I strongly support an effort by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources to remove loopholes in the regulations that currently allow the capture of coyotes for use in dog training in enclosures or the transportation of live coyotes to other regions of Indiana or, worse, other states. I want to be clear that I am an advocate for hunting and trapping as long as those activities adhere to the concept of fair chase and a healthy respect for the game. I am a research biologist that has devoted most of my research program to furbearers for at least 20 years. As such, I have worked closely with trappers and hunters and as a youngster growing up in rural Kansas I was an avid participant in both activities.
The success of my research is largely the result of the knowledge gained by myself or by the knowledge shared by others through the pursuit of game.

In addition to research, I currently teach courses that provide information and exposure to both activities for non-sporting college students. In these courses we discuss the ethics of fair chase, and the importance of such for the general non-hunting public to continue to support hunting. I’m afraid that the use of trapping to obtain wild animals for captive purposes, and marketing across state lines violates the concept of fair chase and will foster more negative impressions of trapping, which is already on tenuous ground with the general public.

I’m disappointed in those trappers that support the marketing of live coyotes, and am disappointed that they cannot discriminate between the challenge of taking of an animal as quickly and humanely as possible, versus capturing a wild animal to keep in captivity, and then to be released in an enclosure. I’m also strongly opposed to the transportation of living wild animals across state lines. This activity runs counter to general concepts in wildlife management. We have learned hard lessons from the past relocations of game when it has been conducted without professional supervision. Some of the most dramatic outbreaks of wildlife disease have been the result of moving game from one part of the country to another (e.g., raccoon rabies). Fortunately it did not spread beyond the enclosure. Nothing good can come of the indiscriminate transportation of game by non-professionals.

I’m also disappointed in those trappers that use emotion and fear to justify this activity, including misleading arguments. The contention that the marketing of coyotes is necessary to control coyotes is not supported by any evidence. Throughout its range, the coyote has thrived with the least amount of protection afforded any game animal. This is particularly true in the Midwest, and sportsmen have been able to take this animal with little restrictions. Indeed, it is well demonstrated that even offering bounties (thereby increasing the economic value of the coyote) has never successfully altered coyote numbers over large areas. I don’t think it is consistent for management agencies to maintain that coyotes need little regulation while some trappers maintain that their activity (or business, in this case) is necessary for the control of coyotes. It is, therefore, misleading for proponents of the marketing of coyotes to suggest that their activities have any effect on coyote populations on a state-wide level. There is simply no evidence to support this.
Finally, I noticed that the proponents of coyote marketing argue that their activity will help protect the public from coyote attacks (via their website). Yet, they fail to mention 1) how rare coyote attacks on people really are, and 2) that most cases of coyote attacks can be prevented by altering human behavior, rather than lowering coyote numbers. I am unaware of any evidence that links the frequency of coyote attacks to numbers of coyotes harvested, pelt prices, etc. In the event coyotes become problems, I’m sure there is no shortage of wildlife control professionals that will endeavor to remove those coyotes for the right price (it is important that an effort to close regulatory loopholes does not unnecessarily limit the abilities of wildlife control operators to remove nuisance coyotes when necessary). Successful professionals price their services appropriately, and a further subsidy to allow the selling of live coyotes isn’t necessary for the control business. Trying to link the marketing of coyotes to nuisance control is an excellent example of a straw man of the first order.

I hope the IDNR finds my comments helpful.

Respectfully,

Stanley D. Gehrt, PhD
Assistant Professor of Wildlife Ecology
School of Environment and Natural Resources
The Ohio State University