Coyote Shooting Justification

[The Hedgehog]

My moose hunt video has a couple coyotes being called in to close range (while cow moose calling) and gunned down with a 300 Magnum. I've got a bit of grief about doing that by some people.

Personally, I enjoy killing them and don't feel a bit bad about it - even if I wound or maim one, even if I don't walk up to the dead carcass or bother keeping the hide.

I think coyotes deserve respect, pretty crafty and prolific animal. However, I feel that killing them is doing big game and livestock a favor.

What are your thoughts on killing coyotes?

 

[wilecoyote76]

I say kill 'em all!

 

[Spitz]

They're like house cats and lawyers . . . the fewer the better. Pretty fun to shoot with a .300 mag too (that includes house cats, there's probably a law making it illegal to use a .300 on lawyers)

I have a fairly sensitive conscience when it comes to animals, and try my best to respect the life of any animal I harvest, but I'm not troubled a bit when I leave a coyote as it lays.

 

[MarvB]

I don't fault a 'yote for earning it's living doing what a 'yote does...that being said, if they can fit in my crosshairs- they are going down. Kind of the vermin of the predator ranks. And I've killed more with my .300 than I have with any other cartridge as I don't often go out specifically for dogs.

On the rare occassion I do go calling it is pretty satisfying to get one in close and see that WTF look on their faces trying to swap ends and turn inside out running away from the .223....

 

[Dinkshooter]

Nothing better than listening to dogs howl in the evening.

I still do like hunt them and there are few things more fun than shooting at running dogs.

However, I don't ever do it when they are not prime and always take the hide, but I don't care if others do it, just a personal choice.

 

[Bambistew]

I dont' have a problem with shooting yotes.

An animal is an animal weather its a mouse or a moose, or anything in between, they all deserve respect.

IMO people get pissed off about 'fun' killing more so than 'meat' killing. While I don't have a problem with either, I really find no entertainment in watching a video of a praire dog blow up in slow motion, or watch a poorly shot coyote bite away at its guts haning out on the ground. Personally I think any animal we take upon ourselves to kill deserve to be killed quickly and humanely.

 

[shoots-straight]

I believe that the coyote is a fantastic animal that's worthy of any hunters respect. Outwitting them gives me great satisfaction, just as with harvesting a elk or deer. I don't hunt them when the hides are useless or when their with young that can't fend for themselves... If a rancher is haveing a problem though I'm willing and able to lend a hand so long as I get permission to hunt them latter in the season...

 

[JoseCuervo]

If you like killing them, fine, kill them. Just don't pretend you are doing Big Game and Livestock a favour, as Yotes will increase their reproduction rates when their populations are low, and, conversely, decrease their reproduction rates when pouplations are high.

 

[justdada]

Second what Bambi said.
Take seriously the taking of a life. Ethics and morals should guide that; if you need another reason to be responsible, consider the impact of bad public relations on our sport.

 

[Turbo]

If it is legal in your state, what is the problem?

 

[The Hedgehog]

If you like killing them, fine, kill them. Just don't pretend you are doing Big Game and Livestock a favour, as Yotes will increase their reproduction rates when their populations are low, and, conversely, decrease their reproduction rates when pouplations are high.

I've heard that theory. I don't buy it. The feds must not buy it either since they spend quite a bit of money on predator (coyote) management. I do remember when the fur prices were way high back in the 80s. Consequently, there were fewer coyotes around and they were much more challenging to find and kill.. I wonder why? I don't buy the leftist environmental ecology theory.

I enjoy shooting the crafty little bastards and won't dance around the right or wrong of it to try and satisfy people who liken these varmint-predators to their pet. I also enjoy shooting bears and try to kill one every year. One less fawn/calf eater out there... And with coyotes, there is just now way to over harvest them..

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ask yourself why the Feds would have chosen to eradicate Grizzlies and Wolves in the last century but not Coyotes? could it have been that Coyotes can reproduce fast enough to use the food/territory and the larger predators can't?

I've heard that theory. I don't buy it. The feds must not buy it either since they spend quite a bit of money on predator (coyote) management. I do remember when the fur prices were way high back in the 80s. Consequently, there were fewer coyotes around and they were much more challenging to find and kill.. I wonder why? I don't buy the leftist environmental ecology theory.

Yeah, all them 'Ologists don't know what they are studying....

COYOTE POPULATION PROCESSES REVISITED

FREDERICK F. KNOWLTON, Denver Wildlife Research Center, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-5295

ERIC M. GESE, Denver Wildlife Research Center, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-5295

Abstract: It appears that coyote (Canis latrans) abundance is determined primarily by availability of food (prey) as mediated through social dominance hierarchies and a territorial land tenure system. This is reflected in rates of reproduction, dispersal, and mortality, with survival of juveniles a major factor. Suggestions for a new generation of simulation models to explore coyote population functions are included.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Population manipulation is a prominent component of many coyote management programs. Understanding the factors affecting animal abundance and the mechanisms of population regulation can assist in recognizing the merits and liabilities associated with such management approaches. In turn, this should help identify more flexible management scenarios and result in management programs that are more selective, effective and efficient.

Gier (1968) and Knowlton (1972) provided some initial information on coyote population parameters. Additional information from a variety of authors lead Knowlton and Stoddart (1983) to hypothesize that coyote abundance was governed by interactions between available food (prey) and coyote behavioral characteristics, namely social dominance and territoriality, with the impact expressed through the processes of reproduction, mortality, ingress and egress. Similar conclusions were reached by Packard and Mech (1983) to explain population regulation in grey wolves (C. lupus). Herein we review these ideas in light of information acquired in recent years.

Evidence concerning food abundance

Knowlton and Stoddart (1983) used 3 lines of evidence to support the contention that food abundance was a major determinant of coyote abundance, namely: (1) state by state averages of the indices of coyote abundance calculated from the Westwide Survey of Predator Abundance (Linhart and Knowlton 1975, Roughton and Sweeny 1982); (2) a meager data set concerning coyote and rodent abundance on sites scattered throughout Texas; and (3) a 15-year time series of coyote and jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) density estimates in Curlew Valley, Utah.

Since the previous paper, the data set for the first has not changed and prior interpretations remain largely intact, i.e., mean coyote abundance varies among the western states and appears to reflect primary productivity. Higher densities occur in the Great Plains, a relative scarcity typifies the intermountain region, and moderate abundances are found among the states of the Pacific coast. In addition, an increasing kline in density from northern to southern states seems evident. This appears consistent with observations by Weaver (1979) and Todd and Keith (1976) suggesting food supplies in winter may be particularly important in areas where conditions are more harsh. Gese (1995) identified available food resources in winter to be particularly important in regulating size of coyote packs in Yellowstone National Park.

The second data set, concerning the relative abundance of coyotes and rodents on sites throughout Texas has not been elaborated and is unconvincing on its own. However, the results are consistent with other sources of information.

Since the earlier paper, annual and semi-annual density estimates for coyotes and jackrabbits in Curlew Valley, Utah, were extended to 28 years. That data set includes information indicating the irruption in jackrabbit numbers that peaked in 1980 subsided to very low numbers by the mid-1980s and was followed by another irruption in the early 1990s.

Coyote numbers, however, did not follow the anticipated patterns. When jackrabbit numbers declined in the mid-1980s, coyote numbers remained high. Faced with explaining deviance from the expected, 2 hypotheses were identified. The first suggesting this resulted from a marked increase in the abundance of deer and antelope in Curlew Valley, providing an alternate winter food resource. The other hypothesis involved lower mortality rates associated with reduced human exploitation resulting from lower fur prices and a reduction in the intensity of exploitation to protect domestic stock. Although our current preference resides with the first alternative and is consistent with the food abundance hypothesis, no additional data have been assembled to clarify the issues. On the other hand, Hamlin et al. (1989) reported that during a population decline of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) in north-central Montana, coyotes remained abundant. They hypothesized that coyote survival may have increased as a result of increased abundance of microtine rodents as an alternative food source. This was unlikely in Curlew Valley because microtines are not common (Hoffman 1979).

Other studies have added to our understandings. A companion study to the Curlew Valley research involved monitoring rodent, lagomorph, and coyote populations over a 12-year period on the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), a site some 100 miles north of Curlew Valley and largely immune from public access (Stoddart 1987). Data from this location are similar to those from Curlew Valley, with jackrabbit populations irrupting from extremely low numbers in the late 1970s to over 280 per mi2 in 1981, and then returning to very low levels by the mid 1980s. Coincident with the increase in hares, coyote abundance increased 5-fold, followed by a gradual decline after hares became scarce. This reinforces previous interpretations about the potential role of prey abundance in determining coyote abundance.

One notable aspect of the INEL data is the relatively slow response in coyote abundance to the abrupt decline in a major food resource. Two years after the jackrabbit population returned to very low levels, the spring coyote density index was still 3 times pre-irruption levels. Todd et al. (1981) and Todd and Keith (1983) found that winter coyote abundance was directly related to snowshoe hare abundance. In their study, all demographic parameters of coyotes measured declined as snowshoe hares became scarce, leading them to believe that low availability of alternate prey in the boreal forest intimately linked the coyote population to fluctuations in snowshoe hare abundance.

Based on an 11-year study in southern Texas, Windberg (1995) provided data indicating coyote population growth was correlated positively with winter prey abundance and correlated negatively with initial coyote abundance. Since both prey and coyotes were extremely abundant in the area (spring coyote populations estimated at 4-7 per mi2), the coyote population may have been approaching the upper limits for density and other constraints may have also been operating. This study is particularly notable in that it documents a negative relationship between coyote abundance and population growth.

Although convictions that a relationship between coyote abundance and prey abundance have been reinforced in recent years, more definitive understandings of that relationship have not emerged. Improved quantitative assessments of the abundance and availability of prey in relation to coyote density, along with the adoption of standardized methodology among studies are needed to provide more enlightenment. Long-term monitoring of predator and prey populations will be essential to clarify the impacts and mechanism(s) linking predator and prey populations.

The social dynamic

Knowledge about coyote sociodemography that was budding at the time of Knowlton and Stoddart's 1983 paper has blossomed. The territorialism initially espoused by Camenzind (1978) and Bowen (1978, 1982), in which packs of coyotes defend areas against intrusions of others has been enhanced by the studies of Andelt (1982, 1985), Crabtree (1988), and Windberg and Knowlton (1988).

Our current understanding indicates that habitat suitable for coyotes is partitioned among territorial social groups of 2-7, frequently related, adult coyotes. These territories are typically contiguous and apparently defended against intrusions from coyotes not belonging to the territorial social group (Gese 1995). Non-territorial individuals are a cadre of transient, typically solitary, individuals living among the interstices of the territories. Transients sometimes trespass upon the territories, and occasionally form temporary liaisons with various territorial groups. These coyotes appear to be "biding their time", trying to fit into the more stable portion of the population.

Data from Andelt (1985), Crabtree (1988), Windberg and Knowlton (1988) and Gese (1995) show that being territorial and socially dominant are common prerequisites for the successful nurture of young. Although subordinate and non-territorial individuals may become reproductively active, their likelihood of reproductive success is very low. There is also a suggestion that territories are inherited from one generation to the next, with territorial boundaries remaining intact well beyond the lives of individual inhabitants.

Territorial patterns among coyotes in high mountain areas deserve some mention because conventional wisdom frequently suggests coyotes living at high elevations in summer accompany migrating large ungulates to wintering areas at lower elevations. If this occurred, coyotes would seemingly be "off territory" during courtship, breeding, and early post-whelping periods; times when territoriality should convey its greatest advantages. Gantz (1990) specifically studied this aspect and found adult coyotes in the mountains of northern Utah used the same areas in summer and winter, even at altitudes exceeding 7,500 feet. Shivik (1995), working in the Sierra Nevada, similarly reported coyotes maintaining territories at high elevations in winter. This is consistent with Weaver's (1979) interpretations that coyotes live in summer where they can survive in winter.


Demography of populations immune from human exploitation

Another significant aspect of coyote population biology is currently emerging, i.e., characteristics of unexploited populations. In retrospect, initial glimpses can be recognized in a Knowlton (1972) as well as unpublished data on coyote population structures in southern New Mexico and Arizona collected by Sam Linhart in the early 1970s. However, the significance of these data were not recognized at the time.

More recent studies (Crabtree 1988, Windberg 1995, Windberg et al. [In draft], Gese et al. 1989) suggest unexploited populations may be functionally and structurally different from information published previously. Although verification is pending, the emerging pattern suggests that in saturated populations, territorial coyotes have relatively long tenures with very low reproductive rates (Gese 1990, Crabtree 1988). There is also a suggestion that coyote territories have a longevity of their own that exceeds that of individual occupants.

Studies of relatively unexploited populations (Crabtree 1988, Gese et al. 1989) suggest 75-90% overall annual survival of adult coyotes in such situations may not be unusual. On age-specific basis, mean annual survival estimates from 3 field studies (Knowlton 1972, Crabtree 1988, Windberg 1995) indicate annual survival rates increase from about 0.40 in year 1 to about 0.70 by age 3, followed by a 2-3 year plateau and a decline thereafter, gradually at first and precipitously around age 10. Coyotes as old as 13, 14, and 15 years (Gese 1990, Knowlton unpubl. data) have been reported, but individuals over 11 are rare (Knowlton 1972, Gese 1995).

Recruitment into the adult portion of unexploited populations appears to be relatively low. One unexploited coyote population in eastern Washington had recruitment rates below 10%, with some coyotes apparently maintaining territoriality well into reproductive senescence (Crabtree 1988). Another study (Gese et al. 1989), reported low recruitment into a saturated, unexploited population as a result of low reproduction among yearlings, small litter sizes and high pup dispersal. Windberg et al. (In draft) provide data from a very lightly exploited population in southern New Mexico where juveniles composed only 7% of a population sample (n = 44) 1 year; a sample (n = 38) the next year failed to detect any juveniles. Although these data are meager, they suggest a pattern where reproductive rates among saturated populations fall far short of the biotic potential for the species.

The mechanics of change

While food abundance seems to set the ultimate limits of coyote abundance, and sociality is the driving force for change, proximate effects on density are linked to changes in reproduction, mortality, ingress and egress. A closer look at some of these components is warranted.


Reproductive performance. This component is associated with the fraction of the females breeding, mean litter size of reproductively-active females, and survival of offspring to some specific age. Data are sufficiently sparse and interactions sufficiently complex that unraveling details about factors influencing these parameters is impractical in this discussion. All 3 vary both among coyote populations and within populations over time. There is little doubt that prey abundance and population density are major influencing factors. Coyote populations seemingly have the potential to triple or quadruple density on an annual basis. On a practical level, however, exponential annual growth in excess of 0.6 appears unusual.

The generality seems to be that being dominant within a territorial social group is a prerequisite to reproductive success, with each territory trying to produce one litter each year. Hence the average size of social groups and the fraction of the population that belongs to territorial groups are important considerations. Some subordinate and non-territorial females may initiate the reproductive process, but most are doomed to fail.

Food abundance appears to be an important arbiter of litter size, especially in exploited populations. Placental scar count data from Curlew Valley, Utah, indicated that mean litter size varies from less than 4 to over 8 as a function of food abundance (Knowlton, unpubl. data). There was also a hint that mean litter size may be correlated with food conditions under which females are reared, as opposed to conditions leading up to specific reproductive seasons (Knowlton and Stoddart 1983).

Mean litter size, however, can hardly be the defining parameter, because the fraction of placental scars represented by juveniles in fall may vary by a factor of 5. Similarly, Crabtree (1988), Gese et al. (1989), Windberg (1995), and Gese (1995) identified juvenile survival as a major component of coyote demography. At the same time, coyote abundance apparently is a major factor regulating juvenile survival rates (Windberg 1995, Knowlton and Stoddart, unpubl. data). Better data related to reproductive performance and juvenile survival are needed.

Mortality. Mortality of adult coyotes, as determined by population age structures, tends to be higher among younger ages classes (1-2 years of age) and relatively older animals (> 8 years of age). Conversely, survival appears to be high among coyote 3 to 7 years of age, especially among individuals that maintain associations with territorial groups. Causes of mortality among adult coyotes is closely linked with human activities (Knowlton and Stoddart 1983). This results both from direct exploitation (e.g. hunting, trapping, and related activities) and indirectly through collisions with automobiles, encounters with domestic dogs, etc. Recent studies (Windberg et al. 1985, Crabtree 1988, Gese et al. 1989, Windberg and Knowlton 1990) reinforced these interpretations.

Ingress and egress. Immigration and emigration are part of the dispersal process and occur when individuals enter or leave a population of interest. It is probably the least studied demographic aspect of coyote populations.

The relative frequency, as well as the distances moved, tend to be greater in more saturated populations than less saturated populations, resulting in net movements away from the former and toward the latter (Davison 1980). Hypotheses generated by Knight (1978) and Davison (1980) suggesting that low-ranking individuals are more likely to disperse have been validated by Gese (1995).

Dispersal is driven by nutritional and social interactions. Low-ranking individuals leave natal packs while high-ranking individuals are philopatric, biding their time for the dominant, breeding position. When food is abundant, more animals remain in the pack while in years of scarcity, more individuals disperse and pack sizes remain small. During periods of severe food scarcity, territorial behavior may be abandoned, with all members of social groups dispersing (Mills and Knowlton 1991, Grothe, unpubl. data).

Looking toward the future

There is a need to reassess our knowledge of coyote population biology and management through the revision of existing, or the creation of new, simulation models. Simulation models of animal populations help organize our understanding of the way populations function and provide a means for examining and exploring various concepts and ideas related to population management. It has been 20 years since Connolly and Longhurst (1975) and Connolly (1978) published and/or reviewed simulation models for coyote populations. These remain the simulation models currently available for coyote populations. They rely upon data collected in the late 1960s and published in the early 1970s, and utilize a series of equations linking demographic parameters, namely density, reproduction and mortality as understood at the time.

Relative coyote abundance was based upon fall rather than spring (stock) estimates and the impact of social constraints upon demographic parameters were either unknown or excluded from the process. The data were obtained largely from populations subjected to human exploitation. These models were generated in the absence of information about the structural and functional aspects of populations not subjected to human exploitation. It is time to review the modeling process.

Several considerations should be incorporated into any new population modeling effort. Two important "data gaps" require study; namely (1) the effect of human exploitation (essentially increased mortality rates) on demographic and behavioral parameters; and (2) validation of characteristics of unexploited coyote populations. The latter is essential to provide a natural "endpoint" for a model, which figuratively represents the alternate extreme from the biotic potential of coyotes.

The possibility of using a behavioral, rather than demographic, base should be explored for a new coyote population model. Population models are usually developed to depict, or understand, changes in abundance or density. Incorporating behavioral constraints into a demographic model can be intimidating, especially since many behavioral aspects have not been defined mathematically.

However, population density could use 3 alternate parameters instead: mean territory size, mean number of individuals per territory, and percent of the population belonging to territorial groups. This would utilize the units by which coyote populations are structured and involve parameters that are more readily estimated than behavioral interactions with demographic variables. Some newer computer programming languages that involve "objects and attributes" may provide a useful programming medium for such endeavors in place of the equation-based programming techniques used previously. It will be interesting to watch the outcome of such endeavors.

An appropriate simulation model would be a useful tool in assessing merits of various management strategies as well as to help guide research efforts toward developing more effective and efficient depredation control techniques.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I remember in the mid 90s, bear hunting. I was predator calling and watched as a coyote skipped its way to me from a half mile away. I let it get to within 30 yards then smoked it. I walked up and turned it over and saw that it was a lactating female. For a second or two I felt bad - but then I came to my senses. That's like a ten in one! Sweet.

Jose, here's the half-witted logic behind that theory you mention. Note the assumption:

Population density of coyotes directly affects the litter size of the breeding female. If population density is high then litter size will be small whereas if population density is low than litter size will be larger (Knowlton 1972). The correlation between population density and litter size may be related to resource availability. If population density is high, resource availability may be low which means the female will get less energy and nutrients she needs to allow for successful development of a larger litter of pups. On the other hand, if popular density is low, resource availability will be higher due to less predation and the female will get enough energy and nutrients to bring a larger littler size to term.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Oh, and did I say that I just love shooting them?

 

[JoseCuervo]

There are lots of things we love doing, it doesn't make them beneficial to anybody else...

Are Canadian coyotes different than American 'Yotes?

Coyotes & Deer
by: Barry Sabean

A brand new predator has arrived in Nova Scotia and white-tailed deer are one of its' favourite foods. Coyotes were first verified as living in Nova Scotia when Howard Porter trapped one near Country Harbour, Guysborough County in the winter of 1977. This first specimen caused a lot of surprise and resulted in a variety of rumours about how they got here. In fact, their colonization of Nova Scotia is the inevitable result of a remarkable range expansion which has brought coyotes all the way to Newfoundland from their historical range in the western prairies.

As a result of extensive habitat changes in eastern North America (logging and land clearing) combined with the virtual elimination of wolf populations in settled areas, the adaptable coyote began to expand its range. This trend was first noticed about 100 years ago. by 2929 coyotes were in the process of colonizing southern Ontario. The first report in Quebec was in 1944 and they reached New Brunswick in 1958. By the mid-'70s they were well established throughout New Brunswick and their arrival in Nova Scotia was inescapable.

Helped by an expanding deer population throughout Nova Scotia, coyotes increased rapidly. The use of a $50 bounty between 1982 and 1986 did little tor nothing to stem the tide. Presently coyotes are found throughout the province at relatively high densities.

Our Eastern Coyotes show several differences from their western counterparts. These evolutionary changes better adapt them to a forest environment and the pursuit of deer-size animals. They are somewhat bigger and tend to run in larger, more organized packs. The coat is also darker, coarser and less valuable. These changes have resulted from the process of natural selection (survival of the fittest) and may have been speeded up through some inter-breeding with wolves. Average size is about 14 kilograms (30 pounds) though adult males may exceed 23 kilogram s(50 pounds).

Numerous studies of coyote food habits throughout northeastern North America document that white-tailed deer and rabbits top the list of foods eaten. Studies of stomach samples, scat analysis and winter tracking confirm those results for Nova Scotia. As has been demonstrated in other areas, a large portion of the deer consumed are dead animals that coyotes find.

It is certainly the case that coyotes kill substantial numbers of deer in Nova Scotia. Our tracking studies and numerous reports from the public confirm that fact without question. What is less clear is the effect this is having on the deer population.

In Nova Scotia we have the luxury of looking to other areas with coyotes and deer to see the impact on herds there. Invariably, biologists from these jurisdictions tell us that coyotes by themselves have little or no effect on the number of deer. In fact may of these areas are trying to reduce deer populations to bring them ore in line with the ability of the habitat to support them. For example, New York state first recorded coyotes in the 1930s and had a well established population by the 1960s. Despite a healthy population of coyotes, New York's deer population hit an all time high during the 1980s.

Other areas have also reported similar results. The only area of concern is at times of situations, a condition rarely experienced in most of Nova Scotia. even under these extreme conditions, the actual effect of coyotes on deer population is not clear.

It is not uncommon to hear Nova Scotians state that every deer track has a coyote track in it. By implication they suggest that whenever a coyote is hungry it simply finds the nearest deer track, puts its nose to the ground and runs the deer to exhaustion. Our winter tracking experience disputes this version of coyote hunting behaviour. In fact, in over 1000 kilometers (640 miles) of coyote tracking we rarely see this pattern. Coyotes seldom follow deer tracks for any distance. When they do encounter deer, chases are normally short.

Coyotes are predators who must consider an energy balance if they are to survive. Long chases, if unsuccessful, can seriously deplete the energy reserves of a n individual, leaving little left for the next chase. The energy risks of long chases are too great and coyotes normally give up the pursuit if prey is not killed in a short time. Domestic dogs, on the other hand, can chase a deer all day, return home for an energy-building meal and then go back out and chase the next day. wild animals do not have this luxury!

Although coyotes can and do kill healthy adult der, they are more likely to catch animals which are young or in poor physical condition. In many cases these animals would have died form other causes even if not killed by coyotes. this helps to explain why coyotes have not been observed to control deer populations. Additionally, coyotes place controls on their own populations by establishing exclusive breeding territories where only one coyote pair breeds in a territory. Territory size is somewhat regulated by the availability of food. In Maine, these territories average about 50 square kilometers (20 square miles).

Many people have suggested that the bounty should be re-established in order to reduce the number of coyotes. despite their long history in many jurisdictions, bounties have never been successful in controlling coyote populations. Kansas maintained a coyote bounty for 93 years and concluded after that time that "the bounty system does not control predators or predator damage". Similar conclusions have been reached throughout the range of the coyote, including here in Nova Scotia.

Two major factors make the control of coyote populations extremely difficult. The first is their high reproduction rate. Females have an average of five to seven pups during their second year. If the population is lowered through some kind of a control program, coyotes respond by having larger litters and begin to breed in their first year of life. It has been estimated that we would have to kill 75 percent of the coyote population every year for more than 50 years in order to eliminate them.

The second part of the equation is the difficulty in hunting and trapping coyotes. They are an extremely clever animal and remarkably resourceful when it comes to the business of staying alive. Some people claim it is the smartest wild animal in North America. Any control program would do well to harvest 25 percent of the population. Coyotes could flourish even with this level of kill.

If we were to institute a $50 bounty with the coyote population at 10,000 animals, and succeeded in killing 50 percent of the population every year (an unlikely high number), theoretically we could harvest about 29,000 coyotes over a five year period for a total cost of around $1.5 million, and end up with 3,000 more coyotes than we started with!

Another consideration is the problem of what we are paying for. It is difficult to prevent coyotes taken in other provinces from showing up for bounty payment in Nova Scotia. Also, the payment of bounties on road killed animals does nothing to increase the kill of coyotes. In fact, a high percentage of bounty payments would go for coyotes that would have been killed, whether a county was in place or not.

Coyotes are now a fact of life in Nova Scotia! They will not wipe out other wildlife species, though in some years they may force hunters to take a smaller share of the harvestable surplus. By providing a new quarry to dedicated hunters willing to accept the challenge, coyotes may actually expand hunting opportunities in Nova Scotia. Certainly the eerie serenade of a pack of coyotes adds a new dimension to our wildlife experience.

 

[Spitz]

So, if I got to an area that has 2 mating pairs of coyotes and 20 deer, and I shoot 2 coyotes (or 1 mating pair) that leaves 1 mating pair for those 20 deer and I don't see how I couldn't have done them a favor.

Sure, there will be an abundance of food for the remaining pair and they'll potentially have a larger litter, but those pups aren't mature coyotes and couldn't impact the deer population as would mature animals.

I, like GH, don't base my enjoyment of shooting coyotes on doing livestock or wildlife a favor. I don't try to justify, it's just damn fun.

However, it would seem JC's argument is that we're doing wildlife and livestock a disservice by shooting coyotes because they're like magical creatures that grow 2 heads for every 1 that you cut off and the more you shoot, the more they reproduce. But, I like that too because then I get to see and shoot more coyotes. It's a win-win situation.

 

[The Hedgehog]

...the actual effect of coyotes on deer population is not clear.

Two major factors make the control of coyote populations extremely difficult. The first is their high reproduction rate. Females have an average of five to seven pups during their second year. If the population is lowered through some kind of a control program, coyotes respond by having larger litters and begin to breed in their first year of life. It has been estimated that we would have to kill 75 percent of the coyote population every year for more than 50 years in order to eliminate them.

The second part of the equation is the difficulty in hunting and trapping coyotes. They are an extremely clever animal and remarkably resourceful when it comes to the business of staying alive. Some people claim it is the smartest wild animal in North America. Any control program would do well to harvest 25 percent of the population. Coyotes could flourish even with this level of kill.

If we were to institute a $50 bounty with the coyote population at 10,000 animals, and succeeded in killing 50 percent of the population every year (an unlikely high number), theoretically we could harvest about 29,000 coyotes over a five year period for a total cost of around $1.5 million, and end up with 3,000 more coyotes than we started with!

That actually makes me want to kill them more and more and more...

 

[elk_hunter]

That actually makes me want to kill them more and more and more...

Ditto!

 

[shoots-straight]

I know that trapping, hunting, and more than likely virusess from domestic dogs take a toll on the coyote population around here... Also during the 70's when coyotes where fetching $100 each the Big Hole valley ranchers shut off people from hunting and trapping them because the mice population went ballistic...

 

[Turbo]

Jose, are you a coyote biologist? You sure know alot about them.