SP

$

3301

PREDATOR AND LIVESTOCK

Freder ick F. Knm.;lJoe

Robert H.

Abstract: Current dilemmas management of the largemammalian predator (mountain lions, coyotes, and bobcats)result from various positive and negative values onthem by society.

The size of predator populations in Great islimited by available native prey although coyotes

times feed extensively livestock and utilize carrion.In general, organized predator control programs do depresspopulations except in localized areas Current huntingand trapping activities are thought t limit or

lion , but their effec bobcats is uncertain.

impactrodent and

At

that coyotes cans. The eff ec

probably smallmay role

but overall, nutrition is

Studieson ackrabbitrabbitcertain

outlined r

levelspopulation densities

the lowerthese species were

later, theyby the local citizenry to alleviateprevent losses domestic stockhowever species have

to a segment of socieSport hunting esthetic, and a

II rea.sons, have resul tedcultural endearment of the largepredators to of socie

economicallyincurring the effec

also, currenton impor

encouragedof

and coyotes.management

those segmentsdepredations.

withfurs

ed surgeespecially

The presen

ted at theand Wildlife-Fisheriesthe Great Basin, Sparks, Nevada .Hay3-5, 1977

is Fish and Ser-DE~par tmen t of Inter ior, Logan

of Wildlife Ecology,Resources Utah State

Logan Utah; Vertebrate PestSpecialist

Professor of Nebraska, Lincoln,raska Wildlife Biologist, Fish and

Wildlife Service, .5 Depar of Interior,Sacramento Calif; Wildlife Biologist,Fish and Service U tmentof Interior, Sacramento, Calif

68

ON WILD PREY

Predator Food

carnivores,more than

make food cachesanother reason foris no understood, butassociated somescheme.

commonly preyseldom taking

Coyotes are among the mostfeeders. They concentrateclasses rodents andutilize various fruits, insectscarrion as well as youngavailable (Young JacksonCoyotes also killadult antelope and

PREDATORS WITHINECOSYSTEH

Populations

populations area variety of interspecific fac The

determinant of predatorthe abundance of

supplies. In the casemay be

live prey. The abundanceparticular may be a strong

and bobcat densities!'fountain ions

the Great Basinabundance of deer,1900's (Julander and

within predatorspace tn

onan is of theand predator, and estimatesof removedOne the few studies thatan array of data relevanteff prey in the Great BasinIS-year study of black-tailedand inof northwestern Urah,sagebrush area (Gross

t 1977).

sence of human involvemen ,that mountain lions would be

more abundant with~n the Greattrue

t5 of this study

ar ily

nutritionaland the early

and others

Ita reduction

1977 , butproblems associated with nutritionalcompensated. Similar results might

tained in mule deer and

Foodnutritionalbe much moredensitiesnumbers.anincreasedthe presentus for thetions (Cain

1976).

of

is a major force intude of the

as well as being thein determining the long­it density. With less or

mean ac krabb ithigher for at

year. Food-habit studies andestimates of raptors and otherin area suggest that theirjackrabbit populations is minor

and Stoddart 1972 .eff ec ts(Wagner

Wild

species prey on deer,The most

, which preycoyotes, which

mule deer andNielsen 1975,

the

refPredation

Studies in Arizona suggestfawn survival can be increas­

coyote control (ArringtonBeale and Smith 1973, Udy

of deer inenclosures in Arizona was

that of fawns outside enclosuresSmith and Le

tails Utahdeer predatyear year

itation (Beale1968, 1976

\lhite 1966).

25 to 30 percentsituations It

losswere removed

of

Practices

suggesrelated to

others

lossranchers who "shed

of ranchers whoand others ).

protectionfaci1it

of lambsrange before thefall of

of Livestock

loss

lossON LIVESTOCK

increases

AND

Patterns

Losses Under Current LevelsManagt~ment

Losses Under Reducedredator rol

terns

manageand relaton control

programs wereand less selective

animals than are

Current Managementnot available on a regional

magnitude sheep losses incontrol Isolated

been tudied in Montana,and New Mexico. In these

losses high as 30 percentLorenzo and Howard

and Kelbenow 19losses are perhaps

have not been measuredoccur

sheep losses.which mas calves may

substantial proportions at timesareas (Gee 19 ) •

71

Greatof sheep

2.

Maximalan intensive"lOuld causeobject to

tionsHanagement:

the useters)

control methods such trapping,denning. The toxic M-44

used ona limited basis onlyuse trictions and lack

effectiveness in controlling coyotes duringsome of the year. The current

in operation on aboutthe total land area in

given time (Balser 1974).

(b) Increased numberssmall carnivores

more heavily as

(a)

L

be

3.

funding

increaset densities withdeterioration of

range vegetation valuable tolives (Stoddart 1977).A reduction the ofcoyotes bobcats as fur resourceA tion in the spor huntingand esthetic opportunities

mountain coyotes, andbobcats.A change in relative speciescomposition in favor of smallcarnivores (Linhart and Robinson1972 Robinson 1961).A reduction in diseasetransmission coy totescyst disease sarcocystis,rabies •A short-term increase

ungulates because ofcoyote reduction with uncertainlong-term

i A pass increase in

iticalthe

INFORMATION

eliminate currentbut allow

predators andand trapping

this

the currently availableon predators predation,, several areas

information seems warranted

would bl~

Option

aspredation,

Trendsrelated

A. E.control as factor

management. Trans.Conf. 16 179-190

exploredimproved neonatal

is reflec ted in recruitmentmature portion of

defined.

LITERATURE CITED

Balser,1974

Arrington,1951

species wo ..Ld

artificially reducedareas of livestock

wild popula-programs are conducted

r benefit in the

of ing.of depredation whicheffect of undetermined

t margins of sheep

option would be expected

requirement of present or

of a with theselective removal of individual

animals and localized

levelsA continued rate

a depressanton

Little effec

in theS. Dep.Agric.

r, and

Proe. Vert.:190-196.

Henne D. R.74 Domes

westernthesis, Univ53 p.

otherStates.Res.41 p

Griffiths, R.Burns and R.

1978 Coyoteschloride.(Calif.

Gross1974

:292-300.

• A. Allen,G

• H.control--197l. Report

Council Environmentaland the Department of the

the CommitteeControl Univ. Mich.

Arbor

Neit.

D. H., and D.of pronghorn

in western Utah. J. Wildl.• 37 343-352.

Bowns J. E., J. W. Davenport, J. P.workman D. B Nielsen, and D. D. Dwyer

19 termination of cause andsheep losses southwestern

Utah Sci. 34(2):35-3 ,

p.

65-74

, F>.AspectssouthtodissertInd.

1968

in feeder•• Dep.

Coop.o 409.

Enterprise for westernbusinesses,' 1974

Agrlc Econ. Res Servo

Jrlosses on

withoutin southeastern

Mexico. Final Report to U S.and Wildl. Serv., Wildl. Res.

Cent ,Denver. 34 p.

19

L. Gum,1977

R S.L. H. Arthur

and lamb

R

predators

--~-_._---------------------_..

• Ann.te Game

15

• E. Larsonlosse$ on selected ranches

Wyoming. J Range:244-25 •

s

Trainer1975

Tigner, J.1977

Peoc. ofIP

Perf orm.\"P2,J11,.. ,

deer i.nt

A. L.Causes

CausesRep. ,Ariz. p.

s. B. • Robinsonrelative carnivore densities

areas under sustained coyotero1. J. Hamma1. 53: 880-884.

J. K.Predation on tic sheep innorthwestern Nevada. M•• thesis

• of Nevada, Reno. 112

noUdy,

1953

tah Sci.

, F19

N Curleto Utah's range

• WooL Grow.

base relatHole, WyomingUtah State

ion of sometail deer in southdissert., Purdue Univ$' teInd. 215 p.

_, • H T. JacksonThe clever coyote.Ins • Washington D.C. 411 p.

Westoby,1973

Wh1t e,1966

Young1951

carnlvoresareas J.

harves estimate forWildi. Soc.

Le Countfecting survival of mule

Rep ., Fed. AidPlan 2, 4,

75