Return back to the Newsletter Index
   Indiana Coyote Rescue Centre

Winter 2010 Newsletter

Fencing to Replace Killing as a Means to Control Coyote Populations in Problem Areas
Black Back Jackal
The African Black-Backed Jackal (Canis mesomelas)


Jackal Fence
Typical Jackal fence in South Africa.
Link to website about fence specifications.




Brent Frankland
Brent Frankland

Brent Frankland

In all countries where predators and humans coexist there is the potential for conflict. Throughout the United States of America (USA) coyotes (Canis latrans), are one such predator. They are considered by livestock farmers to be a pest and they are branded a problem species. The worldwide trend to address ‘problem animals’ is from a holistic management perspective, rather than killing them (De Wet, 2007).

Coyotes are extremely adaptable to the human modified environment and are able to take over niches of  other animals that are no longer able to survive in newly created environmental conditions (De Wet, 2007). Livestock damage control has been a very complex issue because of the coyotes’ adaptability, learning ability, resilience, agility and resourcefulness. The lack of larger, more powerful predators has given coyotes (a meso-predator) the advantage.

The livestock industry is here to stay even though some may want to tell us otherwise. Just as businessmen or ordinary salary earners cannot allow their earnings to be eroded, so does a person in the agricultural business have similar rights (De Wet, 2007).  I am not going into the justification of livestock production, however I strongly encourage the aim of prevention to limit damage by coyotes, and not killing them.

I have been fortunate to have worked in different parts of  South Africa (SA), such as:  near goat and sheep ranches in the Karoo, Southern and Eastern Cape province, on and near beef ranches in the Drakensberg region of Kwazulu/Natal, on dairy facilities in the  Natal/Kwazulu midlands, and around Kruger National park in the North East,  where jackal-proof fencing has been erected. In SA the black-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas) is and always has been considered a problem animal to the livestock farming community, just as coyotes are in the USA. Also, like coyotes, jackal are considered highly adaptable opportunistic feeders, feeding on domestic livestock (Hall-Martin and Botha, 1980). Jackal are a very similar cousin to the coyote in the USA, in their ecology and behavioral aspects.

Jackal-proof fencing has been used in SA since the early 20th century, McKee (1913) cited the use of jackal-proof fencing to protect livestock from carnivores and urged its use throughout the nation. In the 1960’s the jackal population had increased in size considerably and caused a great deal of tension among the nations livestock producers because of the ever increasing livestock damage taking place. There were, just as there are now, limitations to any form of fencing, most notably was the constructive cost. It was because of the great economic loss from the livestock industry, which reduced private farmers and government income, that the government started the ‘Fencing Act, no. 31 of 1963’ to assist farmers with construction of jackal-proof fencing (would also prevent other predators) in many problem areas. This act regulates issues with regard to boundary fences of farms and provides for the obligatory contribution to erection and maintenance of boundary fences and their conversion into jackal-proof fences in certain areas. Many fences were erected nationwide, which caused a dramatic reduction in food resources for the high population of jackal. This in turn caused greater competition among them, increasing survival stress levels, eventually reducing the jackal conception rates and population numbers to manageable levels.

I feel that a similar program, including financial aid, to assist farms/ranches in construction and the erection of fences should be urged of the government here in the USA to naturally reduce coyote population numbers in problem areas. I also feel that changes in livestock management techniques should be considered to prevent the risk of potential damage. Coyotes can absorb great losses and still maintain a presence. In the USA, in almost every state nationwide, there is open hunting on coyotes and even existing bounties in some states. However the numbers still seem to increase, because of their learning ability, adaptability, and availability of food resources. Simulation models for coyotes predict that at 70% reduction per annum the population would not be eliminated (De Wet, 2007). Sure humans could go out and totally eradicate the coyote completely, but this would be expensive and labor intensive, not to mention further increasing the rodent populations and/or other species preyed upon by coyotes. Once a predator is removed, the potential for other problem species competing for the new territory is highly possible.
--- Article continued at the end of the newsletter...

Help Ban Live Bait Dog Training In Indiana


 

Ethically Indefensible  •  Ecologically Reckless
Counter To Sound Scientific Wildlife Management

Current loopholes in Indiana’s wildlife regulations allow the capture and killing of coyotes and red foxes by dogs in the wild. Moreover, no rule or law exists prohibiting the trapping and selling of coyotes and foxes in state or across state lines to “penning” facilities where these wild canines are then used to “train” hunting dogs in “running pens.” Operators of the running pens often charge a fee for individuals to “train” their hunting dogs on the captive coyotes and foxes. Penned wild canids are often killed by being torn apart by the dog pack. Other States are moving away from such barbaric activities such as the use of “running pens”.
As a society we have decided that dog and cock fighting are ethically indefensible and we have banned these practices nationwide. Setting dogs onto wild animals has no place in a civilised society.

Does Indiana want to be known worldwide as supporting and
facilitating such cruel ‘sports’?

Hounds & Coyote

PLEASE TAKE ACTION TODAY TO HELP STOP THE BARBARISM!

YOUR HELP is needed ahead of a crucial meeting of the Indiana Natural Resources Commission on March 16th 2010. A decision will be made on two citizen’s petitions. One is to disallow running pens in Indiana and the other is to stop the killing of foxes and coyotes by dogs.

Please contact the NRC officials listed below and the Governor of Indiana in support of both petitions.

• Email Jennifer Kane jkane@nrc.in.gov
• Email Sandra Jensen sjensen@nrc.in.gov
• Email Governor Mitch Daniels mdaniels@gov.in.gov

You may also write the Governor at:
Office of Governor Mitch Daniels
200 W. Washington St #206
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2731

NEWSFLASH:
Indiana Coyote Rescue Center and Ban Live Bait Dog Training is pleased to announce that the Indiana Department of Natural Resources is reccomending to the Natural Resources Commission that using dogs to hunt coyotes and foxes in running pens in Indiana not be allowed.  Please back the DNR on this issue for the March 16, 2010 meeting by commenting to jkane@nrc.in.gov   Please thank the IDNR for taking this bold step.

The Natural Resources Commission meeting on March 16th 2010, 10:00 am EDT
will be held at:

Fort Benjamin Harrison State Park Inn
Roosevelt Room
5830  North Post Road
Indianapolis, Indiana

The meeting is open to the public.

Link to a PDF document of Indiana DNR's response regarding the petitions.

Thank You For Your Support!


Letter from our Director
CeAnn & Orion Photo
CeAnn and Orion
I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who donated money for food for the coyotes.  I was able to buy chicken and beef at a good price.  I am so grateful for your support.  I remember when I started working with coyotes in 1987.  At that time no one would have cared about them having food.  Things really have changed since then.

Our goal this year is to change our licensing.  We want to become USDA APHIS licensed.  This would remove the coyotes from under the control of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources.  They continue to change their rules, which puts the coyotes in jeopardy.  I tried to get them to add a Sanctuary License to their list of permits.  That has not worked out.

To become USDA licensed we need to build a perimeter fence.  The expected cost for that will be about $6,000.  We need your help to build the fence.  Please help if you can. 

This year, Indiana Coyote Rescue is still partnered with Ban Live Bait Dog Training.  We have two petitions submitted to the IDNR for Administrative Rule changes.  One is to disallow running pens in Indiana.  The running pens are where “kill” dogs are trained to kill foxes and coyotes in the wild.  The foxes and coyotes are in a pen with no chance of escape, and sometimes are intentionally injured to make it easier for the dogs.  The second is to stop the “kill” dogs from tearing apart our precious wildlife in the wild.

Please comment on these petitions before the NRC meeting on March 16.  Make your feelings known to jkane@nrc.in.gov or sjensen@nrc.in.gov.  If you would like to attend the meeting, please get in touch with me for place and time.  That is in the process of being changed.  ceannicrc@yahoo.com

Thank you for your help in helping coyotes one coyote at a time.

CeAnn Lambert


International Symposium on Urban Wildlife 
Holly Hadac
Holly Hadac




















Coyote on train photo
A stray wild coyote on light rail train in
Portland, Oregon
Holly Hadac

As the Educational Director of the Indiana Coyote Rescue Center, I had the pleasure of representing ICRC at the International Symposium on Urban Wildlife and the Environment at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.  The Symposium ran from June 21 through June 24, with a variety of topics covered including Roads and Urban Wildlife, Managing Residential Landscapes for Wildlife, Wildlife Conflicts in Urban Areas, Ecology and Conservation of Birds in Urban Areas, Ungulate Management and Conservation Issues in Urban Areas, and Coyotes in Urban Landscapes:  Challenges and Opportunities.  I have become interested in presenting a program about ICRC at such future conferences as I believe that coyote researchers and biologists would be very interested in what Ms. Lambert does and how ICRC functions, focusing on her observations of the individual coyotes in her care, how they were obtained, and how they are managed.  Only half of the researchers that presented at this conference have had hands-on experience with coyotes, but none have had the intense opportunity to observe coyote behavior and be “close up and personal” as Ms. Lambert has.  

Twelve coyote researchers spoke, with each having only 20 minutes to present their work.  I will synopsize the presentations here.

The moderator, Camilla Fox, author and wildlife consultant, is the founding director of Project Coyote in California and the Animal Welfare Institute in Washington, D.C.  Her talk, “The coy coyote:  can we learn to coexist?”, concluded that the coyote is “forcing us to learn what it means to coexist.”  She states, “The abundance of food, water, and shelter found in such humanized landscapes has worked to the coyote’s advantage.  Intentional and unintentional feeding of coyotes has led to increasing encounters and conflicts.”  Lack of resources for state wildlife agencies and local municipalities to implement proactive strategies before sightings and encounters, the lack of agency coordination, and an uninformed public hinder effective conflict resolutions.  Her group is concerned about a “constant and readily available food source and an uninformed populace.”  Ms. Fox calls the coyote “free rodent control”, and feels that the coyote teaches children about the role of large carnivores.  The federal government’s 1934 “yearbook” called for “total extermination” of the coyote, and they attempted that by killing 6.5 million coyotes between 1916 and 2007.  We now know that lethal removal increases reproduction.  Ms. Fox’s organization found that county and other municipalities gave conflicting advice about how to deal with coyotes by developing their own policies, and created a lack of public awareness.  Some of the missions of Project Coyote are to lobby for laws, have community educational forums, and track calls to identify “hot spots” of coyote activity.  Project Coyote has also produced a 30 minute documentary.

 Seth Riley, wildlife biologist with the Santa Monica (California) Mountains National Recreation Area, spoke on “Movement patterns, toxicant exposure, and disease exposure in coyotes in urban southern California.”  He stated that coyotes have been in the Los Angeles area for 100 years.  His team radio-collared 110 coyotes between 1996 and 2004.  Four-fifths of the coyotes spent over 75% of their time in natural (undeveloped) areas.  One female lived and raised her young in the San Fernando Valley, a highly developed area north of Los Angeles.  Although 75% of her home range was developed, only 7.5% of her locations were in developed areas.  She spent her time in vegetated areas on a community college campus or in landscaped areas such as a golf course and parkland, and natural areas along the LA River.  Scat analysis showed less than 1% of cat remains, even in this urban area.  From 1996 to 2000 the coyotes showed a 75% survival rate.  The highest mortality was caused by cars, followed by poisons.  Eighty three percent of the collared coyotes tested positive for anticoagulants, while 20% showed three or four different compounds of rodenticides.  Coyotes were exposed to canine diseases such as canine distemper (52%), canine parvovirus (79%), and canine herpesvirus (64%), although no cases of these diseases were documented.  They attribute this to a higher association with urban animals.  None of his coyotes exhibited aggression towards humans or became nuisance animals.   

Dr. Stan Gehrt of Ohio State University spoke about his Chicago, Illinois study entitled “Ecology of coyotes in the Chicago region:  implications for management.”  He stated that not understanding the coyote leads to mismanagement.  Dr. Gehrt stated, “…the public’s perception of coyotes is often influenced by media accounts or publications that focus exclusively on conflicts, with little information on the ecology of coyotes in urban landscapes.”  His study area included 250-270 municipalities with 1.5-2 million people.  During 2000-2008, over 300 coyotes were radio-collared and 50,000 locations were analyzed.  He also has 11 pups micro-chipped.  Female coyotes had a 70% survival rate and pups had a 61% survival rate.  In the three years of his study, coyotes have been hit by cars, shot, and died of mange.  Pack sizes were from two to eight per 5 square kilometers, with solitary coyotes having a home range of 30 square kilometers or 120 square miles.  They were totally nocturnal.  O’Hare airport seems to be a “black hole” for coyotes where “they go in and don’t come out”.  There was very little natural habitat in his study area, with 10 animals having no natural habitat in their territories.  However, less than 20% of his resident coyotes were deemed nuisances by the public’s loose definition.  In all “nuisance” cases, disease or wildlife feeding was involved.  Most coyotes “avoided people and pets when possible.”  He finished by stating “Managing human behavior is the key.” 
--- Article continued at the end of the newsletter...


In Memoriam - Vedrona
Vedrona Photo
Vedrona 1993 - 2010
Vedrona passed away on January 14th 2010  She would have been seventeen this coming April.  She is survived by her brother, Marc who lives at the Nature Center at Land Between The Lakes in KY.  She and her sibblings were taken from the Purdue Airport when the air control operators heard the manager was going to poison them or set them on fire in their den.
She was a good coyote who was never any trouble in her lifetime.  She lived her life with Mama's Boy.  They had a very close relationship.
I will miss her.

CeAnn Lambert 



To Provide Live Prey or Not?
What a Question!
Coyote eating a vole picture
A wild coyote
eating a vole.
From Hard-Rain on Flickr 

Some wildlife rehabilitators insist that live prey must be fed to a predator before release, and some believe it is not necessary.  It never sat well with me.  I’m sacrificing one animal to save another?  As it didn’t make sense then, and now that I see how carnivores behave, I know it’s not necessary.  I understand from raptor rehabilitators that it is different with birds of prey with eye problems.  I will speak only about mammals.

I have been rehabilitating since 1996 and specialize in coyotes.  I am still awed at any species’ innate abilities.  How is it that the pampered six week old red fox kit knew to bury its food just a few hours after it was brought to me and put in my fox pen?  Who taught the three eight week old coyote pups I took in – from different areas – to bury their food in different places in their enclosure?  How did they know to eat a road killed fox squirrel I brought them, peeling it back like a banana and leaving me only a skin turned inside-out with a tail?  We have all seen nature films of wild animals playing with prey – jumping on grasshoppers, chasing mice, watching birds fly overhead.  We see this with our domestic pets – our dog barks to defend its home, a border collie has an instinct to herd.  No one teaches a baby rattlesnake to curl up and shake its rattles.  Raccoons know to “play” with their food in water.  A spider knows how to weave a web.  Nursing babies of any species are demonstrating a hard-wired behavioral system.  Innate behavior comes from an animal’s heredity and instinct is an example.  It is what is responsible for survival of the species, and of the individual. Even our flora species have innate abilities.

CeAnn Lambert runs the Indiana Coyote Rescue Center (www.coyoterescue.org).  I am her Educational Director. Ms. Lambert has been observing captive coyotes for 24 years.  She is so knowledgeable that coyote wildlife biologists call her for advice.  Dr. Eric Klinghammer is an ethologist at Wolf Park in Indiana, where they have had captive wolf breeding studies (www.wolfpark.org).  Ethology is the study of animal behavior in natural environments and the primary concern of the ethologists is instinctive or innate behavior (Eibl-Eibesfeldt and Kramer, 1958).  Dr. Klinghammer started Wolf Park in 1972 as an educational and research facility, mostly about wolves, but has also studied fox and coyote.  He refers coyote questions to Ms. Lambert.  She has told me that she laughs at those of us who think we have to teach coyotes to hunt, as she has observed how innate their ability is to do that.  One of the coyotes she has, Angel, was tied up in someone’s yard at the end of a chain for three years.  The Indiana Department of Natural Resources confiscated the coyote and brought it to ICRC.  She had not been there very long when Angel caught and killed a bird that flew into her pen. Dr. Klinghammer hand-raised six coyote puppies in the 1980’s.  His daughter had a large snake that she fed live rats to.  Having bought too many, she gave them to her father who put them in the coyotes’ pen.  These four month old coyotes had been bottle fed, then given beef, chicken, and a mix called “zoo food”.  He said those rats “didn’t know what hit them” as they were “chomped down on and gone.”  The coyotes had never had live prey before.  

Temple Grandin and Mark J. Deesing (Behavioral Genetics and Animal Science, 1998) discuss an experiment where raccoons were trained with coins to perform a food-related task, and state, “Instinctive food-getting behaviors gradually replaced the conditioned behavior” as the task was made more difficult for the raccoons.  They also state that J.C. Fentress (1973) “conducted an experiment on mice which clearly showed that animals have instinctive species-specific behavior patterns which do not require learning.”  The researchers also state, “Innate behaviors used for finding food, such as grazing, scavenging, or hunting, are more dependent on learning than behaviors used to consume food.  Mating behavior, nesting, eating, and prey-killing behaviors tend to be governed more by instinct (Gould, 1977).”  The italics are mine.  Thus, playing with grasshoppers and mice through accidentally finding them while walking through the field turns into instinctive prey-killing and consuming behaviors.          

I believe that to feed live prey to a predator that we have taken into rehabilitation violates our ethics, purpose, and mission.  Helping that animal to the best of our abilities is expected by our donors, and is what we are supposed to do.  However, when I have an animal die in my care not through a disease, and it is a species that my carnivores will eat, I do feed it to them.  I freeze it if it is at a time when I don’t have carnivores or ones that are eating solid food at that time.  I also pick up road kill, as carrion is what the carnivores will be eating after release.  I believe it helps them to recognize the food that they will encounter. 

The International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council has asked wildlife rehabilitators if live prey is part of our protocol with predator species.  This is considered an ethical debate amongst our community, and one that seems no one wants to talk about.  I am very glad that this subject has been opened for discussion!  However, I believe the point is not whether “providing live prey is of marginal use” because it “doesn’t provide the same conditions the predator will face in the wild.”  I believe it’s a waste of time, resources, and a life, speaking more to our inability to accept a predator’s innate abilities and thinking that we know more about the animal that it does!  We all know that wild animals are also wired to be silent and hide fear.  I bet that if those little animals screamed in terror and we saw the look of fear in their eyes and on their faces, those of us that do feed live prey would use this as the reason to stop instead of the work of the experts cited above.

Holly Hadac
Wildlife Acres Rehabilitation
Oakland County, Michigan
Vice-President, Michigan Wildlife Rehabilitators Association
Educational Director, Indiana Coyote Rescue Center
Member: IWRC, NWRA, MWRA, OWRA, AAWV, MNA, Friends of Wildlife

Your Voice for the Coyotes
We are asking our readers to write letters sharing their experiences about wild or captive coyotes, living with coyotes in ranching country, trying to help coyotes and federal predator control. Let people know that someone is out there fighting for these wonderful animals. The letters will be placed on our website and in the newsletter.
Please email your letters to CeAnn at ceannicrc@yahoo.com 


Becoming Coyote Poem
Carol Hatfield
Carol Hatfield








Coyote tracks
in the snow

Coyote Tracks

Some days   it’s difficult
    to remain
    on two legs

Earth calls
    for my other half

and I come down
        willingly

some nights
        my skin
    turns to fog

    and I swallow
        clouds of dark

    which erupt
    in a flood
        of song

I can’t help
but to sing

my heart is a river


these days…
these nights…

I can’t remember
    a time
when joy
        was so rampant


By Carol Hatfield

About the Indiana Coyote Rescue Center
CeAnn & Artemis
CeAnn & Artemis
Photo by Tom Strickland Photography
© Detroit Free Press
The center is currently home to 20 coyotes and two foxes, all rescued from humane shelters or private wildlife rehabilitators when the animals couldn’t care for themselves in the wild, usually because they’d become too socialized to humans and lacked survival skills. ICRC is licensed by the state. CeAnn Lambert has supported her facility from donations and her own funds. ICRC is a not-for-profit 501 (c) 3 organization. Information about helping ICRC is on the website under the wish-list section.

Address: PO Box 275, Burlington IN 46915, USA
Phone: 1-765-566-3800
Website: www.coyoterescue.org
Gift Store: www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue
Email: ceannicrc@yahoo.com

Indiana Coyote Rescue Center Logo was designed by Nadia T. Beji
Newsletter text & photos © 2010 Indiana Coyote Rescue Center


Continuation of:
Fencing to Replace Killing as a Means to
Control Coyote Populations in Problem Areas

It may be because of the open year-round hunting, the presence of coyotes near livestock even with no evidence nor indication  of livestock damage, and the fact that coyotes are a predator species that many livestock farmers (and also urban citizens) feel threatened. This psychological threatened feeling fuels increased aggressive revenge, which in many cases leads to the death of innocent coyote victims. These people will go to whatever means they can to kill the coyote. In many cases this leads to abuse, and should not be tolerated.  Strict legislation preventing this from happening is needed.  Many of these livestock farmers will use dogs to hunt down the coyotes, which causes a terrible death by being torn apart, whereas others will actually place bait (dead livestock carcasses) in accessible areas to purposefully attract coyotes with the sole aim to kill them for what they call ‘fun’. Then there are others that psychologically feel that because they are human they have the right to eliminate other species, what they call ‘competing species‘, just because they can. This ignorance leads to blatant stupidity, as other potential ‘problem animals’ increase in numbers. When most people know that there is an effective solution to the problem (by a particular predator species) they are more tolerant to the presence of individuals that are not causing the problem (De Wet, 2007).

I do understand however that fencing alone may not be enough to prevent attacks on livestock altogether, as over time coyotes may determine how to breach the fence and once inside they may not be able to get out and attacks may continue. Therefore, continued maintenance would be imperative, which can be time consuming. The cost in time and minor quantities of reparation material should be considered in light of the cost of the potential loss of livestock.

Potential livestock management protection methods should be overviewed by the livestock producers in conjunction with wildlife management agencies and biodiversity management officials, to determine the least invasive methods possible that allow farmers to continue their production levels. The methods suggested by Marnewick (2008), include: 1) Carefully looking at the calving/lambing season, ensuring all or most females produce young at the same time periods, which will provide heightened protection from the mothers. Calving or lambing season could also be synchronized at the same time as deer and/or antelope, thereby ensuring that there is enough outside food resource for the coyotes. 2) Providing predator-proof (coyote-proof) enclosures for the young livestock and their mothers when they are most vulnerable to attack. This is where coyote-proof fencing could be used without disrupting other protected wildlife species.  3) Providing solar electric fencing around problem areas or in combination with coyote -proof fencing  for extra protection. 4) Human presence by means of a herder or sheppard, which entails weighing the difference between loss of livestock to coyotes and paying a wage. 5) Dogs can be a potentially very effective and cheap form of livestock protection.

Farmers have been fighting an ever existing war  (with traditional management methods - usually killing) against predators for hundreds of years. With all the human knowledge and technology they have not yet overcome one of the biggest problems for livestock protection. In the natural environment where species interact in a biodiverse ecosystem, void of any human interference, co-existence takes place continuously from the top predators on the ecological pyramid to the lowest producers. Perhaps we as humans should reconsider, and place more emphasis on researching coyote ecology and behavior, and livestock farm management techniques, pursuing the goal of co-existence with other species and competing carnivores (including the coyotes).  I am not mentioning the loss or reduction in livestock production nor lowered profit goals for livestock producers, I am just suggesting tolerance, understanding and compassion for other living species - such as the coyote. I feel that with careful consideration we can  reduce coyote  numbers naturally, not with force, aggression and vengeance, but with complete understanding. Even with all our onslaught on coyotes, they still seem to have the ‘upper-hand’; and human behavior (management methods included) also still seems to favor their increase in numbers.

According to Wade (1982), restrictions on other livestock damage control methods have led to increased efforts in the USA to utilize exclusion fences for the protection of livestock from coyotes, and other meso-predator species. Wade (1982) also found that coyote-proof fencing, resembling jackal-proof fencing, would be very efficient at controlling coyote predation on livestock in smaller acreage, but not economical nor practical on larger acreage. This was due to the critical need for sound construction and maintenance (Wade, 1982) for maximum effectiveness, besides actual damage due to weather conditions. Rodents and other burrowing animals may be  able to breach the fence allowing easier passage for coyotes from one side to the other. Natural forces such as soil slides, erosion, windstorms, or tornadoes could potentially cause breaks, which would need rapid repairing, but these are relatively uncommon occurrences.

Tests for different fencing designs were carried out by Lantz (1905) and Jardine (1908, 1909, 1910) in the USA, with results indicating that they would be sufficient to exclude coyotes. The US Department of Agriculture (1909) reported that experimental use of coyote-proof fencing of 2560 acres in Northeastern Oregon was highly successful in protecting ewes and lambs from coyote predation. This obviously gave advantages results of no livestock loses to coyotes, increased lamb weights, and more efficient use and carrying capacity of the range (Wade, 1982).

These positive result’s, from different research on different fencing designs, to prevent coyotes gaining access to livestock continued into the late 1970’s and 1980’s. Sands (1977), de Calesta and Cropsey (1978) and Thompson (1979) concluded that although construction costs of fences were high, they were effective in excluding most coyotes (Wade, 1982). Properly designed minimal electric fencing in combination with coyote-proof fencing can very effectively protect sheep from coyotes (Gates, 1978).

Opposition and concerns to most forms of fencing, other than private land and livestock owners with construction costs and maintenance time, seems to come from wildlife and conservation agencies such as the US Wildlife Society, Bureau of Land Management, and Game & Fish Departments, whom vigorously oppose such fencing on privately owned land where they could restrict free movement of pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), elk (Cervus canadensis) or other wild species (Wade, 1982). These agencies were also concerned with the visual impact of fences and the need for recommendations for aesthetic criteria to be established.

I feel, taking all these considerations into account that coyote-proof fencing in the United States, like jackal-proof fencing in South Africa, would be an overall viable, economically feasible (with government assistance), practical solution in the long run. It would minimize livestock damage from coyotes (or other predators) and reduce coyote population numbers (therefore non-invasively increase population control), especially in problem areas; included with simultaneous sound, overhauled livestock management techniques. Preventing the old and present invasive empowerment methods of killing and abuse. This would help considerably to pursue the worldwide holistic management approach to ‘problem animals’.

References:

De Calesta, D.S., 1976. Evaluation of wire fences for control of coyote depredation. In: Minutes and Proceedings, 1976 Annual Meeting, Technical Committee of Regional Research Project W-123,  September 16-17, 1976, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

De Calesta, D.S. and M.G. Cropsey, 1978. Field test of coyote-proof fence. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 6: 256-259.

De Lorenzo D.G., 1977. Fencing against coyotes. Extension Circular 916, Oregon State University Extension Service, Corvallis, 3 pp.

De Wet, T., 2007. Animal Damage Control Institute, South Africa : Important Concepts. http://www.jackal.co.za/.

De Wet, T, 2007. Comments on the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004) - South Africa.

Dorrance, M.J. and  J. Bourne, 1980. An evaluation of anti-coyote electric fencing. Journal of Range Management, 33: 385-387.

Gates, N., 1978. Constructing an effective anti-coyote electric fence. Leaflet No. 565, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 6 pp.

Hall-Martin, A.J. and  B.P.Botha, 1980. A note on feeding habitats, ectoparasites and measurements of the black-backed jackal Canis Mesomelas from Addo Elephant Park. Koedoe 23:157-162.

Jardine, J.T., 1908. Preliminary report on grazing experiments in a coyote-proof pasture. Forest Service Circular No. 156, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 32 pp.

Jardine, J.T., 1909. Coyote-proof pasture experiment - 1908.  Forest Service Circular No. 160, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 40 pp.

Jardine,  J.T., 1910. The pasture system for handling range sheep. Forest Service Circular No. 178, U.S. Department Agriculture, 40 pp.

Lantz, D.E., 1905. Coyotes in their economic relations. Biological Survey Bulletin No. 20, U.S Department of agriculture, 28 pp.

Marnewick, K., 2008. Predators and Livestock Protection Problems. De Wildt Wild Cheetah Project, South Africa. http://www.dewildt.org.za/wcppredationproblems.htm

Mc Kee, W.M., 1913. South African Sheep and Wool. T. Maskew Miller, Cape Town, South Africa, 526 pp.

Sands, P., 1977. Oregon - California range tour.  Cooperative Extension Service, University of California, Davis, Range Resources 2: 1-2.

South African National Legislation Overviews, Legal B’s Resources for Africa. Fencing Act No. 31 of 1963: section 3 and 4.  http://www.legalb.co.za/SANatTxt/1963_000/1963_031_000-Ove-v00000000.htm

Thompson, B.C., 1978. Fence-crossing behavior exhibited by coyotes. Wildlife Society Bulletin 6: 14-17.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1909. Yearbook of the U.S. Department of Agriculture - 1908, pp. 62-63.

Wade, D.A., 1982. The use of fences for predator damage control. Proceedings of the tenth vertebrate pest conference (1982). Texas Agricultural Extension Service, San Antonio, Texas.

Wildlife Society, 1974. Recommendations for the BLM fencing workshop, March 22 and 23, 1974, in Cheyenne Wyoming, 4 pp.

Williamson, L.L., 1975. BLM adopts fencing policy. Outdoor New Bulletin 29: 5.

Williamson, L.L., 1978. BLM fence policy gets boost. Outdoor New Bulletin, 32: 4.

Worthington, V., 1977. Fence modification controversy rages in New Mexico. Conservation News, 42: 10-13.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 1978. Fencing Guidelines, July 11, 1978. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, 5 pp.



Continuation of:
International Symposium on Urban Wildlife

Dan Bogan, a biologist from the New York Department of Natural Resources, spoke about “Coyote resource use in a human-dominated, suburban landscape.”  He studied 491scat and determined that human food comprised about 5% of their diet and plants 30%.  White-tailed deer was found to comprise more than 80% of 267 scats and his team suspected the abundance of road killed deer to be the reason.  Five scat contained cat remains while none contained domestic dog.  The majority of coyote locations were in natural lands (71%), and 28% were in residential, recreational, and agricultural areas.  Mr. Bogan stated they “move pretty fast” when moving through residential areas.  None of his study coyotes were habitual problems.  The coyotes were seldom seen, with 70% of them selecting for natural habitat.

Dr. Numi Mitchell, a wildlife biologist and coyote researcher from Rhode Island, spoke about “Territory boundary changes in adjacent coyote packs:  implications for management.”  Her team has 14 packs collared.  The average range was 4.6 square kilometers, with the transients having a range of 23.5 square kilometers.  The resident coyotes trespassed onto another pack’s territory only 19% of the time.  Low incidence of trespassing led her team to believe that most of the home range was defended territory.  Core territory was frequently marked by lines of scats deposited on entry trails by resident coyotes.  In 2005 to 2008, all the packs were subsidized by anthropogenic, or human-supplied food.  It is well-known among coyote researchers that reproduction success is determined by food availability.  If people continue to supply food the coyotes “get bold and aggressive, expecting food from people.”  On one of the islands, the coyotes were subsidized by sheep farmers dumping carcasses.  The coyotes didn’t roam much – their territory was also their home range.  They determined that these coyotes had small territories due to the food availability.  Her team has developed a plan to be implemented this year which includes public education, encouraging town ordinances influencing the intentional feeding of wildlife, and disposal of livestock and road kill in fenced composting facilities.  They expect that the coyotes will then develop larger territory sizes once subsidies are removed.  Dr. Mitchell stated, “We can manage them by managing food.  We should passively manage coyotes while aggressively managing ourselves.” 

Dr. Jon Way, a coyote biologist from Massachusetts, spoke about “Eastern coyote movement patterns:  lessons learned in urbanized ecosystems.”  Coyotes have been on Cape Cod for 30 years.  He has been tracking radio-collared coyotes on Cape Cod and around Boston for 11 years.  Coyotes in his study travel 10-15 miles a night.  Their territories are 15 to 30 square kilometers in size.  Some coyotes have dispersed up to 400 kilometers.  They “moved mostly at night and through altered open areas (e.g. powerlines, dumps) more than expected when compared to residential and natural areas.”  Dr. Way’s presentation included videos of coyotes showing an energy saving shuffle-type quick walk, where they don’t lift their feet off the ground any more than necessary.  Other researchers commented on how informative the videos were.  Dr. Way stated, “We need to control human behavior”, “promote long term coexistence”, and “random removal of coyotes is counterproductive”.  His team recommends that “coyote management efforts focus more on educating the public about coyote behavior and their life history needs than on killing them.”  

Maili Page, a Research Fellow from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, spoke about “Analysis of coyote behavior in relation to land use type on Cape Cod, Massachusetts”.   She states the coyote is “the first large carnivore to be able to tolerate anthropogenic environments with altered landscapes and fragmented habitats.”  Ms Page has recorded 9,000 points on 10 coyotes over 10 years from Dr. Way’s work.  Only 42% of their home ranges included forest.  The rest of their area included wetlands (the preferred habitat), open land, residential (34%), and commercial (12%).  The study covered all four coyote seasons:  breeding, denning, pup rearing, and dispersal.  Ms. Page is interested in further researching the behavioral reasons of land use.  Is it simply a preference?  Is it due to proximity?  Is use of certain lands “allowed” through dominance?  Incidentally, her team noticed a high density of ticks on the Cape because of more wetlands. 

Dr. Eric Strauss, also with Dr. Way’s study in Massachusetts, spoke about “Coyote populations in urban ecosystems: ecosystem services and trophic considerations.”    He found that in areas where there are coyotes, birds foraged greater distances from cover due to less cats in the area.  Dr. Strauss stated there are “waves of activities between cats and coyotes with not much interaction.”  His research also shows “that coyotes, as top order predators, may play an important role in the trophic dynamics of urban ecosystems.”

Nadine Pellegrini of Tufts Cummings School, Center for Animals and Public Policy, spoke about “Coyotes, conflicts, and animal control officers in Massachusetts:  a study of attitudes, values, and perceptions of animal control officers (ACO’s) in Massachusetts with respect to human-coyote conflicts.”  Ms. Pellegrini is a former federal prosecutor.  She stated the ACO’s know their geographic area and animal populations.  None of the ACO’s in her study called coyotes “problems”.  She believes they are an underutilized resource for educating the public about coyotes.  ACO’s would be a good resource because they already have the respect and trust from the public, and are a resource for those wanting to educate the public about coyotes.  They also know the public’s values and conflicts with wildlife.  She asked every ACO what they wanted if she could do anything for them.  Not one wanted better equipment or pay.  Every ACO wanted time to educate the public. 

Heather Hudenko, a graduate student at Cornell University in New York who specializes in wildlife conservation and human-carnivore interactions, spoke about “Human-coyote relationships in suburban New York:  exploring people’s attitudes and experiences.”  Her team interviewed over 500 people from two suburban areas of New York State using phone surveys, and conducted media coverage analysis.  Less than four percent of people reported problems with coyotes but 80% were worried about problems.  The longer people lived around coyotes the less concerned they were.  Sociodemographic variables were relevant.  The researchers found that the media presents experiences with coyotes as negative.  Her team’s goal is to foster neutral experiences, minimize negative experiences, and determine if people’s experiences were direct or indirect.

Megan Draheim of Project Coyote and a PhD student at George Mason University’s Department of Environmental Science and Policy, spoke about “Attitudes toward coyotes in urban landscapes:  management and public outreach implications.”  In 2005 she surveyed 769 George Mason University students about coyotes.  Most had fears that coyotes would spread rabies and attack children.  Most respondents also thought that coyotes weighed over 100 pounds and were an endangered species.  Also, most of those surveyed liked human management methods (such as not providing food) over coyote management methods (such as killing).  Through education, positive changes occurred.  People understood the coyote social nature and diet.

William Lynn, PhD, of Williams College Environmental Studies in Massachusetts spoke about “Cosmopolitan coyotes:  practical ethics in a mixed community of humans and coyotes.”  Mr. Lynn conducts ethics training for wildlife professionals, focusing on ethics and social relationships with coyotes.  He asserts that “ethics is an alternative moral compass for the troubled relationship between people and coyotes.”  Mr. Lynn believes that “non-human animals have an intrinsic moral value that deserves our respect” and states, “It’s ignorant and arrogant to think human beings manage wildlife.”


Return back to the Newsletter Index