and multiple wire rolls or asmesh fencing of various heights. It canbe quickly and easily installed to serve

as a temporary corral or to partitionoff pastures for controlled grazing.

Perhaps the biggest advantage of port-able electric fencing is the ability to setup temporary pens to hold livestock atnight or during other predator controlactivities. Portable fencing increaseslivestock management options toavoid places or periods of high preda-tion risk. Range sheep that are notaccustomed to being fenced, however,may be difficult to contain in a port-able fence.

Fencing and Predation Manage-ment. The success of various types offencing in keeping out predators hasranged from poor to excellent. Densityand behavior of coyotes, terrain andvegetative conditions, availability ofprey, size of pastures, season of theyear, design of the fence, quality ofconstruction, maintenance, and otherfactors all interplay in determininghow effective a fence will be. Fencingis most likely to be cost-effective wherethe potential for predation is high,where there is potential for a highstocking rate, or where electric modifi-cation of existing fences can be used.

Fencing can be effective when incorpo-rated with other means of predationcontrol. For example, combined use ofguarding dogs and fencing hasachieved a greater degree of successthan either method used alone. Anelectric fence may help keep a guard-ing dog in and coyotes out of a pas-ture. If an occasional coyote does passthrough a fence, the guarding dog cankeep it away from the livestock andalert the producer by barking.

Fencing can also be used to concen-trate predator activity at specific placessuch as gateways, ravines, or otherareas where the animals try to gainaccess. Traps and snares can often beset at strategic places along a fence toeffectively capture predators. Smallerpastures are easier to keep free frompredators than larger ones encompass-ing several square miles (km2).

Fencing is one of the most beneficialinvestments in predator damage con-trol and livestock management wherepractical factors warrant its use.

As a final note, fences can pose prob-lems for wildlife. Barrier fences in par-ticular exclude not only predators, butalso many other wildlife species. Thisfact should be considered where fenc-ing intersects migration corridors forwildlife. Ungulates such as deer mayattempt to jump fences, and they occa-sionally become entangled in the topwires.

Cultural Methods and HabitatModification

At the present time, there are no docu-mented differences in the vulnerabilityof various breeds of sheep to coyote ordog predation because there has beenvery little research in this area. Gener-ally, breeds with stronger flockingbehaviors are less vulnerable to preda-tors.

A possible cause of increased coyotepredation to beef cattle calves is theincreased use of cattle dogs in herding.Cows herded by dogs may not be aswilling to defend newborn calves fromcoyotes as those not accustomed toherding dogs.

Flock or Herd Health. Healthysheep flocks and cow/calf herds havehigher reproductive rates and loweroverall death losses. Coyotes oftenprey on smaller lambs. Poor nutritionmeans weaker or smaller young, witha resultant increased potential for pre-dation. Ewes or cows in good condi-tion through proper nutrition will raisestronger young that may be less vul-nerable to coyote predation.

Record Keeping. Good record-keeping and animal identification sys-tems are invaluable in a livestockoperation for several reasons. From thestandpoint of coyote predation,records help producers identify losspatterns or trends to provide baselinedata that will help determine whattype and amount of coyote damagecontrol is economically feasible.Records also aid in identifying criticalproblem areas that may require atten-tion. They may show, for example, thatlosses to coyotes are high in a particu-lar pasture in early summer, thus high-lighting the need for preventivecontrol in that area.

Counting sheep and calves regularly isimportant in large pastures or areaswith heavy cover where dead livestockcould remain unnoticed. It is notunusual for producers who do notregularly count their sheep to sufferfairly substantial losses before theyrealize there is a problem. Determiningwith certainty whether losses were dueto coyotes or to other causes maybecome impossible.

Season and Location of Lambingor Calving. Both season and locationof lambing and calving can signifi-cantly affect the severity of coyote pre-dation on sheep or calves. The highestpredation losses of sheep and calvestypically occur from late springthrough September due to the foodrequirements of coyote pups. In theMidwest and East, some lambing orcalving occurs between October andDecember, whereas in most of thewestern states lambing or calvingoccurs between February and May. Bychanging to a fall lambing or calvingprogram, some livestock producershave not only been able to diversifytheir marketing program, but havealso avoided having a large number ofyoung animals on hand during periodswhen coyote predation losses are typi-cally highest.

Shortening lambing and calving peri-ods by using synchronized or groupbreeding may reduce predation byproducing a uniform lamb or calf crop,thus reducing exposure of small live-stock to predation. Extra labor andfacilities may be necessary, however,when birthing within a concentratedperiod. Some producers practice earlyweaning and do not allow young to goto large pastures, thus reducing thechance of coyote losses. This also givesorphaned and weak young a greaterchance to survive.

The average beef cattle calf productionis about 78% nationwide. First-calfheifers need human assistance to givebirth to a healthy calf about 40% of thetime. Cow/calf producers who aver-age 90% to 95% calf crops generallycheck their first-calf heifers every 2hours during calving. Also, most goodproducers place first-calf heifers in

C-57

C-5

small pastures (less than 160 acres [64ha]). When all cows are bred to pro-duce calves in a short, discreet (e.g.60-day) period, production typicallyincreases and predation lossesdecrease. The birth weight of calvesborn to first-calf heifers can be de-creased by using calving-ease bulls,thus reducing birthing complicationsthat often lead to coyote predation.

Producers who use lambing sheds orpens for raising sheep and small pas-tures or paddocks for raising cattlehave lower predation losses than thosewho lamb or calve in large pastures oron open range. The more human pres-ence around sheep, the lower the pre-dation losses. Confining sheep entirelyto buildings virtually eliminates preda-tion losses.

Corrals. Although predation canoccur at any time, coyotes tend to killsheep at night. Confining sheep atnight is one of the most effectivemeans of reducing losses to predation.Nevertheless, some coyotes and manydogs are bold enough to enter corralsand kill sheep. A “coyote-proof” corralis a wise investment. Coyotes are morelikely to attack sheep in unlighted cor-rals than in corrals with lights. Even ifthe corral fence is not coyote-proof, themere fact that the sheep are confinedreduces the risk of predation. Penningsheep at night and turning them out atmid-morning might reduce losses. Inaddition, coyotes tend to be moreactive and kill more sheep on foggy orrainy days than on sunny days. Keep-ing the sheep penned on foggy or rainydays may be helpful.

Aside from the benefits of livestockconfinement, there are some problemsassociated it. Costs of labor and mate-rials associated with building corrals,herding livestock, and feeding live-stock must be considered. In addition,the likelihood of increased parasiteand disease problems may inhibitadoption of confinement as a methodof reducing damage.

Carrion Removal. Removal andproper disposal of dead sheep andcattle are important since livestock car-casses tend to attract coyotes,habituating them to feed on livestock.

8

Some producers reason that coyotesare less likely to kill livestock if there iscarrion available. This may be a validpreventative measure if an adequatesupply of carrion can be maintainedfar away from livestock. If a coyotebecomes habituated to a diet of live-stock remains, however, it may turn tokilling livestock in the absence of car-casses. Wherever there is easily acces-sible carrion, coyotes seem to gatherand predation losses are higher. Con-versely, where carrion is generally notavailable, losses are lower. A study inCanada showed that the removal oflivestock carcasses significantlyreduced overwinter coyote popula-tions and shifted coyote distributionsout of livestock areas.

Habitat Changes. Habitat featureschange in some areas, depending onseasonal crop growth. Some cultivatedfields are devoid of coyotes duringwinter but provide cover during thegrowing season, and a correspondingincrease in predation on nearby live-stock may occur.

The creation of nearly 40 million acres(16 million ha) of ConservationReserve Program (CRP) acres maybenefit many species of wildlife,including predators. These acres har-bor prey for coyotes and foxes, and anincrease in predator populations canreasonably be predicted. Clearingaway weeds and brush from CRPareas may reduce predation problemssince predators usually use cover intheir approach to livestock. Generally,the more open the area where live-stock are kept, the less likely thatcoyote losses will occur. Often junkpiles are located near farmsteads.These serve as good habitat for rabbitsand other prey and may bring coyotesinto close proximity with livestock,increasing the likelihood for opportu-nistic coyotes to prey on available live-stock. Removing junk piles may be agood management practice.

Pasture Selection. If sheep or beefcattle are not lambed or calved insheds or lots, the choice of birthingpastures should be made with poten-tial coyote predation problems inmind. Lambs and calves in remote orrugged pastures are usually more vul-

nerable to coyote predation than thosein closer, more open, and smaller pas-tures. In general, a relatively small,open, tightly fenced pasture that canbe kept under close surveillance is agood choice for birthing livestock thatare likely targets of coyotes. Past expe-rience with predators as well asweather and disease considerationsshould also serve as guides in theselection of birthing pastures.

A factor not completely understood isthat, at times, coyotes and other preda-tors will kill in one pasture and not inanother. Therefore, changing pasturesduring times of loss may reduce pre-dation. There may seem to be a rela-tionship between size of pasture andpredator losses, with higher loss ratesreported in larger pastures. In reality,loss rates may not be related as muchto pasture size as to other local condi-tions such as slope, terrain, and humanpopulations. Hilly or rugged areas aretypically sparsely populated by hu-mans and are characterized by largepastures. These conditions are ideal forcoyotes.

Sheep pastures that contain or areadjacent to streams, creeks, and riverstend to have more coyote problemsthan pastures without such features.Water courses serve as hunting andtravel lanes for coyotes.

Herders. Using herders with sheep orcattle in large pastures can help reducepredation, but there has been a trendaway from herders in recent yearsbecause of increasing costs and ashortage of competent help. Neverthe-less, tended flocks or herds receivecloser attention than untended live-stock, particularly in large pastures,and problems can be solved beforethey become serious. We recommendtwo herders per band of range sheep.If herders aren’t used, daily or periodicchecking of the livestock is a good hus-bandry practice.

Frightening Devices andRepellents

Frightening devices are useful forreducing losses during short periodsor until predators are removed. Thedevices should not be used for long

Fig. 6. Electronic Guard frightening device

periods of time when predation is nota problem. To avoid acclimation youcan increase both the degree and dura-tion of effectiveness by varying theposition, appearance, duration, or fre-quency of the frightening stimuli, orusing them in various combinations.Many frightening methods have beenridiculed in one way or another; never-theless, all of the techniques discussedhere have helped producers by savinglivestock and/or buying some time toinstitute other controls.

Lights. A study involving 100 Kansassheep producers showed that usinglights above corrals at night had themost marked effect on losses to coy-otes of all the devices examined. Outof 79 sheep killed by coyotes in corrals,only three were killed in corrals withlights. Nearly 40% of the producers inthe study used lights over corrals.There was some indication in thestudy that sheep losses to dogs werehigher in lighted corrals, but thesample size for dog losses was smalland the results inconclusive. Most ofthe producers (80%) used mercuryvapor lights that automatically turnedon at dusk and off at dawn.

Another advantage of lighted corrals isthat coyotes are more vulnerable whenthey enter the lighted area. Coyotesoften establish a fairly predictable pat-tern of killing. When this happens in alighted corral, it is possible for a pro-ducer to wait above or downwind ofthe corral and to shoot the coyote as itenters. Red or blue lights may makethe ambush more successful since coy-otes appear to be less frightened bythem than by white lights.

Revolving or flashing the lights mayenhance their effectiveness in frighten-ing away predators. There is somespeculation that the old oil lamps usedin highway construction repelledcoyotes, presumably because of theirflickering effect.

Bells and Radios. Some sheep pro-ducers place bells on some or all oftheir sheep to discourage predators.Where effects have been measured,however, no difference in losses wasdetected.

Some producers use a radio tuned toan all-night station to temporarilydeter coyotes, dogs, and other preda-tors.

Vehicles. Parking cars or pickups inthe area where losses are occurring of-ten reduces predation temporarily.Effectiveness can be improved orextended by frequently moving thevehicle to a new location. Some pro-ducers place a replica of a person inthe vehicle when losses are occurringin the daylight. If predators continueto kill with vehicles in place, thevehicle serves as a comfortable blind inwhich to wait and shoot offendingpredators.

Propane Exploders. Propaneexploders produce loud explosions attimed intervals when a spark ignites ameasured amount of propane gas. Onmost models, the time between explo-sions can vary from about 1 minute to15 minutes. Their effectiveness atfrightening coyotes is usually onlytemporary, but it can be increased bymoving exploders to different loca-tions and by varying the intervals be-tween explosions. In general, the timeron the exploder should be set to fireevery 8 to 10 minutes, and the locationshould be changed every 3 or 4 days.In cattle pastures, these devices shouldbe placed on rigid stands above thelivestock. Normally, the explodershould be turned on just before darkand off at daybreak, unless coyotes arekilling livestock during daylight hours.Motion sensors are now available andlikely improve their effectiveness,though it is still only temporary.Exploders are best used to reducelosses until more permanent control orpreventive measures can be imple-mented. In about 24 coyote depreda-tion complaints over a 2-year period inNorth Dakota, propane exploderswere judged to be successful in stop-ping or reducing predation losses untiloffending coyotes could be removed.“Success time” of the exploders ap-pears to depend a great deal on howwell they are tended by the livestockproducer.

Strobe Lights and Sirens. TheUSDA’s Denver Wildlife Research

Center developed a frightening devicecalled the Electronic Guard (EG) (Fig.6). The EG consists of a strobe lightand siren controlled by a variableinterval timer that is activated at nightwith a photoelectric cell. In tests con-ducted in fenced pastures, predationwas reduced by about 89%. The deviceis used in Kansas and other states toprotect cows/calves from coyote pre-dation. Most research on the effective-ness of this device, however, has beendone on sheep operations. Suggestionsfor using the unit differ for pasturedsheep and range operations.

To use the EG in fenced pastures (farmflocks):

1. Place EGs above the ground onfence posts, trees, or T-posts so theycan be heard and seen at greaterdistances and to prevent livestockfrom damaging them.

2. Position EGs so that rain water can-not enter them and cause a malfunc-tion.

3. Locate EGs so that light can enterthe photocell port or window. Ifpositioned in deep shade, they maynot turn on or off at the desiredtimes.

4. The number of EGs used to protectsheep in fenced pastures dependson pasture size, terrain features, andthe amount and height of vegetationin or around the pasture. In general,at least two units should be used insmall (20 to 30 acres [8 to 12 ha]),level, short-grass pastures. Three tofour units should be used in larger(40 to 100 acres [16 to 40 ha]), hilly,tall grass, or wooded pastures.

C-59

C-6

5. Don’t use EGs in pastures largerthan about 100 acres (40 ha) becausetheir effective range is limited. Thedevice could be useful in larger pas-tures when placed near areas wheresheep congregate and bed at night.

6. EGs should be placed on high spots,where kills have been found, at theedge of wooded areas, near or onbedgrounds, or near suspectedcoyote travelways. They should bemoved to different locations every10 to 14 days to reduce the likeli-hood of coyotes getting used tothem.

To use the EG in open range (herdedor range sheep):

1. The number of EGs used willdepend on the number of sheep inthe band and the size of thebedground. Four units should beused to protect bands of 1,000 ewesand their lambs.

2. When possible, place one EG in thecenter of the bedground and theother three around the edge of thebedground. Try to place the unitson coyote travelways.

3. EGs should be placed on highpoints, ridge tops, edges of clear-ings, or on high rocks oroutcroppings. Hang the devices ontree limbs 5 to 7 feet (1.5 to 2.1 m)above ground level. If used abovetimberline or in treeless areas, hangthem from a tripod of poles.

4. Herders who bed their sheep tightlywill have better results than thosewho allow sheep to bed over largeareas. Sheep that are bedded about200 yards (166 m) or less in diam-eter, or are spread out not morethan 200 to 400 yards (166 to 332 m)along a ridge top, can usually beprotected with EGs.

Repellents. The notion of repellingcoyotes from sheep or calves isappealing, and during the 1970s, uni-versity and government researcherstested a wide variety of potentially re-pellent chemical compounds on sheep.Both olfactory (smell) and gustatory(taste) repellents were examined. Theunderlying objective was to find a

0

compound that, when applied tosheep, would prevent coyotes fromkilling them. Tests were conductedwith various prey species includingrabbits, chickens, and sheep. Somerepellents were applied by dipping tar-get animals in them, others weresprayed on, and some were applied inneck collars or ear tags.

Coyotes rely heavily on visual cueswhile stalking, chasing, and killingtheir prey. Taste and smell are of lesserimportance in actually making the kill.These factors may in part account forthe fact that the repellent compoundswere not able to consistently preventcoyotes from killing, although some ofthe repellents were obviously offensiveto coyotes and prevented them fromconsuming the killed prey. Severalcompounds were tested on sheepunder field conditions, but noneappeared to offer significant, pro-longed protection.

If an effective chemical repellent wereto be found, the obstacles in bringing itto industry use would be significant.The compound would not only needto be effective, but also persistentenough to withstand weathering whileposing no undue risk to the sheep,other animals, or the environment. Itwould also have to withstand the rig-orous Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) approval process.

High-frequency sound has also beentested as a repellent for coyotes, butthe results were no more encouragingthan for chemical repellents. Coyotes,like dogs, responded to particularsound frequencies and showed someaversion to sounds broadcast withinone foot (30 cm) of their ear. Research-ers, however, were unable to broad-cast the sound a sufficient distance totest the effects under field conditions.

Aversive Conditioning. The objec-tive of aversive conditioning is to feeda coyote a preylike bait laced with anaversive agent that causes the coyoteto become ill, resulting in subsequentavoidance of the prey. Most of theresearch on this technique hasinvolved the use of lithium chloride, asalt, as the aversive agent.

Aversive conditioning is well docu-mented for averting rodents from foodsources, but significant problems mustbe overcome before the method can beused to reduce coyote predation onsheep. Coyotes must be induced to eatsheeplike baits that have been treatedwith the aversive chemical. The chemi-cal must cause sufficient discomfort,such as vomiting, to cause coyotes toavoid other baits. Furthermore, theavoidance must be transferred to livesheep and must persist long enoughwithout reinforcement for the methodto offer realistic protection to sheep.

To date, pen and field tests withaversive conditioning have yieldedconflicting and inconclusive results. Itdoes not appear that aversive condi-tioning is effective in reducing preda-tion, but additional field tests wouldbe useful.

Guarding Animals.Livestock Guarding Dogs. A live-stock guarding dog is one that gener-ally stays with sheep or cattle withoutharming them and aggressively repelspredators. Its protective behaviors arelargely instinctive, but proper rearingplays a part. Breeds most commonlyused today include the Great Pyrenees,Komondor, Anatolian Shepherd, andAkbash Dog (Fig. 7). Other Old Worldbreeds used to a lesser degree includeMaremma, Sharplaninetz, and Kuvasz.Crossbreeds are also used.

The characteristics of each sheepoperation will dictate the number ofdogs required for effective protectionfrom predators. If predators are scarce,one dog is sufficient for most fencedpasture operations. Range operationsoften use two dogs per band of sheep.The performance of individual dogswill differ based on age and experi-ence. The size, topography, and habitatof the pasture or range must also beconsidered. Relatively flat, open areascan be adequately covered by one dog.When brush, timber, ravines, and hillsare in the pasture, several dogs may berequired, particularly if the sheep arescattered. Sheep that flock and form acohesive unit, especially at night, canbe protected by one dog more effec-tively than sheep that are continually

Fig. 7. Livestock guarding dog (Akbash dog)

scattered and bedded in a number oflocations.

The goal with a new puppy is to chan-nel its natural instincts to produce amature guardian dog with the desiredcharacteristics. This is best accom-plished by early and continued asso-ciation with sheep to produce a bondbetween the dog and sheep. The opti-mum time to acquire a pup is between7 and 8 weeks of age. The pup shouldbe separated from litter mates andplaced with sheep, preferably lambs,in a pen or corral from which it can’tescape. This socialization periodshould continue with daily checksfrom the producer until the pup isabout 16 weeks old. Daily checks don’tnecessarily include petting the pup.The primary bond should be betweenthe dog and the sheep, not between thedog and humans. The owner, how-ever, should be able to catch and han-dle the dog to administer health careor to manage the livestock. At about 4months, the pup can be released into alarger pasture to mingle with the othersheep.

A guarding dog will likely includeperipheral areas in its patrolling. Somehave been known to chase vehiclesand wildlife and threaten children andcyclists. These activities should be dis-couraged. Neighbors should be alerted

to the possibility that the dog mayroam onto their property and thatsome predator control devices such astraps, snares, and M-44s present adanger to it. Many counties enforcestringent laws regarding ownerresponsibility for damage done byroaming dogs. It is in the best interestsof the owner, dog, and community totrain the dog to stay in its designatedarea.

The use of guarding dogs does noteliminate the need for other predationcontrol actions. They should, however,be compatible with the dog’s behavior.Toxicants (including some insecticidesand rodenticides) used to control vari-ous pest species can be extremely haz-ardous to dogs and are therefore notcompatible with the use of guardingdogs.

The M-44 is particularly hazardous todogs. Some people have successfullytrained their dogs to avoid M-44s byallowing the dog to set off an M-44filled with pepper or by rigging thedevice to a rat trap. The unpleasantexperience may teach the dog to avoidM-44s, but the method is not fool-proof—one error by the dog, and theresult is usually fatal. With the excep-tion of toxic collars, which are not legalin all states, toxicants should not beused in areas where guarding dogs are

working unless the dog is chained orconfined while the control takes place.

Dogs caught in a steel trap set forpredators are rarely injured seriously ifthey are found and released within areasonable period of time. If snaresand traps are used where dogs areworking, the producer should: (1)encourage the use of sets and devicesthat are likely not to injure the dog if itis caught, and (2) know where trapsand snares are set so they can bechecked if a dog is missing. Aerialhunting, as well as calling and shoot-ing coyotes, should pose no threat toguarding dogs. Ensuring the safety ofthe dog is largely the producer’sresponsibility.

Dogs may be viewed as a first line ofdefense against predation in sheep andcow/calf operations in some cases.Their effectiveness can be enhanced bygood livestock management and byeliminating predators with suitableremoval techniques.

Donkeys. Although the research hasnot focused on donkeys as it has onguarding dogs, they are gaining inpopularity as protectors of sheep andgoat flocks in the United States. Arecent survey showed that in Texasalone, over 2,400 of the 11,000 sheepand goat producers had used donkeysas guardians.

The terms donkey and burro are syn-onymous (the Spanish translation ofdonkey is burro) and are used inter-changeably. Donkeys are generallydocile to people, but they seem tohave an inherent dislike of dogs andother canids, including coyotes andfoxes. The typical response of a don-key to an intruding canid may includebraying, bared teeth, a running attack,kicking, and biting. Most likely it isacting out of aggression toward theintruder rather than to protect thesheep. There is little information on adonkey’s effectiveness with noncanidpredators such as bears, mountainlions, bobcats, or birds of prey.

Reported success of donkeys in reduc-ing predation is highly variable.Improper husbandry or rearing prac-tices and unrealistic expectations

C-61

C-62

probably account for many failures.Donkeys are significantly cheaper toobtain and care for than guardingdogs, and they are probably less proneto accidental death and prematuremortality than dogs. They may pro-vide a longer period of useful life thana guarding dog, and they can be usedwith relative safety in conjunction withsnares, traps, M-44s, and toxic collars.

Researchers and livestock producershave identified several key points toconsider when using a donkey for pre-dation control:

1. Use only a jenny or a gelded jack.Intact jacks are too aggressive andmay injure livestock. Some jenniesand geldings may also injure live-stock. Select donkeys frommedium-sized stock.

2. Use only one donkey per group ofsheep. The exception may be ajenny with a foal. When two ormore adult donkeys are together orwith a horse, they usually staytogether, not necessarily near thesheep. Also avoid using donkeys inadjacent pastures since they maysocialize across the fence and ignorethe sheep.

3. Allow about 4 to 6 weeks for anaive donkey to bond to the sheep.Stronger bonding may occur whena donkey is raised from birth withsheep.

4. Avoid feeds or supplements con-taining monensin or lasolacid. Theyare poisonous to donkeys.

5. Remove the donkey during lamb-ing, particularly if lambing in con-finement, to avoid injuries to lambsor disruption of the lamb-ewe bond.

6. Test a new donkey’s response tocanids by challenging it with a dogin a pen or small pasture. Discarddonkeys that don’t show overtaggression to an intruding dog.

7. Use donkeys in smaller (less than600 acres [240 ha]), relatively openpastures with not more than 200 to300 head of livestock. Large pas-tures with rough terrain and vegeta-tion and widely scattered livestocklessen the effectiveness of a donkey.

Llamas. Like donkeys, llamas have aninherent dislike of canids, and a grow-ing number of livestock producers aresuccessfully using llamas to protecttheir sheep. A recent study of 145ranches where guard llamas were usedto protect sheep revealed that averagelosses of sheep to predators decreasedfrom 26 to 8 per year after llamas wereemployed. Eighty percent of theranchers surveyed were “very satis-fied” or “satisfied” with their llamas.Llamas reportedly bond with sheepwithin hours and offer advantagesover guarding dogs similar to thosedescribed for donkeys.

Other Animals. USDA’s AgriculturalResearch Service tested the bonding ofsheep to cattle as a method of protect-ing sheep from coyote predation.There was clearly some protectionafforded the sheep that remained nearcattle. Whether this protection resultedfrom direct action by the cattle or bythe coyotes’ response to a novel stimu-lus is uncertain. Later studies withgoats, sheep, and cattle confirmed thatwhen either goats or sheep remainednear cattle, they were protected frompredation by coyotes. Conversely,goats or sheep that grazed apart fromcattle, even those that were bonded,were readily preyed on by coyotes.

There are currently no research dataavailable on the ideal ratio of cattle tosheep, the breeds of cattle, age of cattlemost likely to be used successfully, oron the size of bonded groups to obtainmaximum protection from predation.Multispecies grazing offers manyadvantages for optimum utilization offorage, and though additional studyand experience is needed, it may alsobe a tool for coyote damage control.

Any animal that displays aggressivebehavior toward intruding coyotesmay offer some benefit in deterringpredation. Other types of animalsreportedly used for predation controlinclude goats, mules, and ostriches.Coyotes in particular are suspicious ofnovel stimuli. This behavior is mostlikely the primary reason that manyfrightening tactics show at least tem-porary effectiveness.

Toxicants

Pesticides have historically been animportant component in an integratedapproach to controlling coyote dam-age, but their use is extremelyrestricted today by federal and statelaws. All pesticides used in the UnitedStates must be registered with the EPAunder the provisions of FIFRA andmust be used in accordance with labeldirections. Increasingly restrictiveregulations implemented by EPAunder the authority of FIFRA, theNational Environmental Policy Act(NEPA), presidential order, and theEndangered Species Act have resultedin the near elimination of toxicantslegally available for predator damagecontrol.

The only toxicants currently registeredfor mammalian predator damage con-trol are sodium cyanide, used in theM-44 ejector device, and Compound1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate), foruse in the livestock protection collar.These toxicants are Restricted Use Pes-ticides and may be used only by certi-fied pesticide applicators. Informationon registration status and availabilityof these products in individual statesmay be obtained from the respectivestate’s department of agriculture.

Sodium Cyanide in the M-44. TheM-44 is a spring-activated device usedto expel sodium cyanide into ananimal’s mouth. It is currently regis-tered by EPA for use by trained per-sonnel in the control of depredatingcoyotes, foxes, and dogs.

The M-44 consists of a capsule holderwrapped in an absorbent material, anejector mechanism, a capsule contain-ing approximately 0.9 grams of a pow-dered sodium cyanide mixture, and a5- to 7-inch (15- to 18-cm) hollow stake(Fig. 8). For most effective use, setM-44s in locations similar to those forgood trap sets. Drive the hollow stakeinto the ground. Cock the ejector unitand secure it in the stake. Screw thewrapped capsule holder containing thecyanide capsule onto the ejector unit,and apply fetid meat bait to the cap-sule holder. Coyotes attracted by thebait will try to bite the baited capsuleholder. When the M-44 is pulled, the

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

a

b

c

d

spring-activated plunger propelssodium cyanide into the animal’smouth, resulting in death within a fewseconds.

The M-44 is very selective for canidsbecause of the attractants used and theunique requirement that the device betriggered by pulling on it. While theuse of traps or snares may present ahazard to livestock, M-44s can be usedwith relative safety in pastures wherelivestock are present. Although notrecommended, they can also be usedin the presence of livestock guardingdogs if the dogs are first successfullyconditioned to avoid the devices. Thiscan be done by allowing them to pullan M-44 loaded with pepper. An addi-tional advantage of M-44s over traps is

their ability to remain effective duringrain, snow, and freezing conditions.

While M-44s can be used effectively aspart of an integrated damage controlprogram, they do have several disad-vantages. Because canids are lessresponsive to food-type baits duringwarm weather when natural foods areusually abundant, M-44s are not aseffective during warmer months asthey are in cooler weather. M-44s aresubject to a variety of mechanical mal-functions, but these problems can beminimized if a regular maintenanceschedule is followed. A further disad-vantage is the tendency for the cyanidein the capsules to absorb moisture overtime and to cake, becoming ineffective.Maximum effectiveness of M-44s ishampered by the requirement to fol-low 26 use restrictions established bythe EPA in the interest of human andenvironmental safety. The M-44 is notregistered for use in all states, and inthose where it is registered, the statemay impose additional use restric-tions. A formal training program isrequired before use of M-44s. Somestates allow its use only by federalADC specialists, whereas other statesmay allow M-44s to be used by trainedand certified livestock producers.

1080 Livestock Protection Collar.The livestock protection collar (LPcollar or toxic collar) is a relativelynew tool used to selectively killcoyotes that attack sheep or goats.Collars are placed on sheep or goatsthat are pastured where coyotes arelikely to attack. Each collar contains asmall quantity (300 mg) of Compound1080 solution. The collars do notattract coyotes, but because of theirdesign and position on the throat,most attacking coyotes will puncturethe collar and ingest a lethal amount ofthe toxicant. Unlike sodium cyanide,1080 is slow-acting, and a coyoteingesting the toxicant will not exhibitsymptoms or die for several hours. Asa result, sheep or goats that areattacked are usually killed. The collaris registered only for use againstcoyotes and may be placed only onsheep or goats.

The LP collar must be used in conjunc-tion with specific sheep and goat hus-bandry practices to be most effective.Coyote attacks must be directed or tar-geted at collared livestock. This maybe accomplished by temporarily plac-ing a “target” flock of perhaps 20 to 50collared lambs or kids and theiruncollared mothers in a pasture wherecoyote predation is likely to occur,while removing other sheep or goatsfrom that vicinity. In situations whereLP collars have been used and foundineffective, the common cause of fail-ure has been poor or ineffective target-ing. It is difficult to ensure effectivetargeting if depredations are occurringinfrequently. In most instances, only ahigh and regular frequency of depre-dations will justify spending the time,effort, and money necessary to becometrained and certified, purchase collars,and use them properly.

The outstanding advantage in usingthe LP collar is its selectivity in elimi-nating individual coyotes that areresponsible for killing livestock. Thecollar may also be useful in removingdepredating coyotes that have eludedother means of control. Disadvantagesinclude the cost of collars (approxi-mately $20 each) and livestock thatmust be sacrificed, more intensivemanagement practices, and the costsand inconvenience of complying withuse restrictions, including require-ments for training, certification, andrecord keeping. One use restrictionlimits the collars to use in fenced pas-tures only. They cannot be used to pro-tect sheep on open range. Also, collarsare not widely available, because theyare registered for use in only a fewstates.

Fumigants

Carbon monoxide is an effective bur-row fumigant recently re-registered bythe EPA. Gas cartridges, which contain65% sodium nitrate and 35% charcoal,produce carbon monoxide, carbondioxide, and other noxious gases whenignited. They were registered by theEPA in 1981 for control of coyotes indens only. This is the only fumigantcurrently registered for this purpose.

C-63

C-6

Trapping

There are many effective methods fortrapping coyotes, and success can beenhanced by considering several keypoints. Coyotes learn from past eventsthat were unpleasant or frightening,and they often avoid such events in thefuture. In spring and summer, mostcoyotes limit their movements to asmall area, but in late summer, fall,and winter they may roam over alarger area. Coyotes follow regularpaths and crossways, and they preferhigh hills or knolls from which theycan view the terrain. They establishregular scent posts along their paths,and they depend on their ears, nose,and eyes to sense danger.

The following describes one method oftrapping that has proven effective formany beginners.

Items Needed to Set a Coyote Trap:

1. One 5-gallon (19-l) plastic bucketto carry equipment.

2. Two No. 3 or No. 4 traps per set.

3. One 18- to 24-inch (46- to 61-cm)stake for holding both traps inplace.

4. Straight claw hammer to dig ahole in the ground for trap place-ment and to pound the stake intothe ground.

5. Leather gloves to protect fingerswhile digging the trap bed.

6. Cloth (or canvas) feed sack tokneel on while digging a trap bedand pounding the stake.

4

Fig. 9. A piece of canvas, about 3 feet x 6 feet, usedcloth, makes preparing the trap site much easier.

7. Roll of plastic sandwich bags tocover and prevent soil from get-ting under the pan of the trap.

8. Screen sifter for sifting soil overthe traps.

9. Rib bone for leveling off soil overthe traps once they are set in placeand covered.

10. Bottle of coyote urine to attract thecoyote to the set (keep urine awayfrom other equipment).

Locating the Set. Coyotes travel wherewalking is easy, such as along old roads,and they have preferred places to travel,hunt, rest, howl, and roam. Do not settraps directly in a trail but to one sidewhere coyotes may stop, such as on ahilltop, near a gate, or where coverchanges. Make the set on level ground toensure that the coyote walks across levelground to it.

Good locations for a set are often indi-cated by coyote tracks. The followingare good locations on most farms andranches for setting traps: high hills andsaddles in high hills; near isolated landfeatures or isolated bales of hay; trailjunctions, fences, and stream crossings;pasture roads, livestock trails, water-ways, game trails, and dry or shallowcreek beds; near pond dams, field bor-ders, field corners, groves of trees, anderoded gullies; sites near animal car-casses, bone or brush piles; and underrim rocks.

Making the Set. Place three to fivetrap sets near the area where coyoteshave killed livestock.

as a kneelingFig. 10. Kneel dow3 feet long, 7 inchruns lengthwise

1. First, observe the area where thelosses are occurring and look fortracks and droppings to determinethe species responsible. Study thepaths used by predators. If youhave 4 hours to spend setting traps,spend at least 3 of them looking forcoyote sign.

2. Decide where to place the trap sets.Always place them in an open, flatarea because of wind currents, dis-persion of scent, and visibility. Neverplace traps uphill or downhill fromthe coyote’s expected path ofapproach. Look for open places wherecoyote tracks indicate that the animalmilled around or stopped.

3. Place the set upwind from the path (orsite of coyote activity) so the prevail-ing wind will carry the scent acrossthe area of expected coyote activity.

4. Choose a level spot as close as pos-sible to, but not directly on, the coyote’spath. The coyote’s approach shouldnever be over dry leaves, tall grass,stones, sticks, weeds, or rough ground.Make each set where the coyote hasclear visibility as it approaches.

5. Place the set using two No. 3 trapswith a cold-shut chain repair linkaffixed to the top of a steel stake. Thelink should swivel around the staketop. The stake should be at least 18inches (46 cm) long, or longer if thesoil is loose. Use two stakes set at anangle to each other if the soil will nothold with a single stake.

Figures 9 through 29 illustrate the pro-cedures for making a set.

n on the cloth and outline a trench approximatelyes wide, and 2 inches deep. Dig the trench so that itto the prevailing wind.

C-65

Fig. 16. Carefully spread the jaws. Reach under the jaws with yourleft hand, holding the pan up while you ease the two springs’tension so that the trap will remain set.

Fig. 13. Place one of the traps on your left leg just above your knee.Grasp the trap spring nearest your right leg as shown, andcompress the spring.

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

Fig. 12. Pile the excavated soil from the trench on the kneelingcloth.

Fig 15. Hold the compressed spring with your right leg as shownabove, then compress the left spring. Hold this spring down withyour left hand.

C-66

Fig. 18. Drive a steel stake into the center of the trench so that thetop of the stake is even with the bottom of the trench. Place one ofthe set traps at each end of the trench. Place the trap so it sitssolidly and will not tip if the coyote steps on the spring or jaws.

Fig 21. Stretch the pan cover tightly across the pan and under thejaws. Pan and jaws should be level and flat. In cold weather,plastic can be placed under the trap. Place plastic baggies on eachspring and mix table salt with dry soil or peat moss to cover thetrap. Set the other trap as shown above. Place the pan cover so thatthe dog or trigger can move upward without binding it in.Anything that slows the action of the trap can cause a miss or a toehold.

Fig. 22. Use a sifter of 1/4-inch hail screen on a wood frame, 7 inchesby 10 inches and 2 inches deep. Sift soil from the canvas kneelingcloth over the set, covering the entire trench back to ground level(except directly over the traps).

Fig. 19. Place canvas, plastic, screen, cloth, wax paper, or a similarmaterial over the pan and under the trap jaws. Be sure the pan sitslevel with the trap jaws.

Fig. 17. Twist the springs back toward the trigger. Always set thetrap in the ground so that the animal walks into it over the jawthat is nearest to the bottom of the trench, as shown above.

Fig 20. Take out or add soil until the trap pan and jaws are about1/2 inch below the level of the surrounding ground. Build a ridgefor the jaw opposite the trigger to sit on. On the side of the trapthat has the trigger, place soil under the trap pan cover on eitherside of the trigger to hold the pan cover up tight against the bottomof the jaws.

C-67

Fig. 25. Place a tablespoon of coyote urine on the projection. Whensmelling the scent and seeing the projection, the coyote will likelywalk directly into the wind and step into a trap as it approachesthe projection. A coyote dropping placed nearby will improve theset.

Fig. 28. Discard the material removed from the trap site.

Fig. 24. Place an object over the buried stake that can be easilyseen; the further away it can be seen, the better. Use an old, driedbleached bone, a dried cow chip, a small bush or clump of grass,an old dried root, a small stake, or a stump. The object should beabout 6 to 8 inches high and be very visible.

Fig. 27. Use the canvas kneeling cloth to carry away all loose soil.This cloth can also be used to carry soil to the set. In summer it is agood idea to store fine dry soil for use in winter. You can oftenlocate dry soil in wet weather under bridges, on cut banks, or inold sheds.

Fig. 23. The trap should be set about 1/4 inch below the level ofthe surrounding ground. The set must look natural. The soilaround the trap and over the springs, chains, and stake should bepacked to the same firmness as the ground the coyote walks on inits approach to the set. Only soft soil should be directly over thetrap pan within the set jaw area. Use a curved stick, brush, or ribbone to level soil over the trap.

Fig. 26. Carefully brush out all tracks and signs of activity.

C-6

Fig. 29. Leave the trap area as near to its original condition aspossible. The coyote’s keen sense of sight and smell will quicklyalert it to danger.

Always bury the traps and stake in theground using dry, finely sifted soil.One of the most difficult aspects ofusing traps is trapping when theground is frozen, muddy, wet, ordamp. If the weather is expected toturn cold and/or wet, you should useone or a combination of the followingmaterials in which to set and cover thetraps: Canadian sphagnum peat moss,very dry soil, dry manure, buckwheathulls, or finely chopped hay. A mix-ture of one part table salt or calciumchloride with three parts dry soil willprevent the soil from freezing over thetrap. When using peat moss or otherdry, fluffy material, cover the materialwith a thin layer of dry soil mixed with1/4 teaspoon of table salt. This willblend the set with the surrounding soiland prevent the wind from blowingpeat moss away from the trap. As analternative, traps could be set in a bedof dry soil placed over the snow or fro-zen ground.

Guiding Coyote Footsteps. Use afew strategically placed dirt clods,sticks, small rocks, or stickers aroundthe set to guide the coyote’s foot to thetraps. Coyotes will tend to avoid theobstacles and place their feet in bareareas. Do not use this method to theextent that the set looks unnatural.

Care of Coyote Traps. New trapscan be used to trap coyotes, but betterresults may be obtained by using trapsthat have been dyed. Dyeing trapshelps prevent rust and removes odors.Wood chips or crystals for dyeing

8

traps are available from trapping sup-ply outlets. Some trappers also waxtheir traps to prevent them from rust-ing and to extend the life of the traps.

Inevitably, rusting will occur whentraps are in use. It does not harm thetraps, but after their continued use therust often will slow the action of thetrap and cause it to miss a coyote.Traps also become contaminated withskunk musk, gasoline, oil, blood, orother odors. It is important that trapsbe clean and in good working condi-tion. Rusted traps should be cleanedwith a wire brush to ensure that thetrigger and pan work freely. Check thechain links for open links. File the trig-gers and receivers to eliminate allrounded edges. Make any adjustmentsnecessary so that the pan will sit leveland the trap perform smoothly.

Size of Traps for Coyotes. Thereare many suitable traps for catchingcoyotes. Both the No. 3 and No. 4 aregood choices. Many trappers prefer aNo. 3 coilspring round-jawed off-settrap. It is a good idea to use superweldkinkless chain. The length of chain var-ies depending on whether the trap isstaked or a drag is used. A longerchain should be used with a drag. Theoff-set jaws are designed to reducebroken foot bones, which can allow thecoyote to escape by wriggling out ofthe trap. Traps with coil springs aregood coyote traps, but they requiremore upkeep than a double long-spring trap. The type and size of trapmay be regulated in each state. Body

gripping traps are dangerous and ille-gal in some states for catching coyotes.When pet dogs might be present, use apadded-jaw No. 3 double coilspringtrap.

While additional testing needs to beconducted, results of research toreduce injury using padded-jaw trapshave been encouraging. In tests withNo. 3 Soft-Catch® coilsprings, No. 3NM longsprings, and No. 4 Newhouselongsprings, capture rates for coyoteswere 95%, 100%, and 100%, respec-tively. Soft-Catch traps caused theleast visible injury to captured coyotes.

Anchoring Traps. Chain swivels arenecessary for trapping coyotes. Oneswivel at the stake, one in the middleof the chain, and one at the trap arerecommended. Drags (Fig. 30) insteadof stakes can be used where there is anabundance of brush or trees or wherethe ground is too rocky to use a stake.Use a long chain (5 feet [1.5 m] ormore) on a drag.

Lures and Scents. Coyotes are inter-ested in and may be attracted to odorsin their environment. Commerciallyavailable lures and scents or naturalodors such as fresh coyote, dog, or catdroppings or urine may produce goodresults. Coyote urine works the best.

Problems in Trapping Coyotes.A great deal of experience is requiredto effectively trap coyotes. Trapping byexperienced or untrained people mayserve to educate coyotes, making themvery difficult to catch, even by experi-enced trappers. Coyotes, however,exhibit individualized patterns ofbehavior. Many, but not all, coyotesbecome trap-shy after being caughtand then escaping from a trap. There isa record of one coyote having beencaught eight times in the same set.Some coyotes require considerablymore time and thought to trap thanothers. With unlimited time, a personcould trap almost any coyote.

If a coyote digs up or springs a trapwithout getting caught, reset the trapin the same place. Then carefully setone or two traps near the first set. Usegloves and be careful to hide the traps.Changing scents or using various

Drag hook with Slink for coyote traps

Mild steel rod5/16" diameter8" long

Mild steel rod7/16" diameterabout 28" long

About 1" weldon both sides

7"

Points sharpened andgiven 1 1/2" offsettwist

1 1/2"offsettwist

Sideview

Fig. 30. Trapping drag

10 1/2"

tricks, such as a lone feather as a visualattraction near a set, or a ticking clockin a dirt hole set as an audible attrac-tion, may help in trying to catch warycoyotes.

Resetting Traps and CheckingTrap Sets. Once a coyote is caught ata set, reset the trap in the same place.The odor and disturbance at the setwhere a coyote has been caught willoften attract other coyotes. Sometimesother coyotes will approach but notenter the circle where the coyote wascaught. If signs indicate that this hashappened, move the trap set outside ofthe circle. Leave all sets out for at least2 weeks before moving the traps to anew location. Check the traps onceevery 24 hours, preferably in themorning around 9 or 10 o’clock.Reapply the scent every 4 days, using8 to 10 drops of coyote urine.

Human Scent and Coyote Trap-ping. Minimize human scent aroundtrap sets as much as possible. If traps

are being set in warm months, makesure the trapper has recently bathed,has clean clothes, and is not sweating.Leave no unnecessary foreign odors,such as cigarette butts or gum wrap-pers, near the set. Wear clean glovesand rubber footwear while settingtraps. A landowner may have anadvantage over a stranger who comesto set traps since the coyotes areacquainted with the landowner’s scentand expect him/her to be there.Coyotes have been known to leave anarea after encountering an unfamiliarhuman scent.

Because of human scent, coyotes aremore difficult to catch with traps inwet or humid weather. Wear gloves,wax traps, and take other precaution-ary measures in areas where humansare not commonly present, where wetweather conditions are common, andwhere coyotes have been trapped forseveral years and have learned toavoid traps.

Killing a Trapped Coyote. A coyotewill make its most desperate attemptto get out of the trap as a personapproaches. As soon as you get withina few feet (m) of the coyote, check tosee that the trap has a firm hold on thecoyote’s foot. If so, shoot the coyote inthe head, with a .22 caliber weapon. Itis often a good idea to reset the trap inthe same place. The blood from thecoyote will not necessarily harm theset as long as it is not on the trap or onthe soil over the reset traps. Reset thetrap regardless of the species of animalcaptured, skunks included.

Draw Stations. Draw stations arenatural areas or places set up inten-tionally to draw coyotes to a particularlocation. For example, the straw andcleanings from a chicken house can beplaced in an area where coyote tracksare found. Traps can then be setaround the edges of the straw. Areasaround carcasses or parts of animals,such as a cow’s head, are good placesto set traps. Wire the carcass to a stakedriven into the ground and out ofsight. Once coyotes start feeding, settraps 30 to 60 feet (9 to 18 m) upwindfrom the carcasses or draw station.Never set traps very close to carcassesbecause nontarget animals such as vul-tures, eagles, hawks, skunks, andopossums will be caught. If sheepgraze in an area where traps are set,cover the traps with a disc blade orbrush during the day and uncoverthem at night when the sheep arepenned.

Opposition to Traps. Opposition tofoothold traps is based primarily ontwo objections: (1) a lack of selectivityfor the animal which the trap is set forand (2) foot injury sustained by thecaptured animal. Trap pan tensiondevices such as sticks, forked twigs,springs, and sponges placed under thetrap pan have been used for manyyears to reduce captures of nontargetspecies. Many coyote traps have anadjustable pan tension screw. Onestudy evaluated two pan tensiondevices. Preliminary results indicatedthat the use of either device couldexclude nearly 90% of the gray foxes,swift foxes, striped skunks, opossums,and jackrabbits that stepped on traps,

C-69

C-7

Fig. 34. Fastening the snare to the stake

Cable, NOTwire, holdssnare tostake

1/2"rebar stake

Fig. 33. Setting the snare

Wrap snare aroundsnare support

U-shapedsnaresupport

Bend snare toprevent wind fromclosing it

36" galvanizedNo. 9 wire

Notcheddriving rod

V bendpreventsmovement

Swivel

Slidelock

2.5' to 10'galvanizedaircraft cable

Fig. 31. Coyote snare

Fig. 32. Driving the support wire

as compared with 24% on average forunequipped traps. A variety of otherspecies were excluded at even higherrates. Some coyotes were alsoexcluded, but because more trapsremained functional, the net resultappeared to be an increase in coyotetrapping efficiency. Advances in trapdesign, including off-set jaws andpadded-jaw traps, have increased thehumaneness of foothold traps. Trapsshould be checked once or twice eachday to minimize the length of time thatan animal must remain in a trap.

Snares

Snaring is the technique of setting asteel-cable loop in an animal’s path to

0

capture it by the neck, body, or leg.Snares usually consist of a 2.5- to 10-foot (0.75- to 3.0-m) long piece ofgalvanized aircraft cable containing aslide lock that forms a loop in the cable(Fig. 31). On short snares, a swivel toprevent twisting and breaking thecable is attached to the end of the cableopposite the loop. On longer snares,swivels can be located near the middleof the cable and at one end.

Snares offer several advantages oversteel foothold traps. They are light-weight, compact, simple in function,affected little by weather, easy to set,low in cost, and offer a high degree ofhuman safety. In a south Texas study,

snares were 10 times more selectiveover steel foothold traps for target spe-cies of coyotes and bobcats. Snares,however, can be a greater hazard thantraps to livestock. Recent research hasproduced deer stops and break-awayor relaxing locks that have significantlyimproved snare specificity.

Preparation of Snares. New com-mercial snares and extension cablescan be cleaned by boiling each dozensnares in a pan or bucket of water with4 tablespoons (16 gm) of baking sodafor one hour. The snares will turn adull gray after being removed fromthis bath and hung up to dry outdoors.Darken snares by boiling them in

Keep slideclear offence

7" to 10"diameter roundloop

About 2"

Small loop(about 5")

Loop on ground toside of opening

Fig. 36. Leg snare set

Fig. 35. Snare set for woven wire

brown logwood crystals and dye.After boiling, snares should be keptclean of foreign odors. Wear cleangloves when handling and settingsnares.

How to Set Snares. Snares designedto capture predators by the neck or legare set directly in the animal’s path ofmovement and are held in place usingvarious techniques. One support thatworks particularly well can be con-structed from a 36-inch (0.9-m) piece of12-gauge galvanized or 9-gauge softwire. Form a V bend in the supportwire, about 4 inches (10 cm) from theend, and drive the wire into theground with a notched rod (Fig. 32) to

prevent the support from moving inthe wind. Wrap the snare around thesupport about three times and hold itin place with a U bend formed in theupper end of the snare support. Bendthe snare cable upward slightly, justinside the lock, to ensure that the snareloop is not closed by the wind (Fig. 33).

Snares should be attached to a solidobject so that captured animals cannotescape (Fig. 34). A steel 1/2-inch (1.3-cm) diameter rebar, 24 to 30 inches (61to 72 cm) long (depending on soilhardness), makes a good anchor forcoyotes and smaller predators. Attachsnares to the rebar with a strongswivel to prevent tangling and break-

ing. A lead cable that is at least asstrong as the snare cable can be usedto attach short snares to the rebarstake. Avoid using 9-gauge (0.38-cm)wire or several strands of 14-gauge(0.21-cm) wire to anchor snares to arebar stake because they may bendback and forth, crystallize, and break.When used for coyotes, snares also canbe secured to a dead tree limb that is atleast 6 inches (15 cm) in diameter and6 feet (2 m) long.

Snares set in holes under woven-wirefences can be held in place about 1 to 2inches (2.5 to 5 cm) from the fence withthe snare support system (Fig. 35). Thesnare should be set far enough awayfrom the fence to prevent the lock fromcatching on the bottom wire of thefence. The bottom of the loop shouldbe about 2 inches (5 cm) above the bot-tom of the hole. The snares can be an-chored to the heavy-gauge wire on thebottom of the fence. Two strands ofbaling wire or S hooks can be used tofasten the snare to the bottom wire.

If there is a chance of accidentallycatching a pet dog, a leg snare set isrecommended (Fig. 36). Set a smallloop about 5 inches (13 cm) or less toone side of the opening, and set thebottom of the loop on the ground.When a coyote goes under a fence, itplaces both front feet firmly on theground, and sticks its head just underthe bottom wire. Once its head is pastthe bottom wire, the coyote begins toraise its head. The idea is to set the legsnare so that one front foot will passthrough the snare.

Snares are usually set in the form of around or oval loop. In a trail set (Fig.37), a round loop that is 12 inches (30cm) in diameter can form an oval loopthat is about 14 inches (36 cm) highand 10 inches (25 cm) wide. Use a5/64- or 3/32-inch (0.2- or 0.24-cm)diameter galvanized aircraft cable forsnaring coyotes. Varying round loopdiameters and heights above ground isrecommended when snaring coyotes(Table 1). The loop size in a hole in afence should vary depending upon thesize of the hole.

C-71

C-72

Table 1.Specific loop dimensions forsnaring coyotes.

Height ofRound loop loop above

Type diameter in ground inof set inches (cm) inches (cm)

Trail 9-12 (23-30) 10-12 (25-30)

Underfence 7-10 (18-25) 2 (5)

Eye guidepoints

Not morethan 1"

9" to12"

Trail

Eye guidepoints

No. 9 extension cable(NOT wire)

Steel stake

10" to 12"

Fig. 37. Trail snare set

Where to Set Snares. Animals usu-ally follow the easiest route throughheavy cover. These routes, which gen-erally consist of trails, are excellentlocations to snare predators. Snares areeffective along trails leading to drawstations. Some effective locations forsnaring coyotes include: (1) along trailsin thickets or heavy vegetation leadingto a carcass, (2) on trails under fences,(3) on livestock trails in vacant pas-tures, (4) in the bottoms of ravines, and5) on narrow paths inside weeds orbrush. Trails can be created by drivingon weeds or stubble with a pickup, bywalking in snow, or by mowing a trailthrough weeds or grass with a weedeater.

Regulations for Snaring. Snaresare not legal in all states. Where snaresare legal, most states have regulationswhich require that snares be visuallyinspected every 24 hours. Snaresshould be checked early in the morn-ing to increase the probability of re-leasing nontarget animals unharmed.

Methods to Avoid Capturing Non-target Animals. Sites where snaresare set should be carefully selected toavoid capturing nontarget animals.Avoid setting snares: (1) in pastureswith livestock, (2) within 25 yards(23 m) of animal carcasses (to preventcapturing birds of prey and other scav-engers), (3) within major deer, elk, orantelope wintering areas (these biggame animals are much less suscep-tible to foothold traps), (4) on any trailsbeing used by livestock, deer, elk, andother nontarget animals (attract preda-tors away from these trails with spe-cific baits and lures), (5) under fenceswhere livestock, antelope, deer, ornontarget dogs are using the “crawlspace,” and (6) where people canreadily view captured animals.

Use a short snare cable to reduce inju-ries where accidentally captured dogsmight jump over a fence or a treebranch. Also avoid using entanglingdevices (attachments that increase thechance of killing the snared animal)where dogs might be captured. Usethe lightest snare lock (breakawaylock) possible to capture the desiredanimal. If livestock, deer, elk, or ante-lope are captured by a leg, they canusually break a light lock but may beheld by heavy locks. Record the loca-tion and number of snares on a map sothey can be found, and remove allsnares when damage stops or whenthey cannot be checked frequently.

Shooting

Shooting coyotes is legal in many situ-ations, and it often ranks high amongthe choices for removing a predator.Safety, however, is a critical factor thatin some circumstances may precludethe use of firearms (for example, locallaws may prohibit shooting, or neigh-bors may be too close).

For shooting coyotes, a medium-powered bolt-action rifle fitted with ascope is recommended. The .223 Rem-ington, .22-250, .220 Swift, or the .243Winchester are all capable of killing acoyote up to a distance of 250 yards(225 m). Since coyotes are able todetect human scent, the shooter shouldtake a stand downwind from wherethe coyote will likely approach. Anelevated location where the lightingworks to the shooter’s advantage is agood choice. If predators are killingsheep in the daytime, construct a com-fortable blind at a vantage point in thepasture where the killing has occurred.Whenever possible, rest the rifle on asolid support while aiming. A home-made shooting stick will improveaccuracy over shooting freehand.

A shotgun, preferably a 12-gaugesemi-automatic, can be used for shoot-ing at short range (less than 50 yards[45 m]). Often it is advisable to haveboth a 12-gauge shotgun and a scopedrifle available. Copper-coated (BB)lead shot, No. 4 buckshot (lead), and innewer shotguns, the larger-sized steelshot works well for killing coyotes.

Shooting From Ground Vehicles.Shooting from vehicles (snowmobiles,motorcycles, and pickups) in open, flatprairie country can be effective andprovide immediate results. Undermost circumstances, however, thismethod is not practical as it requireskeen driving skills, is dangerous, andis illegal in most states.

Calling and Shooting Coyotes.Coyotes may respond to predatorcalls. Calling, like other methods ofpredation control, should be usedsparingly and only when needed.Coyotes can be called at any time ofthe day although the first couple ofhours after dawn and the last fewhours before darkness are usually best.Call in areas where there are signs ofcoyotes, such as tracks or droppings.

In some situations, coyotes can belocated by listening to their howling atsundown and sunrise. Some huntersuse sirens to elicit howls from coyotes.Often a voice imitation of a coyotehowl works as well. Coyotes oftencome to a howl without howling back,so the prudent hunter is always readyto shoot.

Hunting at Night. Not many peoplehave witnessed predators killing live-stock because it usually occurs atnight, away from human activity. Asstated previously, calling and shootingpredators at night is illegal in manystates. Where legal, however, huntingat night with the use of artificial lightsmay be effective. Red or blue lighttends to spook predators less readilythan white light does. Calling withoutthe use of artificial lights is effectiveonly with snow cover and the light of afull moon.

Aerial Hunting. The use of aircraftfor shooting coyotes is strictly regu-lated by the provisions of the AirborneHunting Act and is allowed onlyunder special permit in states wherelegal. Aerial hunting is selective andallows taking only the target species.Although it is costly, it may be one ofthe most cost-effective methods of re-ducing predator damage when all fac-tors are considered. It is often the bestmethod where conditions are right forremoving depredating animals that

have successfully evaded traditionalground control methods such as trap-ping.

Fixed-wing aerial hunting is limitedprimarily to open areas with littlevegetative cover. The greater maneu-verability of helicopters makes themmore useful for hunting in areas ofbrush, scattered timber, and ruggedterrain.

Although aerial hunting can be con-ducted over bare ground, it is mosteffective where there is deep snowcover. Animals are more visibleagainst a background of snow and aremuch less mobile in their attempts toavoid the aircraft. Under optimal con-ditions of clear, sunny skies and freshsnow cover, much of the hunting canbe accomplished by searching for andfollowing fresh coyote tracks. Aerialhunting success can be increased whenconducted with the assistance of aground crew. Before the plane arrives,a ground crew can locate coyotes inthe hunting area by eliciting howlswith a siren, a mouth-blown howlercall, or a voice howl. Two-way radiocommunication allows the groundcrew to direct the aircraft toward thesound of the coyotes, thus reducinghunting time.

Aerial hunting is not recommendedfor, nor undertaken by, most livestockproducers because of the special skillsrequired of both pilot and gunner andthe danger inherent with the low-levelflight. Although weather, terrain, andstate laws limit the application of thismethod, it can often provide a promptresolution to depredation problems.

Denning

Predation can frequently be resolvedby locating coyote dens and removingthe pups and/or the adults responsiblefor depredations. Denning may also bewarranted as a preventive controlstrategy if coyote predation has histori-cally and consistently occurred in aparticular area during the lambingseason.

Breeding pairs of coyotes are extreme-ly territorial. They vigorously defendtheir territories against other canine

intruders. Coyotes often den year afteryear in the same general location. If aparticular denning pair of coyotes hasa history of existing with and not prey-ing on livestock, it may be to theproducer’s advantage to leave themalone. Their removal will open up aterritory that may become occupiedwith coyotes that are more likely toprey on livestock.

Although tracking a coyote from alivestock kill back to its den requiresskill and persistence, it is probably themost foolproof method to locate theden of the offending animals. If track-ing is not feasible because of poortracking conditions or lack of therequired skills, there are alternativesthat may be used.

Coyotes will usually howl in responseto a howl from another coyote neartheir den. One or both adult coyoteswill often be near the den between 7:30to 9:00 a.m. A response can be elicitedby voice howling, blowing a coyotehowler call, or broadcasting recordedcalls from a tape player. It is usuallybest to wait 30 minutes to 1 hourbetween howls because the samecoyotes may not respond again withinthat period.

Once the approximate location of aden is determined, careful planning isrequired to ensure the best chance ofimmediately removing the adultcoyotes. The hunter should approachthe den unseen and downwind towithin calling distance, armed with ahigh powered rifle and/or repeatingshotgun loaded with heavy shot. A callthat imitates the whines or yelps of acoyote pup can be very effective underthese circumstances, especially whenused in conjunction with a dog to actas a decoy. A small- to medium-sizeddog moving in the vicinity of the dengives the coyotes something to focuson and reduces the likelihood that thehunter will be detected. The sounds ofa pup in distress along with the sightof a dog so near the den will causemost coyotes to display highly aggres-sive behavior, frequently chasing thedog back to within close proximity ofthe hunter.

C-73

C-7

After the adults are removed, the pupscan be killed by fumigating the denwith a gas cartridge registered for thispurpose, or the pups can be dug outby hand. If attempts to shoot one orboth adults are unsuccessful, thechances of trapping or snaring themare improved if the pups are left aliveand confined in the den. This can beaccomplished by driving stakes 2inches (5 cm) apart down through theden entrance. Carefully place blindsets in the den trails or at the denmound. Capture will often result whenthe adults return to investigate thearea. If the adults are not capturedwithin a reasonable period of time, thepups should be destroyed. Removal ofthe pups is often effective in stoppingpredation even if the adult coyotes arenot removed.

An airplane can be used very effec-tively to locate coyote dens when dep-redations occur in spring or earlysummer in open prairies or sagebrushterrain. Early morning hours providethe best light conditions for locatingadult animals near the den site or asthey return from hunting. The lowangle light reflects on the coyote andprovides good contrast with the sur-rounding vegetation and soil. Actualden sign, however, shows up betterduring the middle of the day with lightcoming from directly overhead. Densare most easily located after the pupshave begun venturing outside. Thepups soon trample down the vegeta-tion around the den, making the sitemore visible from the air. If aerialshooting is legal, it is often possible toremove the adults and pups in oneoperation. In open terrain, landingscan often be made within walking dis-tance of the den.

Although denning requires specialskills, training, and often considerabletime, the advantages can be significant.A cost-benefit analysis conducted dur-ing one study determined that the costto remove a den of depredatingcoyotes could be recovered if only 3.6lambs were saved. In the same study,the average number of lambs killed byeach depredating pair of coyotes was4.9 per week. While these findings in-

4

dicate that denning could be cost effec-tive after only a few days, the benefitsactually continue in most instances forthe duration of the season. Denningcan be very selective for the offendinganimals and can resolve some depre-dation problems at relatively low cost.

Hunting with Dogs. Several breedsare generally known as trailinghounds, including Walkers, Julys, red-bones, blueticks, black and tans, Plotthounds, and English fox hounds. Trailhounds follow the scent left by apredator and run it to tree or bay it onthe ground. Coyotes are seldomcaught and killed by trail hounds. Inmost instances, trail hounds are usedin combination with sight hounds. Thetrail hounds run coyotes into the open,and then sight hounds are released tocapture the fleeing coyote. More com-monly, coyotes are shot as they runfrom the pack of hounds. Sighthounds, generally greyhounds or Rus-sian wolf hounds, are used in openprairie country to run coyotes downand kill them.

Economics of Damageand Control

Sheep numbers in the United Stateshave declined about 80% from 1942 to1976 (Gee et al. 1977). Former sheepproducers reported that the principalreasons for leaving the sheep industryincluded high predation losses, lowlamb and wool prices, a shortage ofgood hired labor, and the producer’sage.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service(1978) estimated the economic impactof coyote predation on producers withpredator problems, on producers with-out predator problems, and on con-sumers during 1977. They used anaverage lamb loss rate of 4% (267,000lambs) and a ewe loss rate of 1.5%(125,000 ewes) to estimate an economicloss of $19 million to producers fromcoyote predation in the 17 westernstates. The reduced number of sheepand lambs resulted in a higher marketprice, which benefited producers by $6million. The net impact of coyote

predation on sheep producers was aloss of $13 million, and the impact onconsumers was $4 million in addi-tional costs. The General AccountingOffice (GAO 1990) estimated thatcoyotes in 17 western states killedsheep and lambs valued at $18 millionin 1989. The National AgriculturalStatistical Service (NASS 1991)reported that sheep and lamb losses tocoyotes in the United States werevalued at $18.3 million in 1990.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service(1978) reported calf losses betweenbirth and weaning to coyotes acrossthe United States at 0.4%, with preda-tion decreasing to nearly zero byweaning time. Dorrance (1982)reported that coyotes were responsiblefor 16% of the 1,520 confirmed preda-tion losses of cattle in Alberta from1974 to 1978. Coyote predation oncalves caused producers with coyoteproblems across the United States tolose an estimated $20 million. How-ever, because of the greater price flex-ibility of beef compared with sheep,the reduction in the number of beefcalves marketed (estimated at 0.4%, or115,000 fewer calves) resulted in ahigher price, which benefited beef pro-ducers by $81 million. The net impactof the reduced supply of beef as aresult of coyote predation was a gainof $61 million to beef producers, but itcost consumers an additional $98million in higher prices for beef, result-ing in an overall loss of $37 million.NASS (1992) reported that cattle andcalf losses to coyotes in the UnitedStates were valued at $24.3 million in1991.

Coyote predation also can causesubstantial losses of domestic goats. Inthree studies in Texas, where an esti-mated 1.1 million goats (about 90% ofthe goats in the United States) areraised (Scrivner et al. 1985), predatorswere reported to take 18.1% of theadults and 33.9% of the kids (Pearson1986). NASS (1991) reported that goatlosses to coyotes in the United Stateswere valued at $5.7 million in 1990.

Pearson (1986) stated that predators,particularly coyotes, accounted for

losses of hundreds of chickens andturkeys in the 14 western states. In onestudy, Andelt and Gipson (1979)reported that between June 4 andAugust 31, 1976, a mated pair ofcoyotes apparently killed 268 domesticturkeys in Nebraska valued at $938.

Although the average value of live-stock losses to coyotes reflected theoverall impact on producers, it did notreflect the severity of losses to someindividuals. Balser (1964) and Gee etal. (1977) indicated that coyote preda-tion is much more serious for someproducers than others. Most sheepproducers suffer no or minor predatorlosses, whereas 20% to 25% of theproducers suffer losses that are signifi-cantly higher than the average (USFish Wildl. Serv. 1978). These lossescan drive producers out of businessbecause of low profit margins. Non-fatal injuries and harassment of live-stock by coyotes also can result inreduced weight gain and subsequentreductions in profit.

Acknowledgments

Much of the information and several of thefigures for this chapter were adapted from theSID Sheep Production Handbook, PredatorDamage Control chapter, published by theAmerican Sheep Industry Association, Inc.(1990) and various publications authored byF. R. Henderson, J. S. Green, W. F. Andelt, G. E.Connolly, and D. A. Wade.

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

Figure 1 by Emily Oseas Routman.

Figure 6 adapted from a USDA-APHIS-ADCillustration by Renee Lanik, University ofNebraska-Lincoln.

For AdditionalInformation

Alberta Agriculture. 1990. Methods ofinvestigating predation of livestock. AlbertaAgric., Crop Prot. Branch, Agdex 684-4.36 pp.

Andelt, W. F. 1987. Coyote predation. Pages128-140 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E.Obbard, and B. Malloch. Wild furbearermanagement and conservation in NorthAmerica. Ontario Ministry. Nat. Resour.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connolly, G. 1992a. Sheep and goat losses topredators in the United States. Proc. EasternWildl. Damage Control Conf. 5:75-82.

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

Connolly, G. E. 1988. M-44 sodium cyanide ejectorsin the Animal Damage Control program, 1976-1986. Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf. 13:220-225.

Connolly, G. E. and W. M Longhurst. 1975. Theeffects of control on coyote populations — asimulation model. Univ. California, Coop.Ext. Serv. Bull. 1872. 37 pp.

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

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

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

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

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

Gier, H. T. 1968. Coyotes in Kansas. Revised.Kansas State Coll. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 393.118 pp.

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

Green, J. S., and R. A. Woodruff. 1991. Livestockguarding dogs protect sheep from predators.US Dep. Agric., Agric. Info. Bull. No. 588.31 pp.

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

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

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

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

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

Knowlton, F. F. 1972. Preliminary interpretationsof coyote population mechanics with somemanagement implications. J. Wildl. Manage.36:369-382.

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

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

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

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

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

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

C-75

C-7

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

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

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

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

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

Till, J. A., and F. F. Knowlton. 1983. Efficacy ofdenning in alleviating coyote depredationson domestic sheep. J. Wildl. Manage.47:1018-1025.

Todd, A. W. and L. B. Keith. 1976. Responses ofcoyotes to winter reductions in agriculturalcarrion. Alberta Wildl. Tech. Bull. 5. 32 pp.

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

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Predatordamage in the West: a study of coyotemanagement alternatives. US Fish Wildl.Serv., Washington, DC. 168 pp.

Wade, D. A. 1973. Control of damage by coyotesand some other carnivores. Colorado StateUniv., Coop. Ext. Serv. Bull. 482a. 16 pp.

6

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

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

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

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

Video Tapes

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

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

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

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

Video tape, VHS. “How to Trap a Coyote.”Colorado State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv., FortCollins.

EditorsScott E. HygnstromRobert M. TimmGary E. Larson