Coyotehunter.net

Coyote killing jumps in state

By CHRIS MERRILL
Star-Tribune environment reporter
Friday, August 1, 2008 2:06 AM MDT

LANDER -- If there's a war being waged against coyotes in the Cowboy State, a recent troop surge has led to a spike in canine fatalities, according to new federal statistics.

As most observers had predicted, a $6 million, two-year boost in state funding for predator control programs has resulted in an increase in the number of coyotes killed by federal agents who contract with county predator management boards.

During fiscal year 2007, U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services agents gunned down, snared, trapped and poisoned 10,914 coyotes in Wyoming. It was the highest take yet recorded, and 3,054 more than were killed during the previous fiscal year.

Compared to the preceding seven-year average, federal hunters in fiscal year 2007 killed 61 percent more coyotes.

And the total number of coyotes killed should rise even more when the 2008 figures are tallied, said Rod Krischke, program director for USDA Wildlife Services in Wyoming.

"I think we're going to continue to see the numbers go up a little more," Krischke said. "(Fiscal year) 2007 was a partial year, in terms of the new funding. The (state's Animal Damage Management Board) funded some aerial hunting that didn't start until late spring, and a lot of the new field personnel didn't get started until halfway through the year. So I think when we have a whole year, we'll see an additional increase."

Coyotes have for years been the No. 1 target of USDA Wildlife Services agents in Wyoming, with annual kills in the range of 6,000 to 7,000.

County predator management boards hire the federal agents to take out predators in the hope of protecting livestock. And now with the new infusion of state funding, the boards are also required to spend some of the dollars to enhance local wildlife populations.

"We're hopeful (the increased coyote take) will translate into a reduction in losses of livestock," Krischke said. "But we're also hoping we will see some increases in deer, antelope and bighorn sheep."

Wildlife Services added about 20 people to its statewide force following the funding increase, and now 40 to 45 in-the-field agents are working in Wyoming, Krischke said.

Of the nearly 11,000 coyotes destroyed by the agents in fiscal year 2007, nearly 7,500 were shot from airplanes, according to the USDA statistics released last week.

Another 1,480 were killed by firearms on the ground. The next most common method used was neck snares, with which agents killed 871 coyotes.

Fewer sheep losses

Bryce Reece, executive vice president of the Wyoming Wool Growers Association, said predator management programs that target coyotes are essential to sheep producers.

Reece said he has heard, anecdotally, that following the recent increase in coyote kills, sheep growers are seeing significantly fewer losses to the canines this year, and in some cases the losses are down 50 percent.

Hard numbers for this year, however, won't be available until March 2009, once the results of an annual survey are published, he said.

Last year sheep losses to coyotes dipped to their lowest total in recent history, to 1,300. In 2006 woolgrowers lost 2,100 sheep to coyotes. Back in 2001, about 4,300 sheep were reported to have been killed by the canines. The total number of sheep and lambs on the landscape varies from year to year, but in 2007 there were roughly the same number of total potential lambs in Wyoming as there were in 2001.

"When you're talking to livestock producers, specifically sheep producers, losses are significantly lower, which is going to be tremendously beneficial to us this year," Reece said.

Fewer losses to coyotes will help offset increased losses due to a cold, wet spring, he said.

"A lot of the effort to take out coyotes is focused at or just before lambing," he said. "It's not a long-term thing, we know this -- coyotes move in once there's a void -- but it does remove the ones that are there that could be causing damage (at that critical time)."

Later on in the summer most of the coyote hunting is contracted in response to specific livestock kills, he said.

John Etchepare, co-chairman of the state's Animal Damage Management Board and director of the Wyoming Department of Agriculture, said although no hard numbers are available yet, it's apparent that sheep losses to coyotes has dipped again this year.

"Having been in the sheep business most of my life, anecdotally, we know we've had much better control this year and less loss of sheep," Etchepare said.

The increased coyote take should also benefit some deer, antelope and bighorn sheep populations, he said.

'Constant bloodletting'

Although it might be difficult for some people to stomach, managing coyotes is essential if Wyoming wants to maintain its diversity of wildlife, as well as its sheep industry, Etchepare said.

"Generally, a predator's natural population control, if they don't have a natural enemy, is eating themselves out of a food source," he said. "If we're going to keep a diverse population out there, we're going to have to help manage that, and at some point you have to destroy animal life. The object of this is to control the coyote populations both for livestock and wildlife populations."

But Franz Camenzind, biologist and head of the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, resolutely disagrees with that position.

Camenzind researched coyotes for eight years, in which time he discovered that most of the arguments still used to justify exterminating coyotes don't stand up to scientific scrutiny, he said.

The claim, for example, that coyotes will just eat prey until it's all gone is completely off base, he said.

"It's a bogus oversimplification," Camenzind said. "That's kind of hard to accept if you consider how all these species have evolved together. We have national parks where there is no predator control, and the wildlife, including prey, is thriving."

One reason is that coyotes, like wolves, are territorial, he said. Once they get old enough to establish a territory, they set up shop and keep other coyotes out. And the canines also will not overbreed a given geographical area.

Studies have shown, for example, that in unmolested populations of coyotes, there are times when adult coyotes won't breed because the population has become saturated, Camenzind said.

Coyotes tend to be both a scapegoat and a red herring when it comes to struggling wildlife populations, he said. But a well-established biological reality is that food availability, more than anything else, determines the fate of a given antelope, deer or bighorn sheep herd.

"It's habitat, it's habitat, it's habitat," he said.

Killing the coyotes historically has no discernible effect on livestock losses or coyote numbers and has only served to make the coyote population younger, less established and less organized than it would be naturally after establishing territories, Camenzind said.

"These animals are so prolific, they're going to reoccupy habitat. It's going to be a constant bloodletting, a tremendous waste of money, and you're not going to change your overall losses very much," Camenzind said.

Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, said coyote control has become more targeted over the years, which has made it more effective in terms of reducing livestock losses. But it has also made it more expensive.

Indiscriminate killing is cheaper, he said, but it's not what is practiced these days.

"The program has always been critical to us, and for a number of years now the goal has not been just to remove the greatest number of animals, but to target the coyotes that are killing livestock," Magagna said.

While sheep producers use other methods of protecting their livestock, including extensive use of guard dogs, there are times when it is essential to contract with Wildlife Services to take out animals that are taking high numbers of sheep, he said.

Lethal predator control is a critical component of a sheep grower's overall program to limit losses to predators, Magagna said, and without it the losses would be too great.

It's a bogus oversimplification," Camenzind said. "That's kind of hard to accept if you consider how all these species have evolved together. We have national parks where there is no predator control, and the wildlife, including prey, is thriving."


True but there are no domistic livestock in any of the national parks that I am aware of.



"Coyotes tend to be both a scapegoat and a red herring when it comes to struggling wildlife populations, he said. But a well-established biological reality is that food availability, more than anything else, determines the fate of a given antelope, deer or bighorn sheep herd."


True but when that food source disappears due to drought, blizzards, or forest fires fawn recruitment is hampered by predation. With the economic impact of sport hunting in a state like Wyoming (and ranching for that matter) it is not economically feasible to allow that source of revenue to just disappear for these small communities in rural america. If just left up to nature to take its course the size of the predator population would deminish over time and allow the herds to recover. In the mean time what are the business owners to do. The coyotes along with every other wild animal are owned and managed by the state. If a wolf kills and eats a cow the state is economicaly responsible for the loss.
A outfitter that guides antelope hunts loses potential customers if the Game and Fish reduce the available tags for a county if the population drops below a set point. (Carbon county is a great example.) The state sees that revenue source reduced do to the lost income from tags. Nature will always EVENTUALLY find a balance but that time line does not work fast enough in todays world. If you really wanted to get digging there are more studies than you can shake a stick at that will challenge the notion of "It's habitat, it's habitat, it's habitat," but do to my short attention span I am not going to start quoteing them. They are all public information sponsored and funded by the US goverment. Dr. Franz J. Camenzind conducted his study "Behavioral ecology of coyotes on the National Elk Refuge" outside of Jackson Hole, Wy. Not exactly the real world.

Here is his Bio:
Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance Staff
Executive Director, Dr. Franz J. Camenzind:
Franz has been involved with the Conservation Alliance for more than 20 years and has lived in Jackson Hole since 1970. He holds a B.S. in Biology from the University of Wisconsin, an M.S. in Zoology from Brigham Young University, and a Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of Wyoming. He is a well-respected wildlife cinematographer and has produced films for ABC, Discovery, and National Geographic. Franz served as an Alliance board member from 1984 to 1996 before accepting the position as Executive Director in July of 1996. In addition to being the leading spokesperson for the Alliance and heading up the Alliance staff, Franz keeps close tabs on issues dealing with wildlife and land management issues.


The book God's Dog by Hope Ryden gives in its foreword a thanks to "Biologist Franz Camenzind for some valuable discussions"

the book by Lee Alan Dugatkin thanked Franz Camenzind "for the use of his pictures" in another study I found.

I seems as though the schooled people of the world know whats best for the unschooled. Trappers and farmers are not looked upon until big money is to be lost. In Minnesota the DNR was relocating wolves around the state for some unknown reason. Ask some of the farmers about the wolves. I have a friend that asked the DNR about the relocating and they said they didn't. So he said then we can shoot all of those big coyotes we have been seeing. They got the answer they needed. Wild life is always second place to money.

Ya know that's a pile of money, $6 millon boost in two years, 3 millon a year I assume, on an existing budget of how much?
We run 19 trappers and were running two planes on a little over a millon, total!!!!!

RandyRoede wrote:Ya know that's a pile of money, $6 millon boost in two years, 3 millon a year I assume, on an existing budget of how much?
We run 19 trappers and were running two planes on a little over a millon, total!!!!!

Last I heard your entire budget was in jeopardy.

Obviously you know we are funded from three different sources? Of the 1.2 millon approx 500,000 from the feds with an approx match with GFP funds along with another 200,000 in county exise tax. So I guess it would be pretty hard to lose all funding.

I thought you were funded through the SD Game and Fish. Isn't there a chance that the fed money may become unavailable to the game and fish? I thought there would be more interest in the comments in the article velifying predator control and not on the ADMB's ability to raise funds for controling predators. The way the Wyoming Wool growers association pursued and finally illicited an opinion that the predators of wyoming where the property of and the responsibilty of the state Wyoming. This can only be a positive change in how funds are appropriated in all states.

It is obvious that Camenzind's observations of coyotes are skewed. A national park is a totaly different environment then areas where there is harvest of both predator and prey species. If the population of coyotes were left unchecked as he suggests the state of Wyoming wouldn't have any residents anymore. Livestock producers would be put out of business and the local economy would go under as coyotehunter stated. Then many years down the road the population would stabilize, I guess that is this what this goofball suggests. Then he could turn the whole state into a national park. In a state that has that many livestock producers as well as sportsman there is definite justification for the size of there predator control program. As shown the number of livestock losses have been significantly reduced which is the overall goal. And I am sure recruitment of big game species has also showed the benefits of there program.

No matter what fed funding in whatever program you talk about there is always a chance you may lose some or all of it. Our fed funding became an issue because of funding issues similar to other programs, funding of the war, farm bill etc. A change in administration ,a position on a committee and anything can happen with fed money anywhere!

I think it's great 6 millon more was pumped in WY, I would just wonder what is going to happen after the two years are up. Like us, is longterm funding available, something guys that have been doing this for 20 plus years have dealt with time amd time again! Our program is not totally dependant on fed money so we do have a few more options.

In that whole article the focus is the new money and how it allowed more positions to be added etc ,leading to a reduction of 800 sheep being killed by predators. Those numbers are something to be proud of.

The other comments about the what ifs of predator control well although not shared are still heard and addressed. We do work for all of the general public to a cetain extent. A constant jugglling act!

Well i was really interested in the article in the beginning when they were complimenting you gentleman for all your hard work and great dedictation to keep the liestock producers happy. Then like all other articles there is a retarded twist to it. Why can't they interview the bioligists first, that have as mentioned in the article, 6 years of experience studying them in a controled environment (if you ask me). Then interview the guy who has been at this for 20+ years in controling them. It would only be fair that we can have our rebuttle back. As jamie mentioned there are no livestock in a park to his knowledge. The animals in a park are not domestic and can not easily be preyed upon. Sheep and cattle dont have the speed or the wits to outsmart/outrun a coyote. I also bet that if you were to put wildlife in fenced in area with a small pack of coyotes that eventually there will be no more wildlife and the coyote will be that last one standing looking at eating his buddy if it came to it. Im sure the breeding aspect of if there is limited food available they have smaller litter sizes but i dont think a coyote is going to stick around the area either. He is going to venture out and pursue another area to get food. Maybe that bilogist needs to read up on some other studies on how much predation costs the rancher! Keep up the great work guys and stack'em high.

Some of the biggest problems with the biologist types is that they do find out some interesting stuff but they never think of the difference in cages animals, national parks (unmolested animals) and wild scenerios.

Wyoming is funded by fed dollars, state dollars and the predator tax.