NDOW Projects 14 & 15: Coyote removal for deer enhancement

Projects 14 & 15, 2/9/2009
C. Schroeder and K. Lansford

Abstract
We quantified the effects of 5 years of coyote removal in Game Management Units 222 and 231, Lincoln Co., NV during fiscal years (FY) 2003-2008. We summarized trends in coyote age and population structure using data obtained from tooth-age analysis (cementum) of teeth taken from harvested coyotes by Wildlife Services. Mean age of coyotes declined throughout the experimental period in GMU 231 as a result of additively removing coyotes by aerial gunning and ground removals each year. Also, juvenile to adult ratios significantly increased by the end of the experimental period as well as the number of adult males to adult females in the population. Fawn:doe and fawn:adult ratios were not significantly different in years prior to coyote removal compared to years following coyote removal in the experimental areas. Similarly, fawn:doe and fawn:adult ratios were not significantly different in the experimental area (GMU’s 222 and 231) compared to an adjacent population of mule deer in Utah (Unit 30a) during the same period. Other factors may have contributed to fawn survival in these areas.

ClickNDoW Coyote Removal for Deer Enhancementfor the entire study.

Coyote killing contests: The Truth

Since Europeans first set foot on the American continent, war has been waged against predators, with bounties and other lethal programs put on their heads. But, when a predator is no longer a threat, when they have the ability to self-regulate their population, and when they are not a form of sustenance, why does the killing continue? Surely our responsibility now lies in protecting our environment and pursuing a path towards peaceful co-existence?

Instead, we see a rise in one of the most disturbing practices of humankind — killing purely for fun. Coyote killing contests are a prime example. It is an unethical, indefensible, and ecologically damaging practice. To be able to derive pleasure from killing a defenceless creature, for no reason apart from the chase, demonstrates one of the most selfish and cruel aspects of our cultures. Despite excuses made for the contests, killing coyotes for “sport” is merely for the pleasure of killing, breeding a culture of disrespect and violence towards life and nature.

In the USA popular targets include coyotes, prairie dogs and pigeons. The practice is adopted by all ages, with some competitions having “youth” divisions. To take part in a hunt you have to pay an entrance fee and subsequently receive a monetary reward for every kill you make, with the largest lump sum given to the person with the biggest kill. Prices vary tremendously.

The contests take place under the guise of ‘pest’ control, but if anything they cause more harm to the environment. Coyotes pose little if any threat to humans, and generally avoid human contact whenever possible. Contrary to hunter’s claims, coyotes are generally not a threat to deer, elk and other large prey, preferring easier meals such as mice and berries. In terms of attacks, a 10 year study of over 300 coyotes in the greater Chicago metropolitan area found that, only two had had fights with pets. Furthermore, as coyotes have no meat and very little fur value, the contests are unjustified on any moral basis.

Sandy Sisi Pups“Like any predator, coyotes self-regulate,” Camilla Fox, founder and executive director of Project Coyote in California, told me. “The best thing we can do is leave them alone because what we know through decades of research is that when we exploit coyotes we disrupt their social pack structure. This can result in an increase in pup survival, and ultimately an increase in the local population. So the message through science is leave the coyotes, wolves, and other predators alone. They don’t need to be “managed” by humans. That will help to promote peaceful coexistence.”

To read the complete story please click HERE.

Idaho hunter: wildlife killing contest is a mistake

Idaho Mountain Express
By George Wuerthner
17 December 2014

Recently, the BLM canceled a permit for a proposed coyote/wolf killing “derby” on public lands scheduled for January near Salmon, Idaho. The three-day event is a contest to see who can kill the most and largest wolves, coyotes, jackrabbits and other wildlife.
DO NOT ERASE Placeholder ad
The BLM revoked its permit after conservationists questioned the agency’s conclusion that the contest would have no real impacts on wildlife or other uses of the public lands. It was a wise call on the part of the BLM, but the U.S. Forest Service and the Idaho Fish and Game have failed to do the same.
The Forest Service insists that such a contest doesn’t even require a permit, and is allowing it to occur on the Salmon-Challis National Forest, despite requiring permits for many types of less destructive activities—even cutting a Christmas tree. For its part, Idaho Department of Fish and Game has said nothing, even though it has a policy stating that it will not support contests “involving the taking of predators which may portray hunting in an unethical fashion, devalue the predator, and which may be offensive to the general public.”
Even a loose interpretation of that policy would find the proposed derby to be a violation, yet Fish and Game has failed to regulate or restrict these contests. Fish and Game implies its support with its silence and failure to act.
As a hunter, I despise gratuitous killing. Hunters owe it to both the animals they kill and the public who supports wildlife to ensure that no animals suffer or die gratuitously.
But a killing contest, by its very nature, is gratuitous killing. This type of contest treats animals like trash. This is not only ethically wrong but hurts hunting everywhere by portraying hunters in an unethical manner. Hunting, to be accepted by the general public, must be perceived as principled. The public usually supports killing of wildlife for food, but contests are not about obtaining food. Hunters and their organizations risk damaging public support for hunting by not opposing such contests.
The killing contest is also ecologically wrong. Ironically, fragmentation of wolf and coyote packs through indiscriminate killing often leads to greater livestock losses and greater killing of the very big game animals that the derby sponsor claims it is trying to protect.
This is because disruption and loss of pack members reduces hunting effectiveness of the remaining animals. With fewer pack members to pull down difficult prey like elk, wolves and coyotes often turn to livestock as food.
Smaller packs also cannot guard the animals they have killed, and often before they can come back from the den or other locations, ravens and other scavengers will consume a kill, forcing the wolves and/or coyotes to kill yet another elk or deer.
Morally and ecologically, the Salmon [coyote/wolf] killing derby is a mistake.

Effects of coyote control on their prey

COTT E. HENKE, Campus Box 218, Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University- Kingsville, Kingsville, TX 78363.

Abstract: Coyotes (Canis latrans) are often removed from an area because of their predatory nature, regardless of the effect such removal may have on the ecosystem. Research results concerning ecosystem changes due to coyote removal appear ambiguous; however, differing lengths of coyote control can produce different results. Short-term coyote removal efforts (< 6 months) typically have not resulted in increases in the prey base; however, long-term, intensive coyote removal reportedly has altered to alter species composition within the ecosystem. A dichotomy of views exists concerning the role of coyotes in ecosystems. Ranchers, wildlife biologists, environmentalists, and urbanites have different views concerning the same animal. Historically, livestock managers have been the group most concerned with coyotes because of their depredation. However, with the advent of game ranching, lost wildlife revenues resulting from coyote predation have increased the competition between human interests and coyotes (Scrivner et al. 1985)...... Texas Studies A total of 328 coyotes was removed during April, 1990 – January, 1992. Coyote abundance was reduced by 48% on the removal areas, as estimated from scent station lines, vocalization rates, and scat transect counts. After 9 months of removal effort, rodent species richness and diversity declined on removal areas, while rodent density and biomass, percent of kangaroo rats (Dipodomys ordii) within the rodent population, and black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) density increased on the removal areas. Abundance and density of species on the non-removal areas remained fairly stable throughout the study. Cottontail rabbit density, and raptor richness, diversity, and density were relatively unaffected by coyote removal. Henke (1992) believed that kangaroo rat populations irrupted on coyote removal areas. This appeared to create intense competition among the 12 species of rodents found in the area, and eventually lead to the exclusion of the other rodent species from the area. Henke (1992) also noted that coyote removal appeared to cause a 320% increase in jackrabbit density and suggested that altered jackrabbit behavior due to a lack of coyote predation risk could increase competition with livestock for available forage. He speculated that such dramatic changes in the structural composition of the food web would lead to instability within the ecosystem..... Conclusion Although the results of these studies appear ambiguous at first glance, differences in methodologies among studies can explain the various outcomes. The Texas studies which involved short-term (< 6 months) coyote removal programs did not note differences in rodent and lagomorph populations. However, those studies which consistently removed coyotes throughout the year began to realize population-level changes after a minimum of 9 months of coyote removal. Although white-tailed deer and bobwhite quail reproductive success increased with coyote removal, overall population densities for both species remained unchanged. This implies that a compensatory mortality mechanism is involved with these populations and that potential population increases of certain game species due to coyote removal are short-lived. All studies indicated that coyote control caused an immigration of coyotes into the removal areas. Coyote population densities returned to pre-removal levels typically within 3 months after removal efforts ceased. Therefore, short-term coyote removal programs typically are not sufficient in reducing coyote density and, therefore do not alter ecosystem composition. However, intensive, long-term coyote removal has been successful in reducing coyote populations by over 40%, which has resulted in prey-base increases. The intended goals of coyote control need to be determined prior to the onset of removal efforts. If the management objective is to reduce livestock losses caused by coyotes, then an intensive, short-term removal program may provide immediate relief of depredation just before and after parturition. However, if the coyote removal is practiced year-round, microherbivore populations may potentially increase; increased competition for forage with livestock may result. Consequently, a reduced stocking rate then may be required to offset competition, which may negate the number of livestock saved from predation. If the goal is to increase the harvestable surplus of a game species, then it must first be determined that coyote control will increase the numbers of the target species. Next, can the additional animals be supported by the habitat? Finally, will predation as a mortality source be replaced with other mortality factors acting in a compensatory manner? Until these questions can be answered, then coyote removal would not be warranted. Click HERE for the full paper.

Can we coexist with predators?

For those who feel they cannot coexist with coyotes, bears, wolves and other predators, here’s an excellent educational resource showing not only how easy coexistence is, but also how ESSENTIAL it is. Every authoritative study has concluded that killing predators creates ecological imbalances which exacerbates human/predator conflicts and causes vast effects throughout the food change, hurting farmers, ranchers, hunters and non-consumptive “users” of wildlife. When on choses to ignore science in favor of killing, we all pay the price.

For Project Coyote, click HERE.

Reward offered in death of coyote in illegal trap

By Associated Press
Published: December 31, 2014, 10:03 AM

SEATTLE — Animal welfare organizations are offering a $2,500 reward for information after an illegal, leg-hold trap led to the death of a female coyote in the north Seattle suburb of Lake Forest Park.

The Seattle Times reports that the Humane Society of the United States and The Humane Society Wildlife Land Trust announced the reward Tuesday. They say a teenage girl out walking her dog found the dead coyote on Dec. 21. The groups say the animal apparently dragged herself to a creek after she managed to pull the trap on her foot loose from an anchoring stake.

Humane Society spokeswoman Lisa Wathne says officials think the trap was likely set on private property, but the animal was found on property owned by the Lake Forest Park Water District.

The Humane Society statement says leg-hold traps and other body-gripping animal traps were largely outlawed in Washington following passage of a citizen initiative in 2000 and the City of Lake Forest Park passed an ordinance banning the use of body-gripping animal traps in 2012.

ALL ABOUT COYOTES: DR. ROBERT CRABTREE’S BEAUTIFULLY DONE MONOGRAPH ABOUT GOD’S DOG.

Dr. Robert Crabtree, President and Founder, Yellowstone Ecology and Research Center in Bozeman, MT, and visiting scholar at U. Montana and U. Victoria beautifully describes what is known about coyote habits and preferences…information that could be of great use to wildlife management agencies if they would only listen. Nobody does this topic better than Dr. Crabtree.  read more